Also In The News

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, that's pretty grim. There's self-defense, and then there's idiots thinking they are above the law.

No way did this warrant the use of firearms, unless they were being shot at first (which they weren't based on the unedited video I could find).

Although Arbury was allegedly shot at because of the struggle over the one guy's shotgun. I suppose a taser would be the more appropriate choice then?

 

The two dimwits up front (plus the guy who was in it, filming it all) belong to prison.

 

However, one has to ask oneself why this story has only made it to the front of the news now? The incident took place about two months ago.

Cui bono?

From what I can tell, the answer to that one is that it has taken this long because it's only now a grand jury has been convened to indict the guys involved - seeing as the local law wouldn't arrest and/or charge them, because, you, know, "good ol' boys" network.

[ozleicester]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/ahmaud-arbery-former-police-officer-and-son-charged-in-shooting-of-black-man

[StanSP]

4 hours ago, ozleicester said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/ahmaud-arbery-former-police-officer-and-son-charged-in-shooting-of-black-man

Suitable for cvnts of our time thread as well! Disgusting. 

Edited 8 May 2020 by StanSP

[StanSP]

2 police officers Taser a man, whilst he's with his child, who has obviously become quite distressed, then asked to put his hands behind his back while he continues to be shocked by the Taser and clearly can't.

 

Obviously not sure what he's done (or not done) but it seems quite OTT by the police?! 

 

Feel for the kid as well - has no idea what is going on and sees his dad get shot, he'll have no idea what a Taser is  

 

 

 

[Carl the Llama]

15 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, that's pretty grim. There's self-defense, and then there's idiots thinking they are above the law.

No way did this warrant the use of firearms, unless they were being shot at first (which they weren't based on the unedited video I could find).

Although Arbury was allegedly shot at because of the struggle over the one guy's shotgun. I suppose a taser would be the more appropriate choice then?

 

The two dimwits up front (plus the guy who was in it, filming it all) belong to prison.

 

However, one has to ask oneself why this story has only made it to the front of the news now? The incident took place about two months ago.

Cui bono?

The correct question is why was the story of an unarmed civilian being stalked by a group of men, threatened with firearms, then shot down for defending himself not headline news when it happened?

 

15 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

With those upper thighs, she'd crush your skull like a watermelon. I assume you have seen the Williams twins on TV before?

The thing about pro model pics is that you can easily make people look more beautiful than they really are, thanks to make-up, perspective, pose, lighting and choice of wardrobe.

You say that like it's a bad thing?

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

2 police officers Taser a man, whilst he's with his child, who has obviously become quite distressed, then asked to put his hands behind his back while he continues to be shocked by the Taser and clearly can't.

 

Obviously not sure what he's done (or not done) but it seems quite OTT by the police?! 

 

Feel for the kid as well - has no idea what is going on and sees his dad get shot, he'll have no idea what a Taser is  

 

 

 

 

Unless there's something we don't know - such as well-founded suspicions that he was likely to produce a weapon - that looks well out of order, and really traumatic for the kid.

 

I mean, the bloke was arguing and resisted having his arms held, but he wasn't trying to fight them or to produce a weapon, and when they released his arms, he seemed to just stand there, before he was tasered.

Maybe he (understandably) didn't want his kid to see his Dad grabbed and cuffed, but would have gone voluntarily for questioning or whatever?

 

Impossible to tell with only partial info, but looks very heavy-handed on the face of it - and cruel on the kid.

[Jon the Hat]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

2 police officers Taser a man, whilst he's with his child, who has obviously become quite distressed, then asked to put his hands behind his back while he continues to be shocked by the Taser and clearly can't.

 

Obviously not sure what he's done (or not done) but it seems quite OTT by the police?! 

 

Feel for the kid as well - has no idea what is going on and sees his dad get shot, he'll have no idea what a Taser is  

 

 

 

Drink driving, speeding and resisting arrest with his child, but it’s the police who are criticised.

[Dahnsouff]

8 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Drink driving, speeding and resisting arrest with his child, but it’s the police who are criticised.

Get with the programme Jon, it’s back in vogue to “stick it to the man”, especially if it is off the back of shock social media posts.

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Drink driving, speeding and resisting arrest with his child, but it’s the police who are criticised.

 

If that's what he'd done, then he deserved arresting, charging and punishment.

 

That doesn't make the police tasering action proportionate, especially in front of a child.

I don't know the full story so there may be some justification for it, but superficially it looks like there isn't.

[urban.spaceman]

Says an actual socialist. 
 

 

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Get with the programme Jon, it’s back in vogue to “stick it to the man”, especially if it is off the back of shock social media posts.

 

I thought the posts by Stan and myself were balanced, specific and measured. 

 

Jon then provided new information (which I'm presuming is accurate) and posed a valid rhetorical question.

 

In contrast, I find your response puerile, unfair and utterly missing the point.

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

I thought the posts by Stan and myself were balanced, specific and measured. 

 

Jon then provided new information (which I'm presuming is accurate) and posed a valid rhetorical question.

 

In contrast, I find your response puerile, unfair and utterly missing the point.

It was puerile and with good cause I would argue.
The tendency to favour the outlier from a single glance, a glance at social media at that, does you and others shocked without research at such posts, far more disservice than myself I would respond.

[Innovindil]

How the **** does having a kid with you automatically make the police response unnecessary?

 

You have no idea what the guy is saying, if he's being threatening, you put him down. You start defending criminals based on having kids nearby, just start being a twat with a kid, skip away scot-free.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Innovindil said:

How the **** does having a kid with you automatically make the police response unnecessary?

 

You have no idea what the guy is saying, if he's being threatening, you put him down. You start defending criminals based on having kids nearby, just start being a twat with a kid, skip away scot-free.

Bingo. Basing any serious judgement on a social media article is ridiculous unless you have all the pertinent facts.

[StanSP]

47 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Drink driving, speeding and resisting arrest with his child, but it’s the police who are criticised.

 

36 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Get with the programme Jon, it’s back in vogue to “stick it to the man”, especially if it is off the back of shock social media posts.

 

28 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If that's what he'd done, then he deserved arresting, charging and punishment.

 

That doesn't make the police tasering action proportionate, especially in front of a child.

I don't know the full story so there may be some justification for it, but superficially it looks like there isn't.

 

14 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I thought the posts by Stan and myself were balanced, specific and measured. 

 

Jon then provided new information (which I'm presuming is accurate) and posed a valid rhetorical question.

 

In contrast, I find your response puerile, unfair and utterly missing the point.

Thank you Alf. I literally said I don't know what he's done and I'm of the opinion I still think that kind of force shown by police was strong. Maybe I didn't say it enough but my post was more for sympathy for the kid. 

 

Also, I'm not surprised he's resisting arrest given he has his kid with him. But if he has been drunk driving then my sympathy for the man only diminishes. Either way my sympathy for the kid is still there first being put in danger by the dad driving while drunk but also having to witness his dad get tasered to the ground forcefully by the police. 

 

I hope that's allowed to think that. I'll let other people and the moral arbiters on here be the judge of that. 

 

Also, it's not 'sticking it to the man' @Dahnsouff so I think you're misguided with that comment. It's perfectly reasonable to think the police actions there are quite strong for someone who doesn't even look like they're resisting arrest that much

[FoxesDeb]

34 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If that's what he'd done, then he deserved arresting, charging and punishment.

 

That doesn't make the police tasering action proportionate, especially in front of a child.

I don't know the full story so there may be some justification for it, but superficially it looks like there isn't.

Surely it's up to the parent to not put their child in the position in the first place? 

[LiberalFox]

I think police are legitimate targets for criticism and scrutiny. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

Also, it's not 'sticking it to the man' @Dahnsouff so I think you're misguided with that comment. It's perfectly reasonable to think the police actions there are quite strong for someone who doesn't even look like they're resisting arrest that much

It is a fair comment @StanSP but I do not yet wish to let this go because I feel that choosing to believe an unknown posters tweet over your own public services is a curious starting position, and if I may be so bold, sadly indicative of the true nature of social media as some weird point of truth.

 

Sorry 

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

It was puerile and with good cause I would argue.
The tendency to favour the outlier from a single glance, a glance at social media at that, does you and others shocked without research at such posts, far more disservice than myself I would respond.

 

In our posts, both Stan and I recognised that we didn't have all the information and were making conditional judgments about the tasering, depending on what he had or hadn't done off camera, whether he was carrying a weapon etc.

Neither of us suggested that the bloke shouldn't be arrested or that there was anything inherently wrong with the police in general.

 

Although we didn't have all the info (and acknowledged as much), we did have some info: namely, video of a police officer apparently tasering a bloke unnecessarily in front of a child.

That might not be the whole story. Taking it to an extreme, the whole thing might be staged and fake for all I know. But that applies to almost everything you see or read in the media. It's still valid to make provisional judgments.

 

I certainly didn't "favour the outlier from a single glance" or want to be "in vogue" or to "stick it to the man" - and you don't know me to make such accusations.

Anyway, not worth discussing any further from my end. If the bloke did what Jon says, he deserves punishment. If there was some good reason for the tasering, fair enough. On the limited evidence, it seems OTT & traumatic for the kid.

 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

In our posts, both Stan and I recognised that we didn't have all the information and were making conditional judgments about the tasering, depending on what he had or hadn't done off camera, whether he was carrying a weapon etc.

Neither of us suggested that the bloke shouldn't be arrested or that there was anything inherently wrong with the police in general.

 

Although we didn't have all the info (and acknowledged as much), we did have some info: namely, video of a police officer apparently tasering a bloke unnecessarily in front of a child.

That might not be the whole story. Taking it to an extreme, the whole thing might be staged and fake for all I know. But that applies to almost everything you see or read in the media. It's still valid to make provisional judgments.

 

I certainly didn't "favour the outlier from a single glance" or want to be "in vogue" or to "stick it to the man" - and you don't know me to make such accusations.

Anyway, not worth discussing any further from my end. If the bloke did what Jon says, he deserves punishment. If there was some good reason for the tasering, fair enough. On the limited evidence, it seems OTT & traumatic for the kid.

 

Fair enough @Alf Bentley - perhaps my puerile nature has riled, and for that I apologise.
The point discussed with @StanSP regarding social, acting or perceived as if a single point of truth I do standby however and I personally prefer to make my judgements to the positive on limited evidence.

 

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

Surely it's up to the parent to not put their child in the position in the first place? 

 

Absolutely, it's up to the parent not to put their child in that position - and the bloke deserves all the blame and punishment he gets if what Jon says is true.

 

If true, his misdeeds condemn him. But that doesn't give the police carte blanche to act excessively and potentially traumatize a kid needlessly - if that's the full story. It might not be - if he'd launched a violent attack off camera or was known to be carrying a weapon or threatened to use a weapon, that potentially changes things.....the fact is, when they release his arms for a couple of seconds, he doesn't fight or produce a weapon; he just stands there.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Fair enough @Alf Bentley - perhaps my puerile nature has riled, and for that I apologise.
The point discussed with @StanSP regarding social, acting or perceived as if a single point of truth I do standby however and I personally prefer to make my judgements to the positive on limited evidence.

 

 

No problem. I'm not riled. I'm just an argumentative tosser who enjoys arguing! 

 

Fair dos on your second point. Personally, I'm happy to make provisional judgments on significant but limited evidence and then adjust my opinion if further information becomes available.

I do take your point about the particular unreliability of social media, but that applies to varying degrees with all information sources, even much more credible and complete sources - new info can always change your opinion, well mine anyway.

 

That's me over and out on this one.

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Absolutely, it's up to the parent not to put their child in that position - and the bloke deserves all the blame and punishment he gets if what Jon says is true.

 

If true, his misdeeds condemn him. But that doesn't give the police carte blanche to act excessively and potentially traumatize a kid needlessly - if that's the full story. It might not be - if he'd launched a violent attack off camera or was known to be carrying a weapon or threatened to use a weapon, that potentially changes things.....the fact is, when they release his arms for a couple of seconds, he doesn't fight or produce a weapon; he just stands there.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right.

If he's refusing arrest I don't see their actions as excessive. People can't expect the law and the rules around it to be different because they choose to take their child with them when they break the law. 

[StanSP]

17 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

It is a fair comment @StanSP but I do not yet wish to let this go because I feel that choosing to believe an unknown posters tweet over your own public services is a curious starting position, and if I may be so bold, sadly indicative of the true nature of social media as some weird point of truth.

 

Sorry 

I didn't say it was a point of truth. Like I admitted to i didn't know the full story. 

Having said that, forceful police nature of this kind and drink driving are not mutually exclusive. Based on the footage seen, he wasn't resisting arrest, had his kid in one hand so was probably worried about what would happen to the kid if he got arrested (I'm wary he should be worried about his kid if he's drink driving. 

 

It's not that I don't believe public services. I have lots of faith in them so I don't want to be tarred with the label that I don't trust or believe them

 

There's often plenty of stories or accounts where police have acted with unnecessary force so I think it's right that that can be questioned? 

[Dahnsouff]

Just now, StanSP said:

I didn't say it was a point of truth. Like I admitted to i didn't know the full story. 

Having said that, forceful police nature of this kind and drink driving are not mutually exclusive. Based on the footage seen, he wasn't resisting arrest, had his kid in one hand so was probably worried about what would happen to the kid if he got arrested (I'm wary he should be worried about his kid if he's drink driving. 

 

It's not that I don't believe public services. I have lots of faith in them so I don't want to be tarred with the label that I don't trust or believe them

 

There's often plenty of stories or accounts where police have acted with unnecessary force so I think it's right that that can be questioned? 

Of course, every service provider*  should always be subject to review and posthumous action if found to be warranted. I would expect the same applied to current crisis.

 

* excludes Virgin Media