British police used a Taser on a black man they thought was a robber. He was their race-relations adviser

[bandito]

Well, have I ever

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

6 hours ago, LammyTS1 said:

 

Yes I agree. I can see racism in your post.

You feel that black people should be treated better than white people. Am I correct?



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Can you also see fairies at the bottom of your garden? If so, then perhaps you might want to consider recalibrating your meds.

 

Just two of the reasons why your concept of reverse racism does not exist:

 

Prejudice and racism are not the same thing.

White people are not oppressed

http://www.dailydot.com/via/reverse-racism-doesnt-exist/

 

When you feel the urge to express your white privilege in the future, you may wish to confront your own prejudice against minorities and non conformists first to avoid being shown as a fool, a bigot or someone who just doesn't have a clue.

 

Your projection onto my beliefs is a facile attempt at baiting. You may assume that the current victory of Brexiteering Trumpism allows for public recidivism among racists, bigots and other toads but you are mistaken. Minorities will no longer accept being defined by such people and in many cases laws exist to criminalize such things.

 

Successful baiting requires subtlety. You are way too obvious.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

6 hours ago, LammyTS1 said:

 

Suspected robbery.

Any law abiding citizen just like myself and hopefully everyone else on this forum would fully cooperate with the police when carrying out their duties to protect you?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

As has been pointed out by others, since the law in the UK requires that citizens not to be hindered by State officials, then true law abiding citizens would require some explanation as to why they are 'suspected' of anything. Particularly because 'suspected robbery' is not a crime. It is an assumption. An assumption that in this case appears to be based on prejudice.

 

Mr. Adunbi was and is under no obligation to say anything. The burden of proof lies with the accuser.

 

Burden of Proof (Onus Probandi)*

This fallacy originates from the Latin phrase "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat"). The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions) the claim. The fallacy of the Burden of Proof occurs when someone who is making a claim, puts the burden of proof on another party to disprove what they are claiming.

http://www.logicalfallacies.org

 

The UK version of the US Miranda statement is:

 

"You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court.

https://www.quora.com/What-are-Miranda-rights-in-other-countries

 

As for your bourgeoise 'law abiding citizen' crap, it is the same as the 'Nothing to Hide' premise and is a staple in facilitating the State's authoritarian tendency:

 

"Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, building on the work of Daniel Kahnemann and Amos Tversky, have recently introduced a new set of behaviorist ideas which have also had a profound impact on policymakers in the US and Britain – so-called ‘behavioral economics’, or, simplistically, ‘nudge theory’. Their argument could be crudely boiled down to the idea that you could influence public behaviour with a very subtle set of incentives based on people’s natural tendency to apathy or to following the crowd."

http://www.howtothinkaboutthefuture.com/?p=122

 

You may be too timid to challenge authority but thankfully many are not. They are the ones who will protect our freedoms. Your lot will just acquiesce to any State abrogating power to itself. Mr. Adunbi is clearly a symbol for the former. Those who attempted to deny his rights must be charged, prosecuted and convicted.

Edited January 24, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[GarryP]

21 hours ago, Pdaz said:

 

Nope. It's cos I was polite. Something that some people just can't understand. 

I've been stopped by cops in China, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, Congo Brazaville, Nigeria, Australia and Indonesia at various roadblocks or while walking down the street.. Never had a problem. But guess that was just cos of my big ole white privilege... 

 

You must look permanently guilty of something to be stopped that often. I've never been stopped in my life.

[i claudius]

The one thing i do not understand here is , if you are asked by the police to give your name , why not just do it and tell them its your house ? simple request ,simple answer , do not start ranting , 

[LammyTS1]

 
Can you also see fairies at the bottom of your garden? If so, then perhaps you might want to consider recalibrating your meds.
 
Just two of the reasons why your concept of reverse racism does not exist:
 
Prejudice and racism are not the same thing.
White people are not oppressed
http://www.dailydot.com/via/reverse-racism-doesnt-exist/
 
When you feel the urge to express your white privilege in the future, you may wish to confront your own prejudice against minorities and non conformists first to avoid being shown as a fool, a bigot or someone who just doesn't have a clue.
 
Your projection onto my beliefs is a facile attempt at baiting. You may assume that the current victory of Brexiteering Trumpism allows for public recidivism among racists, bigots and other toads but you are mistaken. Minorities will no longer accept being defined by such people and in many cases laws exist to criminalize such things.
 
Successful baiting requires subtlety. You are way too obvious.

Please do not fall into the looney liberal trap of name calling all that do not agree with you. You have asked me to recalibrate my meds? Confront my own prejudice? Shown to be a fool? A bigot? Doesn't have a clue? Oh yes and the word racists also mentioned. How can we forget that one.

Sorry but we are here debating why someone did not follow procedure just like any normal law abiding citizens. Somehow it has changed into a black/white debate, why?

Reverse racism does not exist?

If this person had been white, would it be in the news?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[LammyTS1]

 
You may be too timid to challenge authority but thankfully many are not. They are the ones who will protect our freedoms. Your lot will just acquiesce to any State abrogating power to itself. Mr. Adunbi is clearly a symbol for the former. Those who attempted to deny his rights must be charged, prosecuted and convicted.

There are ways and means to challenge authority and this was clearly not the time or place to do this.




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

43 minutes ago, LammyTS1 said:

 

Please do not fall into the looney liberal trap of name calling all that do not agree with you. You have asked me to recalibrate my meds? Confront my own prejudice? Shown to be a fool? A bigot? Doesn't have a clue? Oh yes and the word racists also mentioned. How can we forget that one.

Sorry but we are here debating why someone did not follow procedure just like any normal law abiding citizens. Somehow it has changed into a black/white debate, why?

Reverse racism does not exist?

If this person had been white, would it be in the news?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

We are discussing racism because Pdiaz in post 66 introduced it.

 

I have not called you any names. If you take the names with which I described your comment personally, then that is entirely your business. Since Mr. Abundi is not white, then your rather lame attempt to refute the non existence of revere racism turns out to be a damp squib. Let us not dwell on made up fantasies.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

42 minutes ago, LammyTS1 said:

 

There are ways and means to challenge authority and this was clearly not the time or place to do this.




Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Clearly you could not comprehend Nudge Theory. Perhaps in the future if you did not edit other posters' words to distort their meaning, you may have a better chance of fully comprehending their point.

 

Your timidity is your own affair.

[JetsetBkk]

"Why do the police in London use stop and search?

The use of stop and search powers allow the police to tackle crime (particularly violent crime) and keep our streets safe.

Stop and search is targeted and intelligence led, taking place predominantly in areas where violence is taking place and on people who are known or suspected to be involved in violent crime."

 

"It's up to you whether you provide your name and address. You don't have to, but the best advice is that you should co-operate with the police."

 

http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Frequently-Asked-Questions/1400009364853/1400009364853

 

 

[champers]

On 1/23/2017 at 6:52 AM, Briggsy said:

Typical BS. The guy was completely unco-operative with the police, hostile and aggressive. He was given many warnings and was up for an escalated confrontation. Cannot be compared to the USA where excessive force is not uncommon and the police often unaccountable.

He would likely have been shot dead in the US.

[LammyTS1]

 
Clearly you could not comprehend Nudge Theory. Perhaps in the future if you did not edit other posters' words to distort their meaning, you may have a better chance of fully comprehending their point.
 
Your timidity is your own affair.

One word....anarchist


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[gk10002000]

On ‎1‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 2:19 PM, Pdaz said:

Reports mention that he refused to give the cops his name when asked. Became abusive and then resisted arrest. So he got tazered. Big deal.  Police doing their job. Idiot with bad attitude got what he deserved. Had he answered their questions politely and informed them off his position as a relations officer I doubt he would have be tazered. 

And the video doesn't start at the very beginning so you don't really see how he first addressed or was addressed by the cops. As so called "relations officer" he doesn't seem to bet helping any relations and isn't showing a good example of how to work together.

[dick dasterdly]

Hopefully we will read very soon that the police officers involved have been sacked for man-handling and tasering a guy - because he wasn't prepared to 'suck up' to them.

 

Edit - The sooner the police accept the concept that they are there to serve the public - not bully/intimidate/taser them if they dare to ignore their demands - the better.

 

There is no doubt that in this case the police officers were in the wrong - hence the hasty withdrawal of charges.  Thanks to the neighbour who filmed the entire episode.

Edited January 25, 2017 by dick dasterdly

[7by7]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

The sooner the police accept the concept that they are there to serve the public - not bully/intimidate/taser them if they dare to ignore their demands - the better.

Indeed, here in the UK we have Policing by Consent.

Quote

The principles which were set out in the ‘General Instructions’ that were issued to every new police officer from 1829 were:

 

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

From the video, it seems principle number 6 was not being adhered to by the two officers as well as it might have been.

 

That video shot by his neighbour doesn't show the start of the incident, only from when it had already become heated.

 

From the Bristol Post

Quote

"After reviewing what happened, we voluntarily referred a complaint about this incident to the IPCC. Although we don't have to refer an incident in which a taser has been discharged to the IPCC, we want to be as open and transparent as possible," said Chief Supt Jon Reilly.

"I've met with Mr Adunbi and we had a constructive conversation. We're aware of concerns within the local community and we take these concerns very seriously. We would like to answer their questions but we need to be mindful that an investigation is ongoing which makes that difficult. However, I would like to reassure them that the incident was captured on the officers' Body Worn Video cameras."

 

Those cameras will show the whole incident from the beginning; I wonder if we'll ever get to see that.