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

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, Rhys said:

Confrontational vs compliance,  5 minutes of sucking it in and on your way... but he choose to stand his ground and face the reality of his decision.  Somehow he will felt  justified and all will move on.

 

Sad  just another day.

And that's the problem - why should ordinary people feel obliged to 'suck it in' when the police have no compunction about exerting their authority over said ordinary person?

 

The police are there to serve the people - not assume they can do whatever they like against anyone.

 

In this case they made a serious mistake as not only was the event filmed, but the victim was their race relations adviser .

[Pdaz]

4 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"He may have been an accomplice"???

 

They approached him - he didn't approach them.

 

"All you libertards waving your "legal rights" and protesting have no idea how to diffuse a situation."

 

If there's one thing obvious from this video, its that the police officers were wrong and saying "calm down" doesn't diffuse the situation....

 

The police officers 'screwed up' - but this time more obviously than usual as the guy they tasered was their race relations adviser .

I meant that the neighbor who approaced the police may have been an accomplice. That may have been why they ( the police ) ignored him.

 

The whole affair could have been avoided if the bloke in question had just said, " My name is "John" and I live here " in a reasonable voice. Instead he acted with outrage and obstruction. And then....got what he deserved.

[Pdaz]

Don't see it as "sucking it up" The Police are there to enforce the law. They treat anyone as suspicious until proven otherwise. Copper asks a question, answer it. Easy.

Become indignant and difficult , "what you doin ? You pickin on me mon, whatabout my rights mon" etc etc... and guess what ? The cops get annoyed and you are now causing a problem... QED out comes the tazer.... 

[onthesoi]

8 minutes ago, Pdaz said:

The whole affair could have been avoided if the bloke in question had just.....

The whole affair could have been avoided if the police had followed proper and lawful procedure and answered the victim's question as to why they had stopped him...while walking his dog outside his own home.

 

You can be sure the top brass in the police don't share your view ...and these two cops will be getting the hair dryer treatment if not facing disciplinary.

Edited January 23, 2017 by onthesoi

[dick dasterdly]

1 minute ago, Pdaz said:

I meant that the neighbor who approaced the police may have been an accomplice. That may have been why they ( the police ) ignored him.

 

The whole affair could have been avoided if the bloke in question had just said, " My name is "John" and I live here " in a reasonable voice. Instead he acted with outrage and obstruction. And then....got what he deserved.

Has there ever been a case where an accomplice stopped to film and argue with the police when their partner was stopped by the police?

 

Unfortunately for the police officers involved, the guy they stopped and harassed was a police race relations adviser - which was likely to result in him having no time for police officers abusing their powers.

 

Fortunately, there was a neighbour that filmed the entire encounter and (I think- watched the video footage this morning) other neighbours also told the police they were making a mistake.

 

For some reason the police officers ignored all of this - and were stupid enough to continue and then taser the guy!

[Pdaz]

Just now, onthesoi said:

The whole affair could have been avoided if the police had followed proper and lawful procedure and answered the victim's question as to why they had stopped him...while walking his dog outside his own home.

True.. but the guy started ranting the moment they approached and asked his name.

Black people ( and others ) keep talking anout equality.. But they want special treatment from the police.. What are they ( the police ) meant to do ? Make an appointment and submit questions in writing beforehand maybe ?

[Slip]

24 minutes ago, Pdaz said:

He may have been an accomplice. Maybe if he had approached them in a more civil manner they might have taken heed. However as he chose to be confrontational they ignored him.

All you libertards waving your "legal rights" and protesting have no idea how to diffuse a situation. Only protest. Come on how many of you voted for Jeremy Corbyn ? Come on own up.... 

Country: The United Kingdom.  Sentence for 'not being civil': being tased.  

 

As for voting for Mr Corbyn, when?

"He may have been an accomplice".  How is that stretching working out for you, feeling loose?

[Slip]

6 minutes ago, Pdaz said:

True.. but the guy started ranting the moment they approached and asked his name.

Black people ( and others ) keep talking anout equality.. But they want special treatment from the police.. What are they ( the police ) meant to do ? Make an appointment and submit questions in writing beforehand maybe ?

They can be so 'uppity' can't they?

 

smh.

[impulse]

Kind of wondering who'd be in trouble had there been no witnesses and no digital record.

[Rhys]

Well it was clear the neighbor was clear telling the  5 0h he was going to his house.  However, the appearance of the Race Relationship Rep was not was  5 Oh expected, thus the default assumption.  

 

The man was walking his dog. Just think if the dog would have defended his master the 5 Oh would have shot the dog.    

 

A while back this same situation was encountered in an affluent American neighborhood, a homeowner was jogging just down the street from his million dollar home and.... an officer of the law of color harassed him,  under the pretense, there was a report of a robbery and suspicious person in the area.  The 5 Oh, checked it out, explained his purpose, but the jogger/homeowner pull the WMS vs the immigrant and then it escalated. The end result the man ran to the door of his house and the officer or color tackled him right on his doorstep. 

 

YES.. it is a fine line cooperate or stand ground.  Some of us have done this and gotten away with things in Thailand when you pull the power "Thang,"

 

In a few instances, some of the 5 Oh have actually made the right call... and some are actually cool. 

[LammyTS1]

The whole situation could have easily been avoided. 

 

Im guessing he may have had 1 too many drinks. Can't imagine any sober person reacting that way unless wanting confrontation. 

[impulse]

2 minutes ago, LammyTS1 said:

The whole situation could have easily been avoided. 

 

Im guessing he may have had 1 too many drinks. Can't imagine any sober person reacting that way unless wanting confrontation. 

  Perhaps someone who, by vocation, realized his rights were being trampled on?

[Rhys]

4 minutes ago, LammyTS1 said:

The whole situation could have easily been avoided. 

 

Im guessing he may have had 1 too many drinks. Can't imagine any sober person reacting that way unless wanting confrontation. 

 

 

Most likely inhalation of ....  but still no way to treat a senior.

 

[LammyTS1]

  Perhaps someone who, by vocation, realized his rights were being trampled on?

Perhaps yes but still no need for confrontation.

Talking calmly to these officers would have been the best option and then making an official complaint afterwards.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[impulse]

5 minutes ago, LammyTS1 said:

Perhaps yes but still no need for confrontation.

Talking calmly to these officers would have been the best option and then making an official complaint afterwards.

 

 

I don't disagree.  But officers are trained and paid to deescalate situations.  Not to taser people who mouth off or give them attitude.  

 

You and I?  Not so much training or experience.  And it wasn't the bad attitude that went over the line.  Nothing illegal there, albeit poor judgment.  It was the tasering.

Edited January 23, 2017 by impulse

[3NUMBAS]

Not surprising as he looks like a derelict ...Add to that  lairy  behaviour 

[impulse]

33 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Not surprising as he looks like a derelict ...Add to that  lairy  behaviour 

Yeah,  silly guy.  I put on a suit and tie when the dog needs to pee.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, Pdaz said:

True.. but the guy started ranting the moment they approached and asked his name.

Black people ( and others ) keep talking anout equality.. But they want special treatment from the police.. What are they ( the police ) meant to do ? Make an appointment and submit questions in writing beforehand maybe ?

Of all your tiresome and self congratulatory posts on this topic throughout the day, this one is the most revealing. It really didn't take long for the racism to emerge. Blame the victim. He is not civil so he should not be treated as civilized. The neighbor might be an accomplice. The 'suspect' was probably drunk or high.

 

This is far more egregious than your little deception of behaving politely to authority. But lets examine that issue for the moment. There are two long standing principles. First is Habeus Corpus and the second is Presumption of Innocence. Habeus Corpus means that you may not arbitrarily remove a person's rights without due process including detaining a person as these police clearly did. While Habeus Corpus extends back to Henry II, it was defined in the Magna Carta  of 1215 that his son was forced to sign. The charter says:

 

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

 

The 2nd principle, that of the Presumption of Innocence. In a 1935 case  Viscount Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP said:

 

‘Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to ...the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception'.

 

The Viscount statement of the nature of the legal burden of proof in criminal trials is, simply a restatement of a fundamental presumption, that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty."

http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/legal-burden-of-proof.php

 

I enjoyed hearing Leo McKern say exactly this about the 'golden thread' in many episodes of Rumpole of the Bailly.

 

How can these two lofty and historic principles stand against your 'civility' argument? What expectation do agents of the State breached Mr. Adunbi's fundamental right to go about his business undisturbed and under no suspicion of wrong doing.

 

But I forget. He is black - as you so shamelessly point out.

 

You may feel that expressing your conditioning as an obedient drone to the authority of the State as being the best course for you. I do not. Authority must be challenged at every turn otherwise it is abused - as it was in this case and on a daily basis in many countries in response to manufactured fear. Authority is also abused when  citizens abrogate their responsibilities by toadying compliance. It may well be soon that the UK police evolve into he nightmare of abuse seen in the US. Actions such as the one taken by officers against Mr. Adunbi are likely to hasten that descent into the totalitarianism of the National Security State. All of course aided and abetted by the compliance of unthinking drones like yourself.

 

I hope these criminals in uniform are charged, convicted and sentenced.

Edited January 23, 2017 by Tawan Dok Krating Daeng

[onthesoi]

2 hours ago, Pdaz said:

but the guy started ranting the moment they approached and asked his name.

 

 

That is completely wrong, the video doesn't show the police officers approaching or the initial contact, the video instead begins from a point where the argument is already fully underway.

 

Confirmation bias ...

Edited January 23, 2017 by onthesoi

[ilostmypassword]

5 hours ago, jesimps said:

First time I've heard that phrase during my 72 years on this earth.

Regarding giving your name to the police, why anyone would choose not to I can't imagine. Especially someone in his position. I'm sure only those with a chip on their shoulder wouldn't, regardless of race. Good one for the lefties to get orgasmic about though.

 

Well on the one hand, you didn't identify which phrase you were referring to. On the other hand, they are all current and commonly used.  Are you a recent visitor to Planet Earth?

[elliss]

9 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

The police officers 'screwed up' - but this time more obviously than usual as the guy they tasered was their race relations adviser .

  He  obviously  displayed  his  professionalism,  and  training at the UK taxpayers expense .?

Will,  we  ever  understand,  multi national  integration, is  never going to happen.   By  Nature,  we  are different .

           

[Jonmarleesco]

I presume the local community in question is St. Paul's (the scene of drug dealing-initiated riots some 20-odd years ago), St. Werburgh's, Montpelier, or possibly - though less likely - Easton or Eastville.

[Jonmarleesco]

2 hours ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

Of all your tiresome and self congratulatory posts on this topic throughout the day, this one is the most revealing. It really didn't take long for the racism to emerge. Blame the victim. He is not civil so he should not be treated as civilized. The neighbor might be an accomplice. The 'suspect' was probably drunk or high.

 

This is far more egregious than your little deception of behaving politely to authority. But lets examine that issue for the moment. There are two long standing principles. First is Habeus Corpus and the second is Presumption of Innocence. Habeus Corpus means that you may not arbitrarily remove a person's rights without due process including detaining a person as these police clearly did. While Habeus Corpus extends back to Henry II, it was defined in the Magna Carta  of 1215 that his son was forced to sign. The charter says:

 

No Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseized of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus

 

The 2nd principle, that of the Presumption of Innocence. In a 1935 case  Viscount Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP said:

 

‘Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to ...the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception'.

 

The Viscount statement of the nature of the legal burden of proof in criminal trials is, simply a restatement of a fundamental presumption, that a person is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty."

http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/criminal-law/legal-burden-of-proof.php

 

I enjoyed hearing Leo McKern say exactly this about the 'golden thread' in many episodes of Rumpole of the Bailly.

 

How can these two lofty and historic principles stand against your 'civility' argument? What expectation do agents of the State breached Mr. Adunbi's fundamental right to go about his business undisturbed and under no suspicion of wrong doing.

 

But I forget. He is black - as you so shamelessly point out.

 

You may feel that expressing your conditioning as an obedient drone to the authority of the State as being the best course for you. I do not. Authority must be challenged at every turn otherwise it is abused - as it was in this case and on a daily basis in many countries in response to manufactured fear. Authority is also abused when  citizens abrogate their responsibilities by toadying compliance. It may well be soon that the UK police evolve into he nightmare of abuse seen in the US. Actions such as the one taken by officers against Mr. Adunbi are likely to hasten that descent into the totalitarianism of the National Security State. All of course aided and abetted by the compliance of unthinking drones like yourself.

 

I hope these criminals in uniform are charged, convicted and sentenced.

Racism? Where is the racism, precisely? A mention of a colour and the correct observation that anything involving non-whites almost always brings forth accusations of racism? As with you. 

[Rc2702]

15 hours ago, arrowsdawdle said:

And there you have the little country that could, or so they'd have you believe. Is it any wonder their bobbies are not allowed to carry guns?

If you referring to uk. Plenty of armed police presence nowadays. Where it is necessary.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

2 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Racism? Where is the racism, precisely? A mention of a colour and the correct observation that anything involving non-whites almost always brings forth accusations of racism? As with you. 

Here is an excerpt from Post 66. I let you look for the racism yourself.

 

"Black people ( and others ) keep talking anout equality.. But they want special treatment from the police.."

 

If you cannot find it, well I guess you can't be helped.

[LammyTS1]

He made the choice personally to challenge law enforcement.

Any law abiding citizen would accept the situation and react accordingly by cooperating.

Whether he is black or white does not matter as the outcome would be no different.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[onthesoi]

7 minutes ago, LammyTS1 said:

Any law abiding citizen would...

Which law did he break?

[LammyTS1]

Here is an excerpt from Post 66. I let you look for the racism yourself.
 
"Black people ( and others ) keep talking anout equality.. But they want special treatment from the police.."
 
If you cannot find it, well I guess you can't be helped.

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

[LammyTS1]

Which law did he break?

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

[bandito]

21 hours ago, hansnl said:

As a member of the force, more or less that is, he should have just mentioned this fact to the policemen.

He did not do so but decided to play the difficult play.

Whatever went wrong after that is not really blameable on the policemen, but wholly on himself.

The mentioning of police methods in the US, where sometimes, and absolutely not always, things can go wrong, is not really fair.

Millions of times things go without any trouble over there, but sometimes things go wrong.

Maybe, just maybe, there is a reason why things go wrong, and maybe those reasons can be found in behaviour?

Probably off topic but worth mentioning, hansnl.

In your country the police do not even legitimise itself and when asking why arrested  the answer is "you will hear at the station". False arrest and they just kick you out on the street, without an apology, and you have to make your way back on your own.