Thursday, September 16, 2010

British police kill a guy who was asking for help and all they get is "advice"

Police were criticised today for dropping a man off at the side of a dual carriageway where he was later killed by a car. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said officers from the Northamptonshire and Warwickshire forces did not perform their duties satisfactorily in the run-up to Wayne Teasdale's death.

Mr Teasdale, 35, from Coventry, died after he was hit as he walked along the A45 near Dunchurch in Warwickshire in July 2008.

Three constables, a special constable and a member of police staff have been spoken to about their actions in the events leading up to his death, the IPCC said.

The commission's investigation found Mr Teasdale was trying to walk home drunk from Billing Aquadrome in Northampton on July 25. He called relatives at about 7am the following morning to say he was lost. A member of the public contacted police at 8.24am concerned about a man walking next to the A45 near the aquadrome. But officers sent to the area could not find the man, who the IPCC believes was Mr Teasdale.

About 45 minutes later the 35-year-old contacted Northamptonshire Police, saying he was lost and walking along a dual carriageway, telling the call handler he had been drinking and had also smoked some cannabis. A police car found him and he was checked by paramedics then officers took him to the boundary with Warwickshire where he was dropped off at a service station on the A45 at about 10.42am.

Between 10.48am and when Mr Teasdale was hit by a car, Warwickshire Police received a number of calls reporting a man walking alongside and in the carriageway of the A45. They tried to get a police vehicle to the area, the IPCC said, but at about 11.30am he was hit by a car and pronounced dead later that day.

Today the IPCC said the Northamptonshire officer should not have dropped Mr Teasdale off where he did and staff with Warwickshire Police had not appreciated the risk to him. A spokesman said: 'The IPCC investigation found that the Northamptonshire officer who responded to Mr Teasdale's call did not perform his duties to an acceptable standard. 'Having decided it was not safe for Mr Teasdale to walk along the A45 and to then give him a lift, the decision to drop him off in a position with similar dangers was not appropriate.

'It also found that a police officer and member of staff working in Warwickshire Police's control room failed to appreciate the risk posed to Mr Teasdale and therefore ensure the appropriate response was taken by the officers allocated to attend the incident.

'The Warwickshire Police officer and special constable, who were assigned by the control room to deal with the incident, were found to have responded below the acceptable standard. 'On their journey to attend to Mr Teasdale they stopped a driver who was using their mobile phone on a motorway, delaying their arrival.'

The IPCC said the three constables, the special constable and the member of police staff all received words of advice.

Superintendent Andy Tennet, head of professional standards at Northamptonshire Police, said: 'Our deepest sympathy goes out to Mr Teasdale's family. 'The IPCC have conducted a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr Teasdale's death and we fully accept their findings and their decision in respect of the officer involved. 'Lessons have been learnt from this unfortunate incident and, in agreement with the IPCC, the officer involved has been given words of advice.'

Original report here

Update: Note the comments below


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

2 comments:

Michael Steggals said...

Saying that they killed the guy is wrong and putting misleading headlines can have the downside of making people question the veracity of the other articles on what is an excellent blog.

They dropped him off at a service station that had a hotel, an open restaurant and a garage. It was broad daylight and the guy had been perfectly capable of making not 1 but 2 phone calls for assistance. It had been at least 5 hours since his last drink, if not longer, so he was also probably sober by that time.
The guy should have sat down in the little chef, had some food and telephoned a relative to come and pick him up. He chose instead to walk down the middle of a road (no pavements) and somehow manage to get runover in broad daylight.
The fault lies mainly in the hands of the driver who would have been driving without due care and attention, and also with Mr Teasdale for putting himself in such a dangerous position having been safely dropped off at a well appointed service station.
The police could/should have taken him back to a police cell to sleep it off behind bars, but Mr Teasdale may very well have pleaded with them to drop him off where they did, telling them he would get somebody to pick him up, but anyway I dislike conjecture probably as much as you.

My point is that saying they killed him is wrong and highly misleading. It was an error in judgement of at least 3 different groups of people; Mr Teasdale, the guilty driver and the police that lead to this unfortunate accident.

I think "advice" is the right thing for them. Drunks are turned away regularly in city centres by police and they aren't responible for escorting every one of them home, why should it be any differnt here? Busy Road? You get those in town centres too with dangerous drivers showing off in their suped up cars.

The Daily Mail is known for hyping things up, they exaggerate in the worst possible way to spark fear to sell their papers. I do read their online articles for the sheer fun of noting all the inaccuracies. Their reporting of the perseid meteor shower was hilariously bad, showing pictures of stars (including constellations and planets) and saying "look at all the meteors in this photo". Somebody needs to tell them stars do not equal meteors.

The reporter who wrote up this article isn't even prepared to give their name (this happens a lot with Daily Mail articles).

Take the comment "Police were criticised today for dropping a man off at the side of a dual carriageway". Well, yes a service station is next to a dual carriageway so the comment is technically accurate, but he could have been dropped off over 50 yards from the roadway itself, in the service station. It's deliberately misleading as is sadly common for DM articles.

Anyway, that's the rant, sorry. I enjoy your blog, I don't think I've missed any for a few months now. Keep up the good work.

Anonymous said...

Michael Steggals has it right - this normally excellent blog is slightly harmed by the lack of comment on the DM's hyping of police as bad guys in this case.
The man was capable of calling for help. Why, then, didn't he call relatives from the service area?

The police are not the Drunk's Taxi Service - they left him in safe place, the proper thing to do.