Olympics spectator with Parkinson's wants 'exoneration' after arrest

reply to post by Suspiria


Come on Suspiria, lets not let the facts get in the way of a good debate!

reply to post by Zedux

People saying the police did their job in here should be among the first to enter the gas chambers I really hope!

So because we aren't part of your fantasy we should be sent to the gas chambers. Where have I heard that before...

reply to post by ComeFindMe


Your post stated:
"The fact is that a gentleman was acting peculiarly in a crowd at a public event, became agitated when approached, resisted arrest, was found to have potentially dangerous weapons in his possession and has since apologised. The guy's embarrassed about the fuss that got made."

The Guardian article stated:
"The man was positioned close to a small group of protesters and based on his manner, his state of dress and his proximity to the course, officers made an arrest to prevent a possible breach of the peace," Surrey police said in a statement.

Where did you get your facts? "Based on his manner" may or may not equate to "acting peculiarly". There is no mention of the man becoming agitated. There is no mention of the man resisting arrest. His manner and his state of dress and proximity to the course were mentioned. And, there were no real weapons found AFTER he was arrested - and no mention of any suspicion that weapons were in evidence before he was arrested and searched. There is also no basis to conclude that the victim was embarrassed about the fuss.

Until and unless we KNOW what it was about his dress and his demeanor (besides not smiling) that piqued the police's interest and suspicion, any conclusions drawn are immaterial. Whether or not the guy deserved to be arrested or detained is speculation and personal opinion - same goes for whether or not he deserves an apology.

ganjoa

reply to post by ganjoa


My original source, to avoid any doubt or confusion:

Get Surrey News Source

A spokesman for Surrey Police said Mr Worsfold's behaviour had "caused concern as the cyclists approached". He added: "The man was positioned close to protesters and based on his manner, his dress and proximity to the course, officers made an arrest to prevent a possible breach of the peace.

The spokesman also said Mr Worsfold had already written a letter stating that he fully understood the officers' actions and accepted their apologies and explanations.

We both know that the police aren't going to come out with "he looked like he would kick off" or "he was acting weird"....if the argument acgainst what's occured is purely semantic, I find that quite telling.

Let's remember, the illness this man suffers only became apparent during / after the arrest. Now if his illness was a significant contributing factor to his actions leading to his arrest, then naturally this would be taken into account - which it was - when he was released.

Unfortunately, I have myself seen people call all manner of things when arrested to try to secure leniency..."i've got AIDs, i'm ####### mad" and "get off me, i'm disabled" amongst them (none of which were subsequently true).

Regarding the knives, he made a conscious decision to have them on his person, so must face the potential consequences of that.

Like other posters have said, the police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

reply to post by ganjoa


Also, i'd just like to add that while I completely agree with your comment on where the line is between fact and personal opinion, my thoughts - on this site in particular - are that we do need to read between the lines to reach a sensible conclusion.