Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

No, it isn't. The police need a reason to arrest someone. A cynic might say they manufactured one, because they certainly didn't have one when he refused to answer their questions.

The two police officers saw a man on the streets who matched the description of someone who was wanted; they would've known there was no case on him if they knew his identity

The guy dealt with the situation poorly. The police dealt with the situation even worse. There were two of them, and he's 70, there was no need to taze him.

63, not 70, just being factually correct - moreover there were 2 of them, 1 of him and his dog, and 2 onlookers, but I think this is most relevant to their actions:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Policeman: [Hard to tell, I think he says something along the lines of "why are you talking to me? I'm not the one writing this down"
Adunbi: [Says something]
Policewoman: All right, what's your name please?
Adunbi: I'm not telling you my name
Policewoman: do you respect your [something?]
Adunbi: You want to talk, one guy, come over here, you're going to record, and what you are doing-
Policewoman: -[something something] threatening us
Adunbi:-I'm not threatening you I'm telling you I am going to put up to the public and I'm going to defend myself, this is [something something something]-
Policewoman: -We'd like to know who you are
Adunbi: I'm not telling you who I am!
Policewoman: Why not?
Adunbi: Because it's our right. You are gonna [something something] and ensure that [something something]-
Policewoman: -You look like [something something] K?
Adunbi: I tell you if you tazer me, you'll probably kill me, and it'll cost you a hell of a lot
[Steps away, policeman steps to block him]
Policewoman: Right, I need you to stay calm, K?
Adunbi: I'm not telling you my name.
[recording skips]
Adunbi: -of your business.
Policeman: You're not telling me your name.
Policewoman: I've asked you to remain calm, right? [tazer in hand, visibly aimed at Adunbi]
Adunbi: [visibly agitated, keeps trying to walk through policeman] you're gonna calm me, your sergeant is going to tazer me for whatever reason [walking towards policewoman with his hands behind his back, she backs away as he advances]
Policewoman: Stay still, stay still
Adunbi: My hands are in the air, my palms are open, [still advancing]-
Policewoman: Yeah you've got keys in your hands [policeman is keeping pace behind Adunbi]
Adunbi: Yeah I've got keys in my hands
Cameraguy: He's going into his house, that's his house there, he's got his keys there [beep] that isn't a threat, seriously [Adunbi and policewoman speaking, unintelligible], yeah he's one of my neighbours he's a lovely guy, he's one of my neighbours I see him every day he's walking his dog he's a lovely bloke.
[video skips again]
[Adunbi going through garden gate, police follow]
Cameraguy: If you think it's him- Oi
Oi
He's just trying to get into his house
[police struggle, force through Adunbi's attempt to close the gate on them. Dog barking, Adunbi pushes policeman, policewoman grabs his arm]
Cameraguy: Leave him alone, yeah you just grabbed him
[Adunbi breaks grip of policewoman, policeman grabs him but he breaks his grip too, policewoman pulls tazer and tazes him]

I fully understand why he was so anxious but it's ridiculous to try and spin this as the police going out to tazer old people. It would be outrageous for example if the police were just going about asking people for their names and tazing when they don't comply but they informed him he matched the description of a suspect and he in turn grew aggravated, kept advancing on the policewoman even after she drew her tazer and warned him to calm down, and made multiple attempts to escape them even if walking through them.

Relevant:

Taser provides an additional option to resolve situations, including the threat of violence, which can come from any section of the public. In certain circumstances, the use of Taser is more appropriate than other use of force options in resolving dangerous situations safely and with less risk of serious injury. In addition, officers who are trained and equipped with Taser must decide on the most reasonable and necessary use of force in the circumstances. The level of force used must be proportionate to achieve the objective and officers are individually accountable in law for the amount of force they use on a person.

The alternatives to Taser include a range of other measures such as physical restraint, batons and police dogs. Much will depend upon the circumstances, but Taser will often be less injurious than resorting to baton strikes or deployment of a police dog. In the majority of cases involving Taser, the mere threat of its use has been enough to defuse a situation and ensure a peaceful resolution of the incident.

They failed to physically restrain him, he was only growing more agitated, he was adamant in refusing to tell them who he was even though he had his ID on him and batons would've done worse. What could have they have done better? Assaulting him would probably not have been an improvement, especially if it got the onlookers involved. Their only other option would have been to just let their suspect go, here's useful advise from the Guardian:

There is no requirement to give your name and address to a police officer or CSO who searches you. However, if they know these details they are required to include them in the search form that they have to complete and give to you once the search is completed. Police officers and CSOs may ask for these details just for the purposes of completing the form.

There are, however, circumstances where it might be a good idea to give your name and address to a police officer or CSO. If there is a suggestion that you have committed an offence it would be wise to give your details. A failure to identify yourself might lead to you being arrested for the offence where the police might otherwise have been happy to summons you (ie send you a date to attend court to answer the charge through the post). There are also circumstances where a failure to give these details could itself be an offence. The most notable example is where a police officer in uniform or a CSO considers that you have been acting in an antisocial manner. A refusal to give your name and address (or giving false details) if asked to do so in these circumstances is an offence for which you can be fined up to £1,000.

It's just common sense, the most basic of details alone, simply telling them his name, would have meant none of this happened. I also don't know what crime the guy they're looking for committed, and whether they believed there was a risk of evidence being destroyed, someone getting harmed or their suspect escaping, it's safe to say though at the end of the day, even if you don't want to help police do the barest minimum to establish their elimination criteria and remove you from the suspect list, you can still politely deal with them - walking on them, holding anything metal behind your back and throwing them off when they're trying to cuff you is a bad idea and likely to result in tazing

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Expert opinions are as of this year, confused

[Kot]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Expert opinions are as of this year, confused

It sounded cooler when it was "Sun never sets on The British Empire!", not "Sunset for the Angloshpere?".

[Loud Whispers]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Expert opinions are as of this year, confused

It sounded cooler when it was "Sun never sets on The British Empire!", not "Sunset for the Angloshpere?".

I agree, but look at the middle picture to find an answer why they're not the same

Anglosphere is held and maintained largely by and in accordance with the direction of US leadership. Effectively it is the world order of western English-speaking liberal democracies with extensive intelligence cooperation and held together by all of the nations involved having bilateral military cooperation with the USA. USA and Canada in the arctic. USA and UK in the Atlantic oceans, Mediterranean ocean, Red Sea and the Gulf of Persia. USA, Australia and New Zealand in the Pacific, Indian Ocean and South China Sea. In this manner the USA maintains its logistical reach and naval dominance everywhere, in return the other nations drastically increase their power with access to US tech and power, in addition to experience from joint military exercises and operations. Thus the Anglosphere is not led by England, and is not even formally a thing - instead being a representation of how nations of shared stock, culture and history have managed to end up in a network strategically joined by bilateral cooperation with the USA. The nature of this network means that if the USA were to wholly turn isolationist or Yellowstone Volcanoe explode, there would be very little capacity for the remaining nations to maintain the military cooperation at sea to much effective degree. Singapore, India and Malaysia also fit into all of this but the name doesn't seem fitting when it's just referring to some perfidious eternal Anglo spirit
It could also refer to Anglosaxon nations or English speaking nations across the world if it isn't confusing enough already

[TD1]

I'm gonna ship some nuclear English-speaking families to the Middle East in order to form Anglo-Bubbles which, with time, will form Anglospheres.

That is how this works, right?

[martinuzz]

I thought it was a round contraption used by fishermen

[Helgoland]

Sadly that Monty Python joke doesn't work in English, I think.

[redwallzyl]

Sadly that Monty Python joke doesn't work in English, I think.

it's a pun on angeln or an equivalent in Dutch isn't it?

[martinuzz]

Angling / angler is english as well. But yeah, angeln in German, and hengelen in Dutch. Fishing is a general term, angling is fishing with a line and fish hook (angle).
It's an old germanic word. Basically angel = pointy (curved) pin. We call an insect stinger an 'angel' as well for example.

[Helgoland]

'I taught the Saxons to fish - now they're called Fishin'-Saxons!'

The Dutch usage is strange to me. Here 'Angel' refers to the fishing rod, while the hook itself is just called, well, a hook.

[martinuzz]

'I taught the Saxons to fish - now they're called Fishin'-Saxons!'

The Dutch usage is strange to me. Here 'Angel' refers to the fishing rod, while the hook itself is just called, well, a hook.

Same here, the rod is called a hengel, the hook just a hook (haak). The verb is 'hengelen'. But the rod got it's name from the older word for curved hook / sharp pin.

[TempAcc]

Germony can into Ministry of Truth

[martinuzz]

The Lügenpresse must be silenced!

[Sheb]

So, what power would that Abwehrzentrum gegen Desinformation gets? It's not clear and I can't access the paywall behind. Would they really get the power to censor news source as TempAcc implies?

[TempAcc]

Wait, how are you getting trapped behind a paywall and I'm not?

I'll post the original german text here just in case, including links:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Fake News
Innenministerium will Abwehrzentrum gegen Falschmeldungen einrichten

In der Debatte über Falschmeldungen im Internet prescht das Innenministerium vor: Nach SPIEGEL-Informationen will man eine Einrichtung im Kanzleramt aufbauen, die Desinformationskampagnen bekämpft.
Von Horand Knaup und Gerald Traufetter

Der Wahlkampf von Donald Trump in den USA wirkte wie ein Weckruf für die Berliner Politik. Kann es sein, dass eine russische Desinformationskampagne im Internet den republikanischen Präsidentschaftskandidaten ins Weiße Haus getragen hat? Seitdem treibt Bundesregierung und die Parteien die Frage um, ob Falschmeldungen auch die im nächsten Jahr anstehenden Wahlen in Deutschland manipulieren könnten.

Vergangene Woche dann überboten sich die Politiker mit Vorschlägen, welche Gesetze gegen sogenannte Fake News wirken könnten. Jetzt kommt nach SPIEGEL-Informationen aus dem Bundesinnenministerium ein neuer Vorschlag. Im Kampf gegen Falschnachrichten in den sozialen Netzwerken schlägt das Haus von Thomas de Maizière (CDU) vor, ein "Abwehrzentrum gegen Desinformation" einzurichten. (Lesen Sie hier die ganze Geschichte im neuen SPIEGEL.)

"Mit Blick auf die Bundestagswahl sollte sehr schnell gehandelt werden", schreiben die Beamten von Minister de Maizière in einem aktuellen Vermerk, der dem SPIEGEL vorliegt. Darin heißt es weiter: "Da der Schwerpunkt bei der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit liegt, sollte die Federführung für diese zu schaffende Bündelungseinheit beim Bundeskanzleramt (Bundespresseamt) angesiedelt werden", also der mehr als 500 Mitarbeiter großen Behörde von Angela Merkels Sprecher Steffen Seibert.

Besonders anfällig sollen Russlanddeutsche und Türkischstämmige sein

Als besonders anfällige Bevölkerungsgruppen hebt das Papier "Russlanddeutsche" sowie "türkischstämmige Menschen" hervor, bei denen eine "Intensivierung der politischen Bildungsarbeit" erfolgen solle.

Zudem legt das Bundesinnenministerium den Parteien nahe, sich noch vor den nächsten Landtagswahlen auf Grundregeln des Wahlkampfes und gegen den Einsatz von Social Bots und Fake News zu einigen. "Die Akzeptanz eines postfaktischen Zeitalters käme einer politischen Kapitulation gleich", schreiben die Beamten. (Lesen Sie hier die Hintergründe zum Phänomen der Fake News und der Situation in Deutschland.)

Der Vorschlag aus dem Innenministerium dürfte für Kontroversen sorgen. Einerseits befürchten IT-Experten durch jegliche neuen Gesetze und andere Initiativen eine Gefahr für die Meinungsfreiheit. Ein "Zensurmonster" sah der Hauptgeschäftsführer des IT-Branchenverbandes Bitkom, Bernhard Rohleder, schon durch die Vorschläge von SPD-Fraktionschef Thomas Oppermann aufziehen. Außerdem dürfte der Regierung insbesondere von Rechtspopulisten der Vorwurf gemacht werden, sie wolle missliebige Informationen und Meinungen unterdrücken.

Dieses Thema stammt aus dem neuen SPIEGEL - ab Samstagmorgen erhältlich.

Was im neuen SPIEGEL steht, erfahren Sie immer samstags in unserem kostenlosen Newsletter DIE LAGE, der sechsmal in der Woche erscheint - kompakt, analytisch, meinungsstark, geschrieben von der Chefredaktion oder den Leitern unseres Hauptstadtbüros in Berlin.

The article doesn't go into great detail on the powers said ministry would have, all we can infer is that it'd have the power to label anything as misinformation and cut access to it, and apparently stuff that criticized the government is included in that definition of misinformation.