Fedster

Police are caught on camera tasering the founder of THEIR OWN race relations group in the face after mistaking him for a wanted man

179 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, MerseyLLB said:

Frankly, this is where UK law is seriously lacking. There should be a power to detain persons suspected of involvement in a criminal incident for a reasonable amount of time - as is seen in most jurisdictions around the world.

We have the power to do that in Scotland. Also have powers to compel witnesses and suspects to give their details to police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

There is actually a shortcoming in the law here. If they suspected he was Mr Wanted Man and Mr Wanted Man was circulated for being wanted in connection with an offence and s.24 arrest powers apply then if they reasonably suspected him of being Mr Wanted Man then of course they have a power of arrest. As soon as he refused details after they explained they thought he was Mr Wanted man then they should have immediately arrested him.

If, however, Mr Wanted Man was wanted on a warrant of arrest then that power of arrest only applies to Mr Wanted Man and even if they act in good faith and genuinely suspect that this chap is Mr Wanted Man and arrest him but he turns out not to be then the arrest is unlawful unfortunately.

The man is clearly something of a tit though. Interactions being needlessly escalated because someone is an uncooperative prat happens frustratingly too often. Nevertheless, the law permits people to be uncooperative prats on many occasions though.

9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

I don't think she tasered him for not being compliant or for trying to run away, not that I could see, more to subdue him as he was fighting with the officer.

Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

2 hours ago, obsidian_eclipse said:

I don't think she tasered him for not being compliant or for trying to run away, not that I could see, more to subdue him as he was fighting with the officer.

Sent from my D2303 using Tapatalk
 

Perhaps I've watched the wrong clip because whilst I was him resist I saw no fighting. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

I find it amusing they should just believe the neighbours word. I find a large proportion of people dealt with by the police lie, hence their involvement with the police. Luckily they both had body cams on to have uninterrupted coverage as opposed to edited mobile phone footage from a nominal so that will give full context.

He thought he was clever and it backfired on him spectacularly. But he will get a nice holiday out of it regardless

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

He thought he was clever and it backfired on him spectacularly. But he will get a nice holiday out of it regardless

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Did it backfire on him or did he get the reaction that his behaviour sought to engineer?

Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

5 hours ago, ParochialYokal said:

Did it backfire on him or did he get the reaction that his behaviour sought to engineer?

I think you're giving him far more credit than he deserves.

Quote

Mr Adunbi, a prominent member of Bristol's black community, said: "At first you don't accuse someone of being someone else. You ask questions.

They tried that and he wouldn't answer simple questions. :rolleyes:

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Did it backfire on him or did he get the reaction that his behaviour sought to engineer?Sent from my iPhone usring Police Community

I think only he knows the answer to that one.

I never understand the mentality of smart phone warriors. His neighbour felt it was the most appropriate thing to do to film it all. If it were me I would have over and making sure he told them his name and got on with things normally

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


I think we tend to expect as law enforcers that people will respond to our questions and requests. A natural reaction given our training but it isn't as simple as that. There are millions of law abiding liberally minded individuals who will not necessarily do as police officers ask unless have legal authority to do so. Nothing to do with anarchy or a desire to break the law, undermine the police, or present obstruction. They simply, and ardently believe that if the law doesn't give the state, or police, the right and authority to demand information without legal authority they won't volunteer it. Whether this is poorly crafted legislation, poor training or poor practice, it must be understand that if there is no law to enforce and no powers to do so, we can't expect everyone to say 'Yes officer'. To be honest I have had an officer once without reason demand information from myself. I asked about their power to demand the information. They got aggressive and asked if I wanted locking up. I quoted legislation and produced my warrant card. I seriously considered making a formal complaint, but didn't, hoping that their having lost face in front of their colleague sufficient admonishment. But the reality a small number chance their arm, attempt to use powers or authority they do not have and, if necessary, use the Means and Ways Act (Bluster and Balderdash Regulations) to further misjudged desire to raise the dizzy heights of DCI Gene Hunt.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

That is one reason why there is an art and craft to Policing in being able within seconds of reading what a person is like. Harder in some than others and the West Indian community is one of the harder ones. They are by nature loud and excitable, some are good ones and some are bad ones. Make a mistake in the art and the craft and you can have problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

now this is the 5:09 version however most of the video is the male on the floor.

This male should have given his details, as he was suspected wanted for an offence . The male refused to give his details until after which point force was used to affect an arrest.
I'm not saying I agree with the methods but as a 'community leader' he should have known better. The use of force will have to be justified by the officers and we cannot know what the wanted male was wanted for or what intel there was to the officers. So I refuse to pass judgement other than the arrest was not illegal, the force will have to be justified. the video is not full so we cannot know all the facts.  Although the officer were also wearing Body Worn Video so should be investigated with full evidence.

 

Parts taken From Pace Code G:

2. Elements of Arrest under section 24 PACE

2.1 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.

both elements must be satisfied, and
it can never be necessary to arrest a person unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect them of committing an offence.


2.4 The power of arrest is only exercisable if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person. The statutory criteria for what may constitute necessity are set out in paragraph 2.9 and it remains an operational decision at the discretion of the constable to decide:

which one or more of the necessity criteria (if any) applies to the individual; and
if any of the criteria do apply, whether to arrest, grant street bail after arrest, report for summons or for charging by post, issue a penalty notice or take any other action that is open to the officer.
 

2.9 (a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name):

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 (see Note 2D). 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.

Where mobile fingerprinting is available and the suspect’s name cannot be ascertained or is doubted, the officer should consider using the power under section 61(6A) of PACE (see Code D paragraph 4.3(e)) to take and check the fingerprints of a suspect as this may avoid the need to arrest solely to enable their name to be ascertained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


These cases often get into very muddled water indeed.  In the following link even the IPCC made a decision, and after the Inquest disagreed over the use being justified, they have successfully applied to a Judicial Review to have their own findings set aside. They are to re investigate the use of the Taser and death which can only mean that they want to change their conclusion.

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-reinvestigate-greater-manchester-police-following-death-jordon-begley

Now after an IPCC investigation supporting the officer, an Inquest not supporting those findings there is to be another investigation. Let's remember that at the time of the incident the officer had seconds to make his decision, which the IPCC and a Coroner had difficulty with over many days.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

If they suspected he was wanted then they could have rightly under S24 PACE arrested him. If they wanted to check his name to be sure before arresting and he refused, then S25 will apply. But the man has every right to refuse to give his name. There is no power to require him to give his name, only S25 if they suspect he has committed an offence and he refuses. The difference comes between semantics of the words should and must. Should is not a requirement, whereas must is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

1 hour ago, Cathedral Bobby said:

If they suspected he was wanted then they could have rightly under S24 PACE arrested him. If they wanted to check his name to be sure before arresting and he refused, then S25 will apply. But the man has every right to refuse to give his name. There is no power to require him to give his name, only S25 if they suspect he has committed an offence and he refuses. The difference comes between semantics of the words should and must. Should is not a requirement, whereas must is.

S25 was repealed in 2005! S24 deals with the powers to arrest people for offences; as Bensonby says the problem would arise if he wasn't wanted for an offence but on warrant or something along those lines.

Besides which there are certain circumstances where there is a duty to give one's name, S165 RTA and S50 PRA being the two obvious ones. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now