ashbrook wrote:
...the current incident is what is being discussed or are we all guilty due to our pasts? I would be equally outraged if I was accused of stealing a scooter but I would hope to be a bit more restrained with my responses. He is innocent of the crime that he was challenged on. It's really quite straightforward
Ash - I want to put in my 2 cents because I believe many people likely share your view. I read the article and had a very opposite reaction than you which surprised me.
Why is the officer a "disgrace"? Why is the officer a "joker"? If the current incident is what we're discussing then the officer's past incidents shouldn't be an issue, or is he automatically guilty because of his past? The fact he's on the street as an officer still doing his job means he SHOULD be there since he's not presently being disciplined. Meaning his past is clean until proven otherwise. His actions are under investigation per routine so maybe he will be proven unworthy of the shield, BUT not yet. So why is he a disgrace & a joker? There's absolutely nothing in that one minute convoluted video leading me to believe he's either of those things. Maybe he is but I'm not seeing it. He saw something/someone which made him curious/suspicious and decided to do his job and start asking questions. He almost immediately called for backup. You don't call for a backup witness when you're trying to be a disgrace & a joker. You call for backup to ensure everything goes correctly in the stop.
The officer had a very confrontational incident in his past which was apparently not deemed detrimental to the continuation of his duties as an officer of the law. The "victim" here is a convicted felon who served time in prison for a weapons charge (which he tries to minimize as a "silly thing"...yeah, silly thing those felony weapons charges are huh?). This is the same person who magnanimously claims the "nature of living in London...[is] looking out for one another..." but maybe we should be watching out for him & his weapon. Where are the Londoners who witnessed this "humiliation"? Why has no one else backed his story other than Temi Mwale who wasn't there and is only using this incident to throw the race card? It's interesting Mwale admits "Feeling like you are racially discriminated against every day affects your mental health."
I think the real question is - who deserves the benefit of the doubt here?
You'd be "outraged" if you were the one pulled over?? The cop saw a potential issue, stopped someone for questioning, called backup, dealt with a confrontational individual and the entire process was cleared up in 25 minutes with everyone going home. - I see no reason for anyone to have a problem with any of this. - It's really quite straightforward.
robinm wrote:
I've always stopped, turned off the bike, removed my helmet and listened carefully to what they've had to say. I know they're doing they're job. I've no doubt if I refused to comply, started mouthing off and filming them on my phone then I'd end up in hand cuffs too.
Sadly these little videos are always very one sided - the police aren't allowed to say why they stopped him or what happened when they did. In the other video where the police break the window you'll see that a police car has forced the car to stop in what appears to have been a chase, the driver won't get out the car when asked to and instead starts filming the policeman trying to make a mockery of him.
Those who give the cop the benefit of the doubt already realize both incidents may be far more complicated than the piecemeal story the sensationalist media is feeding us. We'll wait & see what happens, it's entirely possible the officer may have grossly abused his power. With both incidents occurring in front of other officers & witnesses, the whole truth should be swift in coming.
I'll bet the officer gets fired regardless of his actions. The fact he's been involved in 2 sensationalized incidents provides the police department an opportunity to gain public favor if they fire him. They can sacrifice him to the masses in order to pacify a public which will never really be pacified.