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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    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
    Do you though, like really? Because nothing you have written suggests you do. You come across as very Trump like. Accuse others of the very things you do or the very shortcoming you have yourself.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chazwomaq)
    OK. So if they had done that you would concede my point?
    The short answer is "yes". If there is a wrong way to do something, and someone goes about it in the wrong way, that doesn't mean there was no right way to do it.

    However, I suspect the problem is still going to be that they didn't have grounds to arrest the other guy and that defect is incurable.
    Offline

    21
    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 ...
    I would like to know detail of the offence the police reasonably suspected the other man had committed. I remain sceptical that it ever existed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Do you though, like really? Because nothing you have written suggests you do. You come across as very Trump like. Accuse others of the very things you do or the very shortcoming you have yourself.
    Your utter lack of Insight and projection onto others of your own ignorance is remarkable ...

    I also note your continued unwillingness to expand on your (lack of) Service ...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The problem ...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.
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The short answer is "yes".
    Fair enough mate. But in the video I can hear the bloke copper say "we believe you are [garbled]" i.e. the guy they're looking for.

    Also, the video starts after the encounter begins, so how do any of us know what was or wasn't said then? As I said before, we need to see the body cams to know.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    Your utter lack of Insight and projection onto others of your own ignorance is remarkable ...

    I also note your continued unwillingness to expand on your (lack of) Service ...
    The only remarkable thing is the level of your hypocrisy. Maybe if you would be more focused on thinking and making an argument, you wouldn't have to result to ad hominem. But then again you have shown you are not capable of that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    The only remarkable thing is the level of your hypocrisy. Maybe if you would be more focused on thinking and making an argument, you wouldn't have to result to ad hominem. But then again you have shown you are not capable of that.

    quite simply I refer you to the works of Messers Dunning and Kruger with regard to your position on this topic. Until you realise that when it comes to this topic you are unconsciously incompetent as evidenced by your emissions, sensible discussion will not be possible.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    quite simply I refer you to the works of Messers Dunning and Kruger with regard to your position on this topic. Until you realise that when it comes to this topic you are unconsciously incompetent as evidenced by your emissions .
    I think you have been using that line of ad hominem far too often to realize when you fall for it yourself. It would do good if you took a step back and analyzed your position before continuing to embarrass yourself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I think you have been using that line of ad hominem far too often to realize when you fall for it yourself. It would do good if you took a step back and analyzed your position before continuing to embarrass yourself.
    I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is ...

    You are wrong because you do not understand the basic principles of the issue - this is not an ad hominem , this is quite simply 'playing the ball'.

    An ad hominem is you are wrong because you are short / tall./ fat / thin/ ginger/ blonde / white / black/ straight ./ gay/ ,... i.e. 'playing the man not the ball.'
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    I don't think you understand what an ad hominem is ...

    You are wrong because you do not understand the basic principles of the issue - this is not an ad hominem , this is quite simply 'playing the ball'.

    An ad hominem is you are wrong because you are short / tall./ fat / thin/ ginger/ blonde / white / black/ straight ./ gay/ ,... i.e. 'playing the man not the ball.'
    There is a lot that you think that is total bs, huh?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    There is a lot that you think that is total bs, huh?
    really

    as a Graduate, a Professional and an Officer i think i might just have an idea on things ...
    Offline

    17
    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.
    Why "far fetched"? Deliberately engineered compensation claims are not uncommon, in many fields.

    Why "prejudiced"? It is a hypothesis based on observation and experience (ie. deliberately engineered compensation claims are real. Adunbi's previous compensation claim for wrongful arrest through mistaken identity is real).

    It seems that you are making unsupported assertions rather than considered, logical arguments.

    But we will see. If he refuses to pursue a compensation claim, I will gladly concede that I was wrong. However, that still would not answer why he deliberately and unnecessarily escalated the incident, especially given his background of working with police/community relations groups. You would think that someone in that position would be at pains to assist the police and would try to avoid unnecessary friction.
    All he had to do was pull out a driving licence, etc, and say, nah, I'm not him. What possible reason could he have for repeatedly and aggressively refusing to do so, even to the point of struggling with the police in an attempt to get away?
    Answer that, if you think the compensation hypothesis is "far fetched".

    [quote[You replaced probable cause by reasonable suspicion.[/quote] Yes, because they are different things.

    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.
    Don't be daft. Easton is full of black people who they didn't approach. They questioned him because he fitted the description of the wanted man. The fact that he had previously been mistaken for the same person proves this.
    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.
    The reasonable suspicion was that he matches the description of who they were looking for correct, him being black is part of the description and quite important considering it eliminates 97% of the population.

    Should race be removed from descriptions of suspects?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Guy was a jumped up idiot.

    They clearly explained to him that they have a suspect whom he matches the description of yet he refused to identify himself. The police then clearly explain that if he doesn't identify himself then he has to be treated as the suspect because he matches the description and he still refuses to identify and then tries to move off.

    They attempt to stop him leaving and he pushes the officer and starts to fight with them so gets tazed. It's his own fault.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    The reasonable suspicion was that he matches the description of who they were looking for correct, him being black is part of the description and quite important considering it eliminates 97% of the population.

    Should race be removed from descriptions of suspects?
    "They said he was black, look there's a black guy"...

    Well done Joe, once again you show how amazing you are.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Why "far fetched"? Deliberately engineered compensation claims are not uncommon, in many fields.

    Why "prejudiced"? It is a hypothesis based on observation and experience (ie. deliberately engineered compensation claims are real. Adunbi's previous compensation claim for wrongful arrest through mistaken identity is real).

    It seems that you are making unsupported assertions rather than considered, logical arguments.

    But we will see. If he refuses to pursue a compensation claim, I will gladly concede that I was wrong. However, that still would not answer why he deliberately and unnecessarily escalated the incident, especially given his background of working with police/community relations groups. You would think that someone in that position would be at pains to assist the police and would try to avoid unnecessary friction.
    All he had to do was pull out a driving licence, etc, and say, nah, I'm not him. What possible reason could he have for repeatedly and aggressively refusing to do so, even to the point of struggling with the police in an attempt to get away?
    Answer that, if you think the compensation hypothesis is "far fetched".

    [quote[You replaced probable cause by reasonable suspicion.
    Yes, because they are different things.

    Don't be daft. Easton is full of black people who they didn't approach. They questioned him because he fitted the description of the wanted man. The fact that he had previously been mistaken for the same person proves this.[/QUOTE]

    They had a neighbor repeatedly tell them they have the wrong guy and he is just going to his house - they could have called in and asked who lives at that address. No instead they chose to harass an innocent citizen. Defend that if you want, but my view of you has dropped significantly.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    "They said he was black, look there's a black guy"...

    Well done Joe, once again you show how amazing you are.
    You forgot this bit "he looks like the black guy we are looking for".
 
 
 
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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

    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.