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

Police Taser race relations group founder in the face. Watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    You forgot this bit "he looks like the black guy we are looking for".
    Because all black guys look alike...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Because all black guys look alike...
    That's kind of racist for you to say.

    How is it saying they all look alike? If the police were looking for someone else and arrested me could I claim it's racist?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    They had a neighbor repeatedly tell them they have the wrong guy and he is just going to his house -
    So the police are supposed to take the word of some random in the street, rather than verifying things for themselves? He could have been an accomplice.
    Brilliant! :rofl:

    And how would the neighbour know who the police were looking for? Adunbi could have been using an alias.

    they could have called in and asked who lives at that address.
    But he might have been going to pop round the back and leg it, or break in. Just because someone goes into a garden, it does not mean that they live in that house.

    No instead they chose to harass an innocent citizen.
    Nope. They legitimately questioned a man who they had no way of knowing was innocent - because he refused to identify himself, became abusive and aggressive, and forcibly attempted to avoid further interaction. Not usually the actions of an innocent man.

    You still haven't attemped an explanation as to why he behaved in that manner.

    Defend that if you want, but my view of you has dropped significantly.
    That has made me sad,
    But seriously, why would I be worried about the opinion of someone who is clearly incapable of constructing a logical and cogent argument based on observation and evidence?

    Apart from possibly the use of the taser, the police acted reasonably and properly. Adunbi acted unreasonably and improperly.
    Just because someone is black doesn't mean that they are automatically the victim.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So the police are supposed to take the word of some random in the street, rather than verifying things for themselves? He could have been an accomplice.
    "Why "far fetched"? Deliberately engineered compensation claims are not uncommon, in many fields."

    Deliberately engineered compensation claims is less far-fetched than "could have been an accomplice"? What a joke.

    Wow, seriously disappointed in you, I used to like your posts and think you are intellectually capable. Turns out you succumb to your prejudices like so many others.

    You talk about logic and say "black doesn't equal victim" and yet assume "police equals in the right". Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Your entire argument is based on your assumption/opinion that the police acted reasonable and nowhere do you prove that or acknowledge that other people will have different opinions on what is reasonable. And talk about logic. You make me laugh. Goodbye QE2.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    That's kind of racist for you to say.

    How is it saying they all look alike? If the police were looking for someone else and arrested me could I claim it's racist?
    I never said it's racist. I summarized your argument. I said it's not reasonable to harass someone just because you think he is someone else.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Deliberately engineered compensation claims is less far-fetched than "could have been an accomplice"? What a joke.
    I have suggested that such a claim could explain his behaviour (I didn't claim that it was the reason).
    You have failed to provide any explanation for his behaviour beyond simply rejecting the claim hypothesis.

    And are you claiming that criminals never have accomplices who lie to the police? Really? Where do you live?

    Wow, seriously disappointed in you, I used to like your posts and think you are intellectually capable. Turns out you succumb to your prejudices like so many others.
    In what way does my argument display "prejudice"? It is entirely supported by evidence and reasonable logic.
    Ironically, it is you who has "succumbed to prejudice" by assuming that in an altercation between a black man and the police, the police must be wrong and the black man the victim, despite the obvious evidence.

    You talk about logic and say "black doesn't equal victim" and yet assume "police equals in the right". Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.
    Now, this is what I was saying earlier about you not being able to construct a cogent argument.
    Nowhere have I make a generalisation that "police=right". I have clearly said that the evidence in this case shows the police to be acting properly and reasonable, while Adunbi acted unreasonably and improperly.
    If they had run up to him shouting "On the floor n*****" and had proceeded to repeatedly punch him in the face without asking any questions, they would have been wrong and liable to disciplinary action and probably prosecution.
    I am no supporter of the police per se. I am a supporter of the rule of law. As long as the police stay within that, I will support them. Likewise, if a private individual steps outside it, they will lose my support.

    Your entire argument is based on your assumption/opinion that the police acted reasonable and nowhere do you prove that
    It is proved by watching the video. They are asking him do identify himself because they suspect he is a wanted criminal. He refuses to do so, and becomes offensive, aggressive and uncooperateive. The male offices specifically states that unless he continues to refuse to identify himself, he will have no choice but to arest him, This is some 2 minutes before the taser is fired and a minute before Adunbi starts wrestling with the police in an attempt to leave the scene.
    Now, what part of that is the police acting unreasonably and Adunbi acting reasonably?
    All you have done is cry "prejudice" and "police are bad", without providing any further argument.

    or acknowledge that other people will have different opinions on what is reasonable.
    What? Of course I acknowledge other people's opinions, but that doesn't mean I must agree with them, especially if that opinion is both illogical and unsupported by evidence. Adunbi obviously thought it was reasonable to deliberately and aggressively obstruct the police in carrying out their legal duties, as do you. I do not think that is reasonable behaviour.
    By your argument, we should be "acknowledging" creationism as well as evolution! :rofl:

    And talk about logic. You make me laugh. Goodbye QE2.
    As I said, your inability to form a cogent argument is obvious.
    Dunning Kruger in full effect.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    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.
    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.[/QUOTE]

    and once again the unconscious incompetence of yudothis comes to the fore ...

    do you actually have any practical experience in the front lines of the emergency services ?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    and once again the unconscious incompetence of yudothis comes to the fore ...

    do you actually have any practical experience in the front lines of the emergency services ?
    Ah the hypocrite is back. Can't say I missed him.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Ah the hypocrite is back. Can't say I missed him.
    where do you get your dictionaries from ? because i#d take them back if i were you...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    where do you get your dictionaries from ? because i#d take them back if i were you...
    That is the worst insult I have ever heard...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I have suggested that such a claim could explain his behaviour (I didn't claim that it was the reason).
    You have failed to provide any explanation for his behaviour beyond simply rejecting the claim hypothesis.

    And are you claiming that criminals never have accomplices who lie to the police? Really? Where do you live?

    In what way does my argument display "prejudice"? It is entirely supported by evidence and reasonable logic.
    Ironically, it is you who has "succumbed to prejudice" by assuming that in an altercation between a black man and the police, the police must be wrong and the black man the victim, despite the obvious evidence.

    Now, this is what I was saying earlier about you not being able to construct a cogent argument.
    Nowhere have I make a generalisation that "police=right". I have clearly said that the evidence in this case shows the police to be acting properly and reasonable, while Adunbi acted unreasonably and improperly.
    If they had run up to him shouting "On the floor n*****" and had proceeded to repeatedly punch him in the face without asking any questions, they would have been wrong and liable to disciplinary action and probably prosecution.
    I am no supporter of the police per se. I am a supporter of the rule of law. As long as the police stay within that, I will support them. Likewise, if a private individual steps outside it, they will lose my support.

    It is proved by watching the video. They are asking him do identify himself because they suspect he is a wanted criminal. He refuses to do so, and becomes offensive, aggressive and uncooperateive. The male offices specifically states that unless he continues to refuse to identify himself, he will have no choice but to arest him, This is some 2 minutes before the taser is fired and a minute before Adunbi starts wrestling with the police in an attempt to leave the scene.
    Now, what part of that is the police acting unreasonably and Adunbi acting reasonably?
    All you have done is cry "prejudice" and "police are bad", without providing any further argument.

    What? Of course I acknowledge other people's opinions, but that doesn't mean I must agree with them, especially if that opinion is both illogical and unsupported by evidence. Adunbi obviously thought it was reasonable to deliberately and aggressively obstruct the police in carrying out their legal duties, as do you. I do not think that is reasonable behaviour.
    By your argument, we should be "acknowledging" creationism as well as evolution! :rofl:

    As I said, your inability to form a cogent argument is obvious.
    Dunning Kruger in full effect.
    Exactly. All the guy needed to do was cooperate and show some ID. Instead he escalated the situation by refusing to do so, struggling and trying to flee.

    I don't know why people have such a hard time understanding that even if you're innocent, you still have to cooperate with police and follow their instructions. When things get physical you also run the risk of getting tased.

    He really only has himself to blame here.

    And call it baseless speculation, but considering his background I feel like the guy knew all this and just wanted to look like a victim on camera...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    I never said it's racist. I summarized your argument. I said it's not reasonable to harass someone just because you think he is someone else.
    Another one of your 'summaries'.

    Yes it is if you have a right to deal with the person who you think they are, mandated by law and by state deference of authority, and that individual refuses for no reason other than to be obstinate to present any ID. Also it's not harassment by law or in fact, they said 'you look like a suspect we are searching for, can you ID yourself'. He escalated the situation. They clearly had some idea who they were looking for and so asked him to identify. At that point as far as they're concerned that is the suspect because he hasn't validated differently (a situation he could have easily resolved). Of course they have a right to detain or hold suspects, that's literally their job.

    I wonder how many people understand the workings of such institutions before jumping to conclusions? I did some time in the reserves and we were taught targeted detainment (arresting VIP targets) which included instructions on not tying zipcuffs too tight, making sure they had water and were comfortable etc etc. People like the police do a hard job with no thanks and get second guessed constantly by people that haven't the first clue what they go through or how to do their jobs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    Another one of your 'summaries'.

    Yes it is if you have a right to deal with the person who you think they are, mandated by law and by state deference of authority, and that individual refuses for no reason other than to be obstinate to present any ID. Also it's not harassment by law or in fact, they said 'you look like a suspect we are searching for, can you ID yourself'. He escalated the situation. They clearly had some idea who they were looking for and so asked him to identify. At that point as far as they're concerned that is the suspect because he hasn't validated differently (a situation he could have easily resolved). Of course they have a right to detain or hold suspects, that's literally their job.

    I wonder how many people understand the workings of such institutions before jumping to conclusions? I did some time in the reserves and we were taught targeted detainment (arresting VIP targets) which included instructions on not tying zipcuffs too tight, making sure they had water and were comfortable etc etc. People like the police do a hard job with no thanks and get second guessed constantly by people that haven't the first clue what they go through or how to do their jobs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfi3Ndh3n-g
    "The police can stop anyone in a public place and ask you to account for yourself. For example, you could be asked to account for your actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything. When the police stop you and ask you for an explanation, you don't need to provide your personal details. The police do not have to make a record or give you a receipt. But you may be asked to give your ethnicity."

    Gonville strikes again. Hop along now.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    you don't need to provide your personal details.

    Gonville strikes again. Hop along now.
    Unless they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
    Someone matching the description of a wanted criminal is "reasonable suspicion" - as the male officer politely explained to him. Watch the video. He sounded almost apologetic when he said "Then you leave me no option but to arrest you".

    What part of that aren't you understanding?

    Yudo strikes again! But I would never be so rude as to tell you to "hop along now".
    But feel free to come back with a reasonable explanation for why Adunbi repeatedly and aggressively refused to comply with the officers reasonable - and legal - request. Something that you have noticeably refused to do!

    Have you been taking notes from his technique? My favourite bit was:
    Officer: How do I know that you are not Royston MacKeller?
    Adunbi: (shouty) Because you don't know who the **** you are talking to!

    Well, duh!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    "The police can stop anyone in a public place and ask you to account for yourself. For example, you could be asked to account for your actions, behaviour, presence in an area or possession of anything. When the police stop you and ask you for an explanation, you don't need to provide your personal details. The police do not have to make a record or give you a receipt. But you may be asked to give your ethnicity."

    Gonville strikes again. Hop along now.
    He was under no obligation except he was suspected of a crime so if he waived the not obligation (choice) he is liable for arrest as a suspect as per every suspect ever. How do the police work in your mind

    Cop; 'you look like our suspect'
    Man; Well I'm not
    Cop; Oh well we can't ask you for ID so I'm just going to believe you and let you go

    Also they can just outright arrest him https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...op-and-account

    See the section 'Your rights on arrest' subsection 'when the police can arrest you'

    He was a suspect. They could have outright detained him. They tried to avoid that by demanding his ID, he refused. They moved in to detain, he resisted and got tazed.

    So 'I strike again' despite the fact last time you had no demonstrable argument and gave up because you couldn't even accurately represent yourself by the end
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Unless they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
    Someone matching the description of a wanted criminal is "reasonable suspicion" - as the male officer politely explained to him. Watch the video. He sounded almost apologetic when he said "Then you leave me no option but to arrest you".

    What part of that aren't you understanding?

    Yudo strikes again! But I would never be so rude as to tell you to "hop along now".
    But feel free to come back with a reasonable explanation for why Adunbi repeatedly and aggressively refused to comply with the officers reasonable - and legal - request. Something that you have noticeably refused to do!

    Have you been taking notes from his technique? My favourite bit was:
    Officer: How do I know that you are not Royston MacKeller?
    Adunbi: (shouty) Because you don't know who the **** you are talking to!

    Well, duh!
    In fairness I was a bit condescending to him in my initial reply, a previous thread has made me not his biggest fan as he constantly misrepresented me and changed the argument without once engaging in good faith so his 'hop along' diatribe is both amusing and somewhat warranted.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    He was under no obligation except he was suspected of a crime so if he waived the not obligation (choice) he is liable for arrest as a suspect as per every suspect ever. How do the police work in your mind

    Cop; 'you look like our suspect'
    Man; Well I'm not
    Cop; Oh well we can't ask you for ID so I'm just going to believe you and let you go

    Also they can just outright arrest him https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/la...op-and-account

    See the section 'Your rights on arrest' subsection 'when the police can arrest you'

    He was a suspect. They could have outright detained him. They tried to avoid that by demanding his ID, he refused. They moved in to detain, he resisted and got tazed.

    So 'I strike again' despite the fact last time you had no demonstrable argument and gave up because you couldn't even accurately represent yourself by the end
    Back to the reasonable grounds...what a circle jerk.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Back to the reasonable grounds...what a circle jerk.
    Yes.
    Because you keep claiming that looking like a wanted criminal is not reasonable grounds for asking for ID. And it is. Legally.

    The problem you seem to be labouring under is that "yudothis's opinion" and "UK police powers granted by statute" are not always the same thing. And where there is a discrepancy, "The Law" trumps "yudothis's opinion". Every time. Big time.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Back to the reasonable grounds...what a circle jerk.
    So you don't actually have an answer then?

    If you think it was wrong, demonstrate how. You moved on from the 'reasonable grounds' argument to quote the advice bureau at me without reading all of it and so I showed (a) how your theory of policing is ridiculous and encourages crime, and (b) according to the video the police acted within their remit as professionally as they could in reaction to a belligerent self important suspect including taking steps to avoid a mis-identification arrest which he declined to cooperate with.

    Just saying 'oh its a circle jerk' is not only nowhere near an answer, it's also just admitting you've constantly moved the conversation on without having a clue what you're talking about else it wouldn't keep coming back to the same point which you haven't engaged with. According to every metric they had reasonable grounds, both in law and in fact, which is why it keeps coming back to this because of your fundamental failure in logic to demonstrate your point of view to be either realistic or to have any merit whatsoever.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GonvilleBromhead)
    So you don't actually have an answer then?

    If you think it was wrong, demonstrate how. You moved on from the 'reasonable grounds' argument to quote the advice bureau at me without reading all of it and so I showed (a) how your theory of policing is ridiculous and encourages crime, and (b) according to the video the police acted within their remit as professionally as they could in reaction to a belligerent self important suspect including taking steps to avoid a mis-identification arrest which he declined to cooperate with.

    Just saying 'oh its a circle jerk' is not only nowhere near an answer, it's also just admitting you've constantly moved the conversation on without having a clue what you're talking about else it wouldn't keep coming back to the same point which you haven't engaged with. According to every metric they had reasonable grounds, both in law and in fact, which is why it keeps coming back to this because of your fundamental failure in logic to demonstrate your point of view to be either realistic or to have any merit whatsoever.
    My argument is "you look like that other guy" is not reasonable grounds. How you still have not gotten that...
 
 
 
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.