Danger-Mouse Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Wasn't aimed at you directly mate. It was the 195 posts before mine. Fair enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 I hope the inquiry refers to the PW massive for guidance before making their decision. If you aren't a lawyer or police officer, why would you try to make a case either way? Same as I wouldn't tell a mechanic how to service my car. Legal or not, if that obstructive old goat had just given his name instead of thinking he was above the law, none of it would have happened. I suppose you do have the option of not reading the thread...just saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twistedsanity Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 The police rule by our consent and are employed to "protect" us. The law is there to be followed not only by civilians but also by the police(unless this has become a dictatorship whilst I was asleep). If he broke no law and was not obliged to give his details then according to that law that we are all supposed to abide by he has been shot with a potentially lethal weapon illegally and the officer should be prosecuted according to that law. We can't bend the rules to suit us whenever we fancy can we? If anybody were to "illegally" shoot a police officer with a tazer regardless of the circumstances everyone on here would be demanding there head on the chopping block shouting how they had broken the law and should pay the price, so why does everyone think its OK for this police officer to shoot a man illegally when he has broken no law? Why is it acceptable for a highly trained officer in uniform to flout the law and get away with a slapped wrist whereas you and I would have our liberty removed and get a criminal record? There have been too many examples of people In authority being allowed special privileges where bending and breaking the law is concerned which is why so many of today's youth are anti police. I trust the police a little less every time I read articles like this and can fully understand why the younger generation have absolutely no respect for them. They lie, they cheat, they kill people and never get prosecuted for it yet expect people to stop and obey them without question! I'm not anti police and think on the whole most of them do a good job often under very difficult conditions but the law must be obeyed and respected by them as much as us or its worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) It doesn't really matter now because that WPC is now going to get the book thrown at her and rightly so. She broke so many rules its not worth even starting to list them all Would that have happened if he had been a white man in a suit? Edited January 23, 2017 by Vince Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 I suppose you do have the option of not reading the thread...just saying. Yes I do have that option,. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthedark Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Late onto the thread and haven't read all of it, but having watched the video through it looked like the cops were quite restrained and used a minimum level of reasonable force. Comments invited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Yes I do have that option,. Thank you for pointing out the obvious. So you just like to complain then? From your terse post you seem to me to be incapable of seeing any grey area or another side to the story. Unless you have been on the receiving end of 60 years of (potential) racism I would suggest you might have acted similarly. In fact your description of him as "an old goat" rather suggests that you're impatient and rather black and white in outlook. I wonder how you would react if you were subject to his life's experience? Probably blown a fuse way before 60 years I'd imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bostonmick Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Has anyone on here seen footage from the police body cameras. Which I feel may give a clearer view of what was said and done and by whom.unlike an edited version of a passer by's video.we all know that papers only print the whole truth.the police explained why they wanted to know his name and he refused saying I am not that person.then we saw his arms waving and pushing the officers.so quite clearly his actions brought the end result.now as a race relations advisor I would expect him to advise people of his race to be respectful and polite when dealing with the authorities. Yet he behaves like a yob.perhaps if they had just let him walk away and into his house and then was found to be the wanted man everyone could have slammed them for letting him go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord v Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 I don't understand why, when he refused to give his details and became belligerent he wasn't arrested? From the video there appears to be an immediate jump to the use of force, which doesn't seem to be right (IDK though). It would certainly put a different complexion on it if the officers were trying to arrest him and he was resisting.... I was under the impression that while you don't have to give your details, if you don't and the police reasonably suspect you of being a naughty boy (or girl) they have the right to detain you until your identity is confirmed. I get that the chap is annoyed, but surely (if I am correct about the above) he would know that refusal to give details would lead to his arrest and waste everyones day? That would be massively counterproductive to just getting on with your day. Seems he was just being an **** for the sake of it. As much as it would be tempting to taser such people in the face, it isn't right if that was the sole reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 So you just like to complain then? From your terse post you seem to me to be incapable of seeing any grey area or another side to the story. Unless you have been on the receiving end of 60 years of (potential) racism I would suggest you might have acted similarly. In fact your description of him as "an old goat" rather suggests that you're impatient and rather black and white in outlook. I wonder how you would react if you were subject to his life's experience? Probably blown a fuse way before 60 years I'd imagine. Who are you? Forget that. I don't care. You must know me though to make such informed statements about me. Suggest what you want about me fella, but for the love of god, stop being so pompous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Some retired senior copper on the radio today saying that the rules and procedures for deploying a taser are very precise and weren't followed here but ha can't see how two coppers couldn't have just used normal everyday skills to deal with him. It wasn't a big deal not wanting to give his name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellow Bear Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 It doesn't really matter now because that WPC is now going to get the book thrown at her and rightly so. She broke so many rules its not worth even starting to list them all Would that have happened if he had been a white man in a suit? I suspect not as he would not be in a position to play the "race card" to make mischief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
achosenman Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Who are you? Forget that. I don't care. You must know me though to make such informed statements about me. Suggest what you want about me fella, but for the love of god, stop being so pompous. I never claimed to be making informed comments. There were lots of qualifier's in what I posted regarding how your post seemed to me. I for one enjoy reading other peoples opinions even if I don't agree with them. When I loose interest in a thread, I stop reading. As for being pompous...that would be you with your comment about the PW missive, you can chuck in condescending while your at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Some retired senior copper on the radio today saying that the rules and procedures for deploying a taser are very precise and weren't followed here but ha can't see how two coppers couldn't have just used normal everyday skills to deal with him. It wasn't a big deal not wanting to give his name.I wouldn't listen to an ex cop who watching a clip of a video decided that the force two other cops used was not reasonable, anyone who has had to use force and understands use of force law knows that there are so many variables involved including how the initiator of the uof felt at the time, intelligence received ect to go on the record and imply they were wrong without a full investigation is naive at best, look at the Charles Demendes(spelling?) case, I know there were unforgivable mistakes made there but it wasn't the officers who pulled the trigger that were in the wrong, anyone who first looked at that would assume the cops who pulled the trigger in that case would be going to jail, however they did their job, unfortunately to utter tragic consequences and that's been proved in court. Just to reiterate, I'm neither condemning or defending the officers in this case, just pointing out that without the full facts, no one can say they were right or wrong, as for those on here who seem to take great delight in bashing the cops at every opportunity they get, I think they should go and Join the police since they have all the answers, I personally feel they'd make the worst officers ever, they'd jump from conclusion to conclusion with total bias and could never impartially investigate any crime, as their mind would be made up before they even arrived to a job or spoke to a witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walshie Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 I never claimed to be making informed comments. There were lots of qualifier's in what I posted regarding how your post seemed to me. I for one enjoy reading other peoples opinions even if I don't agree with them. When I loose interest in a thread, I stop reading. As for being pompous...that would be you with your comment about the PW missive, you can chuck in condescending while your at it. Oh. One of those who always needs the last word I see. Crack on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuddster Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 The police rule by our consent and are employed to "protect" us. The law is there to be followed not only by civilians but also by the police(unless this has become a dictatorship whilst I was asleep). If he broke no law and was not obliged to give his details then according to that law that we are all supposed to abide by he has been shot with a potentially lethal weapon illegally and the officer should be prosecuted according to that law. We can't bend the rules to suit us whenever we fancy can we? If anybody were to "illegally" shoot a police officer with a tazer regardless of the circumstances everyone on here would be demanding there head on the chopping block shouting how they had broken the law and should pay the price, so why does everyone think its OK for this police officer to shoot a man illegally when he has broken no law? Why is it acceptable for a highly trained officer in uniform to flout the law and get away with a slapped wrist whereas you and I would have our liberty removed and get a criminal record? There have been too many examples of people In authority being allowed special privileges where bending and breaking the law is concerned which is why so many of today's youth are anti police. I trust the police a little less every time I read articles like this and can fully understand why the younger generation have absolutely no respect for them. They lie, they cheat, they kill people and never get prosecuted for it yet expect people to stop and obey them without question! I'm not anti police and think on the whole most of them do a good job often under very difficult conditions but the law must be obeyed and respected by them as much as us or its worthless. after reading you contributions so far-Your user name appears quite appropriate. f. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 I am of the thinking, that a tasering happens, when your actions have unnerved the police, basically, its in your hands not to be tasered. however, I was subjected to a lying officer on new years eve morning at 5.45 am, on the way to hospital during an asthma attack, I saw the police at least a mile back tailing me, I drove impeccably, they pulled me and she said do you know why I stopped you, I answered that there was absolutely no reason to have stopped me based on my driving or my vehicle, she lied and said it was because I swerved. She knew, I knew, and when she couldn't smell booze she let me on my way to A & E, they were there before me to make sure I wasn't lying about my medical situation. I don't like these stirrers who film the police, its out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garygreengrass Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Okay, let's explore this "What if" scenario........... The fact that the police are asking him for his name would indicate that they do not know who he is, or, at best, they are not sure who he is. He might or might not be 'a person of interest' (we don't know if they were looking for anyone in particular do we?). Therefore, he will know that they don't know who he is. So he knows he could either lie to them or tell them the truth and they would be none the wiser. Okay, lets now look at the implications of this.......... Let's say his name is Joe Bloggs and he is a notoriously violent drug dealer whose name and reputation is known across the city. Why would he tell the police his real name? After all, they don't seem to have recognised him. So, Joe Bloggs tells them he is Fred Jones. The police now have to decide whether he is telling the truth or not. They ask him for ID, he refuses, an altercation ensues and he pulls out a knife and murders them both. Where in this hypothetical scenario would him giving his name, someone else's name or no name at all, prevent a knife from being pulled? Cheers, Jon. If he had giving his name then checks could have been done and he would of been on his way, I am not saying that police did not use excessive force in this situation. but on the other side of the coin is he the right person to be a advisor on black communities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 I am of the thinking, that a tasering happens, when your actions have unnerved the police, basically, its in your hands not to be tasered. however, I was subjected to a lying officer on new years eve morning at 5.45 am, on the way to hospital during an asthma attack, I saw the police at least a mile back tailing me, I drove impeccably, they pulled me and she said do you know why I stopped you, I answered that there was absolutely no reason to have stopped me based on my driving or my vehicle, she lied and said it was because I swerved. She knew, I knew, and when she couldn't smell booze she let me on my way to A & E, they were there before me to make sure I wasn't lying about my medical situation. I don't like these stirrers who film the police, its out of order. Why would you have an issue with the police being filmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clayduster Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Not long before this one is closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 Why would you have an issue with the police being filmed. are you filmed when you are working? no neither am I. I trust the police enough to do their job, without joe blogs the ****-stirrer putting them under more pressure, agitating situations and orchestrating payouts. it weakens policing, if anyone needs to film, its the police themselves, which they do. The police are not perfect, neither am I, its either them or anarchy on the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westley Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 It doesn't really matter now because that WPC is now going to get the book thrown at her and rightly so. She broke so many rules its not worth even starting to list them all ouWld that have happened if he had been a white man in a suit? He would probably just given his name and address, I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 (edited) are you filmed when you are working? no neither am I. I trust the police enough to do their job, without joe blogs the ****-stirrer putting them under more pressure, agitating situations and orchestrating payouts. it weakens policing, if anyone needs to film, its the police themselves, which they do. The police are not perfect, neither am I, its either them or anarchy on the streets. It works both ways film can help the police, they wear body cams and film interaction with themselves and the public, there are numerous police programs were the police are happy to be filmed. PS I don't think it will cause anarchy on the streets. Edited January 23, 2017 by ordnance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wandringstar Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 It works both ways film can help the police, they wear body cams and film interaction with themselves and the public, there are numerous police programs were the police are happy to be filmed. PS I don't think it will cause anarchy on the streets. no I meant we either have a police force, or anarchy on the streets, public should keep their noses out until they are needed. I wouldn't dream of filming officers trying to keep the peace, its rude at best. That Rastafarian was just another agitator, why do the police want to hire him, why are we tolerating all these separate communities, nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danger-Mouse Posted January 23, 2017 Report Share Posted January 23, 2017 are you filmed when you are working? no neither am I. I trust the police enough to do their job, without joe blogs the ****-stirrer putting them under more pressure, agitating situations and orchestrating payouts. it weakens policing, if anyone needs to film, its the police themselves, which they do. The police are not perfect, neither am I, its either them or anarchy on the streets. We live in the most surveilled country in the world. We're constantly under scrutiny whilst walking the streets. I've worked at places where I've been filmed, tracked, subjected to searches. It's really not that unusual in the modern world. A member of the public filming a police officer is not breaking the law. Just as a police officer wearing a body cam is not breaking the law. Having an incident on film and audio protects both parties but especially the public party. Why do I say that? Because generally speaking, in a your word vs his word situation, the police officer will be believed over you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts