This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Shoplifting
- PCSO [police]
- Craig Foster apologises to Sam Kerr for saying her crime was sackable
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- Would the police bring the logs up? It's on my name, address
- HELP: GCSE History Edexcel Grade 9 Facts
- "The University of Bradford shaped me into becoming the scientist I am today"
- Out of all the universities that have been listed, which are more Muslim friendly?
- Communications Officer Met Police 999/101
- do girls like brown guys
- Why do I never feel good enough?
- I'm a student at Royal Holloway -- Ask Me Anything!
- Making friends as a transfer student
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- I feel like im invisible
- Which university is better for getting job in F1.
- Worried I’m not cut out for the job
- Communication for introvert
- The Forum Games Hurt/Heal Game
- Drugs and Sexual Assaults
Police Taser race relations group founder in the face.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Willy Pete
i hope the police officers involved get sacked to be honest.
Tasering an unarmed civilian should be not be taken lightly. He wasn't aggressive, he wanted to go home and the officers were the first to be aggressive without due cause.
Tasering an unarmed civilian should be not be taken lightly. He wasn't aggressive, he wanted to go home and the officers were the first to be aggressive without due cause.
Finally
I thought I was being an angry black woman for being the only one annoyed by this
Anyone, black, white, pink or purple that resists arrest even when innocent, deserves to be tasered.
Or is it claimed they simply tasered him,before attempting to arrest him?
Or is it claimed they simply tasered him,before attempting to arrest him?
Original post by StrawbAri
Why couldn't the police have come to him in a calm and rational manner?
Why couldn't the police have come to him in a calm and rational manner?
They tried to, and did, but there is only so long they can take someone's non-compliance and aggression before they have to make a calculated decision on how to proceed, which, again, is what they did.
Making a scene, trying to run away, forcing the gate on a police officer etc are all provocative actions and the police have every right to respond to such actions as they see fit. Whether the tasering at that moment was strictly necessary or proportionate I can't say for sure, but he was clearly resisting arrest and being aggressive.
Also, the relationship between the police and a suspect is not an equal one. It is, by nature, one of authority and coercion (as it must be). Such individuals - whether they be White or Black or Asian - would do well to remember that and act accordingly.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Mathemagicien
This is disgusting, and just shows that we need more minority representation within the police so that these events could be avoided.
Instead, we get white officers who have negative racial stereotypes of black people, and consequently they are both more likely to fire at them.
Instead, we get white officers who have negative racial stereotypes of black people, and consequently they are both more likely to fire at them.
Well,as you feel so strongly i suggest you get yourself down to the local Constabulary HQ and give them the benefit of your vast experience of policing a multicultural community.
Out of curiosity, what experience of policing do you have?
Stupid morons -______-
It would be funny if it weren't so racist. They tasered their own race relation officer.
Stuff like this breaks down any illusion that police are anything other than the state's henchmen.
It would be funny if it weren't so racist. They tasered their own race relation officer.
Stuff like this breaks down any illusion that police are anything other than the state's henchmen.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Palmyra
They tried to, and did, but there is only so long they can take someone's non-compliance and aggression before they have to make a calculated decision on how to proceed, which, again, is what they did.
Making a scene, trying to run away, forcing the gate on a police officer etc are all provocative actions and the police have every right to respond to such actions as they see fit. Whether the tasering at that moment was strictly necessary or proportionate I can't say for sure, but he was clearly resisting arrest and being aggressive.
Also, the relationship between the police and a suspect is not an equal one. It is, by nature, one of authority and coercion (as it must be). Such individuals - whether they be White or Black or Asian - would do well to remember that and act accordingly.
Making a scene, trying to run away, forcing the gate on a police officer etc are all provocative actions and the police have every right to respond to such actions as they see fit. Whether the tasering at that moment was strictly necessary or proportionate I can't say for sure, but he was clearly resisting arrest and being aggressive.
Also, the relationship between the police and a suspect is not an equal one. It is, by nature, one of authority and coercion (as it must be). Such individuals - whether they be White or Black or Asian - would do well to remember that and act accordingly.
Did you watch the video?
It's clear the police were the initial aggressors. Even the neighbours that videoed it said so.
Lol run away? He was walking back to his house. You really couldn't have watched the same video as me because he wasn't causing a scene or being as agressive they were.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Willy Pete
He wasn't aggressive, he wanted to go home and the officers were the first to be aggressive without due cause.
He was clearly aggressive, just from the video that was released we see him: pushing the officers, raise his voice and get very agitated, and push a gate on one of the police officers (this alone is clearly an arrest able offence).
What is the relevance of the fact that the subject "wanted to go home"? If you resist arrest (by going home, to the pub, or a forest) then you should not be surprised if the police resort to other measures to procure your compliance/arrest.
Original post by StrawbAri
Did you watch the video?
It's clear the police were the initial aggressors.
It's clear the police were the initial aggressors.
Ridiculous. Lets re-cap just the first five seconds:
- The officers are standing with the man, not in his face, not shouting at him, and not making any physical contact whatsoever.
- The suspect tries to walk away, but the police man gently signals he is not being given permission to do so.
- The police woman then says: "I've asked you to remain calm" in a clearly non-threatening and polite manner.
- The suspect then raises his voice and says something along the lines of (I can't quite tell his exact words) "you're going to calm me?" and steps towards the female officer raising his arm and points to her face.
Firstly, which part of this account of the initial 5 seconds of the video (not the encounter, one should stress) do you object to (if any)? Secondly, which of the above constitutes the police being the "initial aggressors" (as you stated)?
Lol run away? He was walking back to his house.
I don't see how it matters in which direction (or to which destination) any police suspect is unlawfully running from the police in.
Original post by sleepysnooze
why would they taser him if he wasn't resisting arrest? ergo, he was probably resisting arrest
I know he shouldn't have been arrested, but if they arrested him, at least he would have been found innocent
after watching the clip of him swinging his arms around is it any wonder he got tasered??
I know he shouldn't have been arrested, but if they arrested him, at least he would have been found innocent
after watching the clip of him swinging his arms around is it any wonder he got tasered??
Libertarian endorses state violence.
This is why i can not take you guys seriously. State tasers black man trying to get in his house = fine. State takes some money of rich to give to fund a health care system = THE END OF THE WORLD.
Such a confused ideology. All you stand for is state violence doing bad things and never doing anything that could have a net positive effect. State such protect the strong but never use its violence to do anything for the weak.
Libertarianism: We have this violent social entity called the State and we must make sure it is violent in the worse possible way.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Libertarian endorses state violence.
This is why i can not take you guys seriously. So confused.
This is why i can not take you guys seriously. So confused.
Apart from me, there are no libertarians on this website only social conservatives who don't want to admit just how boring they are.
Original post by Palmyra
Ridiculous. Lets re-cap just the first five seconds:
- The officers are standing with the man, not in his face, not shouting at him, and not making any physical contact whatsoever.
- The suspect tries to walk away, but the police man gently signals he is not being given permission to do so.
- The police woman then says: "I've asked you to remain calm" in a clearly non-threatening and polite manner.
- The suspect then raises his voice and says something along the lines of (I can't quite tell his exact words) "you're going to calm me?" and steps towards the female officer raising his arm and points to her face.
Firstly, which part of this account of the initial 5 seconds of the video (not the encounter, one should stress) do you object to (if any)? Secondly, which of the above constitutes the police being the "initial aggressors" (as you stated)?
I don't see how it matters in which direction (or to which destination) any police suspect is unlawfully running from the police in.
- The officers are standing with the man, not in his face, not shouting at him, and not making any physical contact whatsoever.
- The suspect tries to walk away, but the police man gently signals he is not being given permission to do so.
- The police woman then says: "I've asked you to remain calm" in a clearly non-threatening and polite manner.
- The suspect then raises his voice and says something along the lines of (I can't quite tell his exact words) "you're going to calm me?" and steps towards the female officer raising his arm and points to her face.
Firstly, which part of this account of the initial 5 seconds of the video (not the encounter, one should stress) do you object to (if any)? Secondly, which of the above constitutes the police being the "initial aggressors" (as you stated)?
I don't see how it matters in which direction (or to which destination) any police suspect is unlawfully running from the police in.
These aren't the first five seconds.
In the video I'm watching what you've recounted took place at 0:22.
The man they were initially looking for was known to them. Why did they then come to accuse the first black man with dreadlocks they saw on the street?
And I'll repeat, the neighbours videoing it said during the video that the police started it. They did in fact make physical contact first.
Original post by StrawbAri
In the video I'm watching what you've recounted took place at 0:22.
I don't know what video you are watching, but I'm watching the video in the BBC article linked in the OP.
Original post by Palmyra
He was clearly aggressive, just from the video that was released we see him: pushing the officers, raise his voice and get very agitated, and push a gate on one of the police officers (this alone is clearly an arrest able offence).
What is the relevance of the fact that the subject "wanted to go home"? If you resist arrest (by going home, to the pub, or a forest) then you should not be surprised if the police resort to other measures to procure your compliance/arrest.
What is the relevance of the fact that the subject "wanted to go home"? If you resist arrest (by going home, to the pub, or a forest) then you should not be surprised if the police resort to other measures to procure your compliance/arrest.
Offences which were dropped. I'm sure you would be aggressive too if the police were trying to arrest you again over mistaken identity.
Which is more aggressive? Shouting at a police officer to leave you alone because they have the wrong person AGAIN or trying to arrest the wrong person while aiming a taser at them?
It is a clear cut case of crap policing and unreasonable use of force. When she fired at him he was standing still and not even moving forward to do anything aggressive.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Palmyra
I don't know what video you are watching, but I'm watching the video in the BBC article linked in the OP.
This is it
Original post by Palmyra
I don't know what video you are watching, but I'm watching the video in the BBC article linked in the OP.
The charges of assaulting a police officer were dropped.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Stupid morons -______-
It would be funny if it weren't so racist. They tasered their own race relation officer.
Stuff like this breaks down any illusion that police are anything other than the state's henchmen.
It would be funny if it weren't so racist. They tasered their own race relation officer.
Stuff like this breaks down any illusion that police are anything other than the state's henchmen.
What was so racist about some guy getting shot with a taser?
Why? because he is black? What if a white guy got shot with a taser, you probably wouldn't call that racist.
You don't even know whether race was involved in him getting shot.
Original post by Willy Pete
I'm sure you would be aggressive too if the police were trying to arrest you again over mistaken identity.
Slightly annoyed? Maybe. Aggressive? No chance. The police are doing a job and if they have stopped me it must be for a good reason. I may dispute that reason, and it may turn out to be a reason based on bad information, but I understand the importance of the police and the dynamics of my relationship with them if I ever were to be approached by them.
Which is more aggressive? Shouting at a police officer to leave you alone because they have the wrong person AGAIN or trying to arrest the wrong person while aiming a taser at them?
The police are perfectly entitled to be "aggressive" (in so far as you define a police officer "trying to arrest" someone as "aggressive" ) , but suspects are not. As I have mentioned, it is not a relationship of equals.
It is a clear cut case of crap policing and unreasonable use of force. When she fired at him he was standing still and not even moving forward to do anything aggressive.
On balance - despite the man's aggressive actions, attempts to flee and non-compliance - I would probably agree that tasering him was not strictly necessary. However, I understand why they did so - he was refusing to comply and attempting to flee.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
The charges of assaulting a police officer were dropped.
What is the relevance of this?
I never argued that he did assault the police officers. Besides, obviously they would drop the charges even if he had assaulted them - they're getting bad enough press already.
Original post by StrawbAri
Slightly retarded of you to assume I would be referring to that video (which wasn't mentioned anywhere in this thread until you posted it), instead of the one in the OP, but I digress.
Shall we go through the first 5 seconds (or however long you think necessary to prove your assertion that the police were the initial aggressors) of this video too?
(edited 7 years ago)
He should have articulated himself better, had it been me I would have calmly demonstrated I am not the suspect by showing my driving license which I always keep on my person. The police are still in the wrong to harass an innocent man and they could have easily deescalated the situation by giving him the chance to explain he was not the suspect given that he wasn't being violent to begin with. It was classic bong police, antagonise the suspect until they do something stupid and then pretend the coercion was necessarily, the guy was a fool for falling for it.
Original post by l'etranger
The police officers in question did give him ample opportunity to tell them his name, and even explained that they were asking because they think he may be *person X* that they were looking for. Yet he repeatedly refused to comply/respond, for whatever reason.
Does not telling the police your name justify being tasered? Obviously not, but combine that with getting a bit shouty and trying to leave and you can start to see why the police might be suspicious.
Original post by Palmyra
The police officers in question did give him ample opportunity to tell them their name, and explain that they are asking because they think he may be *person X* that they were looking for. Yet he repeatedly refused to comply, for whatever reason.
Does not telling the police your name justify being tasered? Obviously not, but combine that with getting a bit shouty and trying to leave and you can start to see why the police might be suspicious.
Does not telling the police your name justify being tasered? Obviously not, but combine that with getting a bit shouty and trying to leave and you can start to see why the police might be suspicious.
The Guardian video really doesn't help his case.
Related discussions
- Shoplifting
- PCSO [police]
- Craig Foster apologises to Sam Kerr for saying her crime was sackable
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- Would the police bring the logs up? It's on my name, address
- HELP: GCSE History Edexcel Grade 9 Facts
- "The University of Bradford shaped me into becoming the scientist I am today"
- Out of all the universities that have been listed, which are more Muslim friendly?
- Communications Officer Met Police 999/101
- do girls like brown guys
- Why do I never feel good enough?
- I'm a student at Royal Holloway -- Ask Me Anything!
- Making friends as a transfer student
- India Willoughby reports jk rowling to the police
- I feel like im invisible
- Which university is better for getting job in F1.
- Worried I’m not cut out for the job
- Communication for introvert
- The Forum Games Hurt/Heal Game
- Drugs and Sexual Assaults
Latest
Last reply 50 minutes ago
Official University College London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 55 minutes ago
Can I do economics degree without a level maths?Last reply 1 hour ago
How to choose unis in UCAS application for CS undergraduate course?Last reply 1 hour ago
Rishi Sunak pledges to remove benefits for people not taking jobs after 12 monthsLast reply 2 hours ago
Got my crush's number 2 days ago and no reply yet. What could be the reasons?Posted 2 hours ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 2 hours ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 2 hours ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKTrending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 19 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
