Turn on thread page Beta

Police Taser race relations group founder in the face. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)

    Imagine if the law only permitted the questioning of guilty people. Yet that is what some on here appear to be suggesting!
    it;s US cop show jurisprudence training again ...

    the UK uses reasonable suspicion not probable cause , and probable causes isn;t actually quite the same as is portrayed for dramtic effect on the telly ...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Remind me what happened last time they arrested him. Oh yes, they got taken to court for wrongful arrest and lost.
    Could you furnish me with the details of that case so we can see how the two compare?
    Thanks.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    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.
    The woman had drawn the taser*, not used it. And both officers were talking to Adunbi in a calm and reasonable way. It was Adunbi who was shouty, aggressive and arm wavy.

    *Which also leads to the reasonable conclusion that Adunbi had plenty of warning about the taser. Unless you claim that pointing a taser at someone in no way implies its possible use. Which you probably are, given your previous arguments.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Records are a thing.
    Right. I'll say this one more time.

    If Adunbi refuses to identify himself, how are the police supposed to know that it is Adunbi and not Mr x?

    An answer to this question would be good.
    Thanks.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    I'll keep my fallacious reasoning thanks
    It's just an internet discussion. I've shared my point of view, you questioned it, I considered your questioning and came to the conclusion that what you have said does not convince me otherwise.

    (Original post by QE2)
    The man in question can avoid arrest simply by identifying himself.
    I really fail to see what part of this you find so difficult.
    The part I fail to understand is why would a police force of a particular area continue to mistake a man for the same criminal not once but on two separate occasions and will probably continue to make that mistake because for some reason, to them, the real criminal and Mr Adunbi look so alike it's impossible to tell them apart (unlikely).
    But nope Mr Adunbi, a fool for being even slightly annoyed, must exercise the patience of a Godly saint and be harassed and questioned daily as he's going about his normal business by the police that keep forgetting he's not the criminal because that's how the UK police system works.
    It's brilliant.
    Wow he's so idiotic for actually being pissed! Can't believe that guy smh. Everyone gets mistaken for the same criminal more than once. Don't get why he's being such a snowflake about it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The woman had drawn the taser*, not used it. And both officers were talking to Adunbi in a calm and reasonable way. It was Adunbi who was shouty, aggressive and arm wavy.

    Which also leads to the reasonable conclusion that Adunbi had plenty of warning about the taser. Unless you claim that pointing a taser at someone in no way implies its possible use. Which you probably are, given your previous arguments.
    The deployment of a Taser means drawing it. There is nothing calm about a Taser, it is a threat often used to intimidate a suspect.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    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.
    .
    The section 24 (5) (a) power is unusable in this situation. If the policeman believes he has identified the man as Mr X then he does not need to arrest him to ascertain his identity. If the policeman does not believe he is Mr X then he does not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the man in front of him has committed the offence.

    Section 24 does not give a power to request that someone prove their identity. The power of a policeman to ask a question is a common law power but generally there is no obligation to answer it.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    I'll keep my fallacious reasoning thanks
    We'll see.

    The part I fail to understand is why would a police force of a particular area continue to mistake a man for the same criminal not once but on two separate occasions and will probably continue to make that mistake because for some reason, to them, the real criminal and Mr Adunbi look so alike it's impossible to tell them apart (unlikely).
    Bearing in mind that the majority of S&APD are not on familiar personal terms with either Adunbi or Mr X, it is reasonable to assume that they are merely going from a couple of photos, possibly only seen one, and not recently, or more likely a verbal description.
    In which case, the two will continue to be confused indefinitely, whilst both are at large. The only way for the average police officer to tell them apart may well be to see some ID.

    But nope Mr Adunbi, a fool for being even slightly annoyed, must exercise the patience of a Godly saint and be harassed and questioned daily
    This has happened twice in 9 years, hardly a "daily" occurence! (Remember what we said about "fallacious reasoning"?)

    as he's going about his normal business by the police that keep forgetting he's not the criminal because that's how the UK police system works.
    Wrong! (or "fallacious")
    The police know that Mr Adunbi is not Mr X, but if Adunbi refuses to identify himself as Adunbi, any questioning officer cannot know he is Adunbi. And because he is being obstructive and evasive, the police might reasonably assume they have Mr X.

    It's brilliant.
    Just what I was thinking.

    Wow he's so idiotic for actually being pissed! Can't believe that guy smh. Everyone gets mistaken for the same criminal more than once. Don't get why he's being such a snowflake about it.
    He can be as annoyed as he likes, but that doesn't explain why he refused to clear up the confusion and subsequently resist arrest.
    Can you explain it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am afraid you are looking at it the wrong way.
    I'm not looking at it any way. I'm just trying to put myself in the coppers' shoes.

    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.
    I'm a bit confused. There were two bloked involved? What "other man"? The police seemed to think Adunbi was someone else and wanted to get his identity to check. Isn't that reasonable policing?

    I'm no legal expert but I would suppose the grounds for arrest were from PACE 24a:

    Arrest without warrant: other persons...Where an indictable offence has been committed, a person other than a constable may arrest without a warrant—...he reasons are to prevent the person in question—...making off before a constable can assume responsibility for him.

    They were wrong of course to misidentify him, but once they had done that, surely establishing his ID was reasonable, and when he refused an arrest was reasonable.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You should cooperate with police even if it's a wrongful arrest (e.g. you're the wrong guy). Just sort it out later. Struggling and being uncooperative will escalate the situation and give the officers a reason to use force. The officers told him to be calm and he didn't comply. He begins physically resisting and gets tasered.

    But he happens to be a black race-relations leader, so the police are instantly the bad guys (and racist) due to the current political climate.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    I'm not looking at it any way. I'm just trying to put myself in the coppers' shoes.



    I'm a bit confused. There were two bloked involved? What "other man"? The police seemed to think Adunbi was someone else and wanted to get his identity to check. Isn't that reasonable policing?
    The other man or Mr X ie the man the police officers thought Mr Adunbi was
    I'm no legal expert but I would suppose the grounds for arrest were from PACE 24a:
    Section 24A is the citizens' arrest power. Look at section 24 which is the police arrest power.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    What the police should/shouldn't have done:
    ...
    I don't disagree. But once those mistakes were made, what should they have done given that they didn't know about the previous incident and misidentified him on the street?

    If you watch the full video which I will link below, you will see that he was not arrested till they had tasered him.
    Isn't there a cut in the video (around 1:18). Most of the news reports I've read said they tried to arrest him before tasering. Could that have occurred during the cut?

    Even if they didn't, would you say the correct course would have been to arrest him or to let him wander off?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:

    Section 24A is the citizens' arrest power. Look at section 24 which is the police arrest power.
    Pretty much the same:

    (2)If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

    (3)If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—

    (a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;

    (b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it...

    The reasons are—

    (a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    You should cooperate with police even if it's a wrongful arrest (e.g. you're the wrong guy). Just sort it out later. Struggling and being uncooperative will escalate the situation
    Undoubtedly

    and give the officers a reason to use force.
    Not necessarily. The police have to get it right based on the situation that exists. If they don't the force is unlawful
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by QE2)
    We'll see.

    Bearing in mind that the majority of S&APD are not on familiar personal terms with either Adunbi or Mr X, it is reasonable to assume that they are merely going from a couple of photos, possibly only seen one, and not recently, or more likely a verbal description.
    In which case, the two will continue to be confused indefinitely, whilst both are at large. The only way for the average police officer to tell them apart may well be to see some ID.

    This has happened twice in 9 years, hardly a "daily" occurence! (Remember what we said about "fallacious reasoning"?)

    Wrong! (or "fallacious"
    The police know that Mr Adunbi is not Mr X, but if Adunbi refuses to identify himself as Adunbi, any questioning officer cannot know he is Adunbi. And because he is being obstructive and evasive, the police might reasonably assume they have Mr X.

    Just what I was thinking.

    He can be as annoyed as he likes, but that doesn't explain why he refused to clear up the confusion and subsequently resist arrest.
    Can you explain it?
    1. I was being facetious. Can't you tell? Or are you that intent on trouncing me in debate that even obvious sarcasm is classed under fallacious reasoning :rofl:
    2. Yes it does. When you are annoyed/angry you probably won't want to answer any questions.
    How do you know he wouldn't have cleared it up and explained if the policewoman had warned him she would fire the taser?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    Pretty much the same:

    (2)If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it.

    (3)If an offence has been committed, a constable may arrest without a warrant—

    (a)anyone who is guilty of the offence;

    (b)anyone whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be guilty of it...

    The reasons are—

    (a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
    Read it carefully again and then read my reply to Zippy RN

    (incidentally the basic difference between the citizens' arrest power and the police arrest power is that the citizen who reasonably believes a crime has been commit when in fact it hasn't been has committed an unlawful arrest. The policeman hasn't)
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    I don't disagree. But once those mistakes were made, what should they have done given that they didn't know about the previous incident and misidentified him on the street?
    Well according to Mr Adunbi in the article he said he would have answered them had they not come to him in an accusatory/antagonising manner.
    So possibly that?

    Isn't there a cut in the video (around 1:18). Most of the news reports I've read said they tried to arrest him before tasering. Could that have occurred during the cut?

    Even if they didn't, would you say the correct course would have been to arrest him or to let him wander off?
    Well that's something we'll have to see if the body cameras are released. I'm not aware of any cut when I watched the full video though.

    I think the correct course would have been to warn him of taser use. That possibly could have made him finally agree to confirm his identity. Possibly.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would say they have problem telling Black people apart..

    Then why don't more Asians (east) get shot?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The section 24 (5) (a) power is unusable in this situation. If the policeman believes he has identified the man as Mr X then he does not need to arrest him to ascertain his identity. If the policeman does not believe he is Mr X then he does not have reasonable grounds for suspecting that the man in front of him has committed the offence.

    Section 24 does not give a power to request that someone prove their identity. The power of a policeman to ask a question is a common law power but generally there is no obligation to answer it.
    so in your (alleged) Learned Opinion you are advocating that peopl resist arrest ?

    I find it hard to beleive that you are a Lawyer as you assert.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    so in your (alleged) Learned Opinion you are advocating that peopl resist arrest ?
    No. If you come to me and ask my advice whether it is a good idea to have a row with a policeman the advice I will give you will be very different from if you come to me and say you have had a row with a policeman and want to take action for an unlawful arrest.

    In the same way, if you want to buy a house with a defective title I will advise you not to do it. However if you come to me having bought a house with a defective title my advice won't be "you shouldn't have done that". I will advise on your options given the predicament you are in.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

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

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