[Closed] Tasered in the face!

^So he should bow down to racist ignorant incompetence assholes on some power trip? Riiiight.

What part of "can you tell me your name" is racist?

The part where it is a common occurrence if you are black, and has probably never happened to you if you are white.

That's not a reply to the question I asked, but "well done you" for trying.

Best of three?

... interesting question that occurs to me whilst reading this thread, who believes in "innocent until proven guilty"?

Overall, this case and a great many of the attitudes displayed on this thread are an excellent demonstration of the value of firearms not being general carry for Police Officers in this country.

Fortunately, as tasers aren't *usually* lethal, there's still a situation here that can be sorted out and not some poor innocent but uncooperative guy with half his head missing.

aphex - the part where this only happens if your black is what makes it racist - look up "racial profiling"

I'm not disagreeing that racial profiling isn't a "thing".

But they were looking for a black male. I imagine there were more details describing him (blue jacket, hood up etc) and they stopped him to ask him who he was. At that point he kicked off and didn't answer the one simple question that could have allowed him to carry on with his daily business. He chose not to, got rowdy, pushed police and got tasered. OK, personally I do agree that two fit and healthy officers could have quite easily restrained him, safely without tasering him in the face. I don't expect she aimed at his face, it does look like an un-intentional shot in the face, I'm sure they're taught to aim at the large torso area.

I would never engage with the police unless I was legally required to do so and then only after taking legal advice.

oh FFS grow up

My interactions with the Police tend to be rare and brief. I grew up in a less than salubrious part of Liverpool and the ones I met were always reasonable and professional. I think they have a dificult job and my work day never places me in harms way so it may be an old fashioned approach but I tend to treat them with some respect and dont go out of my way to be difficult, just because "I can"

If I was in his shoes, I wouldn't have wanted to go through the same scenario again.

They weren't pointing the tazer at him initially.

yes she was

[img] [/img]

opening frame of the video tazer is out and being pointed at him with the dozy copper using the phrase "you need to remain calm" 😯 🙄

aphex - the part where this only happens if your black is what makes it racist - look up "racial profiling"

Still at least its not the USA

Bang, bang, bang, you've been shot!

I represented a black lad for a couple of years he was first arrested on a doddgy description for robbery he played nice cooperated lost a weekend of his life was not id'd and refused charge . But now in the system over a couple of years he was arrested again and again on weaker and weaker evidence ," one of the witnesses thinks the suspect might have been black" because he was on intelgence as a Robber, he had no convictions until the police came to arrest him at his birthday party for another Robbery facing another lost day he punched the officer . So got his first and only conviction and an absolute discharge off the magistrates when I produced the record of his arrests for being black.
There is no point in having a free country where you do not have to identity yourself to the authorities and the authorities powers are described by law if the penalty for refusing to cooperate with unlawful power is a taser zap and a load of people saying its your own fault for stepping out of line and not doing as you were told.

Interestingly, well for me anyway, 🙂 is that the op has still not answered my question relating to his assertion "This sort of crap, is why the decent police aren't allowed the tools they need to protect themselves!" I only bit on this following reading either the depressing Euro or trump thread where this concept of riling people up and then sticking a made up fact in seems to the new politics. In this case we have an interesting debate about the necessity to arrest, use of force and racism but tagged on is some DM style bull about the need to provide tools for police to protect themselves, water cannons, guns more tasers perhaps? Does anyone actually apart from the OP want a paramilitary style policing on their streets? All the front line police I have spoken to in the last year or so ( before that I was very much under the radar law enforcement) have said what they need are more officers not weapons or kit, (probably much like those in the Nhs, fire and rescue etc being decimated by our present government) occasionally the use of regionalised custody suites or super stations gets a mention but that seems to be a knock on from not having enough people out and about to do the job. Worryingly a lot of current and recently left officers say policing as we know it is lurching to disaster. Younger able officers are leaving, which would have been a rarity before and those that are left will be stretched thinly and some may be those incapable of getting a job elsewhere. I work with recently retired old bill and they say things that used to be sought after, like CID work, are not wanted at all now as it's just a crap job
Re the tazering not watched it cba, the last year has shown me life is full of a holes, in all sorts of professions, teaching, nursing, computering, policing will be no exception, it's just a human thing, my happy go lucky view, under a deluge of child and baby rape images and inquiries, has dissipated 🙁 (well a little)

I have a strange relationship with policing, I have been involved in all sorts of shizzle over the years, but for a decade I have had the powers of a constable, and now I crash doors and arrest people quite often (don't worry they're all really, really horrible peadophiles and they are all guilty, we have an exceptionally high conviction rate and most plead straight away) but I'm not actually a sworn warranted police officer, some times I feel policelike, sometimes I don't so I may be speaking slightly out of turn here. Those with more front line experience on this thread may have a different view to all my cobblers above.

Peace and love.

"It's kind of victim blaming to suggest he should have cooperated more when he didn't actually do anything wrong."

If I saw someone knock off their bike by a drink driver, I think I should cooperate with the police to help catch him.

In the same way if the Police ask me who I am, the quickest way to help them get on with catching crooks is to cheerfully tell them who I am.

I may not have a legal obligation to do so, but I think I have a moral obligation to do so.

Obviously saying nothing is best if I think I might be a suspect but in this case he knew he deffo wasn't a suspect because they'd told him who they were after.

Sorry office I am not the person you are looking for.. My name is John Smith, if you would like proof here's my ID.

Ok thanks, have a nice day and I hope you find the guy you are looking for.

All done - 30 seconds. Not that difficult.

wrecker - you are 3 times more likely to be tazered if you are black

"If they can't see that, how can they see enough to think he's this other guy?"

They didn't, that's why they asked him who he was.

They only decided he might be the guy when he started to be needlessly obstructive.

[url= https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/racism-and-violence-in-america ]San Harris on the topic[/url]

Sorry office I am not the person you are looking for.. My name is John Smith, if you would like proof here's my ID.

In reality;

"Right, you expect me to believe that? it's obviously fake, I think you're not John, I think you've probably nicked that right? c'mon mate , we both know you're coming with us, why don't you just sit in the car while we check it out, don't mess about...and so on and on and on...

Which is why, boringly, shockingly and depressingly un-ironically the cops end up needing "local community liaison groups" to help them out with their shocking attitude to sections of the community.

"Right, you expect me to believe that? it's obviously fake, I think you're not John, I think you've probably nicked that right? c'mon mate , we both know you're coming with us, why don't you just sit in the car while we check it out, don't mess about...and so on and on and on...

I agree with you. It's saddens me but there is it. However in this specific case he did go with them anyway despite using his absolute right to be difficult....in an ambulance. Given the choice between going down the station to have a conversation about if I was who I said I was or going down the station via a hospital and a taser in the face I'd be choosing the course of action most likely to end up in the former.

In reality

You know thats not "reality" dont you.

Sorry office I am not the person you are looking for.. My name is John Smith, if you would like proof here's my ID.

Ok thanks, have a nice day and I hope you find the guy you are looking for.

All done - 30 seconds. Not that difficult.

some people watch too much dixon of dock green 🙄

There is a gap between police powers and public obligations which, in an ideal world, is bridged by a combination of civility and trust on both sides. If you have someone who is uncooperative to your enquiries (as is their right), for whatever reason, the only tools an officer has are pretty disproportionate - forcible detention.

What you have there is the result of the erosion of that trust over decades. Some communities in our cities have no expectation of being treated politely and fairly by the police. Eventually some citizens stop meeting the police halfway, and the use of force in trivial situations becomes normalised. Even what should be a low-key conversation starts with an officer with their taser drawn. Which means the decision to use it is far more likely.

It's a very sad state of affairs.

convert

I agree with you. It's saddens me but there is it. However is this specific case he did go with them anyway despite using his absolute right to be difficult....in an ambulance.

This will always be the case. If you don't comply with the police to their absolute satisfaction they'll force you to.

Given the choice between going down the station to have a conversation about if I was who I said I was or going down the station via a hospital and a taser in the face I'd be choosing the course of action most likely to end up in the former.

You might see it that way however some people will be willing to leave on their shield as it were, for their principals.

There is a gap between police powers and public obligations which, in an ideal world, is bridged by a combination of civility and trust on both sides. If you have someone who is uncooperative to your enquiries (as is their right), for whatever reason, the only tools an officer has are pretty disproportionate - forcible detention.

What you have there is the result of the erosion of that trust over decades. Some communities in our cities have no expectation of being treated politely and fairly by the police. Eventually some citizens stop meeting the police halfway, and the use of force in trivial situations becomes normalised. Even what should be a low-key conversation starts with an officer with their taser drawn. Which means the decision to use it far more likely.

It's a very sad state of affairs.

Very nicely put

I'm trying to imagine what the concensus would be if the suspect was a wanted terrorist - potentially guilty of something very serious - and the police let him go purely because he didn't feel like fessin up his real name.
Innocent till proven guilty, of course, bit IMO it's fair to suspect the worst until proven innocent.
Just show your driving license. Don't obstruct. The whole 'I know my rights so you can do one' argument is the most devicive factor of all.
The police are on a hiding to nothing. I don't like the way they act from time to time, but generally by being a decent citizen I've managed to avoid drama (despite a mistaken identity arrest myself years ago)

Stereotypes are built up because everyone you meet that looks like that acts in the way your expect them to.

They expected him to act in the obstructive way he did, and so he just reinforced their stereotype view/prejudice.

The smart thing to do would to have politely cooperated, shown some id, taken down his hoody, etc, which would have helped disarm the stereotype they had formed, and serve his community.

Instead he acted in the expected way and just reinforced it.

The police here have also acted in a way that many of us expect, because we have seen police doing the same sort of thing. Trouble is, if they hadnot, we wouldn't have a video to watch and critisize.

My mother worked in a school for maladjusted girls. Most of them were black and from London and acted in the same troublesome manner, and my mother turned into quite a bigot because of it, as all the girls she saw of that skin color and with the same London accents acted the same way.

I say bigot instead of racist because if the school was mostly populated by white girls from Croydon with Croydon facelifts and Croydon accents then she would have ended up bigoted against them.

Sometimes when I walk into town there's a bunch of 'yoofs' with their hoodies up walking in front of me in the same direction but blocking the path from me passing them as I am walking faster.

As I get closer one of them will hear me and step aside, being very apologetic, and then several of them will, all similarly apologetic.

So any stereotypical view I did have about momdern day, ignorant and uncouth youths with their hoodies up has just suffered a major blow.

I'm trying to imagine what the concensus would be if the suspect was a wanted terrorist - potentially guilty of something very serious - and the police let him go purely because he didn't feel like fessin up his real name.

That arrest option was open to them in this case, so we can only speculate as to why they chose to assault him instead.

The smart thing to do would to have politely cooperated, shown some id, taken down his hoody, etc, which would have helped disarm the stereotype they had formed, and serve his community.

Nah, the smart thing was to do exactly what he did: stick to his rights, and draw national attention to the police's behaviour. I suspect he has done his community a service as the police may be less keen in the future to behave in this way

The coppers should have arrested him as soon as he became uncooperative. There was nothing about his behaviour that suggested a Taser should be either drawn, pointed at him or used to subdue him.

If you think giving coppers your details in relation to crimes has no effect you are an idiot.
As soon as your name goes on that system attached to a crime, every lazy copper in the area will be knocking your door down whenever they're short on suspects.
When I was a bit younger, I walked past the village primary school with my mate. The alarm had been going off for a while and the caretaker came out and said there had been a break in about an hour previously. He obviously gave the old bill our names and told them he spoke to us. For six months, every time there was a burglary in the area, I had coppers at the door, despite never having been anywhere near a burglary. My name was on the big file marked "burglaries" though.

Never underestimate the damage that can be wrought by an idiot armed with a bit of authority and too much information.

The coppers should have arrested him as soon as he became uncooperative. There was nothing about his behaviour that suggested a Taser should be either drawn, pointed at him or used to subdue him.

My guess is that they didn't arrest him because they didn't have reasonable suspicion.

for everyone who is jumping on their high horse about this, who are you going to turn to if, for sake of the argument, your bikes are nicked?

the police do a damn hard job and its for our benefit, what they do not need are idiots like this chap provoking them.

if i was stopped because they thought i looked like someone they were after i would help because i have nothing to hide and i would appreciate the fact that they were trying to find a person who was/had committed a crime.

p.s. and your taxes will now pay for the court case and compensation claims that will no doubt arise, and also thats two officers who will be pulled off the street whilst fingers are pointed.

Gav. coppers have to obey the law. this pair did not..

tjagain - Member
wrecker - you are 3 times more likely to be tazered if you are black

On what evidence? Based on the fact you can't even spell TASER, I poo-poo you. And no-one likes a poo-pooing.

2009 Stop and Search: 67% white 14.6% black
2009 Arrests: 79% white 8% black
2009 Prison population: 72% white 13% black

Taken from a Home office affairs select committee

"Use" of a TASER doesn't mean fired, it means drawn and aimed. Often the mere red dot and threat of BEING tasered is enough to settle someone.

who are you going to turn to if, for sake of the argument, your bikes are nicked?

Probably the insurance company just like the last time as the police weren't interested.

thats two officers who will be pulled off the street whilst fingers are pointed.

Good. The street will be that little bit safer then with these two thugs off them.

^ ffs they can't win can they?

"Sorry mate, we can't send any officers to your mugging call as they're all out looking for a bike that wasn't locked up properly. Priorities and all that"

the police do a damn hard job and its for our benefit, what they do not need are idiots like this chap provoking them.

What they need even less is coppers (who some truly cynical people might even suggest had been employed/promoted beyond their ability based on their own demographic) who not only don't know the extent of their own powers, but are unable to deal with a fairly mundane day to day policing situation involving an innocent member of the public without managing to taser someone in the face.

I have had a lot of dealings with the police in Ednburgh over the years both n a personal and professional way. I have never seen them be anything but professional and courteous. Clowns like these two overshadow all the good cops out there.

How would you have dealt with an angry man in your face ninfan? When the radio crackles into life and you get the scantiest of descriptions about a possible dangerous suspect, a rough idea of height, build, clothing and you spot someone who fits the description. You stop for a chat...

Go....

And for people pointing out her taser drawn from the start, have you seen the bodycam footage? Or just from the point that the MOP started to record?

gavtheoldskater

for everyone who is jumping on their high horse about this, who are you going to turn to if, for sake of the argument, your bikes are nicked?

When my bike was nicked I went and got it back myself. Never crossed my mind to waste my time contacting the police.

the police do a damn hard job and its for our benefit, what they do not need are idiots like this chap provoking them.

Yeah, he clearly provoked them by wanting to be left alone to go about his day.

if i was stopped because they thought i looked like someone they were after i would help because i have nothing to hide and i would appreciate the fact that they were trying to find a person who was/had committed a crime.

You would up to a point. If it became a daily occurence you might start to become less cooperative.

p.s. and your taxes will now pay for the court case and compensation claims that will no doubt arise, and also thats two officers who will be pulled off the street whilst fingers are pointed.

Good. That guy deserves compensation, in case you didn't notice....he was tasered in the ******* face!

Shall we arrange a crowd funding scheme for compensation?

Aphex, are to new here? evidence.....? 😉

p.s. and your taxes will now pay for the court case and compensation claims that will no doubt arise, and also thats two officers who will be pulled off the street whilst fingers are pointed.

Good. Perhaps the aggro will persuade the police to behave themselves in future.

teamhurtmore
Aphex, are to new here? evidence.....?

Nawww I see what you did there ya little scallywag

How would you have dealt with an angry man in your face ninfan? When the radio crackles into life and you get the scantiest of descriptions about a possible dangerous suspect, a rough idea of height, build, clothing and you spot someone who fits the description. You stop for a chat...

Go....

Ah - fits the description - Curly black hair and thick lips wasn't it?

I've dealt with several angry men in my face without managing to resort to the use of firearms as it happens.

This wasn't a case of "poor description" it was a copper (indeed, two coppers, one of them a sargeant) thinking he [b]might possibly[/b] be a wanted person, and then completely losing control of the situation because the 'suspect' wasn't 'compliant' (despite not having any legal duty to give information\)

all very reminiscent of:

Where, once again, the magic words 'you're nicked' were missing.

Its not rocket science - the law was settled in 1969 for heavens sake,

[i]"it is advisable that police officers should use some very clear words to bring home to a person that he is under compulsion. It certainly must not be left in the state that a defendant can go into the witness-box and merely say "I did not think I was under compulsion." If difficulties for the future are to be avoided, it seems to me that by far and away the simplest thing is for a police officer to say "I arrest you." If the defendant goes to the police station after hearing those words, it seems to me that he simply could not be believed if he thereafter said "I did not think there was any compulsion, I was only going voluntarily."[/i]

What exactly is difficult to fathom about that?

Ninfan - with respect, I think you are slightly missing what that case law was about (Anderson or Alderson IIRC). The point being made was that clear words - such as "I am arresting you" - should be used to make a person aware that he is under compulsion to go with them, [u]in contrast to[/u] a potentially ambiguous statement such as "I am going to have to ask you to accompany me to the police station". The same case points out that [i]an arrest may be constituted when any form of words are used, or possibly conduct deployed, which is calculated to bring to the suspect's notice, and does so, that he is under compulsion[/i]. Conduct deployed would include physically taking hold of someone. Most people would be aware that they are being arrested if a police officer takes hold of them, and it is the importance of being aware that you are being arrested and therefore compelled to go with them, as opposed to simply being invited or asked to go with the police of your own volition, that that case law sought to highlight.

While it is normal and best practice to tell someone what you are arresting them for and why at the point you do so, the PACE Codes of Practice allow for situations where it isn't practical to do so - if someone is running away, struggling, shouting or otherwise incapable of listening to what they are being told. In that situation they must be told as soon as practical afterwards, which is generally taken to be once they are under control and have calmed down enough to listen.

That being so, an arrest is not automatically unlawful if the person is not told immediately that they are being arrested. It is for a court to decide if the arrest was lawful in the circumstances in which it was made. I have been in countless situations were an arrest was made and the spoken formalities only completed once the suspect was under control and sufficiently calm to be able to listen, none of which have ever been criticised or challenged in court. Since we now know, because you were good enough to point it out, that they were arresting him for the public order offence his conduct constituted, it is for them to explain how they opted to carry out that arrest. It is not categorically unlawful simply due to when certain words were said.

No, because, as we can see from the caselaw, at the point where they physically obstruct him and threaten to cuff him, he is not under (lawful) arrest.

the PACE Codes of Practice allow for situations where it isn't practical to do so - if someone is running away, struggling, shouting or otherwise incapable of listening to what they are being told.

Except, as you know, he wasn't - they had more than adequate opportunity to affect an arrest, but didn't.

No, because, as we can see from the caselaw, at the point where they physically obstruct him and threaten to cuff him, he is not under (lawful) arrest.

No, because you are misunderstanding that case law. Taking hold of him when he has committed an offence is arresting him. The verbal information must be given as soon as practical, which allows them to wait until they have finished getting control of him.

Except, as you know, he wasn't - they had more than adequate opportunity to affect an arrest, but didn't

As above, when the male officer lays hands on the man, who has committed a public order offence and then tries to walk away from them into his house, that he affecting an arrest for that offence. This is supported by the sergeant telling him what he's been arrested for once they have him under control.

What do you mean by 'more than adequate opportunity'? Are you referring to the fact that they didn't arrest him immediately when he started shouting and swearing, and only did so when he tried to go into his house?

If you see it differently then fair enough, it doesn't put me up or down, but the way that arrest was conducted is not remotely unusual - with the exception of the use of the taser, which I think I have made clear is as inexplicable to me as it is to everyone else.

the police do a damn hard job and its for our benefit, what they do not need are idiots like this chap provoking them.

DO we need coppers who cannot deal with "provocation" without over reacting?

DO you really think the coppers will only ever meet nice compliant folk who help them out?

From seeing the video he should just have said who he was and they should have not tasered them

It was an easily avoidable situation that required both sides to not be nobs

Who started it and who is most at fault is your choice

IME if plod ask you who you are and you dont tell them* and prove it as it rarely ends well if you dont

* i know you dont have to but it never helps the interaction as they seem to universally view it as being a bit arsey probably because it is and the most likely folk to do it are criminals and copper haters rather than pinko lefty civil rights activist such as myself.

Ah - fits the description - Curly black hair and thick lips wasn't it?

Really?

Sometimes descriptions are vague, often inaccurate too by the time it's filtered down to the people who need to know.

A he had to do was give a name and have a little chat. He chose not to.

You do sound like you have some underlying issues with the police so I'm gonna leave you, respectfully, to your opinions.

Great respect for the TBL.

Out.

Are you referring to the fact that they didn't arrest him immediately when he started shouting and swearing, and only did so when he tried to go into his house?

No, I am referring to the fact that from the point where they decided they were not going to let him walk away into his house - (i.e. They threatened him with a taser (an assault in itself) threatened that if he didn't tell them who he was then they might have to arrest him, they physically obstructed him, then threatened to cuff him in order to prevent him leaving) then he was being subjected to an unlawful deprivation of liberty short of arrest.

You'll also note that, rather than arresting him, what actually happened was that they tried to force their way through the open gate, and when he tried to prevent them (as he had a right to, he was not under arrest and they were trespassing) they assaulted him.

Sorry office I am not the person you are looking for.. My name is John Smith, if you would like proof here's my ID.

Ok thanks, have a nice day and I hope you find the guy you are looking for.

All done - 30 seconds. Not that difficult.

Teamhurtmore, you say 'Not that difficult' - try putting yourself in his shoes, something which [u]is[/u] difficult, in fact extremely difficult and probably impossible for most of us on this thread, because his life as a 60+ year old black person who has lived in inner city Bristol is probably worlds away from your and my life experiences.

Bear in mind, that it is not only virtually certain that he has seen and been on the receiving end of racist attitudes and discrimination from white people in authority positions throughout his life, but in his case he had already been wrongfully arrested previously on suspicion of being the same man the police were seeking this time. Can you imagine what that must feel like? You are simply going about your normal business and suddenly two police officers appear and accuse you of being that same person yet again?

If it were me, after having been on the receiving end of racism for probably many years, after the trauma of the previous wrongful arrest, and after actively getting involved in a police community liasion group to try to improve things, I think I would have felt utter despair and anger. Under those circumstances I can understand how someone would want absolutely nothing further to do with the police officers who were harassing them (in what would probably seem like some sick/cruel game), and would just want to get in their own home and away from it all. If anything that seems to me be a very normal human reaction and an admirably restrained approach in wanting to get away from the confrontation.

To expect him instead to simply put aside everything that has happened in the past and have a friendly cheery conversation with the police officers in the way you flippantly describe, shows a pitiable lack of comprehension and empathy.

😉

You'll also note that, rather than [s]arresting him[/s] letting him just walk away after committing an offence, what actually happened was that they [s]tried to force their way through the open gate[/s] stopped him closing the gate on them in order to avoid being arrested, and when he [s]tried[/s] failed to so obstruct them ([s]as he had a right to, he was not under arrest and they were trespassing[/s] which is itself a separate offence) they [s]assaulted[/s] arrested him.

I've explained it to you several times now. I can't understand it for you. Have a pleasant afternoon, I'm off to work.

All the more reason slowster for giving the police no excuse to behave incorrectly.

Simple rule for dealing with police is be polite, be helpful and don't be a dick. If you have had a previous bad experience then this should be even more obvious

Absolutely terrible policing from the female copper especially - from the outset, her body language, tone of voice and robotic repeating of the same things rather than trying to engage served to escalate rather than de - escalate the situation. This is even more damning when you hear she's a sergeant, so should have the ability and experience to effectively contain and calm a situation rather than proactively escalate it.

I just hope they are both sacked. There's no room for useless and ineffective police, they are public servants, not freeranging vigilantes who can act as they like unchallenged as if it's still the days of Gene Hunt. And when I say sacked, I mean sacked, not "allowed to retire" to protect their pension.

If you have had a previous bad experience then this should be even more obvious

Great insight 😕

You really must be able to see why he did it[ not everyone can turn the other cheek as well as you or Jesus do] even if you think it was unwise or are you just one of those who cannot see others views even if you do then continue to disagree with it

Have a pleasant afternoon, I'm off to work.

Stay safe!

Also try not to assault anyone then make something up in order to arrest them.

Really?

Sometimes descriptions are vague, often inaccurate too by the time it's filtered down to the people who need to know.

In those circumstances, the police officers know that the description they have is probably not enough on its own to constitute reasonable grounds for suspicion to justify an arrest, and other evidence is therefore needed before they can make an arrest. Someone refusing to tell you who they are, does not qualify as the extra evidence needed to make the arrest.

A he had to do was give a name and have a little chat. He chose not to.

But he did not [u]have[/u] to do that. He had done nothing wrong, and there was no legal requirement for him to give his name.

Instead of just focusing on his actions and blaming him for what happened, turn your scrutiny on the two police officers. They were the professionals doing a job which they had been trained and were being paid to do: the onus was wholly on them to do their job properly and within the law. When he refused to identify himself and walked into his house, [u]all they had to do[/u] was let him go and make further enquiries, such as walking over to the various bystanders and asking them if they knew the man and could tell them his name and radioing to request further information/instructions from their colleagues (better description, whether the person they are looking for is known to live at that address etc.). Instead, in your words, they chose not to. They chose instead to completely screw up a situation which should have been well within their communication, management conflict and people management skills, and to (probably) break the law in doing so.

Indeed, have a safe shift greatape.

😉

km79/ninfan - cheers, I'll do my best! I'm just going downstairs to practice my shouty German in front of the locker room mirror.

Bristol's pretty much how I remember it, ninfan...

crankboy - Member

There is no point in having a free country where you do not have to identity yourself to the authorities and the authorities powers are described by law if the penalty for refusing to cooperate with unlawful power is a taser zap and a load of people saying its your own fault for stepping out of line and not doing as you were told.

This, down to the ground.

acab

🙄

I think it must be part of the recruitment process but all police I have engaged with at various levels are serious control freaks with zero people skills and I'm sure if they routinely carries guns ala US then I am sure we would see the same levels or higher of unnecessary shootings, like shooting people in the back and shooting nonthreatening and unarmed people... oh hang on thats also happened here...People on here may well have a different experience of their village bobby but those of us that live in large cities and aren't white probably have a different view.

oh OK ACAB IME

Come to Scotland righty, where 15% of us aren't 🙂

People on here may well have a different experience of their village bobby but those of us that live in large cities and aren't white probably have a different view.

Obviously I dont share your views because I live in an episode of Heartbeat 🙄

Some coppers are bastards just like some posters on here are nobbers
To say they all are is deluded and serves only to show your bias

IME.......

It cannot be your experience that every single copper ever was a bastard and if it is its a massively skewed sample and you are too full of hate so that you wont admit to the obvious bias
IME

IME anyone who says ACAB is either a criminal or a complete idiot or both

IME !!!

Clowns like these two overshadow all the good cops out there.

The real problem here TJ, is the good one's allow and enable the bad ones behavior by inaction, making them also, bad cops

ulysse - Member

The real problem here TJ, is the good one's allow and enable the bad ones behaviour by inaction, making them also, bad cops

I'm sure thegreatape would love the opportunity to deal with the two coppers in the video, but unfortunately for him there are quite strict procedures in place for dealing with police complaints.
💡

there are quite strict procedures in place for dealing with police complaints.

Yes it usually involves collusion, cover ups and spreading misinformation.

Thegreatape don't people have to give you their name in Scotland. I thought that was a difference between Scots and English law ? Have a Good shift with no running or fighting.

Junkyard I wish you could travel back in time and change MY experience of the police I engaged with..... I'm sure there are lots of honest, by the book, non dictatorial,public serving police just I don't seem to have met any that meet that criteria and a number of times I have tried to get the police to deal with crimes and again and again IME they didn't seem to GAS

kimbers - Member
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

I'll bet he loves David Kehoe then, how that bloke still has a job, never mind a rank is a total mystery, unless he has the naked pictures of Tony Loyd stuck in an underage sheep or something...
Missing drugs while head of Drugs squad, check, wrongfully arresting innocents and attempting to fit them up, check- thrown out of court.....

Thegreatape don't people have to give you their name in Scotland. I thought that was a difference between Scots and English law?

No, they're not universally obliged to, just when there is a statutory or common law power to require it. It's broadly the same as in England, although here witnesses Tom crimes are also obliged to give their name and address. But, say, if you are stopped and searched you don't have to. There is a broader, perhaps more flexible, interpretation of offences like perverting the course of justice, but there's no carte blanche to lock up anybody who doesn't give their details when there is no legal obligation for them to do so.

Have a Good shift with no running or fighting.

Disclosure schedules 🙁 (thanks all the same though)