[Closed] Tasered in the face!

This sort of crap, is why the decent police aren't allowed the tools they need to protect themselves!

What kit is that then?

So - how much compo do we reckon he is going to get?

Probably a bit more than the last time they mistook him for the exact same guy.

Turn that around - he knew all he had to do was engage with them, tell them who/what he was and that was that.
He CHOSE to be obstructive - yes he legally didn't HAVE to tell them anything but he went out of his way to not tell them and be difficult.
Ergo it bit him on the arse.

I'm sure that a 63 year old white man would similarly have been tasered in the face for refusing to give his name to the police and I am pleased to note that charges of assaulting a police officer have been dropped. Something very wrong here.

That's pretty embarrassing. She'll not get away with it I wouldn't have thought. I mean, fire a taser in someone's face and [i]then[/i] say "tazer tazer. You've been tazered"! Baffling.

yes he legally didn't HAVE to tell them anything

Ends there doesn't it?

[img] [/img]

What kit is that then?

Phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range

Both sides could've handled that better.

If it's a case of mistaken identity I guess t would be annoying if it kept happening but it was only the second time it happened. If I was mistaken for a dangerous criminal I certainly wouldn't be getting aggro with the rozzers, and I I did is be fairly happy if I'd only got tazered.

Black or white, if the cops think you're dangerous, and you start being obstructive and agressive then they're not going to calm down are they.

Both sides could've handled that better.

Black or white, if the cops think you're dangerous, and you start being obstructive and agressive then they're not going to calm down are they.

I'll go with that.

If they thought he was the wanted bloke, all they had to do was arrest him - they didn't

Pretty certain that's exactly what they were trying to do and he was doing a game job or resisting it, hence the taser. To the face as I guess the jacket was too thick for it to work.

I'll stop short of he was asking for it and we have no idea what happened prior to the start of the clip but not being helpful certainly escalated the incident. But I'm white middle class, brought up to trust the police and with no experiences to make me think otherwise. I might well think differently if I was black.

"Hullo. Are you Tom?"

"Afraid not Officer. I'm Bill"

"Ah, righto. Have a nice afternoon"

The use of Taser might seem disproportionate to the layman, but wouldn't it have been easier to talk to the Officers? Particularly if you were in an influential position and trying to improve relations?

"you've been tasered" really? I think he might have bloody well guessed that after being, you know, tasered in the face. Still, police being helpful I s'pose.

In all seriousness why couldn't they have attempted to calm or restrain him. Not a very good clip as there is no indication as to how things escalated. Tasered in the face seems a tad extreme though.

Small point... He's not the Police's race relations officer... he sat on a panel a few times looking at ways of helping the police engage better with the BAME community in Bristol. Bit like saying I'm a doctor as I go to meetings with doctors.

But anyway, disproportionate force from the police. The victim was being stand offish and obstructive, and could have handled it better, but the thing is, he is legally entitles to be stand offish, obstructive and a bit of dick. none of those things are illegal. Annoying for officers who are trying to do a job,but not actually illegal. Police officers in the UK are better than most in the world, and part of the not being armed thing is that they develop people skills and learn to handle situations without resorting to the "do as i say or I'll shoot" approach that some American officers have.

I guess the concern is, with tasers becoming increasingly wider issued, its easier to reach for a weapon when your people skills are exceeded, as in this case.

funkmasterp - Member
"you've been tasered"

It's the follow up to the old South East Regional Crime Squad's "You've been framed" 😉

Could have worked out very differently if it wasn't for the bystandard with the camera, too.

Well, I suppose they probably wouldn't have dropped the assault charge.

In the vid it sounds like in WPC thinks she's playing a game of "taser-taser"

Ninfan - I thought you had to tell the police who you are when asked? Are you sure you don't?

Ok, I'll have a bite on this one....
The taseree could have not been an idiot and it would have been over, without incident in seconds.
The use of force is justified by the individual officer- we don't know who the person they thought he was is, if he was outstanding for murder or something then it would not be entirely unreasonable due to his capability...
The wording regarding arrest could have been a bit clearer...
Regarding the barb in the face, I wouldn't have thought that was intentional, as far as I am aware it is usually aimed at the torso.

Sweetest dog ever!

Without the video the police would have encountered the gentleman who was acting suspiciously, when questioned he became aggressive and lashed out injuring both officers. The officers tried to restrain him but he was too violent and a taser was required. Utterly incompetent individuals reacting out of fear.

Leigh2612
The taseree could have not been an idiot and it would have been over, without incident in seconds.

What if he didn't have ID? What if he had somewhere to go or something to do? The Police in question aren't the Gestapo are they?

The use of force is justified by the individual officer

Please elaborate how it's justifiable to shoot metal hooks into someone and electrocute them because they don't want to be manhandled by you?

yes he legally didn't HAVE to tell them anything but he went out of his way to not tell them and be difficult.

what an odd attitude to take..

he's perfectly entitled to be difficult, the cops, however aren't entitled to assault him because of it.

@TJ, there's no general requirement to give details to the Police, only if under a specific legal requirement to do so (Rice v Connelly). It's not an S50 stop so none of that stuff applies.

According to Avon and Somerset Police guidelines "you do not have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you're stopped and searched unless you are being reported for an offence.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-38691162

Two officers, one grandfather (obviously older than the two police officers). What happened to the skill of negotiation, or if that fails and is felt absolutely necessary then the use physical force. (i.e. thump him!).

he's perfectly entitled to be difficult

Always a great attitude to take with everyone you meet in officialdom or just other members of the public. I find it just smooths the way and makes my life easier and less full of hassle. I'm entitled to be which makes it the right thing to do.

The wording regarding arrest could have been a bit clearer...

From watching the full (nine minute) vid I would argue that at no point was he under a lawful arrest until he was lying on the ground after being tasered.

Up to that point there was a lot of asking of name, and physically obstructing his route to try and bully him into giving his name, but they had plenty of chance to arrest and entirely failed to do so - when he walked through the gate, he wasn't under arrest, he had a right to do so, and they were both trespassing and committing an assault and battery

You could of course be technical and point out that they were guilty of a technical assault at several points before that, both in pointing the taser at him, and threatening to cuff him despite not having arrested him. In a bad mood you could probably stretch that out to armed trespass (since they were no longer acting in the course of their duty) and aggravated GBH.

like the shoot first warning later, good advert for not arming the bobby on the beat. 😯 🙄

So what was the kit you alluded to in your o.p

The way I see that is...

1 ) Police thought they'd spotted someone who was wanted.
2 ) They tried to confirm whether he was who they thought he was.
3 ) He didn't cooperate with their efforts to confirm who he was (or wasn't), as is his right.
4 ) Although he isn't obliged to cooperate, doing so may have helped them quickly decide he wasn't the wanted man.
5 ) Conversely, choosing not to cooperate is unlikely to reduce their suspicion that he was the wanted person.
6 ) It appears they concluded he was the wanted man and tried to arrest him.
7 ) He resisted this by pulling away and trying to walk away.
8 ) I haven't got a clue why she tasered him.

There's no reason to conclude that he was tasered because he didn't give his name, as if it were some sort of summary punishment for being unhelpful. It seems to me that they decided that he was the wanted man and went to arrest him, and then he was tasered during that arrest because he was resisting arrest (which is a broad term in this context). The issue, to my mind, is whether or not use of the taser was justified or proportionate for that arrest - and on the basis of just one viewing of that video I'm not seeing how it was.

4 ) Although he isn't obliged to cooperate, doing so may have helped them quickly decide he wasn't the wanted man.

do you really think if he told them his name they would have stopped harassing him ?

Great ape - can you identify the point of arrest though?

They were asking him his name
He made to leave
They didn't know who he was
They didn't arrest him, despite more than adequate opportunity.
They instead blocked his way and then assaulted him
It's clear that at that point they were still in clear doubt as to his identity (they didn't think he was, they thought he might be, but were still very clear that they didn't know)

See Fraser Wood v DPP for case law - to quote: "at no stage before the defendant struggled to free himself did he assert that he was arresting the defendant."

I agree that the police were technically wrong, but it's not a race thing is it. Just like my nan used to say, you ack like a dick, you gets tasered in the face. Gawd bless her.

do you really think if he told them his name they would have stopped harassing him ?

Well it would have let them quickly establish he wasn't the wanted man, so more than likely yes.

Great ape - can you identify the point of arrest though?

Not categorically, but when the footage cuts and restarts with them in the gateway, that looks to me like the male officer is trying to arrest him. We can't be sure what was or wasn't said to him during the bit we don't see (I.e arresting him, but for that matter, we don't know what he said or did during that period either).

Or perhaps...

They were asking him his name
He made to leave
They didn't know [b]for certain[/b] who he was
They didn't arrest him [b]straight away, they tried to persuade him to cooperate[/b]
They [s]instead blocked his way[/s] [b]eventually arrested him[/b] and then assaulted him - [b]taking hold of him is part of arresting him. I've already said I can't see from that footage why on earth she tasered him[/b]
It's clear that at [s]that point[/s] the start they were [s]still[/s] in [s]clear[/s] doubt as to his identity (they didn't think he was, they thought he might be, but were still very clear that they didn't know) but in due course decided to arrest him - which he mildly resisted. And then tasered him

?

Anyway, that's just one of many ways of looking at it - I'm not saying it's correct as I'm not a mind reader 🙂

We'll be needing a internet mashup remix of that bristolian accent 'Taser taser taser! You've been tazered, ok'

Well it would have let them quickly establish he wasn't the wanted man, so more than likely yes.

Really, it wouldn't have mattered what name he gave as all the they would have heard is Joe Bloggs and kept on with the harassment, they were so convinced it was the man they were looking for they already had the tazer out and trained on him.

Tasered in the ****ing face!!!! 😯 😯

The only way I'd have a happy resolution to that would be for her to tasered in the face for no reason too. She'd think before doing it to someone again.

Hopefully she is sacked for this. One good effect from everyone having camera phones now - there is evidence of this sort of wrongdoing

Really, it wouldn't have mattered what name he gave as all the they would have heard is Joe Bloggs and kept on with the harassment, they were so convinced it was the man they were looking for

We'll, as I said before, [i]I'm[/i] not a mind reader.

All he had to do was to get the id out that in the first place that was in the wallet he was pointing to after he was tasered.

Would have completely diffused the situation straight away.

Why would any reasonable person try to waste police time like that?

Police time that technically we are paying for through taxes, so wasting our time as well.

And wasting the time of someone who might actually be needing their help as well.

No sympathy for him at all.

The policewoman was pretty pathetic though, shouldn't be in charge of a taser at all. Maybe should be relegated to sitting behind a desk.

I've been stopped by the police when out running because they had reports of a white guy in a white t-shirt legging it from a burglery.

Never crossed my mind that that was racial profiling/harassment.

Only white middle - class dicks could display the level of ignorance of police racial profiling displayed on this thread.

https://greenandblackcross.org

Greatape - the 8:55 video at the bottom of the Bristol post page is unedited, no jumps in it

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/investigation-as-bristol-police-taser-prominent-member-of-their-own-race-relations-group-by-mistake/story-30072082-detail/story.html

2:18 - "are you royston maclenna" (sp.)
2.21 - "are you royston maclenna"
2.25: "what is your name"
2:28 "what is your name"
2.30 - turns physical as they try to force their way into the gate (armed trespass 😉 )

Nothing that can constitute an arrest (and an admission that they were still uncertain of his identity at the point where it turned physical - they had more than adequate opportunity to arrest if they thought it was him)

The Taser Officer looks to be a Sergeant, unless I have misread her eppaulettes from the video.

I've been stopped by the police when out running because they had reports of a white guy in a white t-shirt legging it from a burglery.

Never crossed my mind that that was racial profiling/harassment.

were they pointing a tazer at you when they stopped you ?

Well it would have let them quickly establish he wasn't the wanted man, so more than likely yes.

Police: "We think you're Bob, and Bob's wanted. Are you Bob"

Tasered: " I'm not Bob"

P:"Who are you then?"

T: "Bill"

Would the next line be
P: "Oh, okay, sorry to bother you"
Or
P: "I don't believe you"
?

I don't see the situation as a threat to the officers, at worst he appears to be trying to get away from, so the taser seems excessive. Especially the quickdraw firing of it with no warning or apparent aiming!

I would never engage with the police unless I was legally required to do so and then only after taking legal advice. I just couldn't trust any of them, the way they happily collude and lie/make up charges against people basically out of spite and/or to cover their own mistakes makes me sick. They are the biggest hypocrites out there, how folks can defend behavior like this I don't know.

[img] [/img]

Police: "We think you're Bob, and Bob's wanted. Are you Bob"

Tasered: " I'm not Bob"

P:"Who are you then?"

T: "Bill"

Would the next line be
P: "Oh, okay, sorry to bother you"
Or
P: "I don't believe you"

Probably something like

"Have you got any ID or something with your name on? Splendid, thanks very much."

Or,

"What's your address, I can do a quick electoral roll check then we're all done".

Greatape - the 8:55 video at the bottom of the Bristol post page is unedited, no jumps in it

Jumps from the cameraman being along the street to directly in front of the gate doesn't it?

EDIT - Just seen the longer video...I'll watch that!

He has taken his dog for a walk and is attempting to go into his house.
If he is a dangerous drug dealer get a warrant and raid the house.
If the evidence isn't strong enough for that, it probably isn't good enough to fire a taser into his face.

Both officers guilty of assault.

Female office guilty of multiple firearms offences.

Expected punishement sweet FA

Why would any reasonable person try to waste police time like that?

I take it you've never had any dealings with Plod..?

TurnerGuy - Member

Why would any reasonable person try to waste police time like that?

He isn't wasting their time. They ask him a question, he- perfectly within his rights- declines to answer. That should have been the end of the conversation, everything after that is the officers wasting their own time.

Ninfan - yes, I agree, he isn't informed he is being arrested as far as I can see from the longer video.

It will be interesting to see what the officer who took hold of him says he was arresting him for, and why he felt it was impractical to inform him why he was being arrested straight away (which the PACE Codes of Practice allow for, if the circumstances justify it).

Cheers, glad you agree - massive consequences for the officers involved, and him, will flow from that IMO.

I think I've edited while you were posting...but yes, very serious that that ended up with a taser being used.

Perhaps Royston M is a total nutter so when Undercover Cop repeatedly refuses to give his name they assume it is said nutter - reasonable. Why the undercover cop wouldn't just say "no" is beyond me. Just give his undercover name.

Can you actually blame him for not being more cooperative with the plod? I'll go out on a limb and suggest this probably wasn't the first time he's been stopped by them.

I've had a lot of dealings with the old bill*, both as a professional and a civilian.
I've learned the hard way not to say bugger all to them unless in the company of a lawyer or people I can rely on as witnesses.
Everything about the behaviour of those coppers suggests a lack of skills and knowledge.
If you are unsure of the identity of someone, either arrest first, ask questions later and face the consequences or play nice.
If you're the copper who's relying on a Taser to persuade someone to comply, you're a shit copper. As far as I was aware, Tasers are only supposed to be used to prevent dangerous situations escalating. It looked to me like the taser was being used in such a manner as to escalate danger to all parties.
I once told a copper my name was Gary Lineker, got half way through the 1990 England World Cup squad before he gave up and stopped bothering me.
Some of them are like a dog with a bone.

*Before I go off on one, I must add that some of those dealings have been with dedicated, highly skilled professionals who deserve great admiration for their public service.

were they pointing a tazer at you when they stopped you ?

maybe if tazers had been around at the time - who knows.

They weren't pointing the tazer at him initially.

If he'd have shown his ID initially it would ever have got to the point of being tazered.

Instead he did his best to enforce any racial bias they might already have.

If you all do as you're told you won't get tasered in the face...

What happened to the idea of policing by consent?

I take it you've never had any dealings with Plod..?

yes I have.

But in this case the showing of an ID seems pretty safe - perhaps someone could explain why it is not?

Would have wrapped up their visit pretty quickly and he could have carried on walking his dog and none of that incident would have happened.

The only good thing is it has highlighted that policewoman should not be in charge of a tazer.

@greatape

At 3:04 on that video the sergeant can just about be heard saying "OK, you're under arrest, by the public order act, and assault police..." followed by something loosely resembling a caution - though she doesn't tell him the necessity.

at 3:35 the other one says he is under arrest for assault police

@Jamba:

Perhaps Royston M is a total nutter so when Undercover Cop repeatedly refuses to give his name they assume it is said nutter

In that case, the answer was simple

"you're nicked"

They didn't

what they did was continue to harrasss him to try and get him to identify himself, then turned physical when it became clear that he was walking away (into his property, as he was fully entitled to do, because he wasn't under arrest).

fin25 As far as I was aware, Tasers are only supposed to be used to prevent dangerous situations escalating. It looked to me like the taser was being used in such a manner as to escalate danger to all parties.

I would have assumed (though tbh I'm only guessing) that the only sensible time to use them would be when faced with a weapon (such as machete or a bat) or a highly aggressive and/or dangerous person - ie. a huge man in a disturbed state.

Much like a gun though, when you give them to police any struggle then becomes a potential struggle for that weapon. So the default response if you're physically insecure or incompetent has to be "TASER EVERYONE WHO RESISTS". Otherwise they'll beat you up, pepper spray your eyes with your pepper spray, taser you in the face with your own taser, and then beat you to death with your baton.

At 3:04 on that video the sergeant can just about be heard saying "OK, you're under arrest, by the public order act, and assault police..." followed by something loosely resembling a caution - though she doesn't tell him the necessity.

His conduct prior to what happened in the gateway gave them sufficient grounds to justify arresting for a public order offence, if that's what it was. The necessity stuff came in about the time I moved to Scotland, so I wouldn't know off the top of my head whether or not the reason for necessity should ordinarily be given at the time of arrest.

a good fried is a senior copper in GMP

he has become very disillusioned with the police, mostly:
he spends a lot of time disciplining coppers who he thinks should be fired for serious transgressions but they always get get let off,
theres a big problem with endemic racism
and he was involved in the investigation into this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Anthony_Grainger
and reckons the entire thing was at best misshandled (actually he says much worse) and deliberately covered up at every level

His conduct prior to what happened in the gateway gave them sufficient grounds to justify arresting for a public order offence,

Agree they could have... but they didnt

[i]"It seems to me that the inexorable logic of this passage is that where a police officer restrains a person, but does not at that time intend or purport to arrest him, then he is committing an assault, even if an arrest would have been justified. In the present case, Sergeant Cannon did not intend or purport to arrest the appellant when he restrained him and at no stage in the course of the fracas which resulted, did he assert that he was arresting the appellant. If he had done so or either of the constables had done so, before the appellant struggled in order to obtain his release, the position would be different. "[/i]

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1056.html

Apart from you've just said that that's what she told him he was being arrested for 🙂

That case law seems relevant, the crux of which would seem to be are they arresting him or not.

Point of order, he says he isn't the man they're after before they assault him. They then ask him what his name is, but as pointed out by others there is absolutely no obligation for him to give that - if you get assaulted and tazered when you don't give your name in a situation where there is no legal obligation to do so, then the person breaking the law isn't you. It's kind of victim blaming to suggest he should have cooperated more when he didn't actually do anything wrong.

The first mention of an arrest is after he's been tazered - given the context it seems clear that there had been no intention to arrest him before that point.

Fair enough people saying you're not legally entitled to identify yourself. But they're legally entitled to arrest you and take you to the nick so they establish your identity. It doesn't sound like it's the first time this has happened to him so he knows the crack. Why be unnecessarily obstinate when you could have just said I'm x here's my details. Then try to get away, push officers and scuffle?

Tbh I'd have TASERd the cameraman in the face first.

The first mention of an arrest is after he's been tazered -

Yes that's kind of how it works. You don't usually get arrested THEN tasered

Only white middle - class dicks could display the level of ignorance of police racial profiling displayed on this thread.

What a shocker, the female police officer was obviously out of her depth from the start of the recording, she looked like she couldn't wait to Taser him. Hopefully this will be the end of her career, incompetent officers are not what the force needs.
He's obviously an old man, they knew where he lived and exactly where he was, it should of been easy to calm him down and get the facts. But with her running the show it was only going to end one way!

How's he obviously an old man. He's a black guy with dreads and hood up? He's 60.

Hi sir we believe you're x and wanted
Hello officer, no I'm not x here's my id
I hope you catch this person
So do we sir, thanks for your time

The end

This guy leads a board for race relations with the police. I'm not sure they picked the right guy in that instance.

aphex_2k - Member

How's he obviously an old man. He's a black guy with dreads and hood up? He's 60.

Think about that for a second- you're saying with the dreads and hood up, that it's not obvious he's an older guy? If they can't see that, how can they see enough to think he's this other guy?

aphex_2k - Member

Fair enough people saying you're not legally entitled to identify yourself. But they're legally entitled to arrest you and take you to the nick so they establish your identity.

I think you mean "obliged". But no, they're not legally entitled to arrest people without cause. All of the "identify the individual" stuff only kicks in post arrest.

When the film started he had a Taser pointed at him, he told them this had happened before, they didn't listen he also told them he wasn't the man they we're after, they didn't listen but I guess they've heard that one before. He looked old, the neighbour can be heard saying he's 71. Yes he could of helped the situation I accept that but bloody hell she was useless, no they were useless, like playing bad cop, worse cop.
That situation could of been defused quite easily if they'd of calmed down.

It doesn't sound like it's the first time this has happened to him so he knows the crack.

Think about what you've said there. It might give you some insight into why he might not feel like cooperating/doing what he's told to do.

Why be unnecessarily obstinate when you could have just said I'm x here's my details.

Why not? He has not committed any offence, and he is going about his lawful business.

We do not have compulsory ID cards in this country, and nor do the police have a blanket power to require people to provide proof of identity.

So the neighbour who knew him well thought he was 71.... Right.

Northwind - Member
aphex_2k - Member
How's he obviously an old man. He's a black guy with dreads and hood up? He's 60.

Think about that for a second- you're saying with the dreads and hood up, it wasn't easy to see he's an old dude? If they can't see that, how can they see enough to think he's this other guy?

And the age of the person they were looking for was....?

Greying facial hair doesn't instantly make you an old man. He fitted some kind of description they had, then purposely made things difficult and ended up getting nicked.

Why not? He has not committed any offence, and he is going about his lawful business.

We do not have compulsory ID cards in this country, and nor do the police have a blanket power to require people to provide proof of identity.

So if a police officer suspect you've possibly committed an offence and are wanted, you say "it's not me" and they walk away? Or do you say, no, it's not me here's my name... Or do you say it's not me, become hostile and try to get away and scuffle with the police? And then wonder why it escalated?

So if a police officer suspect you've possibly committed an offence and are wanted, you say "it's not me" and they walk away?

Others on this thread are better informed about the law, and I stand to be corrected, but I think that if the officers have reasonable grounds to suspect that he is the man they are seeking, then at the point that he refuses to provide proof of his identity, they are entitled to make an arrest, explaining in the usual language/formula that they suspect that he is XYZ, and that they are arresting him on suspicion of having done whatever that person is believed to have done.

What the officers do not have the power to do, is to behave as they did to try to force the man to provide proof of his identity (which makes it look as if they considered they did not have sufficient reasonable grounds to meet the standard required to make an arrest, but did not want to let him go inside as they should have, and so instead tried to badger it out of him).

Or do you say, no, it's not me here's my name... Or do you say it's not me, become hostile and try to get away and scuffle with the police? And then wonder why it escalated?

Read the story: this is not the first time this has happened: "It is the second time Mr Adunbi has been mistaken for the same man. In 2009 he won a wrongful arrest case against Avon and Somerset Police and was awarded compensation." Try and put yourself in his shoes. I am not black and do not live in inner city Bristol, but I can well believe that the police there have the same problems with institutional racism as the Met and GMP. That alone would make suspicious and wary of any dealings with the police, but this guy has already been wrongfully arrested before. Or do you think that he should have 'learned his lesson' after the first time?

You and I probably both live a rather comfortable white middle class bubble, where much is taken for granted, such as how you can always trust the police. The reality for many others is different, e.g. Hillsborough, West Midlands Regional Crime Squad, Stephen Lawrence etc. etc.

Civil liberties, such as Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, no ID cards, freedom from detention without trial, freedom from state surveillance etc., have been hard won and are often too readily taken for granted. The argument that 'if you have not done anything wrong, then you've nothing to be afraid of and should accept it/cooperate', is the usual starting point for those who want - or are happy - to see those freedoms eroded.

If I was in his shoes, I wouldn't have wanted to go through the same scenario again. I'd have thought that THIS time I'll show them and prove I'm not the person they are looking for, and be on my merry way, minus 2 metal barbs in my face.