Home Secretary greenlights police to use new Taser 'within w
Discussion
Bigends said:
From what??? He was hardly laying into the pair of them. Had he subdued the male cop then maybe - this was certainly not justified - the matter wasnt out of hand by any stretch
Escalation followed by active resistance i.e pushing the officers. Police escalation failing. Low probability of injury with the option. La Liga said:
Bigends said:
From what??? He was hardly laying into the pair of them. Had he subdued the male cop then maybe - this was certainly not justified - the matter wasnt out of hand by any stretch
Escalation followed by active resistance i.e pushing the officers. Police escalation failing. Low probability of injury with the option. Greendubber said:
Of course he could have been a threat, he's just squashed them in a gate and struggled with the male officer. He made no suggestion he would comply within the half a second it took for the male officer to push him away.
"Could have been a threat" is not the same as "was a threat"I have news for you- there is no requirement to comply with demands for one's name just because someone with attitude demands it. Failure to comply dos not justify them entering his property & grabbing him; it certainly doesn't justify waving a taser around for a while before shooting someone in the face with it.
He repeatedly stated that he wanted nothing to be left alone but they wouldn't let him be.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38691...
Look at the picture- does she look in control or shooting from the hip either by accident or in panic/anger?
I foresee another compensation payment for this guy due to mistakes having been made.
Bigends said:
Sorry thats just hiding behind the rules -
'The rules' i.e. the rules that allow us to break down and structure our responses are the law. The rules the officer swill be writing their statements around. The rules the IPCC will e working from if the interview.Those ones?
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
Sorry thats just hiding behind the rules -
'The rules' i.e. the rules that allow us to break down and structure our responses are the law. The rules the officer swill be writing their statements around. The rules the IPCC will e working from if the interview.Those ones?
Rovinghawk said:
"Could have been a threat" is not the same as "was a threat"
But inconveniently for you, highly relevant in law.Rovinghawk said:
I have news for you- there is no requirement to comply with demands for one's name just because someone with attitude demands it.
Ahh, the added 'with attitude'. Very subtle. People with attitudes always say please... Rovinghawk said:
Failure to comply dos not justify them entering his property & grabbing him; it certainly doesn't justify waving a taser around for a while before shooting someone in the face with it.
But if they have reasonable suspicion to arrest it does. Rovinghawk said:
He repeatedly stated that he wanted nothing to be left alone but they wouldn't let him be.
So? If they have reasonable grounds to arrest him that doesn't matter. Bigends said:
No your response was just concede this could have been dealt with in a different matter - theyll hide behind the rules when they make their statements.
'The rules' aren't rules, they're names to categorise and structure behaviour and responses - rules are the law. Any matter can be dealt with alternatively. Choosing a response is down to an individual and it's up to them to justify. Everyone has different experience, skills, thresholds and perceptions.
Choosing to say an individual should have done something different in such circumstances is foolish.
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
No your response was just concede this could have been dealt with in a different matter - theyll hide behind the rules when they make their statements.
'The rules' aren't rules, they're names to categorise and structure behaviour and responses - rules are the law. Any matter can be dealt with alternatively. Choosing a response is down to an individual and it's up to them to justify. Everyone has different experience, skills, thresholds and perceptions.
Choosing to say an individual should have done something different in such circumstances is foolish.
Please dont say you dont think this couldnt have been handled without tasering him - go on try it say they may have been in the wrong you can have your own opinion. Yes I know it was her shout and hopefully she'll never get to handle a taser again
Sylvaforever said:
Rude-boy said:
carinaman said:
That the officers had body worn video is a positive.
Very much so. I honestly feel that it should have been rolled out countrywide many years ago.Saves and awful lot of he said she said.
Rovinghawk said:
Greendubber said:
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Choosing to say an individual should have done something different in such circumstances is foolish.
Is it foolish to say she shouldn't have shot their race relations advisor in the face with a taser?I await your 'well they didnt need to taser him' post but it appears the female officer thought she needed to. Its down to her to justify so lets save pointless arguing about it because I'm just not willing to chuck her under the bus at the moment.
Rovinghawk said:
pinchmeimdreamin said:
Is it foolish to say their race relations advisor shouldn't have been refusing to help and fighting with them ?
You're aware of his past history of false arrest? It might have influenced his viewpoint.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff