Avon and Somerset Police taser own race relations advisor

[Duff Paddy]

A couple of things.

One of the police officers has the tazer in her hand from the beginning of the video ie it looks as though the 'suspect' was approached with the tazer already out and ready to fire.

The 'suspect' is acting a bit of the prick for not giving his name; but no doubt one of the reasons he didn't is because he was practising what he preached as a police race relations advisor, ie citizens in the UK are under no legal obligation to give their names to the police when stopped on 'sus'.

So far as I can see the 'suspect' had not been arrested before attempting to get into his property which the police officers forcibly stopped him doing.

I am aware that we may be seeing an edited video but some ambulance chasers are no doubt already rubbing their hands in glee.

He suffered the same thing 10 years ago sans tasering and was awarded compensation, twice for the same guy is more than a coincidence. I've been a vocal critic on the other side of this but those cops deserve to swing. He wasn't threatening at all, no need for a tasering. Maybe the cop was too small to be confident if a fight was to break out. "Sir please stop, we just want to ask you a few questions. You resemble a suspect we are actively searching for. If you cant provide us with a name we are going to have to take you in and establish your identity, If you comply then we can maybe rule that out here". Poor communication, escalation on behalf of cops, and too quick on the trigger. An innocent man going about his business should be treated with politeness and reasoned with to comply. If they had done so, i'd suggest this could be avoided. The police caused the escalation.

Did you miss that bit yeah.

[BlackMac]

A couple of things.

One of the police officers has the tazer in her hand from the beginning of the video ie it looks as though the 'suspect' was approached with the tazer already out and ready to fire.

The 'suspect' is acting a bit of the prick for not giving his name; but no doubt one of the reasons he didn't is because he was practising what he preached as a police race relations advisor, ie citizens in the UK are under no legal obligation to give their names to the police when stopped on 'sus'.

So far as I can see the 'suspect' had not been arrested before attempting to get into his property which the police officers forcibly stopped him doing.

I am aware that we may be seeing an edited video but some ambulance chasers are no doubt already rubbing their hands in glee.

He suffered the same thing 10 years ago sans tasering and was awarded compensation, twice for the same guy is more than a coincidence. I've been a vocal critic on the other side of this but those cops deserve to swing. He wasn't threatening at all, no need for a tasering. Maybe the cop was too small to be confident if a fight was to break out. "Sir please stop, we just want to ask you a few questions. You resemble a suspect we are actively searching for. If you cant provide us with a name we are going to have to take you in and establish your identity, If you comply then we can maybe rule that out here". Poor communication, escalation on behalf of cops, and too quick on the trigger. An innocent man going about his business should be treated with politeness and reasoned with to comply. If they had done so, i'd suggest this could be avoided. The police caused the escalation.

About 70% of what you have said there either contradicts what is on the video or cannot be established from what is on the video.

[dr dre2]

A couple of things.

One of the police officers has the tazer in her hand from the beginning of the video ie it looks as though the 'suspect' was approached with the tazer already out and ready to fire.

The 'suspect' is acting a bit of the prick for not giving his name; but no doubt one of the reasons he didn't is because he was practising what he preached as a police race relations advisor, ie citizens in the UK are under no legal obligation to give their names to the police when stopped on 'sus'.

So far as I can see the 'suspect' had not been arrested before attempting to get into his property which the police officers forcibly stopped him doing.

I am aware that we may be seeing an edited video but some ambulance chasers are no doubt already rubbing their hands in glee.

He suffered the same thing 10 years ago sans tasering and was awarded compensation, twice for the same guy is more than a coincidence. I've been a vocal critic on the other side of this but those cops deserve to swing. He wasn't threatening at all, no need for a tasering. Maybe the cop was too small to be confident if a fight was to break out. "Sir please stop, we just want to ask you a few questions. You resemble a suspect we are actively searching for. If you cant provide us with a name we are going to have to take you in and establish your identity, If you comply then we can maybe rule that out here". Poor communication, escalation on behalf of cops, and too quick on the trigger. An innocent man going about his business should be treated with politeness and reasoned with to comply. If they had done so, i'd suggest this could be avoided. The police caused the escalation.

About 70% of what you have said there either contradicts what is on the video or cannot be established from what is on the video.

I don't think so, they treated him as scum before scum was established. I'm suggesting a level of politeness beyond what is shown. Is required whether the person being stopped is black or white. I'm suggesting that the police generally lack this and that is displayed in the video. Tasering someone should be the absolute last resort, it should only be used if the officer is in physical danger and possibly only if the suspect has been confirmed to be armed. As far as they are being concerned they should be treating the guy as a dude walking his dog and stopping him as politely as if they were going to ask him the time. Then explaining their reason for stopping him and never tasering him at any point until he's been shown to be a danger. The guys life and health are more important than a tenuous enquiry. They had no reason to stop him other than he looked vaguely like somone they were looking for while wearing a hood

[BlackMac]

A couple of things.

One of the police officers has the tazer in her hand from the beginning of the video ie it looks as though the 'suspect' was approached with the tazer already out and ready to fire.

The 'suspect' is acting a bit of the prick for not giving his name; but no doubt one of the reasons he didn't is because he was practising what he preached as a police race relations advisor, ie citizens in the UK are under no legal obligation to give their names to the police when stopped on 'sus'.

So far as I can see the 'suspect' had not been arrested before attempting to get into his property which the police officers forcibly stopped him doing.

I am aware that we may be seeing an edited video but some ambulance chasers are no doubt already rubbing their hands in glee.

He suffered the same thing 10 years ago sans tasering and was awarded compensation, twice for the same guy is more than a coincidence. I've been a vocal critic on the other side of this but those cops deserve to swing. He wasn't threatening at all, no need for a tasering. Maybe the cop was too small to be confident if a fight was to break out. "Sir please stop, we just want to ask you a few questions. You resemble a suspect we are actively searching for. If you cant provide us with a name we are going to have to take you in and establish your identity, If you comply then we can maybe rule that out here". Poor communication, escalation on behalf of cops, and too quick on the trigger. An innocent man going about his business should be treated with politeness and reasoned with to comply. If they had done so, i'd suggest this could be avoided. The police caused the escalation.

About 70% of what you have said there either contradicts what is on the video or cannot be established from what is on the video.

I don't think so, they treated him as scum before scum was established. I'm suggesting a level of politeness beyond what is shown. Is required whether the person being stopped is black or white. I'm suggesting that the police generally lack this and that is displayed in the video. Tasering someone should be the absolute last resort, it should only be used if the officer is in physical danger and possibly only if the suspect has been confirmed to be armed. As far as they are being concerned they should be treating the guy as a dude walking his dog and stopping him as politely as if they were going to ask him the time. Then explaining their reason for stopping him and never tasering him at any point until he's been shown to be a danger. The guys life and health are more important than a tenuous enquiry.

WTF!!
Have you seen a different video from the rest of us

[dr dre2]

A couple of things.

One of the police officers has the tazer in her hand from the beginning of the video ie it looks as though the 'suspect' was approached with the tazer already out and ready to fire.

The 'suspect' is acting a bit of the prick for not giving his name; but no doubt one of the reasons he didn't is because he was practising what he preached as a police race relations advisor, ie citizens in the UK are under no legal obligation to give their names to the police when stopped on 'sus'.

So far as I can see the 'suspect' had not been arrested before attempting to get into his property which the police officers forcibly stopped him doing.

I am aware that we may be seeing an edited video but some ambulance chasers are no doubt already rubbing their hands in glee.

He suffered the same thing 10 years ago sans tasering and was awarded compensation, twice for the same guy is more than a coincidence. I've been a vocal critic on the other side of this but those cops deserve to swing. He wasn't threatening at all, no need for a tasering. Maybe the cop was too small to be confident if a fight was to break out. "Sir please stop, we just want to ask you a few questions. You resemble a suspect we are actively searching for. If you cant provide us with a name we are going to have to take you in and establish your identity, If you comply then we can maybe rule that out here". Poor communication, escalation on behalf of cops, and too quick on the trigger. An innocent man going about his business should be treated with politeness and reasoned with to comply. If they had done so, i'd suggest this could be avoided. The police caused the escalation.

About 70% of what you have said there either contradicts what is on the video or cannot be established from what is on the video.

I don't think so, they treated him as scum before scum was established. I'm suggesting a level of politeness beyond what is shown. Is required whether the person being stopped is black or white. I'm suggesting that the police generally lack this and that is displayed in the video. Tasering someone should be the absolute last resort, it should only be used if the officer is in physical danger and possibly only if the suspect has been confirmed to be armed. As far as they are being concerned they should be treating the guy as a dude walking his dog and stopping him as politely as if they were going to ask him the time. Then explaining their reason for stopping him and never tasering him at any point until he's been shown to be a danger. The guys life and health are more important than a tenuous enquiry.

WTF!!
Have you seen a different video from the rest of us

Tasering a guy in the face who is non aggressive, unarmed, while barely explaining your position, is treating them like scum. Especially when your only reason to stop him in the first place is he looks a bit like someone else while being black and wearing a hood. Discharging a weapon when you are neither certain the situation is about to turn violent or confident the person is even a reasonable suspect is an escalation beyond the pale. It was used as a substitute for reason and physical restraint. In my opinion as tenuous as the reasoning was for stopping the guy, they either needed to calm the situation with words a lot better and failing that detain him and call for extra force or even let the guy enter his property and call for backup and deal with it from there. The use of the taser was to prevent extra work in establishing a false and tenuous lead. That is treating someone like scum.

The suspicion was so tenuous. Even confronting the guy was premature, they could have watched him enter his property and then run some checks as to who lived there and come back another day. The guy was a supposed gang member not a terrorist. If he was considered dangerous then it's a bad idea to confront him like that anyway. Confronting him because he looks like someone else in a hood is treating him like scum.

[BlackMac]

Jesus. Every reply you have made is full of so many sweeping assumptions it is laughable. The video clearly starts well into the incident so you have absolutely no idea about what occured prior that point.

Could you also enlighten us as to who the officers suspected the guy to be, your knowledge of the grounds for that suspicion, what offence the person was suspected off, and your knowledge of the officers perception of the threat that person may have presented them.

I also doubt that the officer deliberately tazered the guy in the face but from what I know about them they generally strike higher than expected at close range.

As I said I don't condone the use of the tazer but your sweeping critique of the rest of the incident is just outright bollocks.

[dr dre2]

Jesus. Every reply you have made is full of so many sweeping assumptions it is laughable. The video clearly starts well into the incident so you have absolutely no idea about what occured prior that point.

Could you also enlighten us as to who the officers suspected the guy to be, your knowledge of the grounds for that suspicion, what offence the person was suspected off, and your knowledge of the officers perception of the threat that person may have presented them.

I also doubt that the officer deliberately tazered the guy in the face but from what I know about them they generally strike higher than expected at close range.

As I said I don't condone the use of the tazer but your sweeping critique of the rest of the incident is just outright bollocks.

I suppose i'm reading to much in to the victims testimony, but given he is a pillar of the community and works in an official role that is meant to prevent this kind of thing AND he's been successfully been awarded compensation for the last time this happened to him, I tend to believe him.

The guy also spends as much time as he can with his arms behind his back and the cop claims he started a fight when he did not. We know that charge was dropped against him.

[Raggs]

Jesus. Every reply you have made is full of so many sweeping assumptions it is laughable. The video clearly starts well into the incident so you have absolutely no idea about what occured prior that point.

Could you also enlighten us as to who the officers suspected the guy to be, your knowledge of the grounds for that suspicion, what offence the person was suspected off, and your knowledge of the officers perception of the threat that person may have presented them.

I also doubt that the officer deliberately tazered the guy in the face but from what I know about them they generally strike higher than expected at close range.

As I said I don't condone the use of the tazer but your sweeping critique of the rest of the incident is just outright bollocks.

I suppose i'm reading to much in to the victims testimony, but given he is a pillar of the community and works in an official role that is meant to prevent this kind of thing AND he's been successfully been awarded compensation for the last time this happened to him, I tend to believe him.

The guy also spends as much time as he can with his arms behind his back and the cop claims he started a fight when he did not. We know that charge was dropped against him.

We don't know who started the fight, there's a big edit in the middle of the video. He comes wagging his finger and shouting/talking loudly straight at the female police officer at one point. Right at the start of the video (which isn't the start of the incident), the male copper clearly, calmly and politely states why they're asking his name, if he's someone working with the police, surely it's a two way street? He should understand they're trying to do a job, and he can help by just identifying himself. As for him being confused with someone else 10 years ago, it's hardly evidence for a sustained campaign of abuse is it? Twice in 10 years.

[dr dre2]

Jesus. Every reply you have made is full of so many sweeping assumptions it is laughable. The video clearly starts well into the incident so you have absolutely no idea about what occured prior that point.

Could you also enlighten us as to who the officers suspected the guy to be, your knowledge of the grounds for that suspicion, what offence the person was suspected off, and your knowledge of the officers perception of the threat that person may have presented them.

I also doubt that the officer deliberately tazered the guy in the face but from what I know about them they generally strike higher than expected at close range.

As I said I don't condone the use of the tazer but your sweeping critique of the rest of the incident is just outright bollocks.

I suppose i'm reading to much in to the victims testimony, but given he is a pillar of the community and works in an official role that is meant to prevent this kind of thing AND he's been successfully been awarded compensation for the last time this happened to him, I tend to believe him.

The guy also spends as much time as he can with his arms behind his back and the cop claims he started a fight when he did not. We know that charge was dropped against him.

We don't know who started the fight, there's a big edit in the middle of the video. He comes wagging his finger and shouting/talking loudly straight at the female police officer at one point. Right at the start of the video (which isn't the start of the incident), the male copper clearly, calmly and politely states why they're asking his name, if he's someone working with the police, surely it's a two way street? He should understand they're trying to do a job, and he can help by just identifying himself. As for him being confused with someone else 10 years ago, it's hardly evidence for a sustained campaign of abuse is it? Twice in 10 years.

One guy getting this treatment twice in their life? I'd suggest that's quite frequent. Most people would not get it once. I'd suggest it must be a common thing for that community. All other things considered, it's a tip of an iceberg. There are other witnesses. There is no evidence of calmness and politeness to which the level i'm suggesting. If you are likely to be infringing on an innocent man's day. You should do that very very very softly or risk escalating the situation. If they were sure, not just looking at a black dude with a hood and saying that is him, then maybe. But given they had nothing to suggest that this was the guy, this should have been approached as softly as they could. Probably not even confronted him unless they felt there was an immediate danger to life or health. And ran some checks first. If they felt it was him, they had an address and could have knocked the door later. Or followed him. Neither officer was in any danger when they shot him. If they had said ok sir, let him storm in to his house without trying to arrest. secured the property and called for back up and information on the occupant. Or not bothered to confront him there and then and done the same. They would have found an innocent man and not assaulted him risking an old man's life for the sake of a false lead.

An address for a potential suspect should have been enough for the level of evidence they had.

[OptimisticJock]

A couple of things.

One of the police officers has the tazer in her hand from the beginning of the video ie it looks as though the 'suspect' was approached with the tazer already out and ready to fire.

The 'suspect' is acting a bit of the prick for not giving his name; but no doubt one of the reasons he didn't is because he was practising what he preached as a police race relations advisor, ie citizens in the UK are under no legal obligation to give their names to the police when stopped on 'sus'.

So far as I can see the 'suspect' had not been arrested before attempting to get into his property which the police officers forcibly stopped him doing.

I am aware that we may be seeing an edited video but some ambulance chasers are no doubt already rubbing their hands in glee.

He suffered the same thing 10 years ago sans tasering and was awarded compensation, twice for the same guy is more than a coincidence. I've been a vocal critic on the other side of this but those cops deserve to swing. He wasn't threatening at all, no need for a tasering. Maybe the cop was too small to be confident if a fight was to break out. "Sir please stop, we just want to ask you a few questions. You resemble a suspect we are actively searching for. If you cant provide us with a name we are going to have to take you in and establish your identity, If you comply then we can maybe rule that out here". Poor communication, escalation on behalf of cops, and too quick on the trigger. An innocent man going about his business should be treated with politeness and reasoned with to comply. If they had done so, i'd suggest this could be avoided. The police caused the escalation.

About 70% of what you have said there either contradicts what is on the video or cannot be established from what is on the video.

Come on BM, this is PR.

[BlackMac]

Jesus. Every reply you have made is full of so many sweeping assumptions it is laughable. The video clearly starts well into the incident so you have absolutely no idea about what occured prior that point.

Could you also enlighten us as to who the officers suspected the guy to be, your knowledge of the grounds for that suspicion, what offence the person was suspected off, and your knowledge of the officers perception of the threat that person may have presented them.

I also doubt that the officer deliberately tazered the guy in the face but from what I know about them they generally strike higher than expected at close range.

As I said I don't condone the use of the tazer but your sweeping critique of the rest of the incident is just outright bollocks.

I suppose i'm reading to much in to the victims testimony, but given he is a pillar of the community and works in an official role that is meant to prevent this kind of thing AND he's been successfully been awarded compensation for the last time this happened to him, I tend to believe him.

The guy also spends as much time as he can with his arms behind his back and the cop claims he started a fight when he did not. We know that charge was dropped against him.

We don't know who started the fight, there's a big edit in the middle of the video. He comes wagging his finger and shouting/talking loudly straight at the female police officer at one point. Right at the start of the video (which isn't the start of the incident), the male copper clearly, calmly and politely states why they're asking his name, if he's someone working with the police, surely it's a two way street? He should understand they're trying to do a job, and he can help by just identifying himself. As for him being confused with someone else 10 years ago, it's hardly evidence for a sustained campaign of abuse is it? Twice in 10 years.

One guy getting this treatment twice in their life? I'd suggest that's quite frequent. Most people would not get it once. I'd suggest it must be a common thing for that community. All other things considered, it's a tip of an iceberg. There are other witnesses. There is no evidence of calmness and politeness to which the level i'm suggesting. If you are likely to be infringing on an innocent man's day. You should do that very very very softly or risk escalating the situation. If they were sure, not just looking at a black dude with a hood and saying that is him, then maybe. But given they had nothing to suggest that this was the guy, this should have been approached as softly as they could. Probably not even confronted him unless they felt there was an immediate danger to life or health. And ran some checks first. If they felt it was him, they had an address and could have knocked the door later. Or followed him. Neither officer was in any danger when they shot him. If they had said ok sir, let him storm in to his house without trying to arrest. secured the property and called for back up and information on the occupant. Or not bothered to confront him there and then and done the same. They would have found an innocent man and not assaulted him risking an old man's life for the sake of a false lead.

An address for a potential suspect should have been enough for the level of evidence they had.

So can I counter your sweeping assumptions and ignorance of the situation by making an assumption that they were actively searching for an extremely dangerous 60 year old black man wearing a blue hoody who had just stabbed 4 old grannies in the local shopping centre. I can then ignorantly criticise them for their lax attitude.

As to picking apart your stunning naivety about how this situation should have been dealt with...I don't even know where to start.

[fisgard792]

constable savage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

[message #2527204]

Jesus. Every reply you have made is full of so many sweeping assumptions it is laughable. The video clearly starts well into the incident so you have absolutely no idea about what occured prior that point.

Could you also enlighten us as to who the officers suspected the guy to be, your knowledge of the grounds for that suspicion, what offence the person was suspected off, and your knowledge of the officers perception of the threat that person may have presented them.

I also doubt that the officer deliberately tazered the guy in the face but from what I know about them they generally strike higher than expected at close range.

As I said I don't condone the use of the tazer but your sweeping critique of the rest of the incident is just outright bollocks.

I suppose i'm reading to much in to the victims testimony, but given he is a pillar of the community and works in an official role that is meant to prevent this kind of thing AND he's been successfully been awarded compensation for the last time this happened to him, I tend to believe him.

The guy also spends as much time as he can with his arms behind his back and the cop claims he started a fight when he did not. We know that charge was dropped against him.

We don't know who started the fight, there's a big edit in the middle of the video. He comes wagging his finger and shouting/talking loudly straight at the female police officer at one point. Right at the start of the video (which isn't the start of the incident), the male copper clearly, calmly and politely states why they're asking his name, if he's someone working with the police, surely it's a two way street? He should understand they're trying to do a job, and he can help by just identifying himself. As for him being confused with someone else 10 years ago, it's hardly evidence for a sustained campaign of abuse is it? Twice in 10 years.

One guy getting this treatment twice in their life? I'd suggest that's quite frequent. Most people would not get it once. I'd suggest it must be a common thing for that community. All other things considered, it's a tip of an iceberg. There are other witnesses. There is no evidence of calmness and politeness to which the level i'm suggesting. If you are likely to be infringing on an innocent man's day. You should do that very very very softly or risk escalating the situation. If they were sure, not just looking at a black dude with a hood and saying that is him, then maybe. But given they had nothing to suggest that this was the guy, this should have been approached as softly as they could. Probably not even confronted him unless they felt there was an immediate danger to life or health. And ran some checks first. If they felt it was him, they had an address and could have knocked the door later. Or followed him. Neither officer was in any danger when they shot him. If they had said ok sir, let him storm in to his house without trying to arrest. secured the property and called for back up and information on the occupant. Or not bothered to confront him there and then and done the same. They would have found an innocent man and not assaulted him risking an old man's life for the sake of a false lead.

An address for a potential suspect should have been enough for the level of evidence they had.

They asked him his name. A stunningly effective police tactic for ascertaining whether he was their suspect or not.

[dr dre2]

Jesus. Every reply you have made is full of so many sweeping assumptions it is laughable. The video clearly starts well into the incident so you have absolutely no idea about what occured prior that point.

Could you also enlighten us as to who the officers suspected the guy to be, your knowledge of the grounds for that suspicion, what offence the person was suspected off, and your knowledge of the officers perception of the threat that person may have presented them.

I also doubt that the officer deliberately tazered the guy in the face but from what I know about them they generally strike higher than expected at close range.

As I said I don't condone the use of the tazer but your sweeping critique of the rest of the incident is just outright bollocks.

I suppose i'm reading to much in to the victims testimony, but given he is a pillar of the community and works in an official role that is meant to prevent this kind of thing AND he's been successfully been awarded compensation for the last time this happened to him, I tend to believe him.

The guy also spends as much time as he can with his arms behind his back and the cop claims he started a fight when he did not. We know that charge was dropped against him.

We don't know who started the fight, there's a big edit in the middle of the video. He comes wagging his finger and shouting/talking loudly straight at the female police officer at one point. Right at the start of the video (which isn't the start of the incident), the male copper clearly, calmly and politely states why they're asking his name, if he's someone working with the police, surely it's a two way street? He should understand they're trying to do a job, and he can help by just identifying himself. As for him being confused with someone else 10 years ago, it's hardly evidence for a sustained campaign of abuse is it? Twice in 10 years.

One guy getting this treatment twice in their life? I'd suggest that's quite frequent. Most people would not get it once. I'd suggest it must be a common thing for that community. All other things considered, it's a tip of an iceberg. There are other witnesses. There is no evidence of calmness and politeness to which the level i'm suggesting. If you are likely to be infringing on an innocent man's day. You should do that very very very softly or risk escalating the situation. If they were sure, not just looking at a black dude with a hood and saying that is him, then maybe. But given they had nothing to suggest that this was the guy, this should have been approached as softly as they could. Probably not even confronted him unless they felt there was an immediate danger to life or health. And ran some checks first. If they felt it was him, they had an address and could have knocked the door later. Or followed him. Neither officer was in any danger when they shot him. If they had said ok sir, let him storm in to his house without trying to arrest. secured the property and called for back up and information on the occupant. Or not bothered to confront him there and then and done the same. They would have found an innocent man and not assaulted him risking an old man's life for the sake of a false lead.

An address for a potential suspect should have been enough for the level of evidence they had.

So can I counter your sweeping assumptions and ignorance of the situation by making an assumption that they were actively searching for an extremely dangerous 60 year old black man wearing a blue hoody who had just stabbed 4 old grannies in the local shopping centre. I can then ignorantly criticise them for their lax attitude.

As to picking apart your stunning naivety about how this situation should have been dealt with...I don't even know where to start.

If that was the case then the argument changes. But I mentioned that they were looking for a gang member I think, nothing so immediate. I'm pretty sure you are a cop? Can I ask what the charge would be if I tasered someone as a civilian? Not the possession side of it, what would the assault charge be?

I can't find the UK charge, though in the UuS it's assault and battery. Now are we to assume that assault and battery is reasonable force to subdue a non violent protester while resisting arrest? What are the guidelines? It should be used if the suspect is confirmed to be armed or cannot be overwhelmed by physical force only.

It's not naivity to suggest the police should apply a staggered elevation of severity based on the situation. Played off against the civil liberty of the suspect weighted against the risk to the public and themselves. Now if it turns out there was no immediate danger it is in my opinion more sensible for the police not to confront without fact checking first if that is possible. People will always object some will become irrate. Assaulting them is not the answer.

[wsurfa]

5 minute version. Neighbour tells the police he's going to his own house. Looks like a case of willful possession of dreads and excess melanin.

[dr dre2]

Why wouldn't he just tell them his name? If it was a random in the street asking you'd probably be happy to give your first name at least!

They were clearly looking for someone, and whoever that was I assume is what made them concerned.

Not sure what would be right there. They obviously think they've caught someone significant, and that seemingly intimidates them a bit. He refuses to give up his identity, which isn't going to allay their suspicions. Next step is probably to keep him where he is and call backup? The woman seemed a little trigger happy for sure, and should get the riot act read to her, but why wouldn't someone who's supposedly trying to improve police relations with his community, not try and be a good example? Asked your name, tell them, ask if there's something you can help with, offer ID or to wait for them to call base, take them home and offer a cuppa.

Video won't work for me so you'll need to help out a bit here. Do they say why they're asking or do they just rock up and demand his details? While it's inadvisable especially if there's no witnesses, I wouldn't be particularly inclined towards telling them without a bit of give and take.

Start of the video comes when it's clearly been going on, smallish black guy states point blank he's not giving his name, states he's done no wrong. Male policeman calmly tells him that they have no choice than to arrest him, since they believe he's **** **** (name redacted) and he's wanted, and if he's not going to tell them his name how are they to know (all calm, slighy exasperated). Man talks loudly and tells them they don't know who the F**k they're talking about, then shouts at them to leave him alone and let him go about his business. Policewoman says they've askde him to stay calm. Guy then starts walking upto her (she has a taser out) wagging his finger and saying "You're going to calm me, your sergeant is going to calm me".

We then have a chunk edited out, how convenient... the guy has seemingly gone down a gated+ metal fenced entrance and is trying to shut the gate on them. Copper pushes his way into the place, and gets shoved off by the guy. Little bit of a scuffle, nothing ridiculous, and the policewoman tasers him once they break up.

Ta.

Bollox, she's got the taser on him from the start of the video, he realises he's a bit shouty and puts his hands above his head and calms down. There is no chunk missing in the full video. They taser him and he surrenders his wallet while on the floor, they refuse to look at it and continue to struggle to get the zapped man in hand cuffs. It's a bit comical, he keeps pointing to the wallet, the police woman even stands on it but she's so afraid, the zapped prone OAP is going to leap to his feet and challenge her, she can't take her eyes off him. The two of them should have been able to subdue him, cuff him and check his wallet without the need to commit assault and battery. It was used to supplement the lack of physical strength and courage of the female cop. Wilfully aggressive from the start, interview under gun. Never threatened them physically, got assaulted by a weapon for his troubles. Just a guy who's fed up with being stopped because he's black wanting to get on with his day.

The male cop clearly lies and claims he tried to start a fight, the female cop commits assault. Sack them both.

Full video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXbdycwWA2c

[Raggs]

On my phone but unless there's two videos there, there's still a chunk missing in the middle.

[dr dre2]

On my phone but unless there's two videos there, there's still a chunk missing in the middle.

I cant detect it but if there is a missing fight then that would be the point a taser would be discharged not after stopping a man going through a gate and him standing there doing nothing. Why is the taser drawn on an unarmed man who's only mildly annoyed trying to get his point across? And I don't suppose the charges would have been dropped immediately. The female cop only calls for backup after the gate incident. She is petrified of the potential for it getting physical from the start of the video and hiding behind her weapon. She should not be a cop.

Judah Adunbi has told ITV News he refused to give his name to officers - because this was the second time he had been mistaken for a Bristol drug dealer.

Bear in mind the trauma I was going through as a result of fear, this matter has happened on a previous occasion.

– JUDAH ADUNBI
The Avon and Somerset race relations advisor says he was assaulted by officers when they wrongly believed him to be someone else seven years ago.

On that occasion, Mr Adunbi says, he sustained a lasting disability to his shoulder during that arrest. When he was stopped by two community officers on Saturday and asked if he was this man again, he was so humiliated and angry he refused to give his name.

They keep accusing him of being this man and assaulting him, they need to get their shit together.

[C69]

The Police claiming he tried to fight them and arresthim for assault.
Dear God

[Raggs]

They keep accusing him of being this man and assaulting him, they need to get their shit together.

Twice wasn't it? And if he knows he looks like a drug dealer, then doesn't it make more sense to be happy to help? Yes, it's shit luck to look like a wanted criminal, but unless he expects every copper in the area to remember his face, and remember that he's not the drug dealer (when the last time it happened was 7 years ago), then he can perhaps expect to be pulled up again.

The missing chunk is between 1.06 and 1.08 on the youtube link you gave.

The female copper was wrong to shoot him with the taser from what we can see, no doubts there, said that in my first post, but he could have helped himself a lot more than he did, long before getting tasered.

[fisgard792]

if the dude gives a name, how does the plod know if its correct, or does it go further and he has to prove his identity

[acenas of the day]

Reading all the politically correct, whites , defending the police here is hilarious.

Losers.

The pigs were in the wrong.

[C69]

if the dude gives a name, how does the plod know if its correct, or does it go further and he has to prove his identity

They could have looked in his wallet like he asked them to perhaps

[dr dre2]

They keep accusing him of being this man and assaulting him, they need to get their shit together.

Twice wasn't it? And if he knows he looks like a drug dealer, then doesn't it make more sense to be happy to help? Yes, it's shit luck to look like a wanted criminal, but unless he expects every copper in the area to remember his face, and remember that he's not the drug dealer (when the last time it happened was 7 years ago), then he can perhaps expect to be pulled up again.

The missing chunk is between 1.06 and 1.08 on the youtube link you gave.

The female copper was wrong to shoot him with the taser from what we can see, no doubts there, said that in my first post, but he could have helped himself a lot more than he did, long before getting tasered.

Perhaps they could put out a memo. If you think you've seen the drug dealer, think twice. Especially if it's in x part of town. It's almost certainly Judah, we've beat him up twice already, you've probably met him he's the guy we bring in to teach you not beat up black people four times a year. If you think you've seen the dealer call in and we'll tell you how to spot the difference. FFS don't taser the bastard again it's costing millions and if we can't even stop beating u our own race advisor then people will think that maybe we are racist. Oh and don't start your enquiries holding a taser, if you feel you are not physically strong enough to subdue an OAP between you and your partner, please quit now. We can't just taser people as an alternative.

[Anonymous 1]

What is the legal position regarding this ?
Does he legally have to give his name or present ID?
Being a dick is not a legal problem or a reason for being tasered tbh.
Was the engagement and the release of the taser in line with Police protocol?
The guy was an absolute bellend

In Scotland if the police suspect you of having committed an offence or of being a wanted person then they are entitled to ask your name and detain you whilst they verify your identity. If you refuse or they cannot confirm the details you will be either arrested or detained under further statutes.

I'm not entirely sure about England but generally they have more forceful powers than us.

It would be pretty difficult to have an effective police force without such legislation.

As to why she had her tazer ready....do any of us know what the guy was wanted for.

As to should she have used her tazer, not in a million years, however younger cops and especially female officers are generally completely unwilling or unable to physically subdue suspects without such equipment.

Back when I was a response cop I would undoubtedly have physically restrained him which would not have been pretty and possibly hurt him more than the tazer and would again have people bleating about heavy handed cops.

You had to get that one in didn't you

[dr dre2]

What is the legal position regarding this ?
Does he legally have to give his name or present ID?
Being a dick is not a legal problem or a reason for being tasered tbh.
Was the engagement and the release of the taser in line with Police protocol?
The guy was an absolute bellend

In Scotland if the police suspect you of having committed an offence or of being a wanted person then they are entitled to ask your name and detain you whilst they verify your identity. If you refuse or they cannot confirm the details you will be either arrested or detained under further statutes.

I'm not entirely sure about England but generally they have more forceful powers than us.

It would be pretty difficult to have an effective police force without such legislation.

As to why she had her tazer ready....do any of us know what the guy was wanted for.

As to should she have used her tazer, not in a million years, however younger cops and especially female officers are generally completely unwilling or unable to physically subdue suspects without such equipment.

Back when I was a response cop I would undoubtedly have physically restrained him which would not have been pretty and possibly hurt him more than the tazer and would again have people bleating about heavy handed cops.

You had to get that one in didn't you

They keep mistaking him for the same drug dealer it was not a live incident. After the last time when two PCSOs did permanent damage to his shoulder and they had to pay out compensation. They invited him to be a race relations advisor. It's hard to claim that the force has paid attention to the training when you keep beating up the instructor. I looked at the guidelines and it depends on the severity of the offence and danger the officers are in E&W. There are lots of law suits, it cannot just be used because you are weak. If that was the case or became known I'd imagine there would be uproar. I think the legal argument could be made that it's set as a severe offence to use a stun gun on someone with a definitive charge. If it's considered assault and battery, then logically it should only be used when assault and battery is a justifiable and reasonable force to counter a suspect's actions. You can't play it as a serious matter on one hand and then play it down with the other. From the video you could tell neither officer even knew how to subdue the man without the taser. They struggled even after he was tased, it was pathetic. In this case not confronting the man, calling in and surveillance would have been preferable in my opinion. With a memo on the file of the drug dealer mentioning Judah, his address and distinguishing marks. You can't just keep beating him up and harassing him.

If he was a bad man it could have ended badly for the cops. If nothing else. They were clearly shit.

[C69]

Thank God it was filmed tbh

[Saint]

Spent three years working with ASC and came into contact with a lot of people, from PCs to one of the ACCs. I find it very easy to believe that they're not the most competent bobbies on the beat out there