cockbeard wrote:

... I thought De Menezes (? the brazilian guy on the tube) was an idiot for running, and in a sense invited the police to shoot him, ...

Running to get onto a tube train isn't a stupid thing to do though. 
He had no idea he was being followed, he didn't run and vault the barrier like initial reports said he did, just got on a train like a normal person would.

I may be misremembering the details but wasn't he pinned to the ground and shot several times point blank?

Lol @ cocko thinking this guy was right but menezes was a fool for running. Cocko, you have to be the most consistently I'll informed, inconsistent person here. for your information, he ran for the tube. He did not run from the police. That was a lie put out immediately after the killing, and was debunked soundly thereafter.

I didn't follow the investigation, I heard the running and vaulting thing and formed an opinion at the time based on that. Like I said not that he deserved to get shot, just that he was being a dickhead by running from clearly armed police. I know that we always had quite clearly defined rules of engagement and imagined that the police have the same, especially on home soil. The yellow card we had in Ireland meant that anyone who was getting fired at would definitely be aware that they were in mortal danger

cockbeard wrote:

I didn't follow the investigation, I heard the running and vaulting thing and formed an opinion at the time based on that. ...

Your opinion is wrong, because that wasn't what happened.

All kinds of "initial reports" came out, e.g. Someone said he was wearing a "bulky jacket" (he wasn't), someone else claimed to have seen wires sticking out of a bomb belt (no such thing).

This is why you shouldn't put too much stock into "initial reports" that come out after some shit goes down, and keep an open mind about things.

djchump wrote:

I didn't follow the investigation, I heard the running and vaulting thing and formed an opinion at the time based on that. ...

Your opinion is wrong, because that wasn't what happened. All kinds of "initial reports" came out, e.g. Someone said he was wearing a "bulky jacket" (he wasn't), someone else claimed to have seen wires sticking out of a bomb belt (no such thing). This is why you shouldn't put too much stock into "initial reports" that come out after some shit goes down, and keep an open mind about things.

My mind is open about it, still open now years after the fact. Yes if the facts that formed an initial opinion are wrong then that opinion is also wrong, I agree. It was a quick and easy example to iterate that I understood JRPCs point of view

If recognising and highlighting my recognition of another pov makes me inconsistent then so be it, however I'll not start doing research before posting shit in an online forum

cockbeard wrote:

He's well within his rights to simply ignore the police officer, unless he's being reported for a crime then he doesn't have to give his name.

In Scotland, if the Police have reasonable grounds to suspect that you have committed a crime or offence, or only even have witnessed a crime or offence, you can be detained until you have provided your name and address and it has been confirmed. Given that detention is a temporary form of arrest, the Police can use reasonable force to keep you there, and failure to comply is resisting arrest, at which point the justifiable force is likely to be higher. You're not always 'within your rights' to ignore the Police, you're not always 'within your rights' to refuse your details.

I'm not familiar with English law, but I'd be surprised if there aren't similar laws regarding the provision of personal details.

Where the difficulty comes is when someone isn't hanging about to have things explained to them. The law makes provision for that; it requires that things are explained to you as soon as reasonably practicable. If you are running away, that time comes after you are brought under control with reasonable force. It's a dangerous thing to claim that it's an assault.

Maybe watch the video...

It's subtitled.

We do have a lovely accent.

Barbecue is a good one to get us brizzles to say as well!

Alright me luvver? Nice daps, mind. Cheers, drive!

Because I actually said

I wrote:

He's well within his rights to simply ignore the police officer, unless he's being reported for a crime then he doesn't have to give his name

And as you've said yourself if it isn't made clear that he's being arrested or detained then he has no obligation to do anything

That's why I also added the qualifier that I hadn't watched the video merely read the article. I understand your desire to leap to the defence of your profession, and I admire that. However if as you say he isn't a threat at the time of discharging the taser then you have to wonder why it was discharged, as a "punishment" for prior behaviour? That isn't the job of the police it's the job of the courts

I ask again as I've not got the opportunity to watch the video, was he told he was being arrested or detained? If not then he's under no obligation to assist the police, he is under an obligation not to impede the police, but the police also have the same obligation not to impede him. Even if they are performing a Stop and Account he still doesn't have to give any personal details

Right so in this instance bloke's an idiot, whether the use of force is justified or not is another matter. However if you're told you're under arrest then you do yourself no favours by trying at that point to talk yourself out of it. You've already got the 'winning' hand by being innocent

cockbeard wrote:

I understand your desire to leap to the defence of your profession, and I admire that. However if as you say he isn't a threat at the time of discharging the taser then you have to wonder why it was discharged, as a "punishment" for prior behaviour?

First off, I have no desire to leap to anyone's defence. That's largely why I pointed out that I'm not seeing the justification to taser at the point that the officer does. That's largely because I can't see what they're seeing at that point. Justification for increasing force can increase in time, and there are points earlier in the video where, if armed with a taser, I would have discharged it.

I'm just struggling to understand why you chose to frame your point the way you did (including your qualifications) based on a vague notion of what happened.

Taser is classified as 'less lethal'* which is why, in Englandshire, it's in the hands of normal cops. In Scotland, only Authorised Firearms Officers can carry them. They are trained to use one of their less lethal options (taser or baton gun) if possible, and conventional firearms are the last resort.

That said, there is the overarching rule in all officer safety of preclusion; the idea that you need not work your way up through the levels of force if you assess that all others below the one you have chosen are likely to fail. The thing that cops need to remember (and which, potentially, the cop in that video hasn't done) is that sometimes you should scale back the option you're considering as the threat picture changes.

* I fully appreciate that 'less lethal' is not a comforting phrase when you're on the ouchy end of a weapon. But, when baton strikes and open hand techniques are also potentially fatal, it's worth remember where on the scale a taser is in likelihood of causing death.