Home Secretary greenlights police to use new Taser 'within w
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
What reasonable grounds do they have for that? Black man? Wanting to be left alone & get into his house?
Perhaps the man wanted was about his height wearing the same garb and with a dog? It's not always about race you know. I suspect it rarely is in truth.
Rovinghawk said:
Especially when she shoots for no reason and appears to have been itching to do it for some time. He was zero threat, constantly trying to disengage from their approach and keen to mind his own business.
Or looking at it from an alternative view, you have a man pacing around in an agitated way after being asked what his name is. He's got a staffy or similar, and keeps moving his hands to his pockets whilst pacing and turning his back to the officers.You nor I know what the suspect they were actually looking for had done. Maybe he'd stabbed someone? Set his dog on them?
Who the hell knows. I guess we'll find out eventually. But I suspect you won't like the answer if it turns out what the police did was deemed OK.
SystemParanoia said:
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-tasered-man-j...
"Mr Adunbi was charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of their duty and a public order offence"
and then it was dropped.
""However, I would like to reassure them that the incident was captured on the officers' Body Worn Video cameras."
Ok La Liga.. get that footage and make it public domain, let us all see what happened in full
I believe you and your security clearance would be infinitely better placed to obtain the footage. Then we could all be convinced that La Liga hadn't secretly edited the undoubtedly incriminating video."Mr Adunbi was charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of their duty and a public order offence"
and then it was dropped.
""However, I would like to reassure them that the incident was captured on the officers' Body Worn Video cameras."
Ok La Liga.. get that footage and make it public domain, let us all see what happened in full
Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 20th January 16:27
Murph7355 said:
Perhaps the man wanted was about his height wearing the same garb and with a dog? It's not always about race you know. I suspect it rarely is in truth.
Still not good enough reason for shooting him with a taser.Murph7355 said:
Or looking at it from an alternative view, you have a man pacing around in an agitated way after being asked what his name is.
As he said he wanted to be left alone and wasn't the bloke in question, perhaps he's agitated because he wanted to be left alone & wasn't the bloke in question.Murph7355 said:
He's got a staffy or similar, and keeps moving his hands to his pockets whilst pacing and turning his back to the officers.
Having a staffy isn't a crime AFAIK.Having hands in pockets isn't a crime AFAIK.
Pacing isn't a crime AFAIK.
His hands weren't in his pockets when she shot him.
Turning your back on them isn't a crime AFAIK.
Murph7355 said:
You nor I know what the suspect they were actually looking for had done. Maybe he'd stabbed someone? Set his dog on them?
The suspect had allegedly done? There's this presumption of innocence thing getting in the way of your reasoning.Murph7355 said:
But I suspect you won't like the answer if it turns out what the police did was deemed OK
You're absolutely right- shooting an unarmed & unthreatening bloke who was trying to disengage is not OK.I don't like the current trend towards 'comply with instructions (even unlawful ones) or suffer consequences'.
Rovinghawk said:
What reasonable grounds do they have for that? Black man? Wanting to be left alone & get into his house?
If they reasonably believe he was someone who was wanted. As I wrote. Rovinghawk said:
Especially when she shoots for no reason and appears to have been itching to do it for some time. He was zero threat, constantly trying to disengage from their approach and keen to mind his own business.
At the time the Taser was deployed there's a good chance he was already under arrest and therefore resisting that arrest. Pushing police officers away will lead to an escalation of force. The intrinsic aspects, such as beliefs and perceptions within the minds of the officers are the key points in law. Not objective hindsight. Whether you understand / appreciate / like / accept that is irrelevant. If you believe someone is wanted (reasonable suspicion is enough) and they are using force to get away from you / prevent an arrest, then the law empowers you to use reasonable force to effect the arrest.
If it hindsight it turns out the person isn't the person who was wanted, that doesn't render the actions unlawful. It's all about the circumstances at the time and what information the officers believed to be true. Once more, whether you accept that or not is irrelevant.
Rovinghawk said:
I'm sure you'll confirm that high standards were maintained throughout, medals are deserved for bravery & I'm a bad person for disagreeing.
Reductio ad absurdum. Rovinghawk said:
The suspect had allegedly done? There's this presumption of innocence thing getting in the way of your reasoning.
You don't fundamentally understand the role of the police. They aren't there to distinguish guilt and innocence. We have these things called courts which do that. Everyone is presumed innocent prior to a conviction and thus legally are innocent during every police interaction, so your view doesn't even make sense, and makes your claim of flawed reasoning ironic, since yours is based on something you don't understand.
They work with reasonable suspicion and reasonable beliefs about matters. Fundamental differences.
SystemParanoia said:
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-tasered-man-j...
"Mr Adunbi was charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of their duty and a public order offence"
and then it was dropped.
""However, I would like to reassure them that the incident was captured on the officers' Body Worn Video cameras."
Ok La Liga.. get that footage and make it public domain, let us all see what happened in full
Oh la liga is a copper"Mr Adunbi was charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of their duty and a public order offence"
and then it was dropped.
""However, I would like to reassure them that the incident was captured on the officers' Body Worn Video cameras."
Ok La Liga.. get that footage and make it public domain, let us all see what happened in full
Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 20th January 16:27
Is there an ignore user feature on this site?
SkrrSkrr said:
SystemParanoia said:
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/bristol-tasered-man-j...
"Mr Adunbi was charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of their duty and a public order offence"
and then it was dropped.
""However, I would like to reassure them that the incident was captured on the officers' Body Worn Video cameras."
Ok La Liga.. get that footage and make it public domain, let us all see what happened in full
Oh la liga is a copper"Mr Adunbi was charged with assaulting a constable in the execution of their duty and a public order offence"
and then it was dropped.
""However, I would like to reassure them that the incident was captured on the officers' Body Worn Video cameras."
Ok La Liga.. get that footage and make it public domain, let us all see what happened in full
Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 20th January 16:27
Is there an ignore user feature on this site?
SystemParanoia said:
Brilliant.. lets blame the victim
Stop being such an obtuse individual.Would the Police have drawn and fired the Taser if he had complied with their reasonable request to identify himself.
None of your "I know my rights and they'f have to arrest me to find that out if i don;t want them to."
Really simple. If a Police officer asks you to identify yourself are you more likely (in the UK) to get tasered if you say -
A) "No I am not Joe Bloggs I am Fred Smith. I have my wallet in my back pocket with photo ID in there - let me show you."
or
B) "No I am not Joe Bloggs and I don't have to tell you who I am unless you want to arrest me" and walk off.
SkrrSkrr said:
Oh la liga is a copper
Is there an ignore user feature on this site?
why would an ignore user feature be useful?Is there an ignore user feature on this site?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
SkrrSkrr said:
3 boxes of raw
whip that into 6 boxes of work
shot it @ 14 billls a z
= 50 bags profit
whip that into 6 boxes of work
shot it @ 14 billls a z
= 50 bags profit
La Liga said:
You don't fundamentally understand the role of the police.
They aren't there to distinguish guilt and innocence.
They are there to uphold the law of the land, part of which is presumption of innocence.They aren't there to distinguish guilt and innocence.
La Liga said:
We have these things called courts which do that.
Presume innocence unless proven guilty? Absolutely.La Liga said:
Everyone is presumed innocent prior to a conviction and thus legally are innocent during every police interaction
But she shot him anyway.La Liga said:
They work with reasonable suspicion and reasonable beliefs about matters.
Why was their suspicion of him reasonable? Because he wanted his rights observed?What was the reasonable belief to justify shooting him when he was stepping back with outstretched arms?
Their behaviour was not in accordance with the highest traditions, shall we say.
saaby93 said:
SkrrSkrr said:
Oh la liga is a copper
Is there an ignore user feature on this site?
why would an ignore user feature be useful?Is there an ignore user feature on this site?
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
SkrrSkrr said:
3 boxes of raw
whip that into 6 boxes of work
shot it @ 14 billls a z
= 50 bags profit
whip that into 6 boxes of work
shot it @ 14 billls a z
= 50 bags profit
Thank God the two police officers were not carrying firearms - the man could be dead now. The officer with the taser should be charged with assault at the very least. As for the officer who decided to charge the man with a public order offence and assaulting a police officer. He/she needs disciplining too. The police try to intimidate people who they have wronged by charging them with these fantasy crimes only to have to drop the charges later.
Edited by davidball on Friday 20th January 17:57
Guvernator said:
While I appreciate that you are not legally obliged to give your name and it's your rights blah blah blah I've found from personal experience that it's a lot easier to just co-operate.
As a young driver I used to get pulled over all the time, this was back in the day when they actually had a proper police presence on the roads of course. I quickly learned that being polite and passing their "attitude" test meant that 95% of the time, I would be back on my way within a few minutes at most.
This. I would get a tug almost every single week for the first 6 months or so after i passed my test. Only stopped happening so regularly when the local bobbies had got used to seeing me.As a young driver I used to get pulled over all the time, this was back in the day when they actually had a proper police presence on the roads of course. I quickly learned that being polite and passing their "attitude" test meant that 95% of the time, I would be back on my way within a few minutes at most.
I was quite happy about it as to be honest a 17/18 yearold rocking about town at 3am in a less than 12 months old top of the range 3 Series and the like was not that common in the mid 90's.
Smile, be polite and let them go about their business and they tend to be swift about letting you go about yours. Also paid back massively on the couple of occasions they caught me doing things i am far to old and wise to do on the public road now - I'm not sure how many can say the the worst thing that happened when they happened to drift past a Police car one evening was to be told how bad it was for their tyres
Rovinghawk said:
They are there to uphold the law of the land, part of which is presumption of innocence.
Yes, the law which allows them to operate upon reasonable suspicion. Rovinghawk said:
But she shot him anyway.
Anyone who the police use force on is legally innocent. What about that is so hard to understand? Rovinghawk said:
Why was their suspicion of him reasonable? Because he wanted his rights observed?
That's a key question. What information made up their reasonable suspicion? Until the officers provide an account it won't be known. Rovinghawk said:
What was the reasonable belief to justify shooting him when he was stepping back with outstretched arms?
Active resistance from 00:42 which was an escalation would, I imagine, be the primary grounds. A Taser isn't a high level response in terms of using force and the probability of moderate to serious injury is low. davidball said:
Thank God the two police officers were not carrying firearms - the man could be dead now.
Exceptionally unlikely. davidball said:
The officer with the taser should be charged with assault at the very least.
Exceptionally unlikely. davidball said:
As for the officer who decided to charge the man with a public order offence and assaulting a police officer. He/she needs disciplining too.
Exceptionally unlikely. 0/3. Up to your usual standards.
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
Why was their suspicion of him reasonable? Because he wanted his rights observed?
That's a key question. What information made up their reasonable suspicion? Until the officers provide an account it won't be known. I think a medical examination will reveal a case of acute itching in the trigger finger.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
Why was their suspicion of him reasonable? Because he wanted his rights observed?
That's a key question. What information made up their reasonable suspicion? Until the officers provide an account it won't be known. La Liga said:
Active resistance from 00:42 which was an escalation would, I imagine, be the primary grounds. A Taser isn't a high level response in terms of using force and the probability of moderate to serious injury is low.
In addition, what happened before the video and during the pause? Who did they believe the wanted person was? What risk was he? etc etc. La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
Why was their suspicion of him reasonable? Because he wanted his rights observed?
That's a key question. What information made up their reasonable suspicion? Until the officers provide an account it won't be known. La Liga said:
Active resistance from 00:42 which was an escalation would, I imagine, be the primary grounds. A Taser isn't a high level response in terms of using force and the probability of moderate to serious injury is low.
In addition, what happened before the video and during the pause? Who did they believe the wanted person was? What risk was he? etc etc. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff