Turn on thread page Beta

Police Taser race relations group founder in the face. watch

Announcements
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    They didn't arrest him till after they shot him.

    All changes were also dropped.
    They didn't shoot him, they tazered him. Do you see the difference?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    I don't need to. I have been in enough 'fights' with the police, to know that they can seem like bullies sometimes. But i also know that they are doing a job, which needs to be done.

    So he gets no sympathy from me i'm afraid.
    They attacked him before even suggested that they were arresting him. They acted unlawfully.

    How is arresting an innocent man "work that needs to be done"?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    the man was resisting arrest and attacking the police. I don't endorse state violence. but this man was being violent. yes, it was wrong that they made a mistake regarding his identity, but that's what our ****ing justice system is for - to check the powers of the police. you don't get justice by ATTACKING the cops unless your life's in danger. take it to the courts.



    oh my god
    his race is so ****ing irrelevant
    he was a man attacking the police
    not "a black man" or "a rich man".



    I stand more for common sense. which this man was not familiar with
    attacking policemen is not too smart even if you're innocent.
    I support libertarian/minimal statism, but if the police are accusing you of a crime that even you didn't commit, you must surrender for the police have the right to enforce their ends. their mistake of identity is meaningless. what if this was the RIGHT man? and why didn't he give them even his name?
    I mean, what kind of standard are you suggesting here? that we can all just attack the police if they make mistakes?



    get over yourself, butter cup.



    Spoiler:
    Show



    silly libertarians


    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    They attacked him before even suggested that they were arresting him. They acted unlawfully.

    How is arresting an innocent man "work that needs to be done"?
    The point is that the police serve a function, of law enforcement. Sure they sometimes make mistakes, but by all accounts this man was acting aggressively and refusing to cooperate, and not even answer his name.

    For all they knew, this man might have been the wanted criminal, and been about to detonate a bomb. Now i respect that this is unlikely, but the point is that they should be respected and listened to at all times. And if you refuse to obey a police officer, because you think you are mr big, or somehow above the law, well i'm sorry you're mistaken.

    If the same thing had happened in the usa, he would have be shot, and if it had happened in saudi arabia, or any of the other so called islamic countries, he would probably have been scalped.

    But the pc brigade on tsr, are righting the wrongs of the world, by complaining. Is there something i'm missing?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TorpidPhil)
    Wouldn't want to be seen as the sexiest police force!
    Why not? :sly:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Pretty sure this falls into the harassment category and undue force.
    No it doesn't , it's a S.24 PACE arrest

    and No it doesn't given the crime the what turns out to be another person is suspected of


    I refer you to the works of Messers Dunning and Kruger with regard to your unconscious incompetence and illusory superiority with regard to the subject matter.

    also as is typical with such things the armchair , retrospective experts are making statements that the officers on the ground did not have access to at the time
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    They didn't arrest him till after they shot him.

    All changes were also dropped.
    An arrest is effected from the first moment the officer decides arrest is necessary, the statement of arrest and 'reading them their rights' does not have to be instant or prior to the act of the arrest.

    I would also suggest you need to understand what Reasonable Suspicion is , and what it means in terms of the act of Arrest in the Uk ( a neutral act to facilitate investigation and to protect individuals and the wider public interest) .
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    The point is that the police serve a function, of law enforcement. Sure they sometimes make mistakes, but by all accounts this man was acting aggressively and refusing to cooperate, and not even answer his name.

    For all they knew, this man might have been the wanted criminal, and been about to detonate a bomb. Now i respect that this is unlikely, but the point is that they should be respected and listened to at all times. And if you refuse to obey a police officer, because you think you are mr big, or somehow above the law, well i'm sorry you're mistaken.

    If the same thing had happened in the usa, he would have be shot, and if it had happened in saudi arabia, or any of the other so called islamic countries, he would probably have been scalped.

    But the pc brigade on tsr, are righting the wrongs of the world, by complaining. Is there something i'm missing?
    He has the legal right not to tell them his name, he exercised this right, not a crime.
    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.

    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    He has the legal right not to tell them his name, he exercised this right, not a crime.
    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.

    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.
    You really try to learn to respect a uniformed police officer when they are speaking to you....
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippyRN)
    An arrest is effected from the first moment the officer decides arrest is necessary, the statement of arrest and 'reading them their rights' does not have to be instant or prior to the act of the arrest.

    I would also suggest you need to understand what Reasonable Suspicion is , and what it means in terms of the act of Arrest in the Uk ( a neutral act to facilitate investigation and to protect individuals and the wider public interest) .
    So how was the victim supposed to know that he was not allowed to leave as is his rights?

    Also you never came back to me on the Taser question.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)



    Spoiler:
    Show




    silly libertarians



    "retarded liberals not listening to a word I say."
    you people just think "oh? the person was black? well you can't criticise their actions! that's always going to be racist no matter if they were in the wrong or not!"
    tell me: if a white person resists arrest, is it normal that they're going to get pwn'd by the police as a result? when is that ever not the case?
    so if a black person is subject to that same framework, why is that "racist" when no discrimination on the grounds of race is occurring?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    They didn't arrest him till after they shot him.

    All changes were also dropped.
    they were trying to apprehend him clearly - look at 0:15sec
    he is SHUTTING POLICEMEN OUT OF HIS HOME
    the law doesn't ****ing stop at your house, so that's illegal
    and then he starts shoving them, and, hence, he gets downed by the taser because they clearly don't want to sustain injuries just because he's being disorderly and violent.
    again, even if the police were mistaken, you cannot suggest that you have a right to hit and punch the police simply for being mistaken - also, if the police had good reasons to be mistaken in the first place (i.e. if he refuses to give his name to prove it's not even the criminal!*) then this applies even further
    if you allow the police to arrest you and then find out that they have no evidence against you via identification error, then they will not only let you go but they will probably compensate you if they've cause you any harm or economic detriment

    and of course charges were dropped - it was the wrong person
    you thought I was saying it was the right person? quote me - where on earth did I claim that?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    they were trying to apprehend him clearly - look at 0:15sec
    he is SHUTTING POLICEMEN OUT OF HIS HOME
    the law doesn't ****ing stop at your house, so that's illegal
    and then he starts shoving them, and, hence, he gets downed by the taser because they clearly don't want to sustain injuries just because he's being disorderly and violent.
    again, even if the police were mistaken, you cannot suggest that you have a right to hit and punch the police simply for being mistaken - also, if the police had good reasons to be mistaken in the first place (i.e. if he refuses to give his name to prove it's not even the criminal!*) then this applies even further
    if you allow the police to arrest you and then find out that they have no evidence against you via identification error, then they will not only let you go but they will probably compensate you if they've cause you any harm or economic detriment

    and of course charges were dropped - it was the wrong person
    you thought I was saying it was the right person? quote me - where on earth did I claim that?
    The charges against him such as resisting arrest and assaulting an officer were dropped, didn't you read the article?

    Also you are well within your right to refuse entry to the police to your property.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by john2054)
    You really try to learn to respect a uniformed police officer when they are speaking to you....
    I will respect them when they earn respect. Just because someone holds a badge does not grant them automatic respect.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Resist arrest = completely deserved it
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1010marina)
    Resist arrest = completely deserved it
    Charges dropped, innocent man.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    The charges against him such as resisting arrest and assaulting an officer were dropped, didn't you read the article?

    Also you are well within your right to refuse entry to the police to your property.
    not if they think you're breaking the law or have broken the law, or else how on earth are they ever going to catch potential criminals? I'm not *encouraging* policemen going into people's homes - it's the precedent I'm talking about - you cannot just say the police can't enter your home given the fact that they think you're breaking the law. all these things can be held to account by a court of law - and that's EXACTLY what happened here, wasn't it? so why did he resist arrest (because he obviously did, they probably just dropped the charges) - it would be a matter of obvious equity to not charge you for resisting WRONGFUL arrest.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Charges dropped, innocent man.
    because of the context of wrongful arrest, yes. because it wouldn't make sense to be charged for resisting arrest for a crime no committed, like I said. I never said he deserved charged, I DID say that he deserved to be downed though if he wasn't complying with police officers who are merely doing their job, not trying to jail him unfairly. it's up to court, not a spectator to determine guilt and innocence, and rightfully, he WAS found innocent.
    but that's not to JUSTIFY him resisting arrest in this kind of way
    if you resist arrest in THAT kind of stupid way, you are absolutely begging for it. if you do that, it's only going to make the police suspicious, clearly.
    let's compare this to crimes I think shouldn't be crimes - possession. if the police THINK you possess drugs and they tell you "open your pockets" - even if I think it is wrong, I will have to let them and then challenge them later, i.e. by filming the incident.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    not if they think you're breaking the law or have broken the law, or else how on earth are they ever going to catch potential criminals? I'm not *encouraging* policemen going into people's homes - it's the precedent I'm talking about - you cannot just say the police can't enter your home given the fact that they think you're breaking the law. all these things can be held to account by a court of law - and that's EXACTLY what happened here, wasn't it? so why did he resist arrest (because he obviously did, they probably just dropped the charges) - it would be a matter of obvious equity to not charge you for resisting WRONGFUL arrest.
    Probably because they had done this to him before and he was fed up of being wrongfully arrested for another case of mistaken identity for the same guy as before.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Willy Pete)
    Probably because they had done this to him before and he was fed up of being wrongfully arrested for another case of mistaken identity for the same guy as before.
    why would you suppose that?
    because of your possibly stereotypical view of "racist police"?
    and if they thought it was him before, why wouldn't they have arrested him *then*? or attempted to do so? if they did this before, they'd have had materials to suggest that he was either the man they thought or not, so it's far more reasonable to suppose that this wasn't the second time

    also, can we talk about the fact that police can and are allowed to be reasonably mistaken? like I said earlier?
    if you looked identical to a known criminal and the police thought "this man looks like the suspect - we ought to arrest him to make sure it is or isn't" - is that REALLY so unreasonable? again, this is why you can't just become your own legal vigilante - you can't just side step the legal process - you must comply because everybody else must.
    so if you give the police more and more reasons to suspect that you ARE this criminal that you are not (i.e. refusing to give your identity that will help them prove your innocence in that case), it is unreasonable to resist arrest, right?!
 
 
 
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.