Police Taser their own race relations adviser in Bristol

[Will]

This whole business about not *having* to give your name is all well and good but it can give an officer greater grounds to arrest a person - see PACE code G:

When it is practicable to tell a person why their arrest is necessary, the constable should outline
the facts, information and other circumstances which provide the grounds
for believing that their arrest is necessary and which the officer considers
satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria in sub-paragraphs (a) to (f),
namely:

a) An officer might decide that a person’s name cannot be readily ascertained if they fail or refuse to give it when asked, particularly after being warned that failure or refusal is likely to make their arrest necessary . Grounds to doubt a name given may arise if the person appears reluctant or hesitant when asked to give their name or to verify the name they have given.

Power of arrest comes under PACE S24, to summarise:

A lawful arrest requires two elements:

A person’s involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement
in the commission of a criminal offence;

AND

Reasonable grounds for believing that the person’s arrest is necessary

If the officer believes that the person is involved in the commission of a criminal offence (such as this case, where they believed that person they were dealing with was a suspect), then not being able to reliably ascertain the name of the person is providing further reasonable grounds to believe that arrest is necessary.

The whole 'tell me your name or you'll be arrested' is a blunt way of explaining it, but if an officer suspects you are involved in an offence and you refuse to give your name, then your providing further grounds that would lead an officer to consider an arrest as necessary.

Actually giving your name, if you are innocent, can help exonerate you.

Refusing to give your name in a street encounter with police purely 'because you don't have to' can sometimes lead to an innocent person being arrested in order that their identity can be reliably ascertained. An arrest of an innocent person in such circumstances is unlikely to be considered unlawful, so long as the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that the person was involved in the commission of an offence. The necessity test that must also be met for an arrest to be lawful (as per PACE code G) is evidently satisfied when a persons name cannot be reliably ascertained.

 

[Angilion]

Right, but what they can't do is physically assault you in an attempt to get you to tell them your name. They touched him first. Wrong. Either arrest or let go, don't pussy foot around assaulting and demanding a name.

It's might sometimes be possible to arrest someone without touching them, but I doubt if it's at all common and it's certainly not going to happen with an aggressive, hostile and furious suspect.

Your ideas are not well connected to reality. The idea that it's assault if the police touch a suspect while trying to arrest them is, to be polite, silly.

The police were polite and calm even when confronted with a wildly irrational and aggressive suspect and even gave him repeated chances to avoid being arrested. Then they arrested him. After telling him that they'd have to arrest him and why. Politely and reasonably.

I don't doubt that some other people have behaved the same way and been treated the same way. But due to fashionable racism nobody cares if it happens to someone "white" because they decided to be chavvy at the police. Unless it's to laugh at them.

 

[hurfdurf]

It's might sometimes be possible to arrest someone without touching them, but I doubt if it's at all common and it's certainly not going to happen with an aggressive, hostile and furious suspect.

t

What? If the police are arresting someone touch away, my issue was that he clearly wasn't under arrest and they were touching him just to try and force him to reveal his identity. Wrong.

 

[Angilion]

What? If the police are arresting someone touch away, my issue was that he clearly wasn't under arrest and they were touching him just to try and force him to reveal his identity. Wrong.

Yes, you are wrong. So why did you write it?

 

[hurfdurf]

Yes, you are wrong. So why did you write it?

Sad.

 

[Angilion]

Sad.

There's no need to be sad. You're human and humans make silly mistakes sometimes.

 

[Nitefly]

lol this took a dive

 

[tom_e]

We've basically reached the level of "So's your face!"...stay classy GD.

 

[dowie]

Just needs someone to make a broad, unsubstantiated 'racism' accusation...

 

[Dis86]

Just needs someone to make a broad, unsubstantiated 'racism' accusation...

Hmm, if only there were a number of members on here who frequently do just that.

Wonder who they could be...

 

[Angilion]

We've basically reached the level of "So's your face!"...stay classy GD.

This is the home of pooping through letterboxes. Classy it ain't.

I could have pointed out that hurfdurf's statements are provably wrong because he's stating certainty where there isn't any. The video has had a section of unknown length cut out between the police telling the person they will have to arrest him because they think he's [name deleted] and the police arresting him. That missing section is obviously very relevant to whether or not the police explicitly stated "We are about to arrest you" during that missing section.

I could have pointed out that hurfdurf's statements are provably wrong because even in the remaining parts of the video you can clearly hear the police telling the person that they are going to arrest him.

I could have pointed out that hurfdurf's statements are wrong because there isn't any evidence of harassment or assault by the police.

I could have pointed out that hurfdurf's statements are wrong because the police didn't arrest the person because he wouldn't give his name - they arrested him because they thought he was someone else and that reason was added to because he was behaving very suspiciously and very aggressively.

I could have pointed out that hurfdurf's statements are wrong because there isn't any evidence of anti-"black" racism by the police in this incident. The evidence of racism concerning this incident is anti-"white" racism, since a "white" person who behaved that way would be dismissed as a stupid chav and laughed at, not portrayed as a victim and given power, publicity and probably money.

But what would be the point of doing those things? Hurfdurf's position stems from their beliefs and therefore can't be countered with reason. So I amused myself by creatively misinterpreting their posts.

 

[hurfdurf]

http://m.bristolpost.co.uk/mayor-of...judah-adunbi/story-30093978-detail/story.html

And Marvin Reese has come in on side

 

[asim18]

The video has had a section of unknown length cut out between the police telling the person they will have to arrest him because they think he's [name deleted] and the police arresting him. That missing section is obviously very relevant to whether or not the police explicitly stated "We are about to arrest you" during that missing section.

Absolutely this 100%. It's obvious the media has doctored the footage for maximum emotional milkage of the situation. The bit we're not seeing was most likely the most important bit, the bit that would keep viewer conflict at bay. But they need to keep the population whining over everything to get the all important page views.

 

[Mynight]

Absolutely this 100%. It's obvious the media has doctored the footage for maximum emotional milkage of the situation. The bit we're not seeing was most likely the most important bit, the bit that would keep viewer conflict at bay. But they need to keep the population whining over everything to get the all important page views.

To be fair the original video uploaded to ******** was missing the same segment. It's been edited prior to the media getting hold of it. Whether there is anything in there of value who knows, would have to ask the neighbour.

 

[markonius]

The officers seemed to lack confidence in handling the situation. It was as though they were wanting to arrest him without actually physically handling him. They lacked any air of authority and this could have led to the guy trying his luck escaping. You must project confidence in that sort of situation. Communicate very clearly without any doubt if the person is under arrest, or you want them to stand still etc and warn what will happen re the taser if they don't. Then if they don't follow that instruction (assuming they have a power to give that instruction to start with) it's easier to justify why you used it. Although apparently some officers online said that it wasn't acceptable to use a taser unless there was serious risk to life, I disagree. I think it's fine to use a taser against a resisting suspect, even if the resistance isn't life threatening.

 

[markonius]

I don't know what the regulations are as to taser usage but why people are so anti police-cooperation is beyond me. Even if you don't HAVE to give your name, it's still a bit idiotic and to me just screams guilt.

Probably because the police have changed in their approach to dealing with the public. One of my friends had a complaint made about him, and was arrested, interviewed, and then let go with the complaint not going further because it wasn't in the public interest. It was such a small matter (think shouting a few abusive words at a neighbour in anger) and the common sense way of dealing with it was the "stern words of advice" method that old school police officers seemed to favour. But the police arrested him, locked him in a cell, and then interviewed him. He didn't even know that what he had said was technically a crime! He wasn't doing anything wrong really, if he knew it was illegal he wouldn't have done it. So the common sense way of handling that is go round and say this is a crime if you do it again we will arrest you. But they arrested him straight away. In fairness to the police a lot of that discretion has probably been removed by their bosses, but if that's how they handle stuff then it will make people hesitant to talk to them out of fear of being arrested themselves for saying the wrong thing.

 

[Dis86]

Probably because the police have changed in their approach to dealing with the public. One of my friends had a complaint made about him, and was arrested, interviewed, and then let go with the complaint not going further because it wasn't in the public interest. It was such a small matter (think shouting a few abusive words at a neighbour in anger) and the common sense way of dealing with it was the "stern words of advice" method that old school police officers seemed to favour. But the police arrested him, locked him in a cell, and then interviewed him. He didn't even know that what he had said was technically a crime! He wasn't doing anything wrong really, if he knew it was illegal he wouldn't have done it. So the common sense way of handling that is go round and say this is a crime if you do it again we will arrest you. But they arrested him straight away. In fairness to the police a lot of that discretion has probably been removed by their bosses, but if that's how they handle stuff then it will make people hesitant to talk to them out of fear of being arrested themselves for saying the wrong thing.

So your mate was probably arrested for threatening behaviour?
Just do a quick Google search and see how many times in the past the police were hauled over the coals for not taking threats seriously and then the victim suffering serious injuries or death. That's why they will have arrested him.

 

[markonius]

So your mate was probably arrested for threatening behaviour?
Just do a quick Google search and see how many times in the past the police were hauled over the coals for not taking threats seriously and then the victim suffering serious injuries or death. That's why they will have arrested him.

He wasn't threatening anyone, he just shouted some abusive words at his neighbour in anger. I forget what the actual offence they arrested him for was but it was something he didn't even know was a crime. He wasn't doing anything wrong really, he would never have done it if he knew it was illegal. He actively avoids the police now and I'm not sure how willing he would be to come forward if he witnessed a crime. He would probably be perceived as "anti authority" if they questioned him because he says he'll always demand to know why they are asking him and if they can force him to answer. He's just so worried that they might do the same thing to him again so actively avoids them. Obviously those circumstances won't apply to everyone, but it gives you an idea that while some might be seen as "anti authority" there might be a good reason for it.

The police can't take every threat seriously, have you any idea how much times someone threatens to knock someone out in any nightclub on any Friday night? All they can do is objectively look at the threat and decide if it's likely to be a genuine threat or not. Sometimes a real threat will be missed, of course but that's the way it goes sometimes.

 

[Dis86]

So basically he committed a crime, threatening behaviour, anti social behaviour, intimidating behaviour. Something like that. How he thought it was OK to abuse someone is beyond me but he's now basically spitting his dummy out.
The police can and have to investigate every credible threat reported to them.

 

[Tefal]

He wasn't threatening anyone, he just shouted some abusive words at his neighbour in anger. I forget what the actual offence they arrested him for was but it was something he didn't even know was a crime. He wasn't doing anything wrong really, he would never have done it if he knew it was illegal. He actively avoids the police now and I'm not sure how willing he would be to come forward if he witnessed a crime. He would probably be perceived as "anti authority" if they questioned him because he says he'll always demand to know why they are asking him and if they can force him to answer. He's just so worried that they might do the same thing to him again so actively avoids them. Obviously those circumstances won't apply to everyone, but it gives you an idea that while some might be seen as "anti authority" there might be a good reason for it.

The police can't take every threat seriously, have you any idea how much times someone threatens to knock someone out in any nightclub on any Friday night? All they can do is objectively look at the threat and decide if it's likely to be a genuine threat or not. Sometimes a real threat will be missed, of course but that's the way it goes sometimes.

The people in the night club dont phone the police.

The neughbour did.


If your friend didnt know it was illegal to shout abuse at people in public your friend must be a bit dim