Police Taser their own race relations adviser in Bristol

ianh said:
Bypassing the "were they right/wrong", as a firearms user for over 20 years my judgement of the video is that the reactions of the Female officer during the firing of the taser were appalling.

If ever the police, during taser training, have to see a video of how NOT to fire a taser I would use this video. The little "jump" when she draws it, the "shoot form the hip" deployment, the panic in her voice and actions - all of these are the actions of an under trained, under qualified officer.

I remember vividly when tasers were introduced and it was said their deployment would be treated exactly the same as a firearm. In this same situation the officer would have shot the guy, does that seem proportional to the threat he posed?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a question of training or qualification. Some people just panic. The actions of a wpc on two occasions nearly had my step dad seriously injured or killed. I've posted about it on here previously.

You can have the best training in the world but it isn't worth squat if you can't keep your head.
 
Macro said:
Would it make you happy if I changed the word "vast" to "some" so you don't then have to avoid the entire point of the argument just to focus on semantics?
Click to expand...

Semantics is the study of meaning, so it's far from the irrelevancy you imply it is.

The difference between "vast majority" and "some" is about as far from trivial and irrelevant as it's possible to get.

Try these two sentences for size:

The vast majority of Liverpudlians are thieves.

Some Liverpudlians are thieves.

The former is a false claim about a group of people. It is factually incorrect and exists only to promote irrational prejudice.

The latter is true (though still dubious since it's singling out the inhabitants of one city for something which is true for all cities).

It's not a matter of semantics.

Your point rests on a factually incorrect statement and therefore isn't a point at all.
 
Dis86 said:
That it was a blatant attempt.to.do nothing but incite racial tension? Yup it is.
Click to expand...
Ah, so your opinion is the old man deserved it and the police officers did nothing wrong as per your first post.

Your problem is someone had the damn cheek to highlight the police officers managed to unnecessarily Tazer a completely innocent elderly black member of their community who, somewhat ironically, serves in a police advisory capacity on race relations for not giving his identity when he was under no obligation to do so. Ummmm... ok...
 
Macro said:
Ah, so your opinion is the old man deserved it and the police officers did nothing wrong as per your first post.

Your problem is someone had the damn cheek to highlight the police officers managed to unnecessarily Tazer a completely innocent elderly black member of their community who, somewhat ironically, serves in a police advisory capacity on race relations for not giving his identity when he was under no obligation to do so. Ummmm... ok...
Click to expand...

Yet because of your obvious anti police bias you're missing the massive point that as part of a community relations group with the police he should have had the damn sense to realise it goes.both ways and not acted like a complete prat when all they did was ask his name. He was clearly obstructive and clearly resistant.
As I said the only reason this is being made a big thing of is the media's attempt to yet again portray race as being the issue.
 
Angilion said:
Semantics is the study of meaning, so it's far from the irrelevancy you imply it is.

The difference between "vast majority" and "some" is about as far from trivial and irrelevant as it's possible to get.

Try these two sentences for size:

The vast majority of Liverpudlians are thieves.

Some Liverpudlians are thieves.

The former is a false claim about a group of people. It is factually incorrect and exists only to promote irrational prejudice.

The latter is true (though still dubious since it's singling out the inhabitants of one city for something which is true for all cities).

It's not a matter of semantics.

Your point rests on a factually incorrect statement and therefore isn't a point at all.
Click to expand...
Errr, I conceded I would be happy to use the word "some" if it helped you try to address the actual issue and not play semantics on an irrelevant straw man point so you seem to be arguing with yourself.

As an aside please tell me how many people agreed he should have just given his details and therefore brought it on himself and how many didn't prior to my posted.

How does that in any way effect the rights and wrongs of the incident?
 
Dis86 said:
Yet because of your obvious anti police bias you're missing the massive point that as part of a community relations group with the police he should have had the damn sense to realise it goes.both ways and not acted like a complete prat when all they did was ask his name. He was clearly obstructive and clearly resistant.
As I said the only reason this is being made a big thing of is the media's attempt to yet again portray race as being the issue.
Click to expand...
Now you see you make yourself look even more foolish. As I mentioned earlier I have several members of close family who are serving police officers and so have no anti police bias, if anything it's the exact opposite. On the current video evidence it looks like he was under no obligation to give his identity and so was completely in his rights. You appear to be a bit confused, a police office could ask you to give them £5, if you chose not to do they get to Tazer you for being an obstructive resistant prat?
 
Nitefly said:
Surely race is only being highlighted by the media due to the irony of the situation?
Click to expand...

Not really. They could have just called him a public relations something or other. I'm not entirely actually clear on what he is. Other than maybe a gent who is part of a group who complains to the police that they feel they're being unfairly treated!
 
Macro said:
Now you see you make yourself look even more foolish. As I mentioned earlier I have several members of close family who are serving police officers and so have no anti police bias, if anything it's the exact opposite. On the current video evidence it looks like he was under no obligation to give his identity and so was completely in his rights. You appear to be a bit confused, a police office could ask you to give them £5, if you chose not to do they get to Tazer you for being an obstructive resistant prat?
Click to expand...

They have no reason to ask for money. They had every reason to ask his name. Try again troll.
 
Dis86 said:
Not really. They could have just called him a public relations something or other. I'm not entirely actually clear on what he is. Other than maybe a gent who is part of a group who complains to the police that they feel they're being unfairly treated!
Click to expand...
Yeah, bloody complaining on unfair treatment despite the fact he's just been Tazered for nothing... What possible justification could... Oh wait...
 
Macro said:
And he has every reason and right to decline to provide it - Jeesus, this isn't difficult, do try to keep up.
Click to expand...

And they have every reason to assume he's therefore trying to evade justice.

You'd be a crap police officer. Hope your family aren't as rubbish as you.

"Hey, are you that wanted guy who fits your description?"

"Nope"

"Oh. Ok then. Bye!"




"So pc Macro, why didn't you arrest that violent criminal?"

"Well he said he wasn't the man we wanted"

"Ohhhhh ok then, I guess that makes.sense now".
 
Dis86 said:
And they have every reason to assume he's therefore trying to evade justice.

You'd be a crap police officer. Hope your family aren't as rubbish as you.

"Hey, are you that wanted guy who fits your description?"

"Nope"

"Oh. Ok then. Bye!"




"So pc Macro, why didn't you arrest that violent criminal?"

"Well he said he wasn't the man we wanted"

"Ohhhhh ok then, I guess that makes.sense now".
Click to expand...

Or just be sure of the identity of the person you are arresting and avoid having to ask derply questions such as "are you the bad guy we're looking for?"
 
Dis86 said:
And how exactly do you do that?
Click to expand...

I think we have now officially gone full circle :p Investigate, surely?! Find out where he lives, consult records... be sure of who it is so you don't have to ask in such a lucky dip fashion? Frankly their investigations sucked as they did get the wrong person. I don't think they should have the right to be so intrusive as to demand to know who you are on the spot and, in any case, they shouldn't be tasering those that don't comply in the face :p
 
Dis86 said:
And how exactly do you do that?
Click to expand...

If it's someone wanted then the identity is KNOWN. You cant just go around arresting people just because wanted people exist.

And that is what people with a mentality such as your's will eventually cause to become mandate.

All of our rights will be relinquished.
 
Nitefly said:
I think we have now officially gone full circle :p Investigate, surely?! Find out where he lives, consult records... be sure of who it is so you don't have to ask in such a lucky dip fashion? Frankly their investigations sucked as they did get the wrong person.
Click to expand...

So do people only go to their own house?

What records?

Come on, you've got the answers. Let's hear them!
 
Dis86 said:
And they have every reason to assume he's therefore trying to evade justice.

You'd be a crap police officer. Hope your family aren't as rubbish as you.

"Hey, are you that wanted guy who fits your description?"

"Nope"

"Oh. Ok then. Bye!"




"So pc Macro, why didn't you arrest that violent criminal?"

"Well he said he wasn't the man we wanted"

"Ohhhhh ok then, I guess that makes.sense now".
Click to expand...
Oh my god - I don't even know how to try to explain it to you if you can't figure out something so simple as basic human rights. He did nothing illegal, they Tazered him - wow, how do you find that so hard to grasp?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom