TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 Someone will be in trouble, they tasered their own advisor on black communities. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/20/police-admit-tasering-ownblack-race-relations-advisorafter-mistaking/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medic1281 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 He should've cooperated when asked instead of trying to be clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digger Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 Why did he refuse to give his name ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scolopax Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 Why did he refuse to give his name ? I think he said because they did not ask politely bit of an extreme result but he brought it on himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I think the Police Woman involved will be on leave for a while before having a one way conversation with her Chief Constable. It cannot be correct to taser someone who is not constituting a threat. Mr Adunbi will probably receive a full and unconditional apology and may get some compensation. I hope he refrains from speaking to the media until this has all been sorted out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 Mr Adunbi will probably receive a full and unconditional apology and may get some compensation. I hope he refrains from speaking to the media until this has all been sorted out. I think he already has on at least one occasion previously, and probably not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Why did he refuse to give his name ? Because he doesn`t have to until he has been charged with an offence. Edited January 21, 2017 by sportsbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShootingEgg Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 The blokes an idiot, show ID, co operate and sorted.. He struggled and got hit... Not the first time he hasnt co-operreted either... If he was a proper "advisor" he wouldn't make it awkward... Now he will want compensation, as he got it a few years ago for similar incidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 Because he doesn`t have to until he has been charged with an offence. But even Liberty say..... There are, however, circumstances where it might be a good idea to give your name and address to a police officer I would think most normal people when confronted with are you the wanted naughty boy by the name of XXXXX? would think it would be a good idea to follow the above guidance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sportsbob Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Shouting does not change the fact he was acting in a lawfull manner. Edited January 21, 2017 by sportsbob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mel b3 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 any reasonable/normal/sensible person would have just given their name to the two police officers . im not always a fan of the police , but in this instance i feel sorry for the two officers that will now be dragged through a world of cack for years to come , because some , antagonistic , anti authority , racist , old fool has an axe to grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butchdickason Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 He was stupid, should have done as requested by police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigbob Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I wonder how many times the police have done that but are now caught out being filmed ?> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
termin8r Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I wonder how many times the police have done that but are now caught out being filmed ?> I wonder how many times idiots have done that but are now caught out being filmed? A neighbour's filming of the event was shown on local news - as far as I'm concerned the footage didn't show the complainant in a good light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul1966 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 apparently it was the second time he was stopped as he looks similar to someone that is wanted, so he was probably a bit miffed. i think he was lucky not to have lost an eye , surely they are trained not aim the tazer near the head? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 Being evasive, obstructive, uncooperative and difficult, usually indicates having something to hide, which is the Police's job to investigate......or it could be an individual reacts aggressively against figures of authority, because they have the proverbial "chip on their shoulder" The officers were apparently doing their job and just trying to establish whether this man was who they were looking for or not! if the suspect is uncooperative what are the officers supposed to do? say OK and walk away? or arrest him in order to question him properly? if he then resists arrest? what then? A hopefully honest investigation will ensue and again hopefully if the police were at fault they will be punished accordingly! but the suspect should probably be prosecuted for resisting arrest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I thought failure to provide particulars was an arrestable offence. Like 'em or not the police have got a job to do and being asked to provide your name doesn't appear to be an abuse of their powers or an infringement of civil liberties. Couple that with then walking away through a locked door; well it wasn't going to end well for chummy. Mr Chippy shoulder boy looking for an excuse to spark it up with the man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobba Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I do not know what footage was aired on National TV at the time but there is a video clip on ITV and it was shown extensively on local news. The video was taken by a neighbour. OK the situation was not helped by Mr Adubi being uncooperative and refusing to provide his identity. However, Mr Adunbi had not broken the law. He was wrongly identified by the police as a wanted person. They "believed" he was xxxxxxx "who is wanted, I THINK". He tried to avoid the situation and enter his own home and was then physical restrained by the male police officer. He was not armed and he was not physically assaulting the police, other than trying to avoid being manhandled, he was not a threat nor threatening. There appears to have been no attempt to properly follow PACE procedures. There was no warning that he would be tasered, other than the WPC shouting taser as she shot him. In my view, the police action was wrong and the irrational action of the WPC should bring about her dismissal. I am a supporter of the Police and firmly believe in law an order being properly exercised by the Police. In this instance it was not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 That is how I saw the situation too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) I suppose law abiding sensible people would just stop and give their name and talk it through. Unfortunately I suspect that it is the average police persons experience that their regular 'customers' are the ones who don't want to stop for a conversation and don't want to give their names. And so uncooperative chap not giving his name and trying to leave the scene is going to spark the situation up (and I think this chap will have known that). The key is is it lawful (when you have done nothing wrong etc) to withhold your name when asked by the police. It's been 20 years since I looked at a criminal law book but failure to give details is IIRC an areestable offence bearing in mind that the police have a job to do and that job will almost always start with someone's name. Alright I might not have tasered him but he's a big lad and she was a small copper. I'm old fashioned and think that all coppers should be 6' and male, but that's another thread! Edited January 21, 2017 by Mungler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 21, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I suppose law abiding sensible people would just stop and give their name and talk it through. Unfortunately I suspect that it is the average police persons experience that their regular 'customers' are the ones who don't want to stop for a conversation and don't want to give their names. The key is is it lawful (when you have done nothing wrong etc) to withhold your name when asked by the police. It's been 20 years since I looked at a criminal law book but failure to give details is IIRC an areestable offence bearing in mind that the police have a job to do and that job will almost always start with someone's name. Alright I might not have tasered him but he's a big lad and she was a small copper. I'm old fashioned and think that all coppers should be 6' and male, but that's another thread! You "MIGHT NOT have tasered him" ? I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 Yes. This isn't about police brutality or racism this is about women trying to stop and arrest large men. A large (and perhaps even racist) copper would have got hold of the bloke. I think she bottled it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 I do not know what footage was aired on National TV at the time but there is a video clip on ITV and it was shown extensively on local news. The video was taken by a neighbour. OK the situation was not helped by Mr Adubi being uncooperative and refusing to provide his identity. However, Mr Adunbi had not broken the law. He was wrongly identified by the police as a wanted person. They "believed" he was xxxxxxx "who is wanted, I THINK". He tried to avoid the situation and enter his own home and was then physical restrained by the male police officer. He was not armed and he was not physically assaulting the police, other than trying to avoid being manhandled, he was not a threat nor threatening. There appears to have been no attempt to properly follow PACE procedures. There was no warning that he would be tasered, other than the WPC shouting taser as she shot him. In my view, the police action was wrong and the irrational action of the WPC should bring about her dismissal. I am a supporter of the Police and firmly believe in law an order being properly exercised by the Police. In this instance it was not. This ^^ The WPC over reacted. The guy is 63 years old, I'm fairly sure 2 police officers should have been able to handle him without resorting to using a taser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) I wonder how many times the police have done that but are now caught out being filmed ?> Done what exactly? We only saw the closing chapter of the story. Matey with the camera made the situation more stressful IMO. I don't have a problem with him recording but he got up real close to the officers and aggravated the incident because it was starting to look like he might interfere further. All he recorded were the closing stages with regard to harassing our police force dealing with a belligerent potential suspect from leaving when all the 'victim' had to do was identify himself? EDIT: I guess the suspects jacket was not a good location for a taser hit so she aimed for an area the probes would penetrate to bare skin. Edited January 21, 2017 by Dave-G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted January 21, 2017 Report Share Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) The key is is it lawful (when you have done nothing wrong etc) to withhold your name when asked by the police. It's been 20 years since I looked at a criminal law book but failure to give details is IIRC an areestable offence bearing in mind that the police have a job to do and that job will almost always start with someone's name. Giving your name and address The police do not have the right to demand your name or address without a reason. Generally, a police officer can only ask you to give your name and address if they believe you: have committed an offence are about to commit an offence. For example, a police officer can ask you for your name and address if they believe you bought alcohol and you are under 18. Other times the police can ask for your name and address are: if you are driving a vehicle or boat and a police officer signals for you to stop. You must stop and show the police officer your licence or permit if you are on the tram, train, bus or on public transport property (public transport inspectors and protective services officers can also ask for your name and address) if you are in a hotel or licensed premises (staff can also ask your age) if they believe you have information that could help them investigate an indictable offence. They must tell you what offence they think you can help them investigate. The police must tell you why they want your details. If they don’t give you a reason, you should ask for it. It is an offence to refuse to give police your name and address or to give police a false name and address if they have a lawful reason to ask you for your details. Edited January 21, 2017 by Danger-Mouse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts