Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Police Taser race relations group founder in the face. watch

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    would you say the correct course would have been to arrest him or to let him wander off?
    It comes down to this.

    If they had a valid reason for arresting the man they thought it was at the start of the encounter and they still believed the man in front of him was that man, then carry on with the arrest.

    If they didn't, then basically any arrest is a piece of authoritarianism. He is being arrested for disrespecting them. That should have been trained out of the police officers. It isn't going to end well for the police officers concerned regardless of the race issue.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    You're supposed to aim for the centre of mass, not the ****ing face. What if one of those barbs hit his eye?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    You're supposed to aim for the centre of mass, not the ****ing face. What if one of those barbs hit his eye?
    I think the key this is you have to aim, not hip hire.

    Name:  Capture.jpg
Views: 23
Size:  52.0 KB
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Haddock)
    You're supposed to aim for the centre of mass, not the ****ing face. What if one of those barbs hit his eye?
    To be fair she didn't aim for his face she didn't aim at all
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    It comes down to this.

    If they had a valid reason for arresting the man they thought it was at the start of the encounter and they still believed the man in front of him was that man, then carry on with the arrest.
    That sounds very reasonable. But that is also a reasonable interpretation of what happened isn't it? They thought he was the guy they were looking for, he didn't prove that he wasn't, merely asserted it, and so they arrested him and he resisted. The taser use seems over the top to me BTW.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    That sounds very reasonable. But that is also a reasonable interpretation of what happened isn't it? They thought he was the guy they were looking for, he didn't prove that he wasn't, merely asserted it, and so they arrested him and he resisted. The taser use seems over the top to me BTW.
    The problem with that analysis (and like the poor taser decision and the poor taser technique, it looks like a training failure) is that they asked him whether he was Mr X and then they asked who he was rather than asserting whom they believed him to be. With a co-operative member of the public who was falsely identified, they would have got to the right place.. With a non-co-operative person such as Mr Adunbi, they have probably ended up with an unlawful arrest because their questioning rebutted the very beliefs they needed to hold to make a valid arrest.*

    *But this all still assumes that they had reasonable grounds for believing they were entitled to arrest Mr X. It always comes back to this.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The problem with that analysis (and like the poor taser decision and the poor taser technique, it looks like a training failure) is that they asked him whether he was Mr X and then they asked who he was rather than asserting whom they believed him to be.
    The male officer clearly said that he suspected he was one Royston MacKellar (sp?). It was Adunbi's refusal to refute this, or confirm his true identity, that escaleted the situation.

    The police didn't simply demand his name (which they are not entitled to do).
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    What has Willy Pete taught us: that in his world it's easy to get away with crime, you simply don't tell the police who you are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    rather than asserting whom they believed him to be.
    OK. So if they had done that you would concede my point?

    *But this all still assumes that they had reasonable grounds for believing they were entitled to arrest Mr X. It always comes back to this.
    Indeed, but that is a separate issue.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    What has Willy Pete taught us: that in his world it's easy to get away with crime, you simply don't tell the police who you are.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Indeed. In his world, the police can only approach guilty people. They will have a database of all innocent people that every officer must memorise before going out on patrol.
    Problem sorted!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Man being aggressive and refusing to cooperate with police is tasered after being warned that he would be tasered if he didn't cooperate?

    Hmm. Must be racism. Get BLM out on the streets! We won't take this lying down! (Well, Mr Adunbi did, but you know what I mean)

    Edit: after more information being available, it is worth considering the following.
    Two police officers wearing body cams who know that any illegal or improper action on their part could lead to loss of job, pension etc.
    Man with previous experience of interaction with police leading to compensation sees opportunity for another payout.

    As Deep Throat said, "follow the money".
    Surprised to see you write such garbage. "Oh look at me quoting a movie, my assumptions must be right coz I sound cool and funny"...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Watch the video.
    Regardless of how "wrong" their attitude may or may not have been, if the police point a taser at you and say "stop resisting or I'll taser you", and you refuse to cooperate, you have no one to blame but yourself when they taser you.

    I've seen so many similar instances of nights out where a simple "move along" or "you can't drink that out here" turns into a fight and an arrest, just because some **** thinks the law doesn't apply to them.
    Does the law mean police can arrest someone without probable cause (and "oh he looked liked someone else is not probable cause).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Surprised to see you write such garbage. "Oh look at me quoting a movie, my assumptions must be right coz I sound cool and funny"...
    If you disagree with any of my points, perhaps you could explain why and present your own argument.
    This is a debate forum, after all.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Does the law mean police can arrest someone without probable cause (and "oh he looked liked someone else is not probable cause).
    "Probable cause" does not exist in UK law. You been watching too many US cop shows.

    The police have the power to demand that a person identifies themself if they have reasonable suspicion of an offence having been, or to be carried out. To refuse to provide the police with identification in this situation is grounds for arrest.
    The police suspected that Adunbi was a wanted criminal due to looking like him (reasonable suspicion). Adunbi refused to provide identification when asked, and forcibly tried to leave the scene against the officers wishes (grounds for arrest).

    He was in the wrong, the police were in the right.
    The use of the taser was unnecessary and possibly unjustified.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    If you disagree with any of my points, perhaps you could explain why and present your own argument.
    This is a debate forum, after all.
    You cannot infer my argument from the part in ""? Well ok then, it's that your assumption of him intentionally provoking the cops to get a harassment suit going is far-fetched and prejudiced.

    (Original post by QE2)
    "Probable cause" does not exist in UK law. You been watching too many US cop shows.

    The police have the power to demand that a person identifies themself if they have reasonable suspicion of an offence having been, or to be carried out.
    You replaced probable cause by reasonable suspicion.

    Point still stands, the "reasonable" suspicion was "he is black, he looks like the black guy we are looking for hurrdurr". They made him identify himself because they were looking for a black person.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You cannot infer my argument from the part in ""? Well ok then, it's that your assumption of him intentionally provoking the cops to get a harassment suit going is far-fetched and prejudiced.



    You replaced probable cause by reasonable suspicion.

    Point still stands, the "reasonable" suspicion was "he is black, he looks like the black guy we are looking for hurrdurr". They made him identify himself because they were looking for a black person.
    you appear to not understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause

    i would be interested to see images of both the chip on shoulder race relations guy and the person the police were actually after ...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    you appear to not understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause

    i would be interested to see images of both the chip on shoulder race relations guy and the person the police were actually after ...
    You appear to be unintelligent.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    You appear to be unintelligent.
    projection much ?


    how much Service do you have ? cat 1 Civil cotingencies, cat 2 civil contingenices / Military it doesn't matter, but if not your armchair expertise is neither wanted nor desired.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    projection much ?


    how much Service do you have ? cat 1 Civil cotingencies, cat 2 civil contingenices / Military it doesn't matter, but if not your armchair expertise is neither wanted nor desired.
    Funny, just what I thought about you not understanding the difference.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Funny, just what I thought about you not understanding the difference.
    I understand the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause

    you appear not to ,. therefore I refer you to the works of Messers Dunning and Kruger, and suggest you are peering through the wrong pane of the johari window
 
 
 
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
Are you going to a festival?
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.