Tiemoue Bakayoko was held at gunpoint and arrested by the police a few days ago in Milan, Italy, in what turned out to be a case of mistaken identity.
After a gunfight between two gangs in the city of Milan, police set up a roadblock, at which they stopped and searched the AC Milan midfielder before the officers realized their error.
Days after, Bakayoko spoke about the incident and disapproved of how the police handled their duties while noting that he wasn’t angry over the mistake.
“Authorities stated it was a mistake and they realized only in real-time,” the footballer said. “Being wrong is human, no problem with that, but the way they used those have been a problem for me. I believe they went too far.
“The problem is not the error but the methodology used. I found the weapon within a metre of me and the passenger. They clearly put us in danger regardless of the reasons that led to doing this.”
Tiémoué Bakayoko is a French professional footballer who is currently on loan from Chelsea at a Serie A team AC Milan.
Due to his ability to disrupt play, Bakayoko excels as a center midfielder and can also play as a box-to-box midfielder.
What happened to Tiemoue Bakayoko?
The police in Milan chose to stop Tiemeoue Bakayoko at gunpoint as he was going about his legal business in the Italian city, an incident which has since been described as the “worst PR move of the summer.”
Of course, it was all caught on tape, and the Polizia swiftly issued a statement defending and justifying their conduct by stating that they were searching for a suspect of the utmost importance and that carrying a weapon was necessary for the situation. Since then, Bakayoko held off on sharing his feelings until recently.
What did the Police say?
The Italian government has defended the officers’ deeds, saying they carried out their responsibilities in a proper manner.
“It should be noted that the search occurred in an operational context that justified the adoption of the highest security measures,” a statement from the Italian authorities read.
“Also as a function of self-protection, and [it] was carried out in a manner absolutely consistent with the type of alarm in progress.
“Once the person had been identified and [it had been] established that he was not involved, the service was resumed without any kind of remark from the person concerned.”