Police Taser their own race relations adviser in Bristol

Orion21 · 22 Jan 2017 at 03:20

I think what Craterloads and dl8860 are saying is pretty spot on.

Sure he could have avoided the situation, but he did not do anything wrong either.

Also I can see how he would take offence at the officer's tone given the likely history of him or people he knows being stopped unjustly. Maybe he should have still moved pass that and gave the information, but that is easier said than done. But I can understand why maybe he would not.

Perhaps ask yourself would you be more willing to help someone that approached you in a polite or a confrontational manner? Now what about if you had history with the person / organisation / symbol where they essentially bullied you or people you knew?

Angilion · 22 Jan 2017 at 03:23

asim18 said:
I'm not making up your answer. You are choosing not to give one. And I have acknowledged that and respected it.

That would be a valid point if it wasn't for the fact that he answered you repeatedly. The thread in question is still available and proves that he did not write what you're claiming he wrote. Anyone can find that out with 2 clicks.

Angilion · 22 Jan 2017 at 03:36

asim18 said:
This was potentially an issue with how officers approached the situation. Situations like this, the outcome can be dictated within seconds of contact. How you initiate contact with someone is very important if you go in with a particular outcome in mind.

Was the actual suspect wanted because he just threatened someone with a knife or gun? Could he actually have disposed of any evidence once in his home? Maybe, he could have flushed drugs? But that all depends on what the actual suspect was wanted for.

It would be fascinating to know whether these officers introduced themselves accordingly though. Did they even explain the situation to him? Looks like the video just started when they're in an argument already saying "What's your name" and **** like "you're going to be arrested" repeatedly.

That I agree with. We need the whole video, unedited, to get the whole story.

The tasering looks wrong to me, though. That's not how things should be handled, regardless of what the actual suspect was wanted for.

EDIT: Hmmm...maybe they mistook the keys in his hand for a knife. A highly aggressive suspect who has something metallic in their hand. I'd be worried it was a knife.

Nitefly · 22 Jan 2017 at 08:00

Dis86 said:
You do understand criminals lie don't you? You do get that, right?

And actually if you can't ascertain someones identity that is grounds for arresting them. If they believe you to be wanted and you fail to provide details then it can be classed as obstructing a police officer.

Look up Obstructing a Police Officer - section 89(2) Police Act 1996.

Thank God you and Macro aren't out there to try and catch criminals. From your daft logic you couldn't arrest someone unless they've already been convicted by a court.

Nitefly said:
'No comment' is obstructing a police officer? Genuine question. That would be absurd, I think.

Arresting him because you think he is a suspect, fair enough, but not for 'no comment' by itself.

Dis86 said:
Yes. It can be. If you're wanted and refuse to identify yourself then that means the police have to waste additional time.and resource going by other means to find out who you are. That is obstruction.

Nitefly said:
I can see that not providing info would add suspicion towards the making of an arrest for an offence that was unrelated to the request for information (i.e an arrest for a prior assault, or something).

Dis86 said:
Finally. You get it!

(Sorry, I just can't resist)

That wouldn't be an arrest for obstructing a police officer under the legislation you implied - that would be an arrest for a suspected assault. I really don't think that 'failing to provide info' is an offence as you suggested. I agree with Angillion.

Angilion said:
I think it shouldn't be obstructing the police in the legal sense. From my reading of the CPS' website, it isn't. Giving a false name and address would be, but giving none wouldn't be.

RoboCod · 22 Jan 2017 at 09:01

Good lord, there is a lot of waffle and whining at one another over nothing here. There are two matters in this story and that is all:

A. The guy shouldn't have been a dick and just said "my name is X, I am not the guy you're looking for"... Why else not give your name? What on earth will you benefit from not giving your name and what threat is there to you from the police knowing it? (like are they going to steal it or something?) Why be clever? Get over yourself!

B. The female police officer shouldn't have been a dick. As soon as the SUSPECT was clearly not playing ball, they should have escalated force appropriately, not just shot him.

That's it. There is no race discussion or daft debate over your right not to give your identity.

Mynight · 22 Jan 2017 at 09:04

RoboCod said:
That's it. There is no race discussion or daft debate over your right not to give your identity.

But the cops were white thus the only answer is racist, no?

(It's a shame there's no way of putting them in an identical situation to see if the guy gets tasered just the same)

RoboCod · 22 Jan 2017 at 09:08

Mynight said:
But the cops were white thus the only answer is racist, no?

(It's a shame there's no way of putting them in an identical situation to see if the guy gets tasered just the same)

Anything else is pure speculation, we don't know what exactly the officers thought. We can only assume they believed the man fit the description of the suspect. We've all seen the police shows on TV. When a guy fits the description of someone known then they have right to detain you.

edscdk · 22 Jan 2017 at 09:20

Craterloads said:
He is not obliged to give his name or address. He was walking his dog yards away from from his home.

He did absolutely nothing to around suspicion of an offence and was harassed by trigger happy officers on a power trip.

I hope next time a crime is committed against you the police just turn round and say sorry nothing we can do.. We are not permitted to ask anyone anything and even if we speak to the right guy he will just say he never did it.

Nothing to arouse suspicion? Herefused to answer their question... Last time a copy asked my name I told him.

Roar87 · 22 Jan 2017 at 11:04

Macro said:
Oh, that explains it - actually don't worry, I think we're all quite clear on your view.... "Durrr, if you don't give your ID even though you're under no obligation to to you should get Tazered old man...." lol

You can see he lashes out at the officer and pushes him away though? I know it's dead inconvenient but that actually happened

Tefal · 22 Jan 2017 at 11:57

Surely rhis only goes 2 ways.

You fit a description of somone whos say carried out an assult.

You get stopped and asked for id you provide it they take your details and if you're not the person you get told to go on your way but they may contsct you later if they need you to come in for questioning.

You get stopped and asked for id, you refuse, you get arrested on suspicion of assult and sit in a cell while they ascertain your id/check if the victim recognises you/check your alibi.

Nick1881 · 22 Jan 2017 at 11:59

I saw this, I don't know why he didn't just co-operate, it made him seem guilty straight away. If the police asked me my name and details I'd just tell them as I have nothing to hide. The use of the taser did seem a little over the top though, not sure it had got to that point.

Chris Wilson · 22 Jan 2017 at 12:15

Whilst amused to see an awkward old cuss get his comeuppance my deeper concern is how and why this man got to be an advisor on race relations to the police when he appears to have a well cultured hostility to them?

Dis86 · 22 Jan 2017 at 12:22

Nitefly said:
(Sorry, I just can't resist)

That wouldn't be an arrest for obstructing a police officer under the legislation you implied - that would be an arrest for a suspected assault. I really don't think that 'failing to provide info' is an offence as you suggested. I agree with Angillion.

Completely misunderstood what you'd posted I'm afraid!

I didn't say failure to provide information is an offence. I said obstructing a police officer is and failing to provide information can be construed as obstructing a police officer. I gave 4 clear examples early that asim and yourself seem to be struggling with yet haven't counter argued.

mmj_uk · 22 Jan 2017 at 12:52

Nick1881 said:
I saw this, I don't know why he didn't just co-operate, it made him seem guilty straight away. If the police asked me my name and details I'd just tell them as I have nothing to hide. The use of the taser did seem a little over the top though, not sure it had got to that point.

If it happened regularly though wouldn't you reach a point where you were just sick of being bothered by police? according to the black community it is a regular thing for them and if so I can see why they would reach a point where they just get fed up and no longer want to comply.

Minstadave · 22 Jan 2017 at 12:56

Chris Wilson said:
Whilst amused to see an awkward old cuss get his comeuppance my deeper concern is how and why this man got to be an advisor on race relations to the police when he appears to have a well cultured hostility to them?

It's always the most opinionated people that end up in these types of roles. You've normally got to have an agenda and he clearly had an agenda in the encounter with the two police officers.

JBuk · 22 Jan 2017 at 13:06

Minstadave said:
It's always the most opinionated people that end up in these types of roles. You've normally got to have an agenda and he clearly had an agenda in the encounter with the two police officers.

What is his agenda?

Nitefly · 22 Jan 2017 at 13:22

Dis86 said:
Completely misunderstood what you'd posted I'm afraid!

I didn't say failure to provide information is an offence. I said obstructing a police officer is and failing to provide information can be construed as obstructing a police officer. I gave 4 clear examples early that asim and yourself seem to be struggling with yet haven't counter argued.

No worries on the misunderstanding! On the examples, you mean this?

Dis86 said:
Yet again thank God you're not a police officer. Do you buy your weed off asim?

Right...I'll explain it to you.

Officer believes you to be wanted. They stop and question you.

You give your name and aren't the wanted man, you go free. SMART.

You don't give your name (you don't have to) but they believe they have sufficient cause to arrest you. You're arrested and have to give your name even though you're not the man they wanted. STUPID.

You're the wanted man you give your name and they arrest you. SMARTISH.

You don't give your name. They believe your the wanted person. They arrest you. Find out your the person. You can now also be charged with obstructing a police officer
DOUBLE STUPID.

Mmm I don't think in the last example you could be charged with obstruction if you said no comment (for saying 'no comment'). I may be wrong but I'd be seriously surprised if you were convicted on that basis. Anyway we'll leave it there and if we disagree we disagree - I shall now depart the thread for more constructive uses of my time

Chris Wilson · 22 Jan 2017 at 13:22

JBuk said:
What is his agenda?

Seeing how far he can push things before a reaction develops forcing him to comply with their orders? Then having a handy camera man around to publish his endeavours?

JBuk · 22 Jan 2017 at 13:33

Chris Wilson said:
Seeing how far he can push things before a reaction develops forcing him to comply with their orders? Then having a handy camera man around to publish his endeavours?

Or maybe he just felt persecuted so less willing to obide ?

Ahh yes, that camera man has been lying in wait for years

brendy · 22 Jan 2017 at 13:36

Dis86 said:
Pretty much this!

Roar87 said:
Seems obvious he was resisting arrest, what did he expect? Why is this even a news story? Just another attempt at racial divide by the media I guess

LOL the word arrest isnt mentioned in the entire article.
He was resisting nothing but answering against his rights and as mentioned if he was walking into a dwelling, perhaps they could have looked up the owners name to help them investigate (something the uk police forces are doing less and less of as they push more for crime detected stats instead).