Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Police Taser race relations group founder in the face. Watch

    • Offline

      17
      (Original post by Merfie)
      I don't decide the system. However, after the fuss this idiot has kicked up I doubt his face is going to be forgotten any time soon by the Avon and Somerset constabulary.
      Well they forgot about the fuss 'this idiot' kicked up in 2009. They'll forget about this one soon enough.
      What a lovely system they've got in the uk.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Willy Pete)
      Well that is what it says. Can't be many old black rastas in Bristol.
      What? In Easton? Are you kidding me?
      Obviously never been to that part of Bristol then.
      Offline

      16
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Willy Pete)
      Well given that they had done it before you would think they would be a little more cautious, rather than getting themselves involved in another court case.
      It almost certainly wasn't the same officers!
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by QE2)
      What? In Easton? Are you kidding me?
      Obviously never been to that part of Bristol then.
      Never been to Bristol.
      Offline

      3
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by StrawbAri)
      Well they forgot about the fuss 'this idiot' kicked up in 2009. They'll forget about this one soon enough.
      What a lovely system they've got in the uk.
      Its flawless.
      • Offline

        17
        (Original post by Merfie)
        She hit the target. It can be argued that if she was trained/is comfortable firing from that position, and hits the target, then they'res nothing to complain about.
        Well
        She hit him in the face -Wrong according to the taser handbook
        She also didn't warn him- Also wrong according to the taser handbook
        Offline

        3
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by QE2)
        It almost certainly wasn't the same officers!
        Do the police not keep records? You would think that the record would have a big red flag attached saying "Don't **** this up again".

        I feel like I'm repeating myself, of because I have already answered all of these questions, but you are insistent on going back through without finding the answers first.
        Offline

        16
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by StrawbAri)
        I'm sure you've read the thread and seen the full video and understand the situation so why are you still adamant in arguing this?
        There's not much point because nearly everyone has accepted this whole incident was a **** up on the part of the police.
        The only ****-ups were Adunbi's aggressive refusal to reasonably cooperate, and possibly the use of the taser.

        This is clearly apparent from watching the video.
        Online

        20
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by QE2)
        He is if there is reasonable suspicion of an offence having been carried out.
        No


        They had such reasonable suspicion (they thought he was Mr X, and clearly explained this to him).
        Being Mr X is not a crime. Therefore being reasonably suspected of being Mr X is not being reasonably suspected of having committed a crime.

        If, and this is where the press reports become somewhat hazy, Mr X was actually liable to lawful arrest (with or without warrant) then a mistaken belief that Abundi was Mr X could provide the basis for the lawful arrest of Abundi. If on the other hand, Mr X was just a known villain whom the police officers wished to search or ask questions to, then that does not give a basis for the arrest of Abundi.

        He aggressively refused to cooperate and forcibly attempted to avoid egaging with the police.
        But he was under no duty to co-operate or engage with the police.
        • Offline

          17
          (Original post by Willy Pete)
          Do the police not keep records? You would think that the record would have a big red flag attached saying "Don't **** this up again".

          I feel like I'm repeating myself, of because I have already answered all of these questions, but you are insistent on going back through without finding the answers first.
          I suggest you don't bother as there's no point. He's made his choice to spend his time replying to each post in this thread one by one for whatever reason and won't stop till he's satisfied.
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by nulli tertius)
          I am afraid you are looking at it the wrong way.

          When they initially asked whether he was the other bloke, Abundi denied it. Either that was a lie or it was true. If the police thought it was a lie, what grounds did they have to arrest the other man? If they thought the answer was true what grounds did they have to arrest the unknown (to them) man? Obviously none. They then asked the unknown man his name. He refused to give it. What grounds did they now have to arrest this unknown man. What crime did they have reasonable belief that he had committed? Obviously none.

          The lawfulness of Abundi's arrest always comes back to whether they were justified in arresting the man they thought it was.
          He is required to identify himself if the police have reasonable suspicion that an offence has taken place. There is no requirement for there to be an existing warrant for another person's arrest.

          Also, on what do you base your assumption that there was no warrant for the other man? You have repeatedly used the phrase "I suspect that". If that is all you have to go on, "I suspect that" Adunbi and Royston MacKeller (?) are the same person with twin identities.
          Offline

          18
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by nulli tertius)
          actually I have been practising law for 30 years this year
          'solicitor tasers law student in the face'.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by nulli tertius)
          Well actually I have been practising law for 30 years this year and whilst the term justifiable homicide has been updated (it is now lawful killing) it certainly does remain in place in English law and is not by any means the equivalent of manslaughter.

          If you want an example of the lawful killing of a police officer by a member of the public, see the example of Kenneth Noye who was found not guilty on the grounds of self-defence of the killing of DC John Fordham who was hiding in the bushes of Noye's home conducting surveillance on him. Noye was 10 years later himself convicted of an unrelated murder and remains in prison.
          Thirty years practicing law and you think it is a reasonable conclusion for anyone to kill a police officer?

          As for the Noyes case, as I'm sure you're aware, DC Fordham was not identifiable as a police officer, merely a man in a balaclava and fatigues enroaching on Noyes' property, and as such Noyes' exerted his right of self defence when DC Fordham began to struggle with him. That incident, and the incident presented before us are COMPLETE worlds apart.

          You haven't commented on the rest of my argument, presumably the rest of it is sound?

          (Original post by Willy Pete)
          You should never discharge a firearm without aiming. She is incompetent in the extreme.
          Probably, but if she was fearful for the safety of herself and her colleague, then fair enough.


          (Original post by StrawbAri)
          Well
          She hit him in the face -Wrong according to the taser handbook
          She also didn't warn him- Also wrong according to the taser handbook
          I'm not suggesting she was correct in procedure, merely that she managed to hit the target rather well.


          (Original post by StrawbAri)
          Well they forgot about the fuss 'this idiot' kicked up in 2009. They'll forget about this one soon enough.
          What a lovely system they've got in the uk.
          Welcome to the UK.
          Offline

          16
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by StrawbAri)
          What the police should/shouldn't have done:

          1. Before leaving to search for a criminal wanted since 2009, they should have been properly briefed about the incident that took place that year, which was the accidental arrest due to mistaken identity of Mr Adunbi. ( He was mistaken for the same man again)
          2. The policewoman handling the taser gave no warning of her use of the taser that the person could realistically respond to.
          3. She did not take proper aim
          4. They should have approached the man in a non antagonistic and aggressive way as Mr Adunbi said himself that if they came up to him calmly and asked questions he would have responded better. He only became annoyed and tried to go back into his home because of the accusatory manner in which they were treating him which is within his rights given his past experience.

          It's incompetent policing especially No. 1, 2 and 3. It was a perfectly avoidable situation and now when Mr Adunbi gets his justice (again) it will cost the taxpayer.




          But he wasn't under arrest till the after they tasered him. When you analyse this video, you will see that he was trying to get back into his garden and the only remotely "violent" action he carried out was pushing the male police officer off him. They had not told him he was under arrest prior to tasering him so he acted within his rights.
          The question was... If a suspected criminal refuses to provided identification to show that they are not the wanted person, what are the police supposed to do?


          If you watch the full video which I will link below, you will see that he was not arrested till they had tasered him.
          But you will also see that the male officer stated that he was arresting him about 2 minutes before the taser was used, so your point is meaningless.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Merfie)
          Probably, but if she was fearful for the safety of herself and her colleague, then fair enough.
          Not probably, it is the one core principals and firearm training. She panicked, it is that simple. It was improper use of a firearm.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Willy Pete)
          Not probably, it is the one core principals and firearm training. She panicked, it is that simple. It was improper use of a firearm.
          Would you like pen and paper to write to the IPCC?
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Merfie)
          Would you like pen and paper to write to the IPCC?
          No need, the case has already been referred to them.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Willy Pete)
          No need, the case has already been referred to them.
          Clearly they have want of your vast knowledge and experience of police firearm procedure.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Merfie)
          Clearly they have want of your vast knowledge and experience of police firearm procedure.
          I'm sure they have their own guys for that.
          Offline

          3
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by Willy Pete)
          I'm sure they have their own guys for that.
          I would think so.
         
         
         
        Reply
        Submit reply
        TSR Support Team

        We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

        Updated: February 2, 2017
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • Poll
        What newspaper do you read/prefer?
        Useful resources
      • See more of what you like on The Student Room

        You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

      • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

        Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

        Quick reply
        Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.