By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Sussex police officers Stephen Smith and Rachel Comotto were acquitted on assault charges stemming from a June 2022 incident involving a 92-year-old care home resident, Donald Burgess. The officers used pepper spray and a taser on Burgess, who was wielding a knife and exhibiting aggressive behavior due to a previously undiagnosed urinary tract infection. The jury found the force used, though significant, was not excessive given the circumstances. Despite the not-guilty verdicts, both officers will face internal gross misconduct proceedings regarding their actions.
Read the original article here
Police officers who pepper-sprayed and tasered a 92-year-old amputee in a care home have been cleared of assault. The incident, which took place in the United Kingdom, sparked outrage and highlighted concerns about police training and the use of force against vulnerable individuals. The fact that this happened in the UK, not the US, as many initially assumed, underscores that inadequate police training and inappropriate responses to vulnerable individuals are not solely an American problem.
The video footage of the incident shows a rapid escalation of the situation. Within a minute of entering the room, officers deployed a full can of pepper spray directly into the face of the elderly man, followed almost immediately by a taser deployment. Prior to this, there was one half-hearted swing of a baton that completely missed its target. This sequence of events raises serious questions about the officers’ judgment and their ability to de-escalate the situation.
One officer later claimed that they hadn’t noticed the man’s disability until after the incident, as their attention was focused on the knife he was holding. This explanation is not only troubling, given the man’s obvious physical limitations, but it also points to a lack of situational awareness and basic observational skills. The idea that a wheelchair, a rather prominent symbol of physical disability, could somehow be missed is astonishing, especially from trained police officers responsible for making split-second decisions involving potentially lethal force.
Another officer stated that they believed using the taser was the safer option to “protect” the man, fearing that further baton strikes would cause greater harm. This justification, however, is astonishingly illogical. The idea that electrocuting a frail, 92-year-old man with 50,000+ volts is somehow a less harmful alternative to a missed baton strike is perplexing and demonstrates a profound lack of understanding regarding the potential consequences of using a taser on such a vulnerable individual. It reveals a troubling disregard for the potential harm inflicted.
The man in question had been reported to be agitated and had a knife; he had reportedly been threatening staff for thirty minutes. This doesn’t fully excuse the officers’ actions. While the presence of a knife might seem to justify some level of force, the extreme and disproportionate nature of the response remains alarming. The accounts of the man’s “quick knife movements” suggest a need for de-escalation techniques rather than immediate, overwhelming force. Less lethal methods, like attempting to simply disarm him or restrain him less violently could have been considered, especially given his age and physical limitations. Even a basic understanding of elderly behavior and mental acuity would suggest a less aggressive approach.
The incident highlights a systemic issue of poorly trained police officers. The fact that they were cleared of assault does not necessarily validate their actions. The case emphasizes the need for better training in de-escalation techniques, conflict resolution, and situational awareness. The incident raises questions not only about the individual officers involved but also about the training protocols and oversight mechanisms within the police force.
The outcome of the case, while legally permissible, is deeply unsettling to many. The disproportionate use of force against a clearly vulnerable individual raises serious concerns about the culture of policing and the accountability of law enforcement officers. The narrative that the police acted in self-defense, given the circumstances, seems flimsy to many critics. The excessive nature of the response, irrespective of the man’s possession of a knife, seems to overshadow any argument of justified use of force. The officers’ actions lack a degree of professionalism and careful assessment of the situation.
Ultimately, this case serves as a stark reminder of the need for better training, improved protocols for handling vulnerable individuals, and a renewed emphasis on de-escalation tactics within law enforcement. It also points to the need for enhanced accountability for officers whose actions cause harm, even if they are found not legally guilty. The whole incident leaves a deep sense of unease. The video footage and the subsequent justification for the officers’ actions are difficult to reconcile with basic principles of human decency and responsible use of force. The justice system’s decision further compounds these feelings.