Black teen on charity ride ‘grabbed from bike’ by Met police officer

He tackled and drew a firearm on a child who suspected of being violent based only on his skin colour. 

asbwilson1994 wrote:

He tackled and drew a firearm on a child who suspected of being violent based only on his skin colour. 

 

I'm not sure whether your purpose is simply to stir things up, but what you put in bold (here and in another comment) is clearly not true. Even in the very simplest analysis, it was not because he was black, but because the officer was told the suspect was black. It is therefore somewhat inevitable that the person arrested was going to be black.

Had there been no description of the colour and the officer arrested a black person because he nevertheless thought that was a relevant factor, then you might talk about prejudice.

And of course, there was more than just colour anyway, so your "only" fails again.

If you read the news, you will be aware that some of the people caught and charged with murder have been teenage boys. The fact that he is 'only' 13 means nothing. And he was suspected not based only on his skin colour, but on the fact that there were two, on bikes, on the same canal towpath. If he had been white, would there have been as many comments on this forum? Too many people 'assuming' that it is racist. 

If you read beyond headlines you would be aware the vast majority of 13 year olds, both black and white, are not violent. The idea that an inner-city black youth is so likely to be violent he needs to be treated with maximum aggression is racist. Being black is not a crime, riding a bike is not a crime, being on a towpath is not a crime, police have to work with the evidence they have and they did not have enough to tackle and draw a firearm on a 13 year old boy. This doesn't happen to white boys and it would be in the news if it were because its a massive overreach by police.

Yes I do believe what I type, do you believe I have a penis on my head?

I've commented a number of times on this but I've not claimed it's a racist incident. I have taken issue with one particular commentator who lept to the defence of the police and flatly denied there is a racial bias within policing when there is mountains of evidence that the police are institutionally racist (I posted plenty of links in an earlier comment).

Was the heavy handed and abusive behaviour by the police in this case racially motivated? It's hard to tell but given the current climate it was ill judged at best. And the fact that he is 13 does mean something - his reaction in this case seems entirely in-line with his age. The police have most likely alienated another young black man due to their behaviour - the opposite of what is needed at this point.

Dickhead. Do you actually believe what you type?

I believe what he types. Plus you lose the debate when you resort to name calling.

Sriracha wrote:

it makes sense to arrest the first matching the description.

Not really. It might make sense to calmly and respectfully try to engage anyone matching the description (although arguably the description in this case is so vague as to be not a description at all) and enquire as to their business. If they then attempt to flee, or approach you with aggression, then it might give grounds for suspicion and arrest. But jumping straight to arresting them, or even engaging them with aggression and hostility, doesn't seem at all appropriate.

I understand the suspect did attempt to flee.

It all looks very different after the dust has settled, and you realise the suspects are pillars of the community. If that is what you believed at the time you would not be arresting them. I'm not sure that it is sensible or even possible to respectfully engage with and enquire of their business a person armed with a knife who is fleeing the scene having just stabbed someone. The police have to act, in the first instance, as if they have the right person.

By their account* they only attempted to flee because the police aproached them yelling angrily and pulled them off their bike.

They weren't wielding knives, acting in any way as if they were 'fleeing the scene', or otherwise giving any reason to believe they were the perpetrators. If they had had knives, to become a threat they would have had to retrieve them while cycling, which would give time to react. And they were cycling along a towpath, which should have given ample line of sight to give time for the police to idnetify themselves and ask them to stop.

*Granted, this is only one side of the story, but it's hard to see why an innocent party would run if they didn't feel under threat.

Sriracha wrote:

I understand the suspect did attempt to flee.

True. The boy said he attempted to flee because a person who turned out to be a plain-clothes police officer leapt at him, shouting and attempting to pull him off his bike (and, it appears, without even identifying that they were police).

In his situation, I think I'd probably attempt to flee too 

I'm openly calling you on your bullshit - you're actually making quotes up now.

"was knocked off his bike into thorny bushes...so I ran, but there was nowhere to go but in the bushes."

The first part is from the opening paragraph, written by Simon from Road.cc. The second is a direct quote from the thirteen year old victim. You've conflated the two and presented it as a quote as if to attribute both to the victim, seemingly to discredit his version of events.

What exactly do you gain from misrepresenting this? Is your argument so weak that there is no actual supporting evidence?

No. I was pointing out that the reporting did not match the events. Sorry, I could have made that clearer and the ellipsis was not the way to do that. Thank you for "calling it out", and openly too.

Wow that is confusing, which is ironic.

Which bit is confusing? It's like jasecd says, the first part ("was knocked off his bike into thorny bushes") is what the reporter wrote. The second part ("so I ran, but there was nowhere to go but in the bushes.”) is what the boy said. Clearly the reporting is embellishing the facts, hence my original comment, which I accept was not well made.

Not so much embellishing, as road.cc just garbling the account. The original story says he was pulled from his bike (no mention of bushes at this point) and then ran into the bushes to escape.

mdavidford wrote:

Not so much embellishing, as road.cc just garbling the account. The original story says he was pulled from his bike (no mention of bushes at this point) and then ran into the bushes to escape.

Oh. Whilst I agree that a person fleeing into bushes is different to being "knocked off his bike into thorny bushes" and I don't see that as an innocent reporting muddle (the reporter is a law and languages graduate). That's all.

I see - when you said 'reporting' I assumed you were referring to the original story. I'm not sure rehashing what you've read on the Observer really qualifies as 'reporting'.

Personally I'm more inclined to assume laxity than intent - qualifications are no guard against being slapdash.