Police - excessive force on this week's news
Discussion
NoNeed said:
RobinOakapple said:
jogger1976 said:
To be honest guys, as someone who has two family members who are Police Officers, I have found you will almost never get them to admit they are wrong, even if it's not a Police matter, just a general discussion.
Pretty frustrating, but it's just the way it is.
Sounds like it's more a characteristic of your family than a characteristic of the police.Pretty frustrating, but it's just the way it is.
RobinOakapple said:
jogger1976 said:
To be honest guys, as someone who has two family members who are Police Officers, I have found you will almost never get them to admit they are wrong, even if it's not a Police matter, just a general discussion.
Pretty frustrating, but it's just the way it is.
Sounds like it's more a characteristic of your family than a characteristic of the police.Pretty frustrating, but it's just the way it is.
jogger1976 said:
RobinOakapple said:
jogger1976 said:
To be honest guys, as someone who has two family members who are Police Officers, I have found you will almost never get them to admit they are wrong, even if it's not a Police matter, just a general discussion.
Pretty frustrating, but it's just the way it is.
Sounds like it's more a characteristic of your family than a characteristic of the police.Pretty frustrating, but it's just the way it is.
As old bill myself I find this partial clip of footage embarrassing.
To me the officer on the right with baton racked seems scared, I don't know what occurred before to make him feel this way. The subject could have a warning marker for weapons etc, we don't know so shouldn't be overly critical.
They appear to be quite young so possibly young in service or specials (if they exist in btp).
Officer on the left seems a bit taken aback, not sure I'd justify that baton strike to myself.
They should be aware or assume they are being recorded in a location like that.
The subject is resisting, albeit somewhere between passive and active.
If it is an overreaction (which I'm not saying it is) then here in Belfast they would get some serious feedback from their peers.
To me the officer on the right with baton racked seems scared, I don't know what occurred before to make him feel this way. The subject could have a warning marker for weapons etc, we don't know so shouldn't be overly critical.
They appear to be quite young so possibly young in service or specials (if they exist in btp).
Officer on the left seems a bit taken aback, not sure I'd justify that baton strike to myself.
They should be aware or assume they are being recorded in a location like that.
The subject is resisting, albeit somewhere between passive and active.
If it is an overreaction (which I'm not saying it is) then here in Belfast they would get some serious feedback from their peers.
WinstonWolf said:
Ooh, name calling, nice...
It's more of a description that accurately reflects your seeming lack of ability to debate with any finesse, and having to resort to inaccurate, sarcastic generalisations. WinstonWolf said:
So the IPCC are investigating, I'd say you backed the wrong horse again.
So? Most investigations, be it police, PSD or the IPCC result in no further action being taken against the person being investigated. An investigation isn't an indication of guilt. I assume that concept is within your grasp. The IPCC are often driven by public interest / attention. WinstonWolf said:
The police f
k up, frequently. Accept it.
The police deal with 13 million incidents per year, plus 10s of millions of interactions that don't go through the call centres. Most policing is completed at least satisfactorily. Within this 'bigger picture' context, frequently isn't the correct word to use. k up, frequently. Accept it.Although once more that's using an objective reference point (rather than just making something), which is Kryptonite to many in here.
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
Ooh, name calling, nice...
It's more of a description that accurately reflects your seeming lack of ability to debate with any finesse, and having to resort to inaccurate, sarcastic generalisations. WinstonWolf said:
So the IPCC are investigating, I'd say you backed the wrong horse again.
So? Most investigations, be it police, PSD or the IPCC result in no further action being taken against the person being investigated. An investigation isn't an indication of guilt. I assume that concept is within your grasp. The IPCC are often driven by public interest / attention. WinstonWolf said:
The police fk up, frequently. Accept it.
The police deal with 13 million incidents per year, plus 10s of millions of interactions that don't go through the call centres. Most policing is completed at least satisfactorily. Within this 'bigger picture' context, frequently isn't the correct word to use. k up, frequently. Accept it.Although once more that's using an objective reference point (rather than just making something), which is Kryptonite to many in here.
To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
WinstonWolf said:
An inability to debate? That's because it's like debating with a blind person. You have completely lost the ability to see a situation objectively...
Apart from all the objective reference points I've used, as opposed to you who thinks it's wrong... Well, because you do. WinstonWolf said:
To you the police are beyond reproach
That's where the childishness comes into it. The inability to read and comprehend you've made a false, generalised statement. La Liga on page 3 said:
A10 said:
La Liga, have you ever sided against the British Police on any thread on PH?
When they're demonstrably wrong. I've been very critical of the police in the CSE threads, for example. And other ones where police officers are sacked / convicted of offences. I'm just one of these pesky people who like facts, evidence and rationale. "They're wrong because fare dodging isn't a serious offence" just doesn't quite cut it for me, unfortunately.
Are you capable of taking the sentence, "To you the police are beyond reproach", and then applying it to my earlier post I wrote? Are you able to see the incomparability with a definitive generalisation and a post which clearly renders it false?
Or do you just skip over it and keep ploughing on with mistruths?
WinstonWolf said:
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
A lot depends on the unknowns. What happened before, the accounts from the officers, the grounds for arrest etc etc. I'm open to change position depending on how the matter evolves and more information becomes known. From what I can see, I can see a clear procedural and legal route to justification. Does that mean the best tactics, approach and options were undertaken? No. But then I've already said that. If you can't think about a fluid event in more than a binary manner, then those limitations have nothing to do with me.
WinstonWolf said:
RobinOakapple said:
WinstonWolf said:
Perhaps this is your problem, the police have been trained to deal with a single instruction at once.
You're the one with the problem. Did a nasty policeman scare you when you were a nipper?WinstonWolf said:
An inability to debate? That's because it's like debating with a blind person. You have completely lost the ability to see a situation objectively...
To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
Or you're incapable of accepting the information given to you by La Liga that 'could' explain the officers actions. To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
But no, its wrong because you think it is and thats the end of things as far as you're concerned which makes the first part of your post pretty ironic really.
Greendubber said:
WinstonWolf said:
An inability to debate? That's because it's like debating with a blind person. You have completely lost the ability to see a situation objectively...
To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
Or you're incapable of accepting the information given to you by La Liga that 'could' explain the officers actions. To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
But no, its wrong because you think it is and thats the end of things as far as you're concerned which makes the first part of your post pretty ironic really.
I'm simply mirroring LL's intransigence...
Greendubber said:
WinstonWolf said:
An inability to debate? That's because it's like debating with a blind person. You have completely lost the ability to see a situation objectively...
To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
Or you're incapable of accepting the information given to you by La Liga that 'could' explain the officers actions. To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
But no, its wrong because you think it is and thats the end of things as far as you're concerned which makes the first part of your post pretty ironic really.
There may be, but I cannot see why you need to hit someone who says that he will come with you.
I see nothing in the video to suggest that the suspect/victim is anything but passive. He backs away each time he is approached.
I also note that the other officers didn't step in to assist.
The police do, very much, seem to have a tendency to close ranks. This doesn't inspire public confidence.
If any of the officers on this thread started out by saying "I know that it looks bad but it is possible ...", then I think that the reaction would be much better.
That said, I would hate to see any of you leave. I've learned a lot from reading your posts, and this came in useful a year ago when some mad bint made a complaint about me. I completely understood that the two cops had little choice but to interview me, and everything was very amicable indeed.
don4l said:
Greendubber said:
WinstonWolf said:
An inability to debate? That's because it's like debating with a blind person. You have completely lost the ability to see a situation objectively...
To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
Or you're incapable of accepting the information given to you by La Liga that 'could' explain the officers actions. To you the police are beyond reproach, that attitude was supposed to be dealt with back in the eighties Mr Reagan.
This incident was handled exceptionally badly, if you can't see that you're part of the problem.
But no, its wrong because you think it is and thats the end of things as far as you're concerned which makes the first part of your post pretty ironic really.
There may be, but I cannot see why you need to hit someone who says that he will come with you.
I see nothing in the video to suggest that the suspect/victim is anything but passive. He backs away each time he is approached.
I also note that the other officers didn't step in to assist.
The police do, very much, seem to have a tendency to close ranks. This doesn't inspire public confidence.
If any of the officers on this thread started out by saying "I know that it looks bad but it is possible ...", then I think that the reaction would be much better.
That said, I would hate to see any of you leave. I've learned a lot from reading your posts, and this came in useful a year ago when some mad bint made a complaint about me. I completely understood that the two cops had little choice but to interview me, and everything was very amicable indeed.
don4l said:
I see nothing in the video to suggest that the suspect/victim is anything but passive. He backs away each time he is approached...
Passive yes, but the non-compliance is very active. He's under arrest and he's resisting, passively agreed, but it's still resisting arrest.It's evident that some people have formed a view on this, and having done so, are getting quite cross with anyone who doesn't share their view, and that's where all this 'defending the indefensible' and 'closing ranks' stuff is coming from.
I would hope that if they would agree that we don't know what happened before the video starts, and that whatever did happen has a bearing on the part that we can see, that their view on the rights and wrongs of it all might be more open
singlecoil said:
Passive yes, but the non-compliance is very active. He's under arrest and he's resisting, passively agreed, but it's still resisting arrest.
It's evident that some people have formed a view on this, and having done so, are getting quite cross with anyone who doesn't share their view, and that's where all this 'defending the indefensible' and 'closing ranks' stuff is coming from.
I would hope that if they would agree that we don't know what happened before the video starts, and that whatever did happen has a bearing on the part that we can see, that their view on the rights and wrongs of it all might be more open
Obviously we don't know what happened before the video started, but it started with him asking why he should get on the floor. Is it safe to assume he wasn't under arrest then?It's evident that some people have formed a view on this, and having done so, are getting quite cross with anyone who doesn't share their view, and that's where all this 'defending the indefensible' and 'closing ranks' stuff is coming from.
I would hope that if they would agree that we don't know what happened before the video starts, and that whatever did happen has a bearing on the part that we can see, that their view on the rights and wrongs of it all might be more open
If it is, I cannot understand why he was arrested in 2 counts of ABH? If he actually bodily harmed 2 offices, I would have thought he would not be asked to get on the ground, also why he wouldn't be saying why, I have committed no crime.
Did he assault 2 offices after the video ended? At no time do I hear why he is being arrested, though it is hard to hear. All I see is him being assaulted by just one officer, who seems to want to ta,e this guy down, with no explanation, just because I say.
Is it standard firm to report for ABH as a standard because he was hit by the officer? If no ABH took place, is that not PCoJ? It either happened or not, Carnt be made up to teach someone a lesson.
With power comes great responsibility and all that....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff