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

Police Taser race relations group founder in the face. Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    so it is easy to assume this is someone the police have been looking for for a while.
    Why? It is more likely that he is a habitual, small time criminal than some major villain who has been on the run for 9 years.

    There must be records showing Mr Adunbi is not in fact the actual drug dealer/criminal?
    But Adunbi refused to identify himself, so they did not know it was him!
    They thought it was the other bloke.
    Which was why they stopped him!
    Jeez!!
    :facepalm:

    How many more times will they have to harass Mr Adunbi before they realise he may not be the actual criminal?
    Right, I'll say this reeeealy slowly.
    If Adunbi does not identify himself to the police when asked, the police have no way of knowing that he is Mr Adunbi.

    Moreover, as Adunbi is supposed to be an upstanding member of the community, one would expect him to cooperate with the police. So, if someone looks like both a law abiding citizen and a known criminal, and that person behaves in an uncooperative, obstructive and aggressive manner with the police and forcibly tries to leave the scene, rather than being calm, reasonable and cooperative, in the absence of any identification it is more reasonable to assume that they are the criminal, rather than the upstanding and law-abiding model citizen.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Why? It is more likely that he is a habitual, small time criminal than some major villain who has been on the run for 9 years.

    But Adunbi refused to identify himself, so they did not know it was him!
    They thought it was the other bloke.
    Which was why they stopped him!
    Jeez!!
    :facepalm:

    Right, I'll say this reeeealy slowly.
    If Adunbi does not identify himself to the police when asked, the police have no way of knowing that he is Mr Adunbi.

    Moreover, as Adunbi is supposed to be an upstanding member of the community, one would expect him to cooperate with the police. So, if someone looks like both a law abiding citizen and a known criminal, and that person behaves in an uncooperative, obstructive and aggressive manner with the police and forcibly tries to leave the scene, rather than being calm, reasonable and cooperative, in the absence of any identification it is more reasonable to assume that they are the criminal, rather than the upstanding and law-abiding model citizen.

    A sound conclusion to the matter. Adunbi is a fool for not identifying himself, and arguably the police officers' use of force is questionable. That's the long and short of it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    It was an unlawful arrest; he had every right to resist it.
    Not if the police had "reasonable suspicion" and he subsequently refused to provide ID. The fact that Adunbi has been mistaken for the criminal before shows that their suspicion was reasonable (there is obviously a physical similarity). The suspicion does not have to be correct, only reasonable.

    This is clearly shown in the video where the male officer states that he believes Adunbi to be Royston MacKellar(?), Adunbi repeatedly refused to provide ID to show otherwise, and the officer then says "I have no choice then but to arrest you". Even then, he still gives Adunbi ample opportunity to identify himself.

    Imagine if the law only permitted the questioning of guilty people. Yet that is what some on here appear to be suggesting!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Not if the police had "reasonable suspicion" and he subsequently refused to provide ID. The fact that Adunbi has been mistaken for the criminal before shows that their suspicion was reasonable (there is obviously a physical similarity). The suspicion does not have to be correct, only reasonable.!
    Remind me what happened last time they arrested him. Oh yes, they got taken to court for wrongful arrest and lost.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Merfie)
    Thirty years practicing law and you think it is a reasonable conclusion for anyone to kill a police officer?
    Whether I believe it to be right or not doesn't change the law and I deliberately gave the hardest case I could think of in post 145

    That incident, and the incident presented before us are COMPLETE worlds apart.
    You said "Never will it ever be reasonably necessary within Britain to use 'reasonable force' against any police officer," The similarity to the present case is irrelevant. I gave an example where what you were saying was untrue.

    You haven't commented on the rest of my argument, presumably the rest of it is sound?
    Your argument is sound (apart from equating reasonable suspicion to reasonable belief), but the factual basis is likely not to be. You said "If the officers state and can justify (which they no doubt will) that they had reasonable belief that the gentleman was wanted, no one can really dispute that".

    That is likely to be where the officers will have a very hard time. That is exactly what the Claimant's lawyers will question but it won't even get to court if the police officers can't convince the force solicitor.

    The belief has to be reasonable and I was told of something with no specific detail that wasn't in fact true on an occasion I can't remember by a person I have forgotten won't cut the mustard

    I will give you the old fashioned interrogatory (the procedure has changed but the substance has not)

    Of "he believed": please state all facts and matters giving rise to that belief providing copies of all documents giving rise to the belief and in the case of oral communications of any facts and matters giving rise to that belief details of the persons making and persons receiving such communications, the date, time and method of the communications, the circumstances of the communications, whether any other person, and if so whom, was present and whether any record of the communications was made and if so, providing a copy of that record together if the record is a oral recording, a transcript.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Is deploying a Taser when asking who someone is reasonable and restrained? Because to me that seems pretty aggressive.
    If you remember, the question I was responding to was about initial behaviour. You said the police were initially aggressive and unreasonable. However, the video clearly shows the police initially being calm an reasonable while Adunbi was aggressive and obstructive.

    "Initially" means "at the beginning", BTW.

    Also, the taser was deployed several minutes later, once Adunbi was resisting arrest.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    If you remember, the question I was responding to was about initial behaviour. You said the police were initially aggressive and unreasonable. However, the video clearly shows the police initially being calm an reasonable while Adunbi was aggressive and obstructive.

    "Initially" means "at the beginning", BTW.

    Also, the taser was deployed several minutes later, once Adunbi was resisting arrest.
    At the beginning they had a Taser deployed. That is not calm and reasonable, that is aggressive and threatening.

    The Taser was deployed before the filming had even begun, go back and watch it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    Why are you picking older posts of mine to reply rather than the most recent ones where I have replied you?.
    I am reading all the comments in order, and replying to them as such. Don't worry, I'll get to your later posts eventually. I do hope you're not repeating the same fallacious reasoning.

    Have you changed your position over the course of the thread? If not, why does it matter?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    He never touched the police until they grabbed when he was entering he property. They were the first to get physical.
    I never claimed that he did.

    Do you constitute pushing someone off you as violent?
    It can be.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Must be why they dropped the charges, because of their stellar police work.
    The charges were almost certainly dropped (at least in part) because of all the (somewhat inaccurate and partisan) press coverage. After all, they weren't serious charges.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Arrested for not providing a name? Wonder how that would play out in court...
    Depends.
    If the police have reasonable suspicion of an offence, and a suspect refuses to cooperate, it is entirely within the law to arrest.
    Such a case could well lead to conviction for obstructing a police officer. Obviously, if the offender is black and a lot of fuss is made in the media, then a prosecution is less likely. But hey, that's Racist Britain for you.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    Then the next day, the same man is arrested again for being suspected of being the same wanted man, they're mistaken, he's released and the cycle goes on.
    The man in question can avoid arrest simply by identifying himself.
    I really fail to see what part of this you find so difficult.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    They shouldn't have forgotten the last time he took them to court. They obviously don't learn from their mistakes.
    Perhaps it wasn't these two officers. It was 9 years ago, and there are more than two people in S&APD.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Perhaps it wasn't these two officers. It was 9 years ago, and there are more than two people in S&APD.
    Records are a thing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    He has the legal right not to tell them his name, he exercised this right, not a crime.
    however, a constable had a reasonable suspicion that he was a wanted person , and under S 24 of pace and various other legislation has the power to request he prove his identity and an power of arrest if this request cannot be satisfied.

    He was aggressive as were the police, also not crimes.
    He walked away from the police to enter his property when he was not under a arrest, not a crime.
    The police grabbed him when he was not under arrest and he defended himself, once again, not a crime.
    you need to stop taking lessons in jurisprudence fro mthe freewibblers and /or US TV drama.


    He broke no laws therefore there was no law to enforce. He was well within the law and his rights. For all the police know he had broken no laws yet they still treated him like a criminal and with excessive force.
    S.24 PACE power of arrest, which he resisted - allowing reasonable force to be used , which depending on circumstances may include deadly force.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Well actually I have been practising law for 30 years this year
    Bit old for a student forum aren't you? I thought I was a bit of a veteran doing postgrad in my 20s!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Bit old for a student forum aren't you? I thought I was a bit of a veteran doing postgrad in my 20s!
    I am generally here by rights as a part-time mature student although not this year.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    SJW juvenile nonsense.

    Unless of course you can provide evidence to back up such a stupid claim?

    LOL,as if.
    PRSOM

    it;s not even SJW , it;s purely juvenile ,

    unconscious incompetence, illusory superirotiy and a immaturity mean that many children consider themselves experts on the law, and extrapolate what they have been told aobut bullying and child abuse to also involve interactiosn with the Police, despite S24 PACE, S163 ROad Traffic Act and innumberable other bits and pieces of legislation that give the police power, to stop individuals and verify their identity and account for their current actions and intentions , and may also evolve into a stop and search scenario from a 'stop and account' ... oddly enough cooperating with Stop and Account or S163 RTA takes about 5 -10 minutes of your day, where beign a muppet can take 12 hours out of your day and ned up with you half way across the county.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Never been to Bristol.
    Silly comment to make then really. Easton has one of the proportionally highest Afro Caribbean populations in the country. And quite a few are elderly rastaman. Bad luck!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    S.24 PACE power of arrest, which he resisted - allowing reasonable force to be used , which depending on circumstances may include deadly force.
    So was "reasonable" force used?
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.