GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
again i totally agree,there are always exceptions,perhaps this is one.........can u see smoke? perhaps smell burning? no,then perhaps this is one.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Police Taser 63 year old race group founder in the face.
- Thread starter half time scores
- Start date
again i totally agree,there are always exceptions,perhaps this is one.........can u see smoke? perhaps smell burning? no,then perhaps this is one.
I would suggest that I am not in the least blinkered - Statistics bear that out. Not once have I seen a white man in their 60s arrested in the street whilst on their own and not once have I seen a white man tasered in the face. You posted the video
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
The police looked out of their depth. shame but hardly surprising the way they handled
alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
No I didn't .
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
They stopped him because he resembles a wanted man. He kept pleading with them to look at his wallet to establish his identity.
Maybe he has a history of violence although they didn't actually know who he was. Maybe maybe. Maybe he lives in an area where certain people are continually stopped over and over. Maybe.
my apologies
alfredmizen
Banned
- Mar 11, 2015
- 6,342
There are plenty of instances , they're just not as much as a cause Celebre with well meaning but ultimately ignorant white do gooders.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,922
Brilliant stuff(in Bold)
So it has happened before? Hmm.....let's assume a coincidence,allowing the first time to be an accident.
Nobody "here" was "there" so to speak and as such can only form an opinion......
Identity,yep they can have mine if required.. their name rank and number of them too would have to be obtained by myself too.
I wouldn't personally assume it is a coincidence at all, mind. Which explains his resistance. They arrested an innocent man before, they were doing it again. There was no cause for either arrest (except mistaken identity in both cases).
I'd be fecking furious. In fact, I think he did well to show restraint.
I really respect the Police in general. But I can feel the guy's anger and understand it.
Last edited:
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Your video I would Champion that victims cause just as vehemently and did do when it happened - I reiterate though ''Not once have I seen a white man in their 60s arrested in the street whilst on their own and not once have I seen a white man tasered in the face.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
That has always baffled me a bit too. The first thing a police officer will tell you if they arrest you is that you don't have to say anything. Yet when they have not yet arrested you they often try to have you believe that you must tell them your name etc.
It can't be that you have more of a right while under arrest than you have while not under arrest.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
When they asked him for his name he refused,then having been hit by the taser he say's there's my ID.
I could (perhaps) liken this to pulling out of a junction having looked both ways twice in a 30mph zone,then to be hit by a car travelling at 50mph,and me getting the blame
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
He had every right to refuse.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
Fair comment,then what the police walk away,i suppose in order to check his identity they could do what as a next step? not here to argue,what else could they have done..
Get fed up with all these muppets who are happy to spout off about their 'rights' but neglect to consider the responsibilities that come with that. As I understand it, the Police were looking for someone and this guy fitted the description. Had he given them his name and it checked out then they would have all gone on their way but no, he decided to make a stand.
What exactly are the Police supposed to do.
'Hi there, we are looking for Mr R Biggs, is that you?' Response 'I'm not giving you my name'. Police, 'Ok sir then just go on your way but if you see an armed robber around just ask him to pop in to the Police station '.
'Hi there, we are looking for Mr P Sutcliffe, is that you?' Response 'I'm not giving you my name'. Police, 'Ok sir then just go on your way but if you see a serial killer around just ask him to pop in to the Police station'.
'Hi there, we are looking for Mr I Huntley, is that you?' Response 'I'm not giving you my name'. Police, 'Ok sir then just go on your way but if you see a child murderer around just ask him to pop in to the Police station'.
etc etc.
What exactly are the Police supposed to do.
'Hi there, we are looking for Mr R Biggs, is that you?' Response 'I'm not giving you my name'. Police, 'Ok sir then just go on your way but if you see an armed robber around just ask him to pop in to the Police station '.
'Hi there, we are looking for Mr P Sutcliffe, is that you?' Response 'I'm not giving you my name'. Police, 'Ok sir then just go on your way but if you see a serial killer around just ask him to pop in to the Police station'.
'Hi there, we are looking for Mr I Huntley, is that you?' Response 'I'm not giving you my name'. Police, 'Ok sir then just go on your way but if you see a child murderer around just ask him to pop in to the Police station'.
etc etc.
GoldWithFalmer
Seaweed! Seaweed!
Or just let him go...
Your Mum
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2016
- 484
....your mum
Fair point.
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
Actually the proper example involves questions more like "Who are you?", and "Can you prove it?".
In a society with the rule of law, the burden of proof is placed on the accuser, not the accused, and for good reason. We operate under a presumption of innocence, for good reason.
Should Mr I S Innocent be treated as though he is Mr R Biggs, or Mr P Sutcliffe or Mr I Huntley, until such time as he can prove he is not?
I understand that we all want bad people to be caught, but we also don't want good people to be treated as though they are bad people.
What would the police have done if this individual had given his name, but had not had any I.D. on him? I don't think they would have taken his word for it, they would have wanted proof. What about cases where a name is not enough? A search of the person? A search of their home? Their bank records? It's a slippery slope if we apply your reasoning, and that is precisely why the law is what it is. This might seem like a simple and easy case, but in the end the difference between the principle of the presumption of innocence vs the presumption of guilt, is the difference between a free society and something else.
A free society may mean that proper police work, investigation, and evidence are required. But that is no bad thing, and you are mistaken if you think it is.
Last edited: