Home Secretary greenlights police to use new Taser 'within w
Discussion
SystemParanoia said:
my "Attitude" ?
I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty"
I believe in being able to freely go about my business without risk of being tasers and assaulted just because i dont want to give my name
I believe that when the police get it wrong, the officers involve should face the courts, should be named and should have their faces put on public record.
Why don't you want to give your name out? What is so special about it?I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty"
I believe in being able to freely go about my business without risk of being tasers and assaulted just because i dont want to give my name
I believe that when the police get it wrong, the officers involve should face the courts, should be named and should have their faces put on public record.
menguin said:
SystemParanoia said:
my "Attitude" ?
I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty"
I believe in being able to freely go about my business without risk of being tasers and assaulted just because i dont want to give my name
I believe that when the police get it wrong, the officers involve should face the courts, should be named and should have their faces put on public record.
Why don't you want to give your name out? What is so special about it?I believe in "Innocent until proven guilty"
I believe in being able to freely go about my business without risk of being tasers and assaulted just because i dont want to give my name
I believe that when the police get it wrong, the officers involve should face the courts, should be named and should have their faces put on public record.
I am not legally required to divulge it.
I've done nothing wrong to warrant having to do-so. and so-on and so-on
on the other hand,
I would if i had just witnessed a crime
I would if i had just had a car accident
I would if i had called them in the first place and so on...
Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 20th January 13:06
SystemParanoia said:
By making a note, passing it up the chain, and getting the highly paid detectives to do their job
You realise that Detectives don't get paid more just for being Detectives? A Detective Constable has the same powers as any other Constable, and they are on the same pay grade, just part of a different team, and with some additonal training. menguin said:
Why don't you want to give your name out? What is so special about it?
It usually comes down to "rights" and I think people often forget that with rights come responsibilities.We don't live in a Police State precisely because, for 99% of the population policing by consent works.
Once it reaches a point where the 99% are the "I know my rights I don't have to give you my name copper" type, it'll inevitably go one way which is laws will be bought in so that you have to give your name.
I'd like to know why they thought he was the man they were looking for?
Common sense would dictate that if he wasn't being threatening and they weren't 100% sure they should've let him go on his way.
That may mean that occasionally a criminal gets away with something using the same tactic but I'd rather that than an innocent pensioner get tasered in the face for having the temerity to not want to get bothered while trying to go home.
Common sense would dictate that if he wasn't being threatening and they weren't 100% sure they should've let him go on his way.
That may mean that occasionally a criminal gets away with something using the same tactic but I'd rather that than an innocent pensioner get tasered in the face for having the temerity to not want to get bothered while trying to go home.
Butter Face said:
In this case he wasn't a threat
Enough said.Butter Face said:
Cooperation with the police is not mandatory, but it is easy. The alternative is to allow yourself to be arrested and make them find out
arrested for what, exactly? He'd done nothing wrong.Butter Face said:
the alternative to this is to refuse, get physical and get taken down.
The alternative is to refuse & have the police follow the law of the land in what happens next. This does not include shooting unarmed people.Butter Face said:
What would be your choice if it was yourself in this situtation? Can't wait to hear it!
I'll answer- if they were polite I'd be polite; if they were arsey I'd be equally so. If they then chose to shoot me for acting within the law I'd be looking for someone's career to be cut short.SystemParanoia said:
Because i dont have to.
I am not legally required to divulge it.
I've done nothing wrong to warrant having to do-so. and so-on and so-on
on the other hand,
I would if i had just witnessed a crime
I would if i had just had a car accident
I would if i had called them in the first place and so on...
I make no comment on the actions of the Police here but i have to say that the whole situation would never have gone as far as it did if when told "We believe you to be XXX" the chap had said "No i am not - I am JJJ and i have ID to prove it."I am not legally required to divulge it.
I've done nothing wrong to warrant having to do-so. and so-on and so-on
on the other hand,
I would if i had just witnessed a crime
I would if i had just had a car accident
I would if i had called them in the first place and so on...
Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 20th January 13:06
You don't have to give them your name but you can be arrested if they have a reasonable grounds to believe that you are the perpetrator of a crime. As such their decision to then detain him, after him failing to prove that he was not the suspect to their reasonable satisfaction, is a logical and legal solution to the problem as far as i understand it.
Obviously what happened after he had failed to obey the lawful instructions of the police officers is the main issue of concern now, but the whole thing would never have got that far if he had done what 99.9% of sane and rational law abiding citizens would have done and confirmed his name and provide ID to them.
More than one person may be to blame for what happened after that but there is only one person to blame for a simple case of mistaken ID to become a national news topic.
Rude-boy said:
SystemParanoia said:
Because i dont have to.
I am not legally required to divulge it.
I've done nothing wrong to warrant having to do-so. and so-on and so-on
on the other hand,
I would if i had just witnessed a crime
I would if i had just had a car accident
I would if i had called them in the first place and so on...
I make no comment on the actions of the Police here but i have to say that the whole situation would never have gone as far as it did if when told "We believe you to be XXX" the chap had said "No i am not - I am JJJ and i have ID to prove it."I am not legally required to divulge it.
I've done nothing wrong to warrant having to do-so. and so-on and so-on
on the other hand,
I would if i had just witnessed a crime
I would if i had just had a car accident
I would if i had called them in the first place and so on...
Edited by SystemParanoia on Friday 20th January 13:06
You don't have to give them your name but you can be arrested if they have a reasonable grounds to believe that you are the perpetrator of a crime. As such their decision to then detain him, after him failing to prove that he was not the suspect to their reasonable satisfaction, is a logical and legal solution to the problem as far as i understand it.
Obviously what happened after he had failed to obey the lawful instructions of the police officers is the main issue of concern now, but the whole thing would never have got that far if he had done what 99.9% of sane and rational law abiding citizens would have done and confirmed his name and provide ID to them.
More than one person may be to blame for what happened after that but there is only one person to blame for a simple case of mistaken ID to become a national news topic.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff