panoma1 Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Interested in people's understanding and definition of the words 'required' or 'a requirement' ..........and when does it mean you can choose whether you comply or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Oh right so because it isn't in the guidance it's rubbish? I'm talking from operational experience, you're reading what google search has thrown up. It's already been shown you don't HAVE to warn prior to deployment. As I said the shout of taser is to let other officers know it's been deployed and I'm correct. Now one said a warning HAD to be given, you are now arguing a warning has to be given after use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 My post was in response to all police should be armed.thus meaning it would be a requisite of the job along with the risk of being hauled up on a charge if in someone else's opinion you acted hastily. I believe if all officers were made to Carry firearms we would see a large number of current officers resign.not everyone wants to be taking life.also on your personal insult of me being blind ignorance well I know a couple of armed response officers and one who is on the royal protection at Buckingham palace and goes with royal party's when on trips and visits.cream of the crop I don't think.at the heart of this incident is an arrogant man who because he was on some committee that leased with police on matters of race thought he was above giving a normal reply to a normal question.god forbid we ever have another conventional war as under some people's views on accountability most of our soldiers would end up in prison.people have no respect for the law these days.and that is a great shame. Let them leave in the current terrorist situation the publics safety is more important if a truck is driving trough a crowd waiting for armed response is not an option. As for (requisite of the job along with the risk of being hauled up on a charge if in someone else's opinion you acted hastily) Rather than go on what could happen I will go with realty they are armed here and the things you talk about just don't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 There is nothing that says a warning must be given before a Taser is removed from a holster. What forces policy states that a warning must be given before a Taser is unholstered, and can you direct us to it? Would that also mean that under that forces policy when starting or finishing a shift that a warning must be given when you place the Taser into storage? I would imagine the unholstering of a Taser would be warning enough? The APP is the official source of professional practice in policing. I honestly do not want to fall out with you and i understand you have your own point of view and i have mine. I am sure that the event will be trawled over during the investigation and the conduct of all parties will be scrutinised and any amendment or standardisation made to publications or training if it is deemed necessary. I doubt there will be any 'winners' with the ultimate looser being you and me, the tax payer At least all parties are still here allowing lessons to be learned on all fronts. Again now one said a warning must be given, you are now making things up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Let them leave in the current terrorist situation the publics safety is more important if a truck is driving trough a crowd waiting for armed response is not an option. As for (requisite of the job along with the risk of being hauled up on a charge if in someone else's opinion you acted hastily) Rather than go on what could happen I will go with realty they are armed here and the things you talk about just don't happen. There are lots of things that don't happen in lots of places.there are a lot of reasons for this the main one in my opinion is different cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph5172 Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Again now one said a warning must be given, you are now making things up. I really cannot follow the trail or though process of your argument, multiple times you say there was plenty of time for a warning to be given, now you seem to imply it isn't needed, so why argue a point that isnt there. You seem to chop and change so much you appear to forget (or edit) what you have said. As i said i am sure everything will come out in the subsequent investigation, and as i also said i doubt there will be any winners (aside from a few briefs) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Regardless of personal opinions the simple fact remains that he did not break the law and was tazered. Had the officer drawn a firearm he would probably be dead. When decent folk start to believe it's in any way acceptable for the police to use offensive weapons on people who haven't broken any laws it shows just how brainwashed we have become. I hope the officer concerned is banned from ever possessing a weapon again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 I really cannot follow the trail or though process of your argument, multiple times you say there was plenty of time for a warning to be given, now you seem to imply it isn't needed, so why argue a point that isnt there. You seem to chop and change so much you appear to forget (or edit) what you have said. As i said i am sure everything will come out in the subsequent investigation, and as i also said i doubt there will be any winners (aside from a few briefs) To be clear then, I did not say a warning must be given I said the guidance states that a warning should be given where circumstances allow officers should give a clear warning they are going to use taser. After watching the video there was plenty of time and opportunity to give a warning, as for guidance and best practice you can choose to ignore it but if you will have to explain why you did in any investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 I think all the know it alls should go and Join the police force, they seem to have all the answers and I'm sure once they joined with there suppiror investigitve skills and crystal balls (what I and most would call hindsight) there will never be another incident where the police are criticised again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 I still don't see why chummy didn't just pony up with his details - the suggestion that he didn't have to because he wouldn't have been believed is facile and would mean that no one would ever need to give their details to the police when asked. "My name is x, this is where I live, these are my keys" Seems easy enough. I might not have tasered him but I would have grabbed hold of him to stop him leaving. No doubt that would have been an assault.... pfff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 I still don't see why chummy didn't just pony up with his details - the suggestion that he didn't have to because he wouldn't have been believed is facile and would mean that no one would ever need to give their details to the police when asked. "My name is x, this is where I live, these are my keys" Seems easy enough. I might not have tasered him but I would have grabbed hold of him to stop him leaving. No doubt that would have been an assault.... pfff The answer is probably because you have not lived with racism your entire life. It does shape your reactions to what we would consider innocuous and reasonable discourse. As was mentioned earlier, the fuse was on a slow burn well before the incident in question. I wonder how many of us would behave with similar history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Where did I say a warning should be given in all circumstances as you said I did. ? Above I said a warning is required before the not after a event again common sense. I did not say a warning must be given. "You are required to give a warning before the Taser is fired" Is what you said and the bold type is yours, not mine. I think that despite your squirming and inability to face up to your own shortcomings everyone on here will know what you meant and how little you actually know about the subject. You are not required to give a warning before the Taser is deployed just as you are not required to give a warning that you are deploying incapacitant spray, a dog or even a firearm if the circumstances dictate that this would be impractical or futile. After Pepper Mace or CS spray has been used, a police dog has been released or a Taser fired it is good practice to warn people around you of the deployment and possible dangers. Especially if the warning hasn't been given prior to deployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Now one said a warning HAD to be given, you are now arguing a warning has to be given after use. Nope, I didn't say a warning has to be given after use anywhere? I gave an explanation why the officer shouted taser while deploying it. Which is correct procedure, though no doubt you'll argue it as you know everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) My post was in response to all police should be armed.thus meaning it would be a requisite of the job along with the risk of being hauled up on a charge if in someone else's opinion you acted hastily. I believe if all officers were made to Carry firearms we would see a large number of current officers resign.not everyone wants to be taking life.also on your personal insult of me being blind ignorance well I know a couple of armed response officers and one who is on the royal protection at Buckingham palace and goes with royal party's when on trips and visits.cream of the crop I don't think.at the heart of this incident is an arrogant man who because he was on some committee that leased with police on matters of race thought he was above giving a normal reply to a normal question.god forbid we ever have another conventional war as under some people's views on accountability most of our soldiers would end up in prison.people have no respect for the law these days.and that is a great shame. Just because you have a firearm on your belt doesn't mean you have to draw it. I suspect a significant number of police are not fit to be entrusted with firearms. However that is not just an issue regarding firearms. Professional and personal culpability is an everyday fact of life for anyone in a position responsibility for the safety of others and is accountable to the state. It doesn't matter whether you kill a pedestrian in a high speed pursuit, fail in due diligence in operational procedures or shoot someone by mistake. You will face an inquiry that has the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and quite rightly so. Edited January 22, 2017 by achosenman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 "You are required to give a warning before the Taser is fired" Is what you said and the bold type is yours, not mine. I think that despite your squirming and inability to face up to your own shortcomings everyone on here will know what you meant and how little you actually know about the subject. You are not required to give a warning before the Taser is deployed just as you are not required to give a warning that you are deploying incapacitant spray, a dog or even a firearm if the circumstances dictate that this would be impractical or futile. After Pepper Mace or CS spray has been used, a police dog has been released or a Taser fired it is good practice to warn people around you of the deployment and possible dangers. Especially if the warning hasn't been given prior to deployment. Read it take your time i said required to give a warning before using the taser not after, that particular discussion was about her giving a warning after using the taser. not that a warning must be given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Nope, I didn't say a warning has to be given after use anywhere? I gave an explanation why the officer shouted taser while deploying it. Which is correct procedure, though no doubt you'll argue it as you know everything. So she followed correct procedure ( advice training guidance ) after using the taser but not before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muddy Funker Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 So she followed correct procedure ( advice training guidance ) after using the taser but not before. Ask her. She's the one thats going to have to justify her actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Okrang Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 I still don't see why chummy didn't just pony up with his details - the suggestion that he didn't have to because he wouldn't have been believed is facile and would mean that no one would ever need to give their details to the police when asked. "My name is x, this is where I live, these are my keys" Seems easy enough. I might not have tasered him but I would have grabbed hold of him to stop him leaving. No doubt that would have been an assault.... pfff 'the suggestion that he didn't have to because he wouldn't have been believed' Juda Adunbi gave this as one of the reasons he did not give the police his details. It was never given here as justification - to do so would indeed have been facile. I'm pleased to learn that you would've freely 'ponied up' your details and surrendered your keys (which keys?) and I dare say I would've too. But you know what? The law did not require him to. I therefore defend his right not to give his details, we have civil liberty laws for a reason. You would've, I would've, but he didn't have to if he didn't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Just because you have a firearm on your belt doesn't mean you have to draw it. I suspect a significant number of police are not fit to be entrusted with firearms. However that is not just an issue regarding firearms. Professional and personal culpability is an everyday fact of life for anyone in a position responsibility for the safety of others and is accountable to the state. It doesn't matter whether you kill a pedestrian in a high speed pursuit, fail in due diligence in operational procedures or shoot someone by mistake. You will face an inquiry that has the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and quite rightly so. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Read it take your time i said required to give a warning before using the taser not after, that particular discussion was about her giving a warning after using the taser. not that a warning must be given. I have read it. So has everyone else. You started out arguing that a warning MUST be given before deploying the Taser. Then you shifted your stance to say that you are REQUIRED to give a warning BEFORE deploying the Taser and not after. Even with all your subsequent editing you are the only person who is totally wrong and has been all the way through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Regardless of personal opinions the simple fact remains that he did not break the law and was tazered. Had the officer drawn a firearm he would probably be dead. When decent folk start to believe it's in any way acceptable for the police to use offensive weapons on people who haven't broken any laws it shows just how brainwashed we have become. I hope the officer concerned is banned from ever possessing a weapon again I believe pushing an officer constitutes assault on police. I pretty sure that's illegal. f. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmytree Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 (edited) 9 pages about an incident where 2 police officers quite reasonably asked a member of the public to give his name, not too difficult is it? He refused. Why? He wouldn't cooperate at all, something to hide or just an axe to grind? He got tazered because he refused to answer a very simple question in a civil manner, had he given his name would he have been zapped? What if he'd been a 20 year old white man who refused to cooperate and got arsey? Would there be the same reaction? Racism, that's why we have "ethnic advisors" and "mobo" awards, ok for the "minorities but the ethnic whites can get stuffed? He got exactly what he deserved, had he behaved like any other reasonable person would have done in those circumstances he would have been home in 5 minutes with no further problems. Edited January 22, 2017 by timmytree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 Just because you have a firearm on your belt doesn't mean you have to draw it. I suspect a significant number of police are not fit to be entrusted with firearms. However that is not just an issue regarding firearms. Professional and personal culpability is an everyday fact of life for anyone in a position responsibility for the safety of others and is accountable to the state. It doesn't matter whether you kill a pedestrian in a high speed pursuit, fail in due diligence in operational procedures or shoot someone by mistake. You will face an inquiry that has the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and quite rightly so. there was no mention of having to use any firearm because its on your belt,i also suggest a significant number of police are not fit to be entrusted with a firearm whilst on duty,this because they have no wish to do so.as for any inquiry that will no doubt follow they will have footage from the officers body camera's and any witness statements,so will be in a much better position to judge if any wrong was done and on what side than the lynch mob that like to gather on this forum to slam the police at every opportunity.. 9 pages about an incident where 2 police officers quite reasonably asked a member of the public to give his name, not too difficult is it? He refused. Why? He wouldn't cooperate at all, something to hide or just an axe to grind? He got tazered because he refused to answer a very simple question in a civil manner, had he given his name would he have been zapped? What if he'd been a 20 year old white man who refused to cooperate and got arsey? Would there be the same reaction? Racism, that's why we have "ethnic advisors" and "mobo" awards, ok for the "minorities but the ethnic whites can get stuffed? He got exactly what he deserved, had he behaved like any other reasonable person would have done in those circumstances he would have been home in 5 minutes with no further problems. exactly this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 22, 2017 Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 I have read it. So has everyone else. You started out arguing that a warning MUST be given before deploying the Taser. Then you shifted your stance to say that you are REQUIRED to give a warning BEFORE deploying the Taser and not after. Even with all your subsequent editing you are the only person who is totally wrong and has been all the way through. No at the start I even quoted the APP guidance. You won't see must in its guidance or my posts, as I said stop making things up without backing them up. Think what you want but I and most people know that a warning can not always be given for numerous reasons, but as I say that was not the case in this incident. I already explained the required you reefer to was not about must give a warning but about when a warning should be given if appropriate before or after, but its obviously going over your head. I believe pushing an officer constitutes assault on police. I pretty sure that's illegal. f. Why are they not prosecuting him for assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted January 22, 2017 Author Report Share Posted January 22, 2017 9 pages about an incident where 2 police officers quite reasonably asked a member of the public to give his name, not too difficult is it? He refused. Why? He wouldn't cooperate at all, something to hide or just an axe to grind? He got tazered because he refused to answer a very simple question in a civil manner, had he given his name would he have been zapped? What if he'd been a 20 year old white man who refused to cooperate and got arsey? Would there be the same reaction? Racism, that's why we have "ethnic advisors" and "mobo" awards, ok for the "minorities but the ethnic whites can get stuffed? He got exactly what he deserved, had he behaved like any other reasonable person would have done in those circumstances he would have been home in 5 minutes with no further problems. So you really believe he should have been tasered in the face for not representing a threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts