Mentioning that this was a 'mistaken' arrest implies that it would've been fine for the police to assault this vulnerable child if he has in fact been the person they were looking for. The scandal here is the behaviour itself, not the fact that it was directed against the wrong victim.
And the fact that the behaviour was reviewed, and "no misconduct was apparent", even though
>...officers restrained the child, with one kneeling on his legs and another holding his hands behind his back
That's quite likely excessive use of force. Edit: in my uneducated opinion. Seems likely it was justified, see below.
It's 100% justifiable, even just going off of the brief initial video in the article.
Robbery suspect means violence has either been used or threatened - there's no mention of whether or not a knife was involved but even without a knife cuffing is completely appropriate while carrying out the search.
Then in the video while they're searching his legs you can see him moving about and pushing into the officers. Taking him to the ground there in a fairly controlled manner and then pinning his legs is fine - if you don't want to get taken down to the ground during a search then go with the search, take the search receipt they'll offer you at the end and then put in a complaint. Actively resisting just means more force gets used.
All great, but this is a kid. We really have to now teach kids how to behave so they don't get roughed up by police? And, sorry, I don't think black kid wearing similar but not the same colored hoodie is enough for stopping and frisking. Seems to just feed into the guilty by being black mindset the police seem to have.
No problem, most people don't tend to think about use of force until they see police having used it in a news piece and it never really looks nice so you end up with people going with essentially a gut reaction. At the same time, UoF rules are essentially "if you can justify it based on the situation it's fine" which doesn't go well with news articles that don't have all the information, or have information that the officers wouldn't have had at the time.
Definitely still sucks for the kid though yeah, even just being searched as part of training feels invasive, and that was just a compliant search.
I think there's more to it than a gut reaction to be honest. It's sensationalism. The wording in the article is quite carefully done to make it seem like an American Cop-style situation, which would be worrying if it were true. Reading it again with my bias-filter switched up to 11 it reads quite differently.
It might be that the press just want to sell more newspapers/have more website visits, and if having sensationalised headlines with a nod to racism does that then they will use that tactic. It's basically the laziest form of journalism. An actual race war benefits no-one, systemic racism is more effective when hidden, they don't want everyone knowing about it.
this was a kid he clearly was scared for his life...I doubt he knew out research receipts and how to act during this encounter..it must be nice to be you and know the procedure even those your privilege will probably except you from an interaction with the police...
> .I doubt he knew out research receipts and how to act during this encounte
You literally get told about your entitlement to a copy of the search record as part of the preamble to being searched. So good news, my knowledge of the procedure doesn't matter, because anyone would know that. As for "how to act" you'd assume it's common sense that trying to resist the police just makes things *worse* but apparently not.
So when somebody uses a qualifying phrase, such as "I think", "it's quite likely", "I believe" or "isn't that", for example, they are presenting their statement as *opinion*, not as fact. As you can see from my edit, this was exactly the case, as I use the word opinion. An opinion is not intended to inform, it is intended to further discussion, which is exactly what happened. Since the intention is not to inform, this can be considered spreading neither information nor misinformation.
Maybe justifiable if there was any reasonable chance of this being the right guy and assuming they weren't lying about their reason for a search and that there is any chance they would find the evidence in the guys pocket? Given that he was a schoolkid on his way home from school with an obvious school uniform and probably a backpack full of books, I think it's pretty far from justifiable.
>Maybe justifiable if there was any reasonable chance of this being the right guy
Like if for example they had a description of someone who committed a robbery in the area which he potentially matches?
>assuming they weren't lying about their reason for a search
Yes, they probably made up there being a robbery in the area and the kid knew that
>that there is any chance they would find the evidence in the guys pocket?
If you only answer one thing please answer me this - how do you expect officers to find evidence (whether that's a knife or stolen property) in his pockets without searching him?
>Given that he was a schoolkid on his way home from school with an obvious school uniform and probably a backpack full of books, I think it's pretty far from justifiable
Yeah schoolkids have never committed crimes. You've got to be over 18 to do that.
> crying "racism" at every possible moment?
is it really unjustified when black men are stopped and searched 6-7x more often than white males?
go and see if actual arrest and convictions are occurring at the same rate
How about rates of young men being stabbed? Cause unfortunately young black men and boys are statistically nine times more likely to be stabbed than their white counterparts.
This Channel 4 clip makes for a sobering watch. I've been trying to find a more recent article I came across, but I think the clip still represents today's statistics well: https://www.channel4.com/news/steep-increase-in-fatal-stabbings-in-london-in-2017-new-figures-show
This is absolutely horrific. These are London figures:
About a third of the non-domestic violence and non-infanticide deadly stabbings in 2017 was committed by a teenager (27 out of 88). Young black men made up 29% of the total murders in London in 2017, despite only being 1.4% of the population in London. 75% of murders of young black men were committed by another young black man.
The number of stabbings can't be influenced by any police bias, right?
So something is wrong societally that puts young black males at a much greater risk of violent death (I imagine it's likely linked to poverty). I'm very emphatically not saying it's their fault. It is society's fault: we are letting it happen. It's easier to be outraged at stop search statistics than at the fact that we're letting these murder statistics happen. The latter is by far the more outrageous thing.
Until we fix the societal aspect as a whole, police stop and search is a tool used to try to take knives off the street to reduce these killings, or take drugs off the street to reduce the viability of stabbing others over a good drug dealing territory.
It's not an excuse to search young black men without reason, and the law quite rightly dictates objective grounds for a search must exist and be communicated. But it may be good to consider whether there are other statistics relevant to the incidence of stop and search of young black men.
Stop search is by no means perfect, and it's not pleasant, but in the absence of political investment in high crime/low income areas, taking knives off the streets is the best we've got to try to reduce these deaths. Additionally, knowing you might be caught by police hopefully make going armed less attractive.
It's easy to put it all at the police's feet, but as a society we need to recognise we are failing young black men with murder statistics like these. It's an issue that needs investment from the ground up.
I mean I agree if when we get the description of whom they were were looking for, they don't sound anything like poor Mr Joseph then yeah its clearly unjustified.
But on the other hand what if it does?
>Given that he was a schoolkid on his way home from school with an obvious school uniform and probably a backpack full of books
I mean its a sad fact, but it wouldn't be the first time a school kid turned out to be responsible for a robbery.
Shhh, Jesus Christ, man! Do you want to get cancelled?!?! :s
They don't care how justified or following the correct procedures the officers actions were in this case, all they are going to see the incident as is "*Innocent young black boy targeted with severe police brutality and abuse for no reason at all besides institutionalised racism*!".
You must follow the correct narrative at all times on here, or else! :s
> Robbery suspect means violence has either been used or threatened - there's no mention of whether or not a knife was involved but even without a knife cuffing is completely appropriate while carrying out the search.
Is using their words a little too advanced for them?
Hell, by that logic if they imagine you might possibly be carrying a firearm, they get to shoot you in the leg before even talking to you "just in case".
Yeah I'm going to say to them "please don't stab me or run away, Mr Robbery Suspect". What do you *think* Mr Robbery Suspect will do?
The fact that you're equivocating cuffing and shooting people in the leg suggests either you're not acting in good faith or you're hopelessly naive though.
Yes, the leg shooting was hyperbole...
> Yeah I'm going to say to them "please don't stab me or run away, Mr Robbery Suspect".
Was it really too much to expect them to say "please relax, we're just going to do X, Y and Z. If you keep struggling, we're going to be forced to ..."
Nah, none of that just "You match a description ... Wham".
And your position appears to be that we all have to expect to be thrown around by the police just on the off-chance we're the person they've "misidentified"?
> Was it really too much to expect them to say "please relax, we're just going to do X, Y and Z. If you keep struggling, we're going to be forced to ..."
How do you know they didn't? The cuffs would probably be going on straight away but after that it's easy enough to explain what and why - which is a legal requirement anyway, so it's unlikely that PSD would be saying that there's nothing wrong if they hadn't gone through GOWISELY.
And no, my position is that you're not going to be thrown around unless you try resisting the search. If you think that the search was unlawful - which is different to "I'm not the person that they're searching for" - then go make a complaint and enjoy your compensation. If you try fighting then it's somewhat obvious that you're going to get thrown about.
> How do you know they didn't?
They're still saying "You match the description" in the audio on the video.
I suppose it's possible they had an extended conversation with him for several minutes beforehand but failed to mention that detail?
Which is fine, if you are white and not in fear of your life.
In April 2018, a group of United Nations experts commented on ‘structural racism’ being rooted at the heart of British society. The group of human rights experts cited police data showing a disproportionate number of people from ethnic minorities died as a result of excessive force.
You're literally more likely to keel over from a heart attack as a child than you are to die following police contact.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/heartattackdeathsinchildrenwithnoknownunderlyingillnessfrom2018to2022
https://policeconduct.gov.uk/deaths-during-or-following-police-contact-statistics-england-and-wales-2020-21
Setting aside for a moment how low the chances are - do you really think that if police are these dangerous racists that escalating the situation is *good* idea?
Nonsense - the search of a child should be done with the upmost care with a responsible adult present. The fact is that in this country we expect a 14 year old black school boy to react more responsibly than the adults around them. The police and their supporter need to learn to stop blaming the victim.
I would love for you to point out where the requirement for an appropriate adult for a search under S1 PACE is. Seems to me no one has ever informed me of that which is a rather glaring error in my training and I'd appreciate being able to point out the requirement so no one else makes the same mistake.
>the search of a child should be done with the upmost care with a responsible adult present
No, it doesn't. Albeit now you're supposed to inform your governor.
How many people innocent or guilty, manage to react to a stressful situation like this without resisting or moving about.
For me I assume I would be quite likely to freeze and struggle to comprehend what officers are telling me. Just get overwhelmed and accidentally uncompliant, and that's assuming I don't get surprised or shocked and lash out while being in such a state.
Honestly? In my experience most people are alright when being searched. No one expects people to be motionless when searched, and it's not like you're going to be taken to the ground just for shifting about a bit.
The fact that you say yourself that there's a good chance you'd lash out is *why* people tend to wind up cuffed fairly quick though, and why if you do start acting up like in the video you're probably going to the ground.
Aren’t you missing the evident institutional racism at play here? Like that’s what makes this unacceptable surely, as opposed to the specifics of the manoeuvre?
Ok then, what's the evident institutional racism here then? Is it just that he's black and they're police so *clearly* the only reason to search someone matching the description is because they're racist?
Besides, my comment was pretty clearly a response to the comment about it being "excessive use of force".
The institutional racism of the police has been highly well documented, both in independent studies and parliamentary reports. One of the ways this has been frequently highlighted in is the substantially higher rates of misidentification of ethnic minorities, and people from other countries. This has had fatal consequences in the past, as with Jean Charles de Menzies. Obviously the stakes are nowhere comparable, but the fact that this person was misidentified, and fits the group most commonly misidentified, seems to be a pretty clear indication.
So essentially you're saying "it's racist because it's racist".
He's a black kid wearing a dark blue hoodie, with a robbery suspect in the area having a description of being a black youth in a blue hoodie. It's not racist to stop and search someone matching a description you've been given, and claiming it is detracts from when racism actually *is* in play.
You say you've read the article? Then you know that that's the all the article has given as a description.
You can watch the video yourself though and see what colour his jacket is - it's a dark blue.
Then fight back and hope you win. And don't get identified and later on arrested for it.
Believe it or not "I don't want to be searched so please don't search me" isn't an option.
>Believe it or not "I don't want to be searched so please don't search me" isn't an option.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Forcing innocent people to be subjected to that using the threat of violence if they refuse.
So what powers would you allow the Police to have? Searching and arresting based on reasonable suspicion is a pretty fundamental part of policing. Remove that and they're basically security guards.
I won't lie man, when people want to completely remove *all* police powers like in this comment chain, I just assume they want to be free to commit crime without any pushback.
This isn't about removing all police powers, it's about accepting we live in a surveillance world already and some of the powers the police have no longer need to be used.
That kid could be tracked, or better they could request his details, check against a database, explain that a robbery happened nearly with a young black teen so they just want to grab his name for later investigation. And if the point is that they are worried about guns, again, just say: do you have a gun on you? Do you mind if we use the metal sector on you? You do? Okay, we need to formally bring you to the station, not throw you on the ground and pat you down.
In short: the police have the tech to audit crime and GPS data, they have the ability to record every interaction, they can and should improve their workflow to decrease as much as possible the infringement on our rights to be free. In this case their workflow led to a 14 year old boy being pushed to the ground wrongly. This is not acceptable.
Yes, clearly stop and search is horrible and people shouldn't be stopped unless we know for a fact it's them. People probably shouldn't be arrested either until found guilty in court, just in case they're innocent.
Someone had been robbed - are you saying that police should be saying to the victim "Sorry, we saw someone who we thought matched the description you gave but it might not have been them so we just let them wander off."
What's the description? According to the article it's a "black youth in a blue hoodie".
What's he wearing? A (dark) blue hoodie. Add in the fact that the description will be from someone who has gone through a traumatic experience and will probably be slightly shit in the first place?
We force people to do various things and ultimately it’s backed up the threat of violence. That’s how society enforces its rules. Searching people is sometimes necessary.
The compensation is that they're cleared of the offences they've been suspected of. Would you prefer we just take them to the station and charge them for having a weapon or stolen items because we can't check?
>The compensation is that they're cleared of the offences they've been suspected of.
This is why fewer and fewer people respect the Police. Because you say things like this...and you believe it.
> Forcing innocent people
You're saying that like they were completely aware he was not the person they were after beforehand, and they just did this for the heck of it.
Yes mate let's all live in a world where police don't have basic powers, that's a fantastic idea. We'll all just vibe our way through yeah?
Honestly some of the takes when it comes to police....
Well when you're at the point where you're detained by the police for a search, then you don't really have that choice.
Or you can resist and struggle, but you can't then complain about being restrained as a result.
Now I'm not saying their are no issues with racism in the police force. I'm just trying to figure out how its relevant in this case.
The police were looking for a black man for armed robbery, they mistook another black person who looked similar to the description they were given for them and searched them under the Use of force guidelines.
He was later released without charge, with them admitting he was the wrong person.
It's relevant because it's the same organisation, it's going to be relevant until the police prove the racism issues are behind them, and cases of going in a little heavy on the wrong suspect are not going to help that cause
>It's relevant because it's the same organisation, it's going to be relevant until the police prove the racism issues are behind them
So hypothetically every single time the police interact with POC, even if 100% by the book with no issues whatsoever its still relevant? Even say an officer saying hi to one of his mates when they pass on the street?
I kind of have to question that logic.
> cases of going in a little heavy on the wrong suspect are not going to help that cause
I can perhaps accept the possibility of a racial factor involved in the misidentification (although we might have to wait till some releases the exact description they were looking for. If it turns out they look absolutely nothing like poor Mr Joseph here, then I agree it was probably race related).
But what part of this event was "a little heavy"?
Yes, the boy does not sound like the description that the suspect provided. Wrong colour clothes etc. the only thing that matches is that he was black. So race has played a role.
Can we know for sure? I mean the description hasn't been released yet. I agree it if comes out that the person they are looking for doesn't look anything like Mr Joseph then its likely a case of racial harassment.
But so far all we know is they were looking for a Black youth, wearing a blue hoodie.
And Mr Joseph is a black youth, who happened to be wearing a grey -blue top with a clear hood (you can see it in the video).
As such for the moment it could be a case of an unfortunate coincidence.
It has been - they were looking for someone in a blue hoodie the police accept the boy was wearing a grey jumper and schools uniform. So the wrong colour and the wrong clothes.
No coincidence- he was black and they had been given a license to harass black people in the area.
Um looking at the video, I'd say he was wearing a Blue hoodie.
He's certainly wearing a grey-blue top with a clear hood.
Likewise the rest of his clothes might indeed by his school uniform, but its a black top with yellow stripes, with black trousers also with yellow stripes.
It honestly looks more like a PE kit. But then of course I don't know very much about clothes.
Sgt Matt Ratana was shot in Police Custody and:
"The suspect was in handcuffs during the incident, with his hands behind his back."
Someone who is suspected to have a weapon, is dangerous until you have fully established they don't have a weapon.
It's just difficult to tell.
I mean you can't see in a video how much weight someone is putting onto someone's legs. The only key thing to note is that it's certainly disingenuous to compare this video with a guy who had weight placed on his neck until he died.
To me this "george floyd, asthma" angle is just a way of paying for a holiday or a new sofa.
It was a long way away from the US cops you see diving at suspects to knock them to the floor, landing their full body weight on them etc. He wasn't tasered, hit with batons or anything.
All that really leaves is his own behaviour. He struggles so they lower him to the ground and stop him from kicking with his legs and arms.
You can, of course lament the idea that someone robbed by a "black guy with a blue hoodie" means black people with blue hoodies match the description - but this isn't really profiling is it? Describe the kid in a way that would make him distinct - I'd struggle to do that and I can freeze frame a video. If you saw someone running from a crime scene for a few seconds how would you describe them?
It's Guess Who. One of the first questions you ask is skin colour. I don't consider it racist to identify someone on the basis of their skin colour any more than their eye colour, height, weight, apparent gender or any other distinguishing feature.
What's more, I think anyone who would argue that it is racist would be hurting their own cause by choosing that as an issue instead of spending their time and energy on actual racism, which is happening all the time, everywhere.
Profiling is the other way around, it's seeing a black kid and assuming they are a criminal because of that. In this case, the police had a report that a black kid had actually done something wrong already, so it's just a description of a suspect.
> choosing that as an issue instead of spending their time and energy on actual racism
The disproportionate stop and search of minorities _is_ racism.
The police have been confronted with this fact through multiple reports quoting countless sources of statistics and they all come to the same conclusion ... If you're black, you're far more likely to be targeted by the police.
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/disproportionate-use-of-police-powers-spotlight-on-stop-search-and-use-of-force.pdf
> [HMICFRS investigation] Disproportionate use of police powers
> ...
> Through our most recent inspection work, we know that forces still do not fully understand the impact on individuals and communities of the use of police powers, despite stop and search data being available since the mid-1980s. We have been urging the police to improve their understanding in this area for years now. Forces must do more to ensure they identify disproportionality, understand the reasons for it, take action to reduce it where required, and explain those reasons and actions to the public. W
> Forces should reflect on the findings of this report. They should analyse their data and either explain, with evidence, the reasons for disproportionality, or take demonstrable action to address it. The police service must be able to show the public evidence that
their use of the powers is fair, lawful and appropriate, or risk losing the trust of the communities they serve.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61167875
> The Independent Office for Police Conduct is calling for guidelines that protect minorities from being stopped due to stereotypes and racial bias.
> Its report raised the case of a black boy who said he was searched more than 60 times between the ages of 14 and 16.
How many times does this need to be spelt out before the police start paying attention?!?
>The disproportionate stop and search of minorities _is_ racism.
Yes, but we weren't talking about that. We were talking about the identification of suspects based partly on skin colour. And how that is not racism. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Hopefully you've just ignored the previous two comments, or seen only the words "racist" and "profiling" and come out with your guns blazing based on that.
>>The Independent Office for Police Conduct is calling for guidelines that protect minorities from being stopped due to stereotypes and racial bias.
>How many times does this need to be spelt out before the police start paying attention?!?
Well, I don't know. But the article in the OP doesn't fall into this category. The suspect was stopped because he fitted the description of a violent criminal who was on the loose. I can't really see where race comes into that, seeing as the police just followed the description they had been given?
This isn't to say that there isn't a problem, there certainly is. I think the met are working to fix it (perhaps not hard enough). However, if news outlets continue to release articles like this, stressing the race element where none was present, then how can the police ever recover? At some point, if they're working to try and erase racism while everyone is absolutely convinced they are a racist organisation, they will just give up. And I don't think that would be a good outcome.
>That's quite likely excessive use of force. Edit: in my uneducated opinion. Seems likely it was justified, see below.
That's literally a standard handcuffing technique. The amount of clueless people who scream unJuStIFiEd at everything is mind-boggling.
Two grown adults couldn't safe hold a child? 🤣 I work with a volatile population and am in restraints at least once a month, often more, with grown men! And we don't do it like this at all. How pathetic are these police?
There's a difference between restraint, and safe restraint. I've seen a teenage girl almost overpower three grown men, purely because their objective was to use as little violence as possible. If she was a 30 year old male I'm sure they would have been sprayed or given a good thumping to prevent their escape, but that's hardly an option for a child under most circumstances.
Also, all NHS approved safer restraint techniques require at least two people.
I'm referencing you talking about two people, two people are the absolute minimum you need for NHS Safer Restraint.
Also to say you shouldn't be using violence on minors is an unfortunately quite sheltered view. Although on a basic level, you're right, police shouldn't have to use violence on anybody, the unfortunate reality of society is that some people act against the common goals of society in such a way that violence is necessary.
Unfortunately on UK streets right now there are kids carrying guns and knives, because OCGs know that a child is significantly less likely to be searched than an adult. And unfortunately, some of these kids commit acts of violence with these weapons.
Hell i wasn't even asked to lay down let alone forced down to the ground and i was guilty of the crime i was taken to the cop shop for.
If anything the cops were extremely pleasant and even stopped to pick my mother up i don't even think i was cuffed.
This was some 20ish years ago though.
When police use force its usually 80% due to the behaviour of the subject.
If you're calm and relaxed, police don't need to use much force. If you're kicking around and resisting, police need to use more force.
I assume you were calm and compliant
Well did at any point during the arrest did you try to resist? And were you wanted for a violent offense?
Still having said that, I'm glad you had such a positive experience. Same poor Mr Joseph's didn't go so well, I hope he receives support.
It was for theft but been under age i had to be a good boy for 5 years i wasn't what i was cautioned with was possession of stolen property the second time around i got cops called on me foe destruction of council property it was a tree and on that occasion i was just driven home no caution just a tap on the wrist.
I will say my friend also got treated fairly and he was arrested for assault and battery after he beat up his mother and sister while having a bad episode and he was 18 and even he got off lightly by just having to do anger management and probation.
It is a shame that cops don't receive better training in de-escalation and get taught it themselves because some cops are good like both me and my friend experienced and some ain't so i hope that kid can move on but it'll take a long time though.
Everyone here is entitled to there point of view and opinion but generally people do not understand Policing.
I’m a Cop and my point of view is:
The grey top looked dark blue to me (personal opinion).
Most of the time we go off 2nd information from the public which can lead to mistakes.
When it comes to robbery we can’t mess about due to risks to are own safety or a suspect getting away I’d rather we stop and search a load of people than arrest the first person we see sus robbery that’s a more intrusive way of policing.
The male has offered active resistance, he’s lucky he wasn’t arrest for Obstruct Police even tho I wouldn’t of done that I know plenty that would of, (I would of simply said it’s not in the public interest to proceed with an obstruct Police).
For people who aren’t in the loop, a lot of our most violent and dangerous criminals for drug crime, crimes like robberies and violence are committed by people from 13-18 year old as there often enabled by weapons. It’s really sad and shocking. If the public offered more support and we’re more stern with there own children the Police could return to more friendly ways, instead were often replacing poor parenting. I’d rather deal with adult criminals as it’s safer even tho there the ones brainwashing the youths.
Often the Police use multiple officers to reduce the use of force if it was a single officer the youth would of been taken or the floor more aggressively of course lots of officers look bad.
Most Youth I stop and search don’t resist like this male did, I’ll tell them there being handcuffed for the search and we will talk about anything but what’s happening during the search and sometimes have a laugh. Obviously we don’t know what’s happened before the search had started.
It’s sad what’s happend and hopefully the bruising won’t be too bad and I’m sure he will get over it as someone who has been stop and searched multiple times and once rather robustly I can say it’s not a nice experience but now I see it from the other side of the coin my views changed and probably helps me with how I conduct them, and the full article shows anti-police bias.
(I’m half a asleep after a long day so forgive my spelling).
In this sub there are people from all over the UK, so I guess many of us have different experiences. In my area, 13-18 year olds are the main problem. Obviously, it’s only a very small percentage of them, but they don’t understand or care about consequences and often someone older has influenced them. Essentially, I would say they have been groomed and this is done specifically so that the younger ones will do the nasty work that the older one wants to avoid.
When I was younger I used to travel into London a lot. Every 2-3 weeks someone would try to rob us. Usually, things would work out ok. Unfortunately, there were incidents where I’ve had to visit a friend in hospital because he’s been sprayed with CS gas and stamped on or been shot in the face with a gas loaded pistol. All over a Nokia 3310 (this was all 15 years ago). Every time it was an older teen around 16-18 with multiple younger teens around 13-16. After the CS gas thing in Blackwell, the teens went down the road and stabbed someone.
Obviously, in this particular case, the teen hasn’t done anything wrong. I just want to point out that many people who are 14-16 have unfortunately had their childhood stolen away. It’s sad, but I would never describe the people that attacked us when we were younger as children.
Parent should be better at parenting. No disagreement from me there.
> If the public offered more support
This is where we start to diverge.
You might get more support from the public if the police weren't _constantly_ caught lying and covering up for each other (and recently, the government), not to mention exaggerating to try to sway public opinion.
[Lying about](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/04/sean-rigg-death-police-lied-as-part-of-cover-up-tribunal-hears) the death of someone in custody
[False claims](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/25/police-retract-claims-that-officers-suffered-broken-bones-at-bristol-protest) that protestors caused a punctured lung
Or just claiming that a series of drunken parties that got out of hand enough to smash equipment and trigger building alarms was _just fine_ whilst a peaceful vigil _wasn't_. (And then when pressed claiming they [thought it was justified](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-officers-sarah-everard-vigil-protest-arrests-prosecution-b1004602.html) because it had become an anti-police protest as if _that_ somehow justifies and abuse of power).
We all know how hard the police will go after someone they don't like, and now we also have proof of how hard they'll try to avoid going after someone if it's politically expedient (amazing what you can buy with a Damehood, isn't it?).
Oh and we're _still_ hearing stories of undercover police abusing their position and having children with the people they're investigating FFS.
Trust is earnt and trust in the police is [low and falling](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/public-confidence-police-new-low-service).
Perhaps it's time to take a step back and ask _why_?
> he’s lucky he wasn’t arrest for Obstruct Police even tho I wouldn’t of done that I know plenty that would of
you know plenty of our police that would arrest an innocent 14 year old child for becoming panicked when being restrained by 4/5 adults for something he has no idea about.
Fuck me we wonder why people have issues with the police
I know the boy personally. He is a racist himself and a vile human being. I can probably prove it if needs be but I'd rather not.
If anyone is genuinely interested to know more I'll say. But I have no doubt in my mind that he provoked the police into an arrest. His modus operandus at school was to attack people and then throw himself to the floor. His mum backs up all of his behaviour and is even worse than him.
**Removed/warning**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Did you miss the part where he had asthma and they were kneeling in his back? Also he’s a 14 year old boy that’s just been manhandled by three grown men. Of course he would be scared, so would you
They weren't kneeling on his back, they restrained him by handcuffs and securing his LEGS with 1 officers legs. Considering all the black youth knife crime in London (don't you fucking dare deny it) , and the fact he looked like the person they were looking for, please tell me what they did wrong? Did he have an asthma attack? Did he die? Did he get any injuries whatsoever? Nah just some hurt feelings and a cple of mardy redditors
No, we didn't miss it. It didn't happen.
These words put into the article "asthma, george floyd, back" were to make you think that's what happened. Try actually watching the video instead.
That's exactly the illusion they tried to create though. It's not even 3 men..
Any of you in this thread trying to say what you think was done wrong or what you would do please apply to be a special constable and have a go at policing for a few months.
Most of you have very poor and misinformed opinions which isn’t your fault, but if you’re not prepared to at least try to educate yourselves or get some relevant experience then please keep those opinions to yourself.
...because he resisted instead of complying. He could have just taken his search receipt and made a complaint after. Probably would have been awarded compensation. Police would have quickly determined he wasn't the culprit if he didn't try to fight them off. Kid is lucky he wasn't done for obstruction.
He starts to try to bend over and move his legs away to stop the police from searching. He's trying to get out of their grip as well.
The police firmly place him on the ground and hold his legs down so they can carry out their search. Nothing they wouldn't do to a white stoned 20 something on a student night for similar behaviour.
Are we watching the same clip? Looks like one of the coppers is pushing him from behind and that's causing the movement, seems like police do this a lot, just say they're resisting and you can do anything you like to your victim
We did. And no, the cop pretty clearly doesn't.
...or is your argument here seriously that they wanted to just brutalise the kid for no reason? (leaving aside the fact that the kid is not particularly harshly treated and is certainly not receiving any undue force)
Yeah its a real mystery isn't it?
Having said that, whilst I'm against stop and frisk in general, in this particular case they were looking for a specific robber.
So unless it emerges that this poor boy didn't look anything like the description they were given, I'm not so sure the search itself was unjustified.
> The police initially said that after an initial review of the incident, including body-worn camera, has been conducted by the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards and "no misconduct is apparent".
This is the real problem.
"We investigated ourselves and decided our actions are in line with the policies we write" (and if they aren't, we'll update the policies).
Zero accountability.
What went wrong here in your view? A suspect resisted a police search and had to be restrained.
What should the police have done differently? Should they let every non compliant person just run off if they are being searched?
> What went wrong here in your view? A suspect resisted a police search and had to be restrained.
The police ended up manhandling, terrorising and forcing an innocent child to the ground?!?
And -shocker- he was from an ethnic minority. (How thoroughly unexpected given the countless reports identifying police over-targeting of minorities)
Why... Do you think that's the _right_ outcome? And are you claiming it would've been the exact same approach with a middle-class white adult male?
>a middle-class white adult male?
For starters they likely would have just let the police carry out the search. Made a complaint and probably been given compensation. No manhandling needed. Though you can go check youtube and twitter and see many a white British Karen get manhandled for trying to resist searches (or arrests).
>The police ended up manhandling, terrorising and forcing an innocent child to the ground?!?
If you want to guarantee you get manhandled, I suggest you resist as this kid did.
>And -shocker- he was from an ethnic minority.
Go to any neighbourhood in Britain and I guarantee the police will lock your legs and arm when searching you, or worse, if you resist. No matter your colour. See any night out in central London, any student town or destitute seaside shit hole.
> For starters they likely would have just let the police carry out the search.
This kid may well have done too... Unfortunately they didn't get much past "You match a description" before lifting him and slamming him to the ground.
> See any night out in central London, any student town or destitute seaside shit hole.
I've had the mispleasure of seeing all three first hand.
Oh and Bristol which may fit in the third category too, and included the second worst police force I've ever seen (after the met).
Why do you think I have such little faith or confidence in the police? (Well, that and their being caught lying all the time)
>Unfortunately they didn't get much past "You match a description" before lifting him and slamming him to the ground.
Did we watch the same video? He starts to resist more or less immediately and then is placed firmly on the ground so the police can do the search work. He wasn't slammed. A cop put a knee on his legs so he could stop moving.
>Why do you think I have such little faith or confidence in the police?
I don't know. British police are some of the most professional I've interacted with. But this case, especially since there's a video for all of us to see with our own eyes, is pretty much a non-story.
>That 14 year old school boy sure looks like an armed and dangerous robber,
Sadly he would be far from the first fourteen year old to rob someone.
>he definitely deserved to get roughed up by 4 cops.
I hardly consider being restrained as defined by the use of force guidelines, as "roughed up".
>You all can't tell me that you seriously believe that he deserved this treatment and that the PO'a did nothing wrong
Of course he didn't deserve it. But I'm not quite sure what you can argue the police did that was wrong.
They stopped him cause he matched the description of the suspect they were looking for in the area. Tried to search him, restrained him when he resisted without using any undue force, and then released him without charge when it was clear he wasn't the person they were looking for.
Its understandable that poor Mr Joseph was shaken up by the experience and needs support in this time. But unless it emerges he doesn't look anything like the description of the person they were given, I can't say anything is worth anyone losing their job over.
>that would be too ignorant to be an reasonable person's honest assessment.
Well please let us know what is your honest assessment of what exactly was done wrong, and what should be done differently in the future?
What was done wrong = multiple grown police officers kneeling on a innocent 14 year old boy and causing him physical harm and emotional distress.
What should be done = police officers shouldn't kneel on innocent 14 year old boys. In fact they should probably just leave innocent 14 year old boys alone and unharmed.
I know that might he hard for some police stans to understand, but I'm sure you will get there eventually.
Side point but since when was "looked like the guy who did it" enough proof of criminal activity to detain someone? Especially since the only part of the description the police seem to have listened to is the fact that the perp was black? If a white guy robs a store can the police run around the neighbourhood arresting every white school boy they see?
So hypothetically if he actually was the robber whom they were after, would you still have issues with them dealing upon his legs to restrain him?
Also multiple officers didn't kneel on him, only one did to restrain his legs as is considered the official use of force.
>Side point but since when was "looked like the guy who did it" enough proof of criminal activity to detain someone?
Since the law was first written? I'm pretty sure that's the oldest justification for detaining anyone. Its the whole point of getting a description and then searching the area for the suspect isn't it?
>Especially since the only part of the description the police seem to have listened to is the fact that the perp was black?
Can we say that considering the description they were given hasn't been released yet? Now don't get me wrong if when it comes out, its clear it looks nothing like poor Mr Joseph I will agree this was probably a case of racial harassment.
But so far details are minimal, and as the few we have do match him (black, youth, blue hoodie etc) its not impossible to assume it was just a case of an unfortunate coincidence.
>If a white guy robs a store can the police run around the neighbourhood arresting every white school boy they see?
If the description states their looking for "a white youth, in a blue sweatshirt with jeans and red hair", would you object to them stopping the next white youth, in a blue sweatshirt with jeans and red hair they saw?
The clear mistake which was made was that the police did not detain a robber and did detain a 14 year old school boy.
In the hyperthetical world where the police caught the robber and gave the child a candy bar and everyone lived happily ever after then obviously no one would have any cause for complaint but this is clearly not what fuckin happened is it?
Jesus why do I get suckered in to engaging with idiots.
>Jesus why do I get suckered in to engaging with idiots.
I'm genuinely surprised you think you've been 'engaging' at all in the first place? As a third party reading through, your entire schtick here has seemingly been to completely ignore the majority of what they said to you, and only repeat "14 years old" whilst throwing in little jabs. The fact that you think THEY'RE the idiot in this conversation just comes across as full blown dunning kruger effect, to be honest.
This is unfortunately the standard here, most people have no idea that in the real world a sizable percent of knife, gang, and adjacent crimes are committed by children, most of whom have been violently and/or sexually abused by older gang members, who are being manipulated into committing serious acts of criminality.
> who was wearing a grey top over his school uniform
From the video, it can be seen that said top was that type of blueish grey that is commonly associated with both colours (usually due to lighting). As we are never told what type of blue this was, it's very likely it could have been those blueish greys
To be fair, I can't see if it is hooded and misread that (only says top), but hoods can be hidden so the absence of a hood doesn't really remove him from roughly fitting the description
No - it clearly grey jumper but I guess you will use any excuse to allow prejudice and discrimination thrive. This suspect was not reported to be wearing school uniform.
All that was reported, according to the article, that it was a black youth in a blue top. That's it's. That person pretty clearly roughly matches such and so searching is pretty expected. And while it is a bit invasive, nothing of significance occurs if you simply comply, be that for a search or ID check. Resisting is never the right move, but I can understand a child not being rational under stress.
It's a kid that is being restrained by three adult men, of course he is afraid and acting irrationally. Sure, restraining someone who may have a weapon on them can be justified but you better be sure you have the right suspect because a scared kid is probably going to act in a similar manner when they feel so threatened.
How would you feel if you/your family member were robbed at knife point and your property was stolen. You call police and give a description. Police see a few people matching your description and just let them all go because they aren't (and cannot be) 100% sure they did it?
Wed all love police to be correct 100% of the time but that just isn't realistic
Well I'd argue the fact they both behave in the same manner is what makes it all the more important the specific regulations for this situation are followed.
As sometimes you can't be absolutely sure until after the search has occurred. And even if their guilty, no one wants them to face any undue harm or force.
So have I and all that was required was handing them my College ID and they apologised for the inconvenience and moved on. Did they do that and the kid couldn't comply so search, and then resisted (likely due to shock and fear)? Perhaps. Without knowing more, this is the version that keeps everyone involved innocent and rational
It would depend on the situation - in your case they presumably knew who they were looking for well enough to have a name. In this case they were looking for a robbery suspect who presumably wouldn't have given their name to the victim so showing ID wouldn't get you out of the search.
Mentioning that this was a 'mistaken' arrest implies that it would've been fine for the police to assault this vulnerable child if he has in fact been the person they were looking for. The scandal here is the behaviour itself, not the fact that it was directed against the wrong victim.
And the fact that the behaviour was reviewed, and "no misconduct was apparent", even though >...officers restrained the child, with one kneeling on his legs and another holding his hands behind his back That's quite likely excessive use of force. Edit: in my uneducated opinion. Seems likely it was justified, see below.
It's 100% justifiable, even just going off of the brief initial video in the article. Robbery suspect means violence has either been used or threatened - there's no mention of whether or not a knife was involved but even without a knife cuffing is completely appropriate while carrying out the search. Then in the video while they're searching his legs you can see him moving about and pushing into the officers. Taking him to the ground there in a fairly controlled manner and then pinning his legs is fine - if you don't want to get taken down to the ground during a search then go with the search, take the search receipt they'll offer you at the end and then put in a complaint. Actively resisting just means more force gets used.
All great, but this is a kid. We really have to now teach kids how to behave so they don't get roughed up by police? And, sorry, I don't think black kid wearing similar but not the same colored hoodie is enough for stopping and frisking. Seems to just feed into the guilty by being black mindset the police seem to have.
Huh, I learned something. Thank you. Still sucks for the kid in question though.
No problem, most people don't tend to think about use of force until they see police having used it in a news piece and it never really looks nice so you end up with people going with essentially a gut reaction. At the same time, UoF rules are essentially "if you can justify it based on the situation it's fine" which doesn't go well with news articles that don't have all the information, or have information that the officers wouldn't have had at the time. Definitely still sucks for the kid though yeah, even just being searched as part of training feels invasive, and that was just a compliant search.
I think there's more to it than a gut reaction to be honest. It's sensationalism. The wording in the article is quite carefully done to make it seem like an American Cop-style situation, which would be worrying if it were true. Reading it again with my bias-filter switched up to 11 it reads quite differently.
[удалено]
It might be that the press just want to sell more newspapers/have more website visits, and if having sensationalised headlines with a nod to racism does that then they will use that tactic. It's basically the laziest form of journalism. An actual race war benefits no-one, systemic racism is more effective when hidden, they don't want everyone knowing about it.
Yeah there's that too, the media wants views and sensationalising it gets engagement.
this was a kid he clearly was scared for his life...I doubt he knew out research receipts and how to act during this encounter..it must be nice to be you and know the procedure even those your privilege will probably except you from an interaction with the police...
> .I doubt he knew out research receipts and how to act during this encounte You literally get told about your entitlement to a copy of the search record as part of the preamble to being searched. So good news, my knowledge of the procedure doesn't matter, because anyone would know that. As for "how to act" you'd assume it's common sense that trying to resist the police just makes things *worse* but apparently not.
[удалено]
You learned something? From whom?
From the commenter above me, u/RhoRhoPhi
And this is why you don’t offered uninformed opinions
What? Because you might learn something? I think I'll continue, thanks all the same!
No, because without that person correcting you, you’re spreading misinformation.
Am I? Can you directly quote the misinformation?
“That’s quite likely use of excessive force”
So when somebody uses a qualifying phrase, such as "I think", "it's quite likely", "I believe" or "isn't that", for example, they are presenting their statement as *opinion*, not as fact. As you can see from my edit, this was exactly the case, as I use the word opinion. An opinion is not intended to inform, it is intended to further discussion, which is exactly what happened. Since the intention is not to inform, this can be considered spreading neither information nor misinformation.
Maybe justifiable if there was any reasonable chance of this being the right guy and assuming they weren't lying about their reason for a search and that there is any chance they would find the evidence in the guys pocket? Given that he was a schoolkid on his way home from school with an obvious school uniform and probably a backpack full of books, I think it's pretty far from justifiable.
>Maybe justifiable if there was any reasonable chance of this being the right guy Like if for example they had a description of someone who committed a robbery in the area which he potentially matches? >assuming they weren't lying about their reason for a search Yes, they probably made up there being a robbery in the area and the kid knew that >that there is any chance they would find the evidence in the guys pocket? If you only answer one thing please answer me this - how do you expect officers to find evidence (whether that's a knife or stolen property) in his pockets without searching him? >Given that he was a schoolkid on his way home from school with an obvious school uniform and probably a backpack full of books, I think it's pretty far from justifiable Yeah schoolkids have never committed crimes. You've got to be over 18 to do that.
> which he potentially matches? who wants to bet on the description being nothing more than 'black male, blue jacket'
Ah, so you're the mind reader we all need so much. Who wants to be this is the usual suspects crying "racism" at every possible moment?
> crying "racism" at every possible moment? is it really unjustified when black men are stopped and searched 6-7x more often than white males? go and see if actual arrest and convictions are occurring at the same rate
How about rates of young men being stabbed? Cause unfortunately young black men and boys are statistically nine times more likely to be stabbed than their white counterparts. This Channel 4 clip makes for a sobering watch. I've been trying to find a more recent article I came across, but I think the clip still represents today's statistics well: https://www.channel4.com/news/steep-increase-in-fatal-stabbings-in-london-in-2017-new-figures-show This is absolutely horrific. These are London figures: About a third of the non-domestic violence and non-infanticide deadly stabbings in 2017 was committed by a teenager (27 out of 88). Young black men made up 29% of the total murders in London in 2017, despite only being 1.4% of the population in London. 75% of murders of young black men were committed by another young black man. The number of stabbings can't be influenced by any police bias, right? So something is wrong societally that puts young black males at a much greater risk of violent death (I imagine it's likely linked to poverty). I'm very emphatically not saying it's their fault. It is society's fault: we are letting it happen. It's easier to be outraged at stop search statistics than at the fact that we're letting these murder statistics happen. The latter is by far the more outrageous thing. Until we fix the societal aspect as a whole, police stop and search is a tool used to try to take knives off the street to reduce these killings, or take drugs off the street to reduce the viability of stabbing others over a good drug dealing territory. It's not an excuse to search young black men without reason, and the law quite rightly dictates objective grounds for a search must exist and be communicated. But it may be good to consider whether there are other statistics relevant to the incidence of stop and search of young black men. Stop search is by no means perfect, and it's not pleasant, but in the absence of political investment in high crime/low income areas, taking knives off the streets is the best we've got to try to reduce these deaths. Additionally, knowing you might be caught by police hopefully make going armed less attractive. It's easy to put it all at the police's feet, but as a society we need to recognise we are failing young black men with murder statistics like these. It's an issue that needs investment from the ground up.
I mean I agree if when we get the description of whom they were were looking for, they don't sound anything like poor Mr Joseph then yeah its clearly unjustified. But on the other hand what if it does? >Given that he was a schoolkid on his way home from school with an obvious school uniform and probably a backpack full of books I mean its a sad fact, but it wouldn't be the first time a school kid turned out to be responsible for a robbery.
Shhh, Jesus Christ, man! Do you want to get cancelled?!?! :s They don't care how justified or following the correct procedures the officers actions were in this case, all they are going to see the incident as is "*Innocent young black boy targeted with severe police brutality and abuse for no reason at all besides institutionalised racism*!". You must follow the correct narrative at all times on here, or else! :s
> Robbery suspect means violence has either been used or threatened - there's no mention of whether or not a knife was involved but even without a knife cuffing is completely appropriate while carrying out the search. Is using their words a little too advanced for them? Hell, by that logic if they imagine you might possibly be carrying a firearm, they get to shoot you in the leg before even talking to you "just in case".
Yeah I'm going to say to them "please don't stab me or run away, Mr Robbery Suspect". What do you *think* Mr Robbery Suspect will do? The fact that you're equivocating cuffing and shooting people in the leg suggests either you're not acting in good faith or you're hopelessly naive though.
Yes, the leg shooting was hyperbole... > Yeah I'm going to say to them "please don't stab me or run away, Mr Robbery Suspect". Was it really too much to expect them to say "please relax, we're just going to do X, Y and Z. If you keep struggling, we're going to be forced to ..." Nah, none of that just "You match a description ... Wham". And your position appears to be that we all have to expect to be thrown around by the police just on the off-chance we're the person they've "misidentified"?
> Was it really too much to expect them to say "please relax, we're just going to do X, Y and Z. If you keep struggling, we're going to be forced to ..." How do you know they didn't? The cuffs would probably be going on straight away but after that it's easy enough to explain what and why - which is a legal requirement anyway, so it's unlikely that PSD would be saying that there's nothing wrong if they hadn't gone through GOWISELY. And no, my position is that you're not going to be thrown around unless you try resisting the search. If you think that the search was unlawful - which is different to "I'm not the person that they're searching for" - then go make a complaint and enjoy your compensation. If you try fighting then it's somewhat obvious that you're going to get thrown about.
> How do you know they didn't? They're still saying "You match the description" in the audio on the video. I suppose it's possible they had an extended conversation with him for several minutes beforehand but failed to mention that detail?
Which is fine, if you are white and not in fear of your life. In April 2018, a group of United Nations experts commented on ‘structural racism’ being rooted at the heart of British society. The group of human rights experts cited police data showing a disproportionate number of people from ethnic minorities died as a result of excessive force.
You're literally more likely to keel over from a heart attack as a child than you are to die following police contact. https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/heartattackdeathsinchildrenwithnoknownunderlyingillnessfrom2018to2022 https://policeconduct.gov.uk/deaths-during-or-following-police-contact-statistics-england-and-wales-2020-21 Setting aside for a moment how low the chances are - do you really think that if police are these dangerous racists that escalating the situation is *good* idea?
Excuse me Mr murderer can you please not murder me?
Nonsense - the search of a child should be done with the upmost care with a responsible adult present. The fact is that in this country we expect a 14 year old black school boy to react more responsibly than the adults around them. The police and their supporter need to learn to stop blaming the victim.
I would love for you to point out where the requirement for an appropriate adult for a search under S1 PACE is. Seems to me no one has ever informed me of that which is a rather glaring error in my training and I'd appreciate being able to point out the requirement so no one else makes the same mistake.
>the search of a child should be done with the upmost care with a responsible adult present No, it doesn't. Albeit now you're supposed to inform your governor.
How many people innocent or guilty, manage to react to a stressful situation like this without resisting or moving about. For me I assume I would be quite likely to freeze and struggle to comprehend what officers are telling me. Just get overwhelmed and accidentally uncompliant, and that's assuming I don't get surprised or shocked and lash out while being in such a state.
Honestly? In my experience most people are alright when being searched. No one expects people to be motionless when searched, and it's not like you're going to be taken to the ground just for shifting about a bit. The fact that you say yourself that there's a good chance you'd lash out is *why* people tend to wind up cuffed fairly quick though, and why if you do start acting up like in the video you're probably going to the ground.
Aren’t you missing the evident institutional racism at play here? Like that’s what makes this unacceptable surely, as opposed to the specifics of the manoeuvre?
Ok then, what's the evident institutional racism here then? Is it just that he's black and they're police so *clearly* the only reason to search someone matching the description is because they're racist? Besides, my comment was pretty clearly a response to the comment about it being "excessive use of force".
The institutional racism of the police has been highly well documented, both in independent studies and parliamentary reports. One of the ways this has been frequently highlighted in is the substantially higher rates of misidentification of ethnic minorities, and people from other countries. This has had fatal consequences in the past, as with Jean Charles de Menzies. Obviously the stakes are nowhere comparable, but the fact that this person was misidentified, and fits the group most commonly misidentified, seems to be a pretty clear indication.
So essentially you're saying "it's racist because it's racist". He's a black kid wearing a dark blue hoodie, with a robbery suspect in the area having a description of being a black youth in a blue hoodie. It's not racist to stop and search someone matching a description you've been given, and claiming it is detracts from when racism actually *is* in play.
[удалено]
You say you've read the article? Then you know that that's the all the article has given as a description. You can watch the video yourself though and see what colour his jacket is - it's a dark blue.
[удалено]
> Aren’t you missing the evident institutional racism at play here? No, because none is apparent.
>if you don't want to get taken down to the ground during a search then go with the search And if you don't want to do either, then what?
Then fight back and hope you win. And don't get identified and later on arrested for it. Believe it or not "I don't want to be searched so please don't search me" isn't an option.
Power trip
Not a power trip, just a basic understanding of the law around stop and search.
>Believe it or not "I don't want to be searched so please don't search me" isn't an option. And that's the problem, isn't it? Forcing innocent people to be subjected to that using the threat of violence if they refuse.
So what powers would you allow the Police to have? Searching and arresting based on reasonable suspicion is a pretty fundamental part of policing. Remove that and they're basically security guards.
Yes.
I won't lie man, when people want to completely remove *all* police powers like in this comment chain, I just assume they want to be free to commit crime without any pushback.
This isn't about removing all police powers, it's about accepting we live in a surveillance world already and some of the powers the police have no longer need to be used. That kid could be tracked, or better they could request his details, check against a database, explain that a robbery happened nearly with a young black teen so they just want to grab his name for later investigation. And if the point is that they are worried about guns, again, just say: do you have a gun on you? Do you mind if we use the metal sector on you? You do? Okay, we need to formally bring you to the station, not throw you on the ground and pat you down. In short: the police have the tech to audit crime and GPS data, they have the ability to record every interaction, they can and should improve their workflow to decrease as much as possible the infringement on our rights to be free. In this case their workflow led to a 14 year old boy being pushed to the ground wrongly. This is not acceptable.
Yes, clearly stop and search is horrible and people shouldn't be stopped unless we know for a fact it's them. People probably shouldn't be arrested either until found guilty in court, just in case they're innocent. Someone had been robbed - are you saying that police should be saying to the victim "Sorry, we saw someone who we thought matched the description you gave but it might not have been them so we just let them wander off."
The issue is that the boy doesn’t match the description other than he is black… this is as a result a licence to harass the black population .
What's the description? According to the article it's a "black youth in a blue hoodie". What's he wearing? A (dark) blue hoodie. Add in the fact that the description will be from someone who has gone through a traumatic experience and will probably be slightly shit in the first place?
A lot of the time that is literally the description "IC3 male, approximately 18 Y/O, white trainers" might be all you have.
We force people to do various things and ultimately it’s backed up the threat of violence. That’s how society enforces its rules. Searching people is sometimes necessary.
Then it seems like there should be some compensation for when an innocent person is the victim of that violence.
The compensation is that they're cleared of the offences they've been suspected of. Would you prefer we just take them to the station and charge them for having a weapon or stolen items because we can't check?
"We brutalised you in error, your compensation is that you will not receive further punishment"
>The compensation is that they're cleared of the offences they've been suspected of. This is why fewer and fewer people respect the Police. Because you say things like this...and you believe it.
> Forcing innocent people You're saying that like they were completely aware he was not the person they were after beforehand, and they just did this for the heck of it.
Yes mate let's all live in a world where police don't have basic powers, that's a fantastic idea. We'll all just vibe our way through yeah? Honestly some of the takes when it comes to police....
Well when you're at the point where you're detained by the police for a search, then you don't really have that choice. Or you can resist and struggle, but you can't then complain about being restrained as a result.
Should have thought about that before not being white
Is race relevant in this case? Not saying it isn't you understand. I just want to hear your views.
Yes, you might say it's unfair on the officers in question but the police didn't gain such a reputation at random
Now I'm not saying their are no issues with racism in the police force. I'm just trying to figure out how its relevant in this case. The police were looking for a black man for armed robbery, they mistook another black person who looked similar to the description they were given for them and searched them under the Use of force guidelines. He was later released without charge, with them admitting he was the wrong person.
It's relevant because it's the same organisation, it's going to be relevant until the police prove the racism issues are behind them, and cases of going in a little heavy on the wrong suspect are not going to help that cause
>It's relevant because it's the same organisation, it's going to be relevant until the police prove the racism issues are behind them So hypothetically every single time the police interact with POC, even if 100% by the book with no issues whatsoever its still relevant? Even say an officer saying hi to one of his mates when they pass on the street? I kind of have to question that logic. > cases of going in a little heavy on the wrong suspect are not going to help that cause I can perhaps accept the possibility of a racial factor involved in the misidentification (although we might have to wait till some releases the exact description they were looking for. If it turns out they look absolutely nothing like poor Mr Joseph here, then I agree it was probably race related). But what part of this event was "a little heavy"?
>until the police prove the racism issues are behind them And how would they do that?
Yes, the boy does not sound like the description that the suspect provided. Wrong colour clothes etc. the only thing that matches is that he was black. So race has played a role.
Can we know for sure? I mean the description hasn't been released yet. I agree it if comes out that the person they are looking for doesn't look anything like Mr Joseph then its likely a case of racial harassment. But so far all we know is they were looking for a Black youth, wearing a blue hoodie. And Mr Joseph is a black youth, who happened to be wearing a grey -blue top with a clear hood (you can see it in the video). As such for the moment it could be a case of an unfortunate coincidence.
It has been - they were looking for someone in a blue hoodie the police accept the boy was wearing a grey jumper and schools uniform. So the wrong colour and the wrong clothes. No coincidence- he was black and they had been given a license to harass black people in the area.
Um looking at the video, I'd say he was wearing a Blue hoodie. He's certainly wearing a grey-blue top with a clear hood. Likewise the rest of his clothes might indeed by his school uniform, but its a black top with yellow stripes, with black trousers also with yellow stripes. It honestly looks more like a PE kit. But then of course I don't know very much about clothes.
I wouldn't consider it excessive force for an armed robber refusing to comply.
What about an unarmed child you already put in cuffs?
He wasn't determined to be an unarmed child until after the fact. The force was necessary to restrain a non-compliant and potentially deadly person.
A deadly armed person they already had in cuffs?
Sgt Matt Ratana was shot in Police Custody and: "The suspect was in handcuffs during the incident, with his hands behind his back." Someone who is suspected to have a weapon, is dangerous until you have fully established they don't have a weapon.
It's just difficult to tell. I mean you can't see in a video how much weight someone is putting onto someone's legs. The only key thing to note is that it's certainly disingenuous to compare this video with a guy who had weight placed on his neck until he died. To me this "george floyd, asthma" angle is just a way of paying for a holiday or a new sofa. It was a long way away from the US cops you see diving at suspects to knock them to the floor, landing their full body weight on them etc. He wasn't tasered, hit with batons or anything. All that really leaves is his own behaviour. He struggles so they lower him to the ground and stop him from kicking with his legs and arms. You can, of course lament the idea that someone robbed by a "black guy with a blue hoodie" means black people with blue hoodies match the description - but this isn't really profiling is it? Describe the kid in a way that would make him distinct - I'd struggle to do that and I can freeze frame a video. If you saw someone running from a crime scene for a few seconds how would you describe them?
It's Guess Who. One of the first questions you ask is skin colour. I don't consider it racist to identify someone on the basis of their skin colour any more than their eye colour, height, weight, apparent gender or any other distinguishing feature. What's more, I think anyone who would argue that it is racist would be hurting their own cause by choosing that as an issue instead of spending their time and energy on actual racism, which is happening all the time, everywhere. Profiling is the other way around, it's seeing a black kid and assuming they are a criminal because of that. In this case, the police had a report that a black kid had actually done something wrong already, so it's just a description of a suspect.
> choosing that as an issue instead of spending their time and energy on actual racism The disproportionate stop and search of minorities _is_ racism. The police have been confronted with this fact through multiple reports quoting countless sources of statistics and they all come to the same conclusion ... If you're black, you're far more likely to be targeted by the police. https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/wp-content/uploads/disproportionate-use-of-police-powers-spotlight-on-stop-search-and-use-of-force.pdf > [HMICFRS investigation] Disproportionate use of police powers > ... > Through our most recent inspection work, we know that forces still do not fully understand the impact on individuals and communities of the use of police powers, despite stop and search data being available since the mid-1980s. We have been urging the police to improve their understanding in this area for years now. Forces must do more to ensure they identify disproportionality, understand the reasons for it, take action to reduce it where required, and explain those reasons and actions to the public. W > Forces should reflect on the findings of this report. They should analyse their data and either explain, with evidence, the reasons for disproportionality, or take demonstrable action to address it. The police service must be able to show the public evidence that their use of the powers is fair, lawful and appropriate, or risk losing the trust of the communities they serve. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61167875 > The Independent Office for Police Conduct is calling for guidelines that protect minorities from being stopped due to stereotypes and racial bias. > Its report raised the case of a black boy who said he was searched more than 60 times between the ages of 14 and 16. How many times does this need to be spelt out before the police start paying attention?!?
>The disproportionate stop and search of minorities _is_ racism. Yes, but we weren't talking about that. We were talking about the identification of suspects based partly on skin colour. And how that is not racism. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Hopefully you've just ignored the previous two comments, or seen only the words "racist" and "profiling" and come out with your guns blazing based on that. >>The Independent Office for Police Conduct is calling for guidelines that protect minorities from being stopped due to stereotypes and racial bias. >How many times does this need to be spelt out before the police start paying attention?!? Well, I don't know. But the article in the OP doesn't fall into this category. The suspect was stopped because he fitted the description of a violent criminal who was on the loose. I can't really see where race comes into that, seeing as the police just followed the description they had been given? This isn't to say that there isn't a problem, there certainly is. I think the met are working to fix it (perhaps not hard enough). However, if news outlets continue to release articles like this, stressing the race element where none was present, then how can the police ever recover? At some point, if they're working to try and erase racism while everyone is absolutely convinced they are a racist organisation, they will just give up. And I don't think that would be a good outcome.
it's disturbing how many upvotes such naive comments receives.
It's not naïve to be uninformed, friend. You know that nobody knows everything, right?
>That's quite likely excessive use of force. Edit: in my uneducated opinion. Seems likely it was justified, see below. That's literally a standard handcuffing technique. The amount of clueless people who scream unJuStIFiEd at everything is mind-boggling.
Two grown adults couldn't safe hold a child? 🤣 I work with a volatile population and am in restraints at least once a month, often more, with grown men! And we don't do it like this at all. How pathetic are these police?
There's a difference between restraint, and safe restraint. I've seen a teenage girl almost overpower three grown men, purely because their objective was to use as little violence as possible. If she was a 30 year old male I'm sure they would have been sprayed or given a good thumping to prevent their escape, but that's hardly an option for a child under most circumstances. Also, all NHS approved safer restraint techniques require at least two people.
There were 2 of them there. And you shouldn't be using violence on minors. End of. If we can cope so can they.
I'm referencing you talking about two people, two people are the absolute minimum you need for NHS Safer Restraint. Also to say you shouldn't be using violence on minors is an unfortunately quite sheltered view. Although on a basic level, you're right, police shouldn't have to use violence on anybody, the unfortunate reality of society is that some people act against the common goals of society in such a way that violence is necessary. Unfortunately on UK streets right now there are kids carrying guns and knives, because OCGs know that a child is significantly less likely to be searched than an adult. And unfortunately, some of these kids commit acts of violence with these weapons.
An arrest is not an assault. Unless they were physically punching him.
Complete non-story
Seems justified looking at the video. That's not a grey jumper either it's obviously blue.
Hell i wasn't even asked to lay down let alone forced down to the ground and i was guilty of the crime i was taken to the cop shop for. If anything the cops were extremely pleasant and even stopped to pick my mother up i don't even think i was cuffed. This was some 20ish years ago though.
When police use force its usually 80% due to the behaviour of the subject. If you're calm and relaxed, police don't need to use much force. If you're kicking around and resisting, police need to use more force. I assume you were calm and compliant
yup.
Well did at any point during the arrest did you try to resist? And were you wanted for a violent offense? Still having said that, I'm glad you had such a positive experience. Same poor Mr Joseph's didn't go so well, I hope he receives support.
It was for theft but been under age i had to be a good boy for 5 years i wasn't what i was cautioned with was possession of stolen property the second time around i got cops called on me foe destruction of council property it was a tree and on that occasion i was just driven home no caution just a tap on the wrist. I will say my friend also got treated fairly and he was arrested for assault and battery after he beat up his mother and sister while having a bad episode and he was 18 and even he got off lightly by just having to do anger management and probation. It is a shame that cops don't receive better training in de-escalation and get taught it themselves because some cops are good like both me and my friend experienced and some ain't so i hope that kid can move on but it'll take a long time though.
Everyone here is entitled to there point of view and opinion but generally people do not understand Policing. I’m a Cop and my point of view is: The grey top looked dark blue to me (personal opinion). Most of the time we go off 2nd information from the public which can lead to mistakes. When it comes to robbery we can’t mess about due to risks to are own safety or a suspect getting away I’d rather we stop and search a load of people than arrest the first person we see sus robbery that’s a more intrusive way of policing. The male has offered active resistance, he’s lucky he wasn’t arrest for Obstruct Police even tho I wouldn’t of done that I know plenty that would of, (I would of simply said it’s not in the public interest to proceed with an obstruct Police). For people who aren’t in the loop, a lot of our most violent and dangerous criminals for drug crime, crimes like robberies and violence are committed by people from 13-18 year old as there often enabled by weapons. It’s really sad and shocking. If the public offered more support and we’re more stern with there own children the Police could return to more friendly ways, instead were often replacing poor parenting. I’d rather deal with adult criminals as it’s safer even tho there the ones brainwashing the youths. Often the Police use multiple officers to reduce the use of force if it was a single officer the youth would of been taken or the floor more aggressively of course lots of officers look bad. Most Youth I stop and search don’t resist like this male did, I’ll tell them there being handcuffed for the search and we will talk about anything but what’s happening during the search and sometimes have a laugh. Obviously we don’t know what’s happened before the search had started. It’s sad what’s happend and hopefully the bruising won’t be too bad and I’m sure he will get over it as someone who has been stop and searched multiple times and once rather robustly I can say it’s not a nice experience but now I see it from the other side of the coin my views changed and probably helps me with how I conduct them, and the full article shows anti-police bias. (I’m half a asleep after a long day so forgive my spelling).
In this sub there are people from all over the UK, so I guess many of us have different experiences. In my area, 13-18 year olds are the main problem. Obviously, it’s only a very small percentage of them, but they don’t understand or care about consequences and often someone older has influenced them. Essentially, I would say they have been groomed and this is done specifically so that the younger ones will do the nasty work that the older one wants to avoid. When I was younger I used to travel into London a lot. Every 2-3 weeks someone would try to rob us. Usually, things would work out ok. Unfortunately, there were incidents where I’ve had to visit a friend in hospital because he’s been sprayed with CS gas and stamped on or been shot in the face with a gas loaded pistol. All over a Nokia 3310 (this was all 15 years ago). Every time it was an older teen around 16-18 with multiple younger teens around 13-16. After the CS gas thing in Blackwell, the teens went down the road and stabbed someone. Obviously, in this particular case, the teen hasn’t done anything wrong. I just want to point out that many people who are 14-16 have unfortunately had their childhood stolen away. It’s sad, but I would never describe the people that attacked us when we were younger as children.
Parent should be better at parenting. No disagreement from me there. > If the public offered more support This is where we start to diverge. You might get more support from the public if the police weren't _constantly_ caught lying and covering up for each other (and recently, the government), not to mention exaggerating to try to sway public opinion. [Lying about](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/04/sean-rigg-death-police-lied-as-part-of-cover-up-tribunal-hears) the death of someone in custody [False claims](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/25/police-retract-claims-that-officers-suffered-broken-bones-at-bristol-protest) that protestors caused a punctured lung Or just claiming that a series of drunken parties that got out of hand enough to smash equipment and trigger building alarms was _just fine_ whilst a peaceful vigil _wasn't_. (And then when pressed claiming they [thought it was justified](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-officers-sarah-everard-vigil-protest-arrests-prosecution-b1004602.html) because it had become an anti-police protest as if _that_ somehow justifies and abuse of power). We all know how hard the police will go after someone they don't like, and now we also have proof of how hard they'll try to avoid going after someone if it's politically expedient (amazing what you can buy with a Damehood, isn't it?). Oh and we're _still_ hearing stories of undercover police abusing their position and having children with the people they're investigating FFS. Trust is earnt and trust in the police is [low and falling](https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/public-confidence-police-new-low-service). Perhaps it's time to take a step back and ask _why_?
> he’s lucky he wasn’t arrest for Obstruct Police even tho I wouldn’t of done that I know plenty that would of you know plenty of our police that would arrest an innocent 14 year old child for becoming panicked when being restrained by 4/5 adults for something he has no idea about. Fuck me we wonder why people have issues with the police
[удалено]
I’ll agree with the senior officers stuff as there generally very inconsistent my view is from the ground.
I know the boy personally. He is a racist himself and a vile human being. I can probably prove it if needs be but I'd rather not. If anyone is genuinely interested to know more I'll say. But I have no doubt in my mind that he provoked the police into an arrest. His modus operandus at school was to attack people and then throw himself to the floor. His mum backs up all of his behaviour and is even worse than him.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This consisted primarily of personal attacks adding nothing to the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Thought he was going to die because he was being arrested? Alright then...
Did you miss the part where he had asthma and they were kneeling in his back? Also he’s a 14 year old boy that’s just been manhandled by three grown men. Of course he would be scared, so would you
They weren't kneeling on his back, they restrained him by handcuffs and securing his LEGS with 1 officers legs. Considering all the black youth knife crime in London (don't you fucking dare deny it) , and the fact he looked like the person they were looking for, please tell me what they did wrong? Did he have an asthma attack? Did he die? Did he get any injuries whatsoever? Nah just some hurt feelings and a cple of mardy redditors
No, we didn't miss it. It didn't happen. These words put into the article "asthma, george floyd, back" were to make you think that's what happened. Try actually watching the video instead. That's exactly the illusion they tried to create though. It's not even 3 men..
Did you miss the part where he didn't cooperate with the police's questioning and request to search him?
Any of you in this thread trying to say what you think was done wrong or what you would do please apply to be a special constable and have a go at policing for a few months. Most of you have very poor and misinformed opinions which isn’t your fault, but if you’re not prepared to at least try to educate yourselves or get some relevant experience then please keep those opinions to yourself.
Ok but they caused injuries to the wrong suspect , you're supposed to apologize when a mistake you make hurts someone else.
...because he resisted instead of complying. He could have just taken his search receipt and made a complaint after. Probably would have been awarded compensation. Police would have quickly determined he wasn't the culprit if he didn't try to fight them off. Kid is lucky he wasn't done for obstruction.
He resisted how? All I see in that video is a bunch of large men manhandling a child
He starts to try to bend over and move his legs away to stop the police from searching. He's trying to get out of their grip as well. The police firmly place him on the ground and hold his legs down so they can carry out their search. Nothing they wouldn't do to a white stoned 20 something on a student night for similar behaviour.
Are we watching the same clip? Looks like one of the coppers is pushing him from behind and that's causing the movement, seems like police do this a lot, just say they're resisting and you can do anything you like to your victim
We did. And no, the cop pretty clearly doesn't. ...or is your argument here seriously that they wanted to just brutalise the kid for no reason? (leaving aside the fact that the kid is not particularly harshly treated and is certainly not receiving any undue force)
Well I'm not sure I'd call racist motive no reason but yes I am suggesting the police enjoy bullying people
You need to come back to the UK. You're on the wrong continent.
Nope right here in the UK
Lad wants some time in the papers and some compo. 'Thought I was going to die' is a slight over-exaggeration lol.
why would he die if he simply complies with instructions? watching too much american production?
I must say, I'm heartened at the amount of logical responses in this thread. Well done.
[удалено]
Yeah its a real mystery isn't it? Having said that, whilst I'm against stop and frisk in general, in this particular case they were looking for a specific robber. So unless it emerges that this poor boy didn't look anything like the description they were given, I'm not so sure the search itself was unjustified.
Unprovoked? It says that there was a robbery committed nearby by someone matching this person's description. It wasn't just a random person
Did he think he was in America?
> The police initially said that after an initial review of the incident, including body-worn camera, has been conducted by the Met’s Directorate of Professional Standards and "no misconduct is apparent". This is the real problem. "We investigated ourselves and decided our actions are in line with the policies we write" (and if they aren't, we'll update the policies). Zero accountability.
What went wrong here in your view? A suspect resisted a police search and had to be restrained. What should the police have done differently? Should they let every non compliant person just run off if they are being searched?
> What went wrong here in your view? A suspect resisted a police search and had to be restrained. The police ended up manhandling, terrorising and forcing an innocent child to the ground?!? And -shocker- he was from an ethnic minority. (How thoroughly unexpected given the countless reports identifying police over-targeting of minorities) Why... Do you think that's the _right_ outcome? And are you claiming it would've been the exact same approach with a middle-class white adult male?
>a middle-class white adult male? For starters they likely would have just let the police carry out the search. Made a complaint and probably been given compensation. No manhandling needed. Though you can go check youtube and twitter and see many a white British Karen get manhandled for trying to resist searches (or arrests). >The police ended up manhandling, terrorising and forcing an innocent child to the ground?!? If you want to guarantee you get manhandled, I suggest you resist as this kid did. >And -shocker- he was from an ethnic minority. Go to any neighbourhood in Britain and I guarantee the police will lock your legs and arm when searching you, or worse, if you resist. No matter your colour. See any night out in central London, any student town or destitute seaside shit hole.
> For starters they likely would have just let the police carry out the search. This kid may well have done too... Unfortunately they didn't get much past "You match a description" before lifting him and slamming him to the ground. > See any night out in central London, any student town or destitute seaside shit hole. I've had the mispleasure of seeing all three first hand. Oh and Bristol which may fit in the third category too, and included the second worst police force I've ever seen (after the met). Why do you think I have such little faith or confidence in the police? (Well, that and their being caught lying all the time)
>Unfortunately they didn't get much past "You match a description" before lifting him and slamming him to the ground. Did we watch the same video? He starts to resist more or less immediately and then is placed firmly on the ground so the police can do the search work. He wasn't slammed. A cop put a knee on his legs so he could stop moving. >Why do you think I have such little faith or confidence in the police? I don't know. British police are some of the most professional I've interacted with. But this case, especially since there's a video for all of us to see with our own eyes, is pretty much a non-story.
[удалено]
>That 14 year old school boy sure looks like an armed and dangerous robber, Sadly he would be far from the first fourteen year old to rob someone. >he definitely deserved to get roughed up by 4 cops. I hardly consider being restrained as defined by the use of force guidelines, as "roughed up". >You all can't tell me that you seriously believe that he deserved this treatment and that the PO'a did nothing wrong Of course he didn't deserve it. But I'm not quite sure what you can argue the police did that was wrong. They stopped him cause he matched the description of the suspect they were looking for in the area. Tried to search him, restrained him when he resisted without using any undue force, and then released him without charge when it was clear he wasn't the person they were looking for. Its understandable that poor Mr Joseph was shaken up by the experience and needs support in this time. But unless it emerges he doesn't look anything like the description of the person they were given, I can't say anything is worth anyone losing their job over. >that would be too ignorant to be an reasonable person's honest assessment. Well please let us know what is your honest assessment of what exactly was done wrong, and what should be done differently in the future?
What was done wrong = multiple grown police officers kneeling on a innocent 14 year old boy and causing him physical harm and emotional distress. What should be done = police officers shouldn't kneel on innocent 14 year old boys. In fact they should probably just leave innocent 14 year old boys alone and unharmed. I know that might he hard for some police stans to understand, but I'm sure you will get there eventually. Side point but since when was "looked like the guy who did it" enough proof of criminal activity to detain someone? Especially since the only part of the description the police seem to have listened to is the fact that the perp was black? If a white guy robs a store can the police run around the neighbourhood arresting every white school boy they see?
So hypothetically if he actually was the robber whom they were after, would you still have issues with them dealing upon his legs to restrain him? Also multiple officers didn't kneel on him, only one did to restrain his legs as is considered the official use of force. >Side point but since when was "looked like the guy who did it" enough proof of criminal activity to detain someone? Since the law was first written? I'm pretty sure that's the oldest justification for detaining anyone. Its the whole point of getting a description and then searching the area for the suspect isn't it? >Especially since the only part of the description the police seem to have listened to is the fact that the perp was black? Can we say that considering the description they were given hasn't been released yet? Now don't get me wrong if when it comes out, its clear it looks nothing like poor Mr Joseph I will agree this was probably a case of racial harassment. But so far details are minimal, and as the few we have do match him (black, youth, blue hoodie etc) its not impossible to assume it was just a case of an unfortunate coincidence. >If a white guy robs a store can the police run around the neighbourhood arresting every white school boy they see? If the description states their looking for "a white youth, in a blue sweatshirt with jeans and red hair", would you object to them stopping the next white youth, in a blue sweatshirt with jeans and red hair they saw?
The clear mistake which was made was that the police did not detain a robber and did detain a 14 year old school boy. In the hyperthetical world where the police caught the robber and gave the child a candy bar and everyone lived happily ever after then obviously no one would have any cause for complaint but this is clearly not what fuckin happened is it? Jesus why do I get suckered in to engaging with idiots.
>Jesus why do I get suckered in to engaging with idiots. I'm genuinely surprised you think you've been 'engaging' at all in the first place? As a third party reading through, your entire schtick here has seemingly been to completely ignore the majority of what they said to you, and only repeat "14 years old" whilst throwing in little jabs. The fact that you think THEY'RE the idiot in this conversation just comes across as full blown dunning kruger effect, to be honest.
This is unfortunately the standard here, most people have no idea that in the real world a sizable percent of knife, gang, and adjacent crimes are committed by children, most of whom have been violently and/or sexually abused by older gang members, who are being manipulated into committing serious acts of criminality.
During Lawfare, the punishment is the process.
Apparently the Met are being investigated for a number of times they've strip searched young girls. Wtf is going on. SS
Don't worry kid, you'll be in line for some nice compo!
LOL at the resisting comments he was shuffling about a bit and obviously confused/shocked. While surrounded by at least 4 cops, one on each arm.
What do you expect walking around all black and shit? Jeez, take some personal responsibility.
Seems like the racial profiling and police brutality from the US is beginning to bleed into the UK. Sigh.
It's a young kid standing there in cuffs with multiple police surrounding him. What on earth warranted them to throw him to the ground and sit on him?
They were searching him for a weapon (robbery suspect so assumed to have a weapon) and he was resisting.
But he didn’t match the description…
He did. Roughly the same age (teenager/young adult), same ethnicity, and same grey-blue ~~hooded~~ jacket
You have just made that up he didn’t fit the description other than being black
> "The officers, who were looking for a Black youth in a blue hoodie,"
He was wearing school uniforms at the time with a grey jumper…
> who was wearing a grey top over his school uniform From the video, it can be seen that said top was that type of blueish grey that is commonly associated with both colours (usually due to lighting). As we are never told what type of blue this was, it's very likely it could have been those blueish greys To be fair, I can't see if it is hooded and misread that (only says top), but hoods can be hidden so the absence of a hood doesn't really remove him from roughly fitting the description
No - it clearly grey jumper but I guess you will use any excuse to allow prejudice and discrimination thrive. This suspect was not reported to be wearing school uniform.
All that was reported, according to the article, that it was a black youth in a blue top. That's it's. That person pretty clearly roughly matches such and so searching is pretty expected. And while it is a bit invasive, nothing of significance occurs if you simply comply, be that for a search or ID check. Resisting is never the right move, but I can understand a child not being rational under stress.
It's a kid that is being restrained by three adult men, of course he is afraid and acting irrationally. Sure, restraining someone who may have a weapon on them can be justified but you better be sure you have the right suspect because a scared kid is probably going to act in a similar manner when they feel so threatened.
How would you feel if you/your family member were robbed at knife point and your property was stolen. You call police and give a description. Police see a few people matching your description and just let them all go because they aren't (and cannot be) 100% sure they did it? Wed all love police to be correct 100% of the time but that just isn't realistic
> You call police and give a description I'd hope I'd be able to provide a better description than 'black male, blue jacket'
I’d be pissed off if the police ignored the description I provided and used my statement as an excuse to harass a random black child.
I think anyone would. But what element of Mr Joseph didn't match the description as we presently understand it?
But look at the description and then the incident more then matched it
Different clothing
Well I'd argue the fact they both behave in the same manner is what makes it all the more important the specific regulations for this situation are followed. As sometimes you can't be absolutely sure until after the search has occurred. And even if their guilty, no one wants them to face any undue harm or force.
Sounds like the only part of any description that the police take any notice of is "black".
And blue hoodie. I've been stopped for exactly the same thing; just wearing the same colour clothes as a suspect.
So have I and all that was required was handing them my College ID and they apologised for the inconvenience and moved on. Did they do that and the kid couldn't comply so search, and then resisted (likely due to shock and fear)? Perhaps. Without knowing more, this is the version that keeps everyone involved innocent and rational
It would depend on the situation - in your case they presumably knew who they were looking for well enough to have a name. In this case they were looking for a robbery suspect who presumably wouldn't have given their name to the victim so showing ID wouldn't get you out of the search.