The only one that gets the officer off is the weapons malfunction. Though if that is the case then they all need to be recalled.

I'm not so sure. I consider the Taser a lower-consequence weapon, and so it can therefore be manufactured to lesser tolerances (things like the accuracy, I can't imagine being as good as a device where the projectile is not dragging a cable along with it). For this reason I don't think they should be used in high-risk situations (an armed Moat with a finger on the trigger before it was certain he would take his own life, for example), but I see no reason why they should be recalled generally. It's all about using the correct tool for the job.

Anyhoo, none of us have seen the reports or know the details about this, the Moat case, or many other real examples. We just hear the journos, so it's all speculation really.

Erm no.

Inappropriate Use is the only one that gets the officer in trouble.

Deficient/insufficient training gets the officer's boss in trouble IMO. I have no problem with the Police force having things like tazers at their disposal tbh but if officers who aren't able to use them safely and effectively are being given them and let loose on the streets as it were, somebody needs to be picked up about it.

Deficient training drops the trainers and chief constable in the doo doo. He should have known if he felt competent, therefore coppers fault if he did not get adequate training.

insufficient training could be the officers fault of the training. He should have known if he felt competent, therefore coppers fault if he did not get adequate training.

Weapon malfunction needs a recall

Inappropriate use could be inadequate training as well though is worst for copper.

Environmental would come down to inappropriate use by copper. If wind affected the taser, he should have known when to fire based on training, so becomes inappropriate use.

Improper preparation, use and storage also is an inappropriate use by the copper.

But at the end of the day, it's still only a Taser.

Tazers can and have killed people.

And why they need to be controlled and not given to every idiot copper.

Again I'll have to disagree.

• Deficient/insufficient training: One cannot know whether one is adequately trained or not - it's a contradiction in terms. The only person who can assess whether a trainee is properly trained is an assessor. How exactly does one "feel" competent? It's a nonsense measure. If the deficiencies in the training aren't blindingly obvious, a trainee won't spot and won't know that he/she isn't properly trained.
  
  Therefore the copper cannot be held accountable for his training
  
  
• Environmental: So a taser round couldn't be deflected by a sudden gust of wind, a branch falling out of a tree or by a truck whizzing past? Is that the copper's fault? No. Is it the fault of his training? No. Sometimes sh!t just happens
  
  
• Improper preparation / storage: The officer would perform some basic checks for sure. However do we know for sure that nothing happened to the taser before it was given out to the officer? Do we know that it was something he should have spotted?

I'm not suggesting everyone gets them, but they're a much lower consequence from using a Tazer compared to using live rounds, and so they can safely be used more widely.

Accident or not the girl was a victim of battery, and thus should sue.

Deficient/insufficient training puts the training scheme in the dock, and the police force liable. Though the officer should not be cleared to use the weapon if not fully trained.

Environmental should be covered in training. If wind does actually affect the probes then that should be included in the training. If not then the that puts the officer back in the frame.

If the weapon was defective before then that would exonerate the officer completely. Though the principle is that you should never point a loaded weapon at anyone would still prevail, making the officer guilty of negligence or failing to follow safety procedures.

Sorry

It doesn't say at any point if she was charged or not.

I'm fairly positive she wasn't...