Only white middle – class dicks could display the level of ignorance of police racial profiling displayed on this thread.

https://greenandblackcross.org

Greatape – the 8:55 video at the bottom of the Bristol post page is unedited, no jumps in it

http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/investigation-as-bristol-police-taser-prominent-member-of-their-own-race-relations-group-by-mistake/story-30072082-detail/story.html

2:18 – “are you royston maclenna” (sp.)
2.21 – “are you royston maclenna”
2.25: “what is your name”
2:28 “what is your name”
2.30 – turns physical as they try to force their way into the gate (armed trespass 😉 )

Nothing that can constitute an arrest (and an admission that they were still uncertain of his identity at the point where it turned physical – they had more than adequate opportunity to arrest if they thought it was him)

The Taser Officer looks to be a Sergeant, unless I have misread her eppaulettes from the video.

I’ve been stopped by the police when out running because they had reports of a white guy in a white t-shirt legging it from a burglery.

Never crossed my mind that that was racial profiling/harassment.

were they pointing a tazer at you when they stopped you ?

Well it would have let them quickly establish he wasn’t the wanted man, so more than likely yes.

Police: “We think you’re Bob, and Bob’s wanted. Are you Bob”

Tasered: ” I’m not Bob”

P:”Who are you then?”

T: “Bill”

Would the next line be
P: “Oh, okay, sorry to bother you”
Or
P: “I don’t believe you”
?

I don’t see the situation as a threat to the officers, at worst he appears to be trying to get away from, so the taser seems excessive. Especially the quickdraw firing of it with no warning or apparent aiming!

I would never engage with the police unless I was legally required to do so and then only after taking legal advice. I just couldn’t trust any of them, the way they happily collude and lie/make up charges against people basically out of spite and/or to cover their own mistakes makes me sick. They are the biggest hypocrites out there, how folks can defend behavior like this I don’t know.

Police: “We think you’re Bob, and Bob’s wanted. Are you Bob”

Tasered: ” I’m not Bob”

P:”Who are you then?”

T: “Bill”

Would the next line be
P: “Oh, okay, sorry to bother you”
Or
P: “I don’t believe you”

Probably something like

“Have you got any ID or something with your name on? Splendid, thanks very much.”

Or,

“What’s your address, I can do a quick electoral roll check then we’re all done”.

Greatape – the 8:55 video at the bottom of the Bristol post page is unedited, no jumps in it

Jumps from the cameraman being along the street to directly in front of the gate doesn’t it?

EDIT – Just seen the longer video…I’ll watch that!

He has taken his dog for a walk and is attempting to go into his house.
If he is a dangerous drug dealer get a warrant and raid the house.
If the evidence isn’t strong enough for that, it probably isn’t good enough to fire a taser into his face.

Both officers guilty of assault.

Female office guilty of multiple firearms offences.

Expected punishement sweet FA

Why would any reasonable person try to waste police time like that?

I take it you’ve never had any dealings with Plod..?

TurnerGuy – Member

Why would any reasonable person try to waste police time like that?

He isn’t wasting their time. They ask him a question, he- perfectly within his rights- declines to answer. That should have been the end of the conversation, everything after that is the officers wasting their own time.

Ninfan – yes, I agree, he isn’t informed he is being arrested as far as I can see from the longer video.

It will be interesting to see what the officer who took hold of him says he was arresting him for, and why he felt it was impractical to inform him why he was being arrested straight away (which the PACE Codes of Practice allow for, if the circumstances justify it).

Cheers, glad you agree – massive consequences for the officers involved, and him, will flow from that IMO.

I think I’ve edited while you were posting…but yes, very serious that that ended up with a taser being used.

Perhaps Royston M is a total nutter so when Undercover Cop repeatedly refuses to give his name they assume it is said nutter – reasonable. Why the undercover cop wouldn’t just say “no” is beyond me. Just give his undercover name.

Can you actually blame him for not being more cooperative with the plod? I’ll go out on a limb and suggest this probably wasn’t the first time he’s been stopped by them.

I’ve had a lot of dealings with the old bill*, both as a professional and a civilian.
I’ve learned the hard way not to say bugger all to them unless in the company of a lawyer or people I can rely on as witnesses.
Everything about the behaviour of those coppers suggests a lack of skills and knowledge.
If you are unsure of the identity of someone, either arrest first, ask questions later and face the consequences or play nice.
If you’re the copper who’s relying on a Taser to persuade someone to comply, you’re a shit copper. As far as I was aware, Tasers are only supposed to be used to prevent dangerous situations escalating. It looked to me like the taser was being used in such a manner as to escalate danger to all parties.
I once told a copper my name was Gary Lineker, got half way through the 1990 England World Cup squad before he gave up and stopped bothering me.
Some of them are like a dog with a bone.

*Before I go off on one, I must add that some of those dealings have been with dedicated, highly skilled professionals who deserve great admiration for their public service.

were they pointing a tazer at you when they stopped you ?

maybe if tazers had been around at the time – who knows.

They weren’t pointing the tazer at him initially.

If he’d have shown his ID initially it would ever have got to the point of being tazered.

Instead he did his best to enforce any racial bias they might already have.

If you all do as you’re told you won’t get tasered in the face…

What happened to the idea of policing by consent?

I take it you’ve never had any dealings with Plod..?

yes I have.

But in this case the showing of an ID seems pretty safe – perhaps someone could explain why it is not?

Would have wrapped up their visit pretty quickly and he could have carried on walking his dog and none of that incident would have happened.

The only good thing is it has highlighted that policewoman should not be in charge of a tazer.

@greatape

At 3:04 on that video the sergeant can just about be heard saying “OK, you’re under arrest, by the public order act, and assault police…” followed by something loosely resembling a caution – though she doesn’t tell him the necessity.

at 3:35 the other one says he is under arrest for assault police

@Jamba:

Perhaps Royston M is a total nutter so when Undercover Cop repeatedly refuses to give his name they assume it is said nutter

In that case, the answer was simple

“you’re nicked”

They didn’t

what they did was continue to harrasss him to try and get him to identify himself, then turned physical when it became clear that he was walking away (into his property, as he was fully entitled to do, because he wasn’t under arrest).

fin25 As far as I was aware, Tasers are only supposed to be used to prevent dangerous situations escalating. It looked to me like the taser was being used in such a manner as to escalate danger to all parties.

I would have assumed (though tbh I’m only guessing) that the only sensible time to use them would be when faced with a weapon (such as machete or a bat) or a highly aggressive and/or dangerous person – ie. a huge man in a disturbed state.

Much like a gun though, when you give them to police any struggle then becomes a potential struggle for that weapon. So the default response if you’re physically insecure or incompetent has to be “TASER EVERYONE WHO RESISTS”. Otherwise they’ll beat you up, pepper spray your eyes with your pepper spray, taser you in the face with your own taser, and then beat you to death with your baton.

At 3:04 on that video the sergeant can just about be heard saying “OK, you’re under arrest, by the public order act, and assault police…” followed by something loosely resembling a caution – though she doesn’t tell him the necessity.

His conduct prior to what happened in the gateway gave them sufficient grounds to justify arresting for a public order offence, if that’s what it was. The necessity stuff came in about the time I moved to Scotland, so I wouldn’t know off the top of my head whether or not the reason for necessity should ordinarily be given at the time of arrest.

a good fried is a senior copper in GMP

he has become very disillusioned with the police, mostly:
he spends a lot of time disciplining coppers who he thinks should be fired for serious transgressions but they always get get let off,
theres a big problem with endemic racism
and he was involved in the investigation into this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Anthony_Grainger
and reckons the entire thing was at best misshandled (actually he says much worse) and deliberately covered up at every level

His conduct prior to what happened in the gateway gave them sufficient grounds to justify arresting for a public order offence,

Agree they could have… but they didnt

“It seems to me that the inexorable logic of this passage is that where a police officer restrains a person, but does not at that time intend or purport to arrest him, then he is committing an assault, even if an arrest would have been justified. In the present case, Sergeant Cannon did not intend or purport to arrest the appellant when he restrained him and at no stage in the course of the fracas which resulted, did he assert that he was arresting the appellant. If he had done so or either of the constables had done so, before the appellant struggled in order to obtain his release, the position would be different. “

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/1056.html

Apart from you’ve just said that that’s what she told him he was being arrested for 🙂

That case law seems relevant, the crux of which would seem to be are they arresting him or not.

Point of order, he says he isn’t the man they’re after before they assault him. They then ask him what his name is, but as pointed out by others there is absolutely no obligation for him to give that – if you get assaulted and tazered when you don’t give your name in a situation where there is no legal obligation to do so, then the person breaking the law isn’t you. It’s kind of victim blaming to suggest he should have cooperated more when he didn’t actually do anything wrong.

The first mention of an arrest is after he’s been tazered – given the context it seems clear that there had been no intention to arrest him before that point.

Fair enough people saying you’re not legally entitled to identify yourself. But they’re legally entitled to arrest you and take you to the nick so they establish your identity. It doesn’t sound like it’s the first time this has happened to him so he knows the crack. Why be unnecessarily obstinate when you could have just said I’m x here’s my details. Then try to get away, push officers and scuffle?

Tbh I’d have TASERd the cameraman in the face first.

The first mention of an arrest is after he’s been tazered –

Yes that’s kind of how it works. You don’t usually get arrested THEN tasered

Only white middle – class dicks could display the level of ignorance of police racial profiling displayed on this thread.

That smells a bit like racism. Fred, is that you?

What a shocker, the female police officer was obviously out of her depth from the start of the recording, she looked like she couldn’t wait to Taser him. Hopefully this will be the end of her career, incompetent officers are not what the force needs.
He’s obviously an old man, they knew where he lived and exactly where he was, it should of been easy to calm him down and get the facts. But with her running the show it was only going to end one way!

How’s he obviously an old man. He’s a black guy with dreads and hood up? He’s 60.

Hi sir we believe you’re x and wanted
Hello officer, no I’m not x here’s my id
I hope you catch this person
So do we sir, thanks for your time

The end

This guy leads a board for race relations with the police. I’m not sure they picked the right guy in that instance.

aphex_2k – Member

How’s he obviously an old man. He’s a black guy with dreads and hood up? He’s 60.

Think about that for a second- you’re saying with the dreads and hood up, that it’s not obvious he’s an older guy? If they can’t see that, how can they see enough to think he’s this other guy?

aphex_2k – Member

Fair enough people saying you’re not legally entitled to identify yourself. But they’re legally entitled to arrest you and take you to the nick so they establish your identity.

I think you mean “obliged”. But no, they’re not legally entitled to arrest people without cause. All of the “identify the individual” stuff only kicks in post arrest.

When the film started he had a Taser pointed at him, he told them this had happened before, they didn’t listen he also told them he wasn’t the man they we’re after, they didn’t listen but I guess they’ve heard that one before. He looked old, the neighbour can be heard saying he’s 71. Yes he could of helped the situation I accept that but bloody hell she was useless, no they were useless, like playing bad cop, worse cop.
That situation could of been defused quite easily if they’d of calmed down.

It doesn’t sound like it’s the first time this has happened to him so he knows the crack.

Think about what you’ve said there. It might give you some insight into why he might not feel like cooperating/doing what he’s told to do.

Why be unnecessarily obstinate when you could have just said I’m x here’s my details.

Why not? He has not committed any offence, and he is going about his lawful business.

We do not have compulsory ID cards in this country, and nor do the police have a blanket power to require people to provide proof of identity.

So the neighbour who knew him well thought he was 71…. Right.

Northwind – Member
aphex_2k – Member
How’s he obviously an old man. He’s a black guy with dreads and hood up? He’s 60.

Think about that for a second- you’re saying with the dreads and hood up, it wasn’t easy to see he’s an old dude? If they can’t see that, how can they see enough to think he’s this other guy?

And the age of the person they were looking for was….?

Greying facial hair doesn’t instantly make you an old man. He fitted some kind of description they had, then purposely made things difficult and ended up getting nicked.

Why not? He has not committed any offence, and he is going about his lawful business.

We do not have compulsory ID cards in this country, and nor do the police have a blanket power to require people to provide proof of identity.

So if a police officer suspect you’ve possibly committed an offence and are wanted, you say “it’s not me” and they walk away? Or do you say, no, it’s not me here’s my name… Or do you say it’s not me, become hostile and try to get away and scuffle with the police? And then wonder why it escalated?

So if a police officer suspect you’ve possibly committed an offence and are wanted, you say “it’s not me” and they walk away?

Others on this thread are better informed about the law, and I stand to be corrected, but I think that if the officers have reasonable grounds to suspect that he is the man they are seeking, then at the point that he refuses to provide proof of his identity, they are entitled to make an arrest, explaining in the usual language/formula that they suspect that he is XYZ, and that they are arresting him on suspicion of having done whatever that person is believed to have done.

What the officers do not have the power to do, is to behave as they did to try to force the man to provide proof of his identity (which makes it look as if they considered they did not have sufficient reasonable grounds to meet the standard required to make an arrest, but did not want to let him go inside as they should have, and so instead tried to badger it out of him).

Or do you say, no, it’s not me here’s my name… Or do you say it’s not me, become hostile and try to get away and scuffle with the police? And then wonder why it escalated?

Read the story: this is not the first time this has happened: “It is the second time Mr Adunbi has been mistaken for the same man. In 2009 he won a wrongful arrest case against Avon and Somerset Police and was awarded compensation.” Try and put yourself in his shoes. I am not black and do not live in inner city Bristol, but I can well believe that the police there have the same problems with institutional racism as the Met and GMP. That alone would make suspicious and wary of any dealings with the police, but this guy has already been wrongfully arrested before. Or do you think that he should have ‘learned his lesson’ after the first time?

You and I probably both live a rather comfortable white middle class bubble, where much is taken for granted, such as how you can always trust the police. The reality for many others is different, e.g. Hillsborough, West Midlands Regional Crime Squad, Stephen Lawrence etc. etc.

Civil liberties, such as Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus, no ID cards, freedom from detention without trial, freedom from state surveillance etc., have been hard won and are often too readily taken for granted. The argument that ‘if you have not done anything wrong, then you’ve nothing to be afraid of and should accept it/cooperate’, is the usual starting point for those who want – or are happy – to see those freedoms eroded.

If I was in his shoes, I wouldn’t have wanted to go through the same scenario again. I’d have thought that THIS time I’ll show them and prove I’m not the person they are looking for, and be on my merry way, minus 2 metal barbs in my face.