Home Secretary greenlights police to use new Taser 'within w
Discussion
People have been watching too many rap videos.
The man was verbally very aggressive, swearing at police officers with obscene language, disrupting public order, refusing to cooperate with reasonable police questions, refusing to self-name after a reasonable request, trying to escape reasonable police questions, physically manhandling police, and hiding hands in pockets while being very aggressive (nobody knew at the time what was in there).
You abuse plod, you're gonna get zapped. Never nice, but that's life.
The man was verbally very aggressive, swearing at police officers with obscene language, disrupting public order, refusing to cooperate with reasonable police questions, refusing to self-name after a reasonable request, trying to escape reasonable police questions, physically manhandling police, and hiding hands in pockets while being very aggressive (nobody knew at the time what was in there).
You abuse plod, you're gonna get zapped. Never nice, but that's life.
Rovinghawk said:
A taser to the face seems a bit excessive rather than reasonable.
An unarmed take down can result in a broken arm. The outcome doesn't render the option wrong in the first place. Nor does it change the overall probability of injury. I don't think you'll get it.
Rovinghawk said:
Napoleon often said "Don't reinforce failure"- they presumably didn't have the same opinion.
I'm sure Napoleon was considering escalation within the context of an arrest. La Liga said:
desolate said:
So am I to understand that on the evidence in front of us you think the deployment of the taser is reasonable?
I think there's ample scope for it to have been a lawful use of force, including given some of the unknowns. Bigends said:
Is the shot to the face from four feet away in the book? Is UDT no longer taught?
UDT has the same if not worse medical implications. I would suggest she hasn't aimed to shoot him in the face.
Fat Fairy said:
Without wishing to be awkward, to those in blue;
If, when Adunbi was asked to identify himself, he had replied 'I am Jonah Adunbi'. 'Cos we are not required to carry identity documents, what was there to stop the police in question saying 'We don't believe you'.
At which point, he is back to square one...........
At what point do we stop asking, and start Tasering?
(My background; 28 yrs Air Force, far too much time on guard, been subject to an attempted run down with a vehicle when on guard; Yet to shoot anyone... etc)
FF
It's a good question. If, when Adunbi was asked to identify himself, he had replied 'I am Jonah Adunbi'. 'Cos we are not required to carry identity documents, what was there to stop the police in question saying 'We don't believe you'.
At which point, he is back to square one...........
At what point do we stop asking, and start Tasering?
(My background; 28 yrs Air Force, far too much time on guard, been subject to an attempted run down with a vehicle when on guard; Yet to shoot anyone... etc)
FF
Having someone provide a name opens up different routes for checking data systems such as vehicles, addresses, previously known to the police - someone on duty may recognise the name if he's a community worker involved in the IAG etc.
Ultimately that may all be fruitless and the police need to make a further decision, but it opens up multiple other avenues to avoid an arrest.
Rovinghawk said:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/20/poli...
Adunbi told on Friday how he had suffered sleepless nights since the incident. He also claimed he went through a similar ordeal in 2007 in another case of mistaken identity by police.
Police later confirmed there had been a previous incident involving Adunbi. A spokesman said: “We can confirm that Mr Adunbi was awarded compensation following an incident in 2009. Taser was not deployed regarding this incident.”
Do you not think I checked reasonably available media before replying to you? Adunbi told on Friday how he had suffered sleepless nights since the incident. He also claimed he went through a similar ordeal in 2007 in another case of mistaken identity by police.
Police later confirmed there had been a previous incident involving Adunbi. A spokesman said: “We can confirm that Mr Adunbi was awarded compensation following an incident in 2009. Taser was not deployed regarding this incident.”
They said compensation was paid out, they didn't say it was for an unlawful arrest, did they?
You decided the incident was an unlawful arrest to support your red herring point.
So again, is that fact what's the source? Perhaps they expanded on the radio someone else has eluded to, but you're not relying on that as a source, you've quoted something which refers to an incident.
As for "the medical implications are low" an inquest recently found that a taser used by a police officer had a material contribution to someone's death.
They are potentially lethal weapons and I would think the fact that the taser hit this person in face means that it was used outside the guidelines, particularly given the completely unthreatening nature of the situation.
They are potentially lethal weapons and I would think the fact that the taser hit this person in face means that it was used outside the guidelines, particularly given the completely unthreatening nature of the situation.
Daggle74 said:
I don't comment much on here, but I have to now as some of the stuff on this thread alone is pure gold! I see the usual suspects are in attendance, I would suggest Mr Paranoia needs to remove the tin foil hat and stop watching Hollywood films and actually know what he is talking about before posting. Unfortunately comments like this just make you look really thick and undermine any argument you 'may' have had. Hint: the above comes from the US' Miranda warnings, not the UK caution. Good try though.
I tend not to spend my time being arrested.. due to the poor state of training in our police forces, it would appear be bad for my health.if im ever short of a few bob, ill pop outside; i doubt i'll have to wait long before some plod comes along giving me the opportunity to get some compo
La Liga said:
desolate said:
So am I to understand that on the evidence in front of us you think the deployment of the taser is reasonable?
I think there's ample scope for it to have been a lawful use of force, including given some of the unknowns. La Liga said:
I would suggest she hasn't aimed to shoot him in the face.
I would suggest she hasn't aimed at all.La Liga said:
They said compensation was paid out, they didn't say it was for an unlawful arrest, did they?
I would be reasonably sure that it was for improper behaviour rather than for walking on his lawn.La Liga said:
So again, is that fact what's the source?
Police confirmed they'd paid compensation for an incident- it suggests that they felt they needed to pay compensation. It's not a huge leap of faith to conclude that they felt they'd done something wrong.La Liga said:
someone else has eluded to,
FYI it's 'alluded'. Eluded is when someone has managed to avoid being caught.La Liga said:
you've quoted something which refers to an incident.
Maybe they forgot to send him a birthday card- I believe it was something a bit more serious.La Liga said:
o you not think I checked reasonably available media before replying to you?
They said compensation was paid out, they didn't say it was for an unlawful arrest, did they?
You decided the incident was an unlawful arrest to support your red herring point.
So again, is that fact what's the source? Perhaps they expanded on the radio someone else has eluded to, but you're not relying on that as a source, you've quoted something which refers to an incident.
"because this was the second time he had been mistaken for a Bristol drug dealer.£They said compensation was paid out, they didn't say it was for an unlawful arrest, did they?
You decided the incident was an unlawful arrest to support your red herring point.
So again, is that fact what's the source? Perhaps they expanded on the radio someone else has eluded to, but you're not relying on that as a source, you've quoted something which refers to an incident.
"Bear in mind the trauma I was going through as a result of fear, this matter has happened on a previous occasion.
The Avon and Somerset race relations advisor says he was assaulted by officers when they wrongly believed him to be someone else seven years ago.
judah_friday_web Play video
On that occasion, Mr Adunbi says, he sustained a lasting disability to his shoulder during that arrest."
http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2017-01-20/tas...
Bigends said:
There are NO unknowns in relation to the taser shot - there may be unknowns in relation to the reason for the incident in the first place - the shot was there for all to see
Yes, the shot is there to see. Just because it doesn't hit the favourable target area doesn't render the deployment unlawful or unreasonable. Bigends said:
They were clueless as to why they were stopping him as he was eventually arrested for public order and assault Police - NOT the reason for the stop
Was he? I read he was charged for the public order and assault police. That doesn't mean he was arrested for them, does it? I could be wrong there, I've not read everything on the matter.
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
A taser to the face seems a bit excessive rather than reasonable.
An unarmed take down can result in a broken arm./quote]That didn't happen. I was hoping to debate what DID happen.
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
Napoleon often said "Don't reinforce failure"- they presumably didn't have the same opinion.
I'm sure Napoleon was considering escalation within the context of an arrest. Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
desolate said:
So am I to understand that on the evidence in front of us you think the deployment of the taser is reasonable?
I think there's ample scope for it to have been a lawful use of force, including given some of the unknowns. La Liga said:
I would suggest she hasn't aimed to shoot him in the face.
I would suggest she hasn't aimed at all.La Liga said:
They said compensation was paid out, they didn't say it was for an unlawful arrest, did they?
I would be reasonably sure that it was for improper behaviour rather than for walking on his lawn.La Liga said:
So again, is that fact what's the source?
Police confirmed they'd paid compensation for an incident- it suggests that they felt they needed to pay compensation. It's not a huge leap of faith to conclude that they felt they'd done something wrong.La Liga said:
someone else has eluded to,
FYI it's 'alluded'. Eluded is when someone has managed to avoid being caught.La Liga said:
you've quoted something which refers to an incident.
Maybe they forgot to send him a birthday card- I believe it was something a bit more serious.Reasonable? It'll depends on the unknowns and what the officers have to say. What part of that can't you understand?
desolate said:
As for "the medical implications are low" an inquest recently found that a taser used by a police officer had a material contribution to someone's death.
So? Low probability doesn't mean a serious outcome won't occur. The medical implications of pushing someone are low, but sometimes people fall and crack their skull and die.
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
There are NO unknowns in relation to the taser shot - there may be unknowns in relation to the reason for the incident in the first place - the shot was there for all to see
Yes, the shot is there to see. Just because it doesn't hit the favourable target area doesn't render the deployment unlawful or unreasonable. Bigends said:
They were clueless as to why they were stopping him as he was eventually arrested for public order and assault Police - NOT the reason for the stop
Was he? I read he was charged for the public order and assault police. That doesn't mean he was arrested for them, does it? I could be wrong there, I've not read everything on the matter.
La Liga said:
o you don't know it was unlawful arrest and you made it up. Thanks for clarifying.
I'll correct my previous statement- he had previous interaction with the police whereby they felt an obligation to compensate him for their behaviour.La Liga said:
Reasonable? It'll depends on the unknowns and what the officers have to say. What part of that can't you understand?
They'll say anything that'll get them off the hook.As for the unknowns, the video is pretty solid evidence- let's see whether their body cameras show anything else.
Rovinghawk said:
Yipper said:
You abuse plod, you're gonna get zapped.
I heard similar excuses when Harwood killed Tomlinson. I didn't agree then, either.Same for everyone else I know who carries one so I wouldnt take one post as police making any excuses.
ETA: anyone who used a taser to deal with being verbally abused would probably be looking for alternative employment PDQ.
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
Listen to the video - she arrests him for public order and assault Police while hes still shocked on the floor
Fair enough. Although if he's under arrest for the previous matter then he should be informed of any further offences he's arrested for. Yipper said:
People have been watching too many rap videos.
The man was verbally very aggressive, swearing at police officers with obscene language, disrupting public order, refusing to cooperate with reasonable police questions, refusing to self-name after a reasonable request, trying to escape reasonable police questions, physically manhandling police, and hiding hands in pockets while being very aggressive (nobody knew at the time what was in there).
You abuse plod, you're gonna get zapped. Never nice, but that's life.
Pretty much my thoughts.The man was verbally very aggressive, swearing at police officers with obscene language, disrupting public order, refusing to cooperate with reasonable police questions, refusing to self-name after a reasonable request, trying to escape reasonable police questions, physically manhandling police, and hiding hands in pockets while being very aggressive (nobody knew at the time what was in there).
You abuse plod, you're gonna get zapped. Never nice, but that's life.
As an exercise in "how to get tasered when you could have avoided it" he scored 10/10.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff