Police - excessive force on this week's news
Discussion
The only grounds for arrest here would have been refusal to provide details so that he could be processed for the non payment- and not the fare evasion which isnt even recorded as a crime - its about on a par with a parking offence in the great scheme of things = this escalated into a right old shambles - since when can someone be ordered onto the ground?? -unless at gunpoint on an armed op maybe. If they wanted him there they should have put him there. Not sure what the half arsed baton strikes were supposed to achieve either. Training in the gym has been followed to the letter - non compliance - up your response accordingly.They havent stood back ans considered options. How about backing off - letting him calm down - he's not going anywhere with the number of cops there Had he started lashing out then maybe start the strikes They were never in control and the bystanding cops didnt seem too keen to get involved - maybe a sign they wanted nothing to do with it.
Not sure why he wouldnt have been charged on the day - fare evasion is a stone bonker offence - he either paid or didnt. Im assuming the ABH was on one or more of the officers - again why not charge. Be interesting to see how the prosecution panned out.
Simple raised voices would have been enough to get bystanders filming
Not sure why he wouldnt have been charged on the day - fare evasion is a stone bonker offence - he either paid or didnt. Im assuming the ABH was on one or more of the officers - again why not charge. Be interesting to see how the prosecution panned out.
Simple raised voices would have been enough to get bystanders filming
Edited by Bigends on Wednesday 16th March 18:42
La Liga said:
Derek Smith said:
You suggest that just taking details would be enough. I can assure you that people tell lies, even to police officers. Even when you say to them that you will check their details. They tell lies. They also have 'false' documents. I know one chap who borrowed an HGV driver's licence and used that as identification. The PC (not me) never made that mistake again.
They have no idea. Their thought process is a form of 'intensity matching'. They think as if fare evasion is a low-level offence, therefore that extrapolates on to any force being used to arrest. They are incapable of compartmentalising and assessing each component of a situation. Bigends said:
La Liga said:
Derek Smith said:
You suggest that just taking details would be enough. I can assure you that people tell lies, even to police officers. Even when you say to them that you will check their details. They tell lies. They also have 'false' documents. I know one chap who borrowed an HGV driver's licence and used that as identification. The PC (not me) never made that mistake again.
They have no idea. Their thought process is a form of 'intensity matching'. They think as if fare evasion is a low-level offence, therefore that extrapolates on to any force being used to arrest. They are incapable of compartmentalising and assessing each component of a situation. 1) The alleged offence/s.
2) The necessity to arrest.
3) The force used to arrest.
All these are separate and require separate consideration/s. Just because 1) may not be serious doesn't mean 3) will not be serious.
Bigends said:
Not sure why he wouldnt have been charged on the day - fare evasion is a stone bonker offence - he either paid or didnt. Im assuming the ABH was on one or more of the officers - again why not charge. Be interesting to see how the prosecution panned out.
How often do you charge ABHs without medical evidence? I would speculate they are non-police ABHs given the press statement. NoNeed said:
TooMany2cvs said:
NoNeed said:
That is nothing less than a racially aggravated assault and tyhe officers should be jailed.
<rolls eyes>NoNeed said:
La Liga said:
Excellent. But can I have an answer in the non-pretend world of law you're making up, if you'd be so kind?
Where have I made up a law?Although it's possible you're grossly misinterpreting existing ones because you have no actual idea about them.
If you look bach through my posting history, you will see that I mostly (nearly always) side with the police and fully respect the difficult job they do. However in this case, that officer crossed a line. The other officers present should have stepped in but just like you they practice the pack mentality where they must defend their own even when they are wrong.
Officer like this give the vast majority of good officers a bad name, it's just a shame that the vast majority of good officers seem to allow that.
Officer like this give the vast majority of good officers a bad name, it's just a shame that the vast majority of good officers seem to allow that.
La Liga said:
hichever one/s leads you to conclude there's a prima facie for a racially aggravated assault.
Although it's possible you're grossly misinterpreting existing ones because you have no actual idea about them.
I have no legal training or formal knowledge, but that does not mean I can't recognise an assault when I see one.Although it's possible you're grossly misinterpreting existing ones because you have no actual idea about them.
One of the reasons I am asked from time to time to sit on a jury is that we as a society recognise the difference between right and wrong.
Edited by NoNeed on Wednesday 16th March 19:07
NoNeed said:
La Liga said:
hichever one/s leads you to conclude there's a prima facie for a racially aggravated assault.
Although it's possible you're grossly misinterpreting existing ones because you have no actual idea about them.
I have no legal training or formal knowledge, but that does not mean I can't recognise an assault when I see one.Although it's possible you're grossly misinterpreting existing ones because you have no actual idea about them.
One of the reasons I am asked from time to time to sit on a jury.
You may be asked to sit on a jury, but you'll only be hearing cases where there's a realistic prospect of conviction and that have been carefully filtered and presented, along with the judge holding your hand and guiding you. You are not asked to take snapshots and incomplete information and make judgements upon it and apply the law.
These are the old scales, but they're still relevant for making a fundamental point which will provide you with some insight.
The chap was at 'active resistance' when the foot starts and remains there for the duration.
We see the officers go from the lowest, and escalate in near-incremental steps (this isn't always necessary) until they get to 'defensive tactics'.
None of the lower-level steps are successful in managing the active resistance until there are sufficient officer numbers. This demonstrates proportionality very clearly.
The second aspect is the 'racially aggravated' aspect. I presume because he's black you're making it racially aggravated. You didn't need to tell us you have no legal training to work it out when you write something like that.
1) There needs to be motivation. Please lend me your mind reading skills if you're able to tell me the motivations of the officers.
2) There needs to be a demonstration of hostility. I didn't hear them demonstrating any hostility based on his race or perceived race. Did you?
TheBear said:
A10 said:
La Liga, have you ever sided against the British Police on any thread on PH?
You fail to read what he actually writes. He's not taking sides at all, instead he's trying to rationally explain the law regarding PACE and necessity in relation to arrests in the face of ridiculous hyperbole on here and, in Tonkers case, woefully inept knowledge of the law and jumping to conclusions.Anyone who has ever investigated anything can see the massive information holes in this story as it stands. How come so few people on here possess any critical thinking before bashing their keyboards?
La Liga 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.
NoNeed said:
La Liga said:
The chap was at 'active resistance' when the foot starts and remains there for the duration.
N he wasn't, he was offering to go with the officer, he just didn't want to lay on the floor, something that would have been totally unecessary.La Liga said:
Derek Smith said:
You suggest that just taking details would be enough. I can assure you that people tell lies, even to police officers. Even when you say to them that you will check their details. They tell lies. They also have 'false' documents. I know one chap who borrowed an HGV driver's licence and used that as identification. The PC (not me) never made that mistake again.
They have no idea. Their thought process is a form of 'intensity matching'. They think as if fare evasion is a low-level offence, therefore that extrapolates on to any force being used to arrest. They are incapable of compartmentalising and assessing each component of a situation. I see no reason why he should be forced to the ground.
He was clearly assaulted and I think that the officer(s) who assaulted him should be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
If, after a legal arrest, he had tried to abscond, then all gloves are off. However, he really seemed willing to accompany the officers.
A10 said:
Very well. Was just a general question because you seem to be the officer who posts most in threads like these. Wasn't anything related to this particular topic.
I probably post a lot more in defence as there's little disagreement when I post in a thread where an officer has been dismissed / convicted of an offence. NoNeed said:
La Liga said:
The chap was at 'active resistance' when the foot starts and remains there for the duration.
No he wasn't, he was offering to go with the officer, he just didn't want to lay on the floor, something that would have been totally unecessary.If you can't apply a simple description (which I've highlighted) to the first two seconds of a recording, then how can you make judgements as to what and what isn't an assault?
don4l said:
My problem with this video is that I believe the suspected fare dodger when he says that he is willing to go with the police. I don't see any evidence that he resisted arrest.
Again, the first two seconds of the video. Apply the definitions I have shown in the pictures to what actually is happening. Unfortunately, the person under arrest doesn't dictate the arrest and whether or not the officer will apply handcuffs.
don4l said:
I see no reason why he should be forced to the ground.
Because it's a suitable response to active resistance. don4l said:
He was clearly assaulted and I think that the officer(s) who assaulted him should be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
He wasn't clearly assaulted at all. don4l said:
If, after a legal arrest, he had tried to abscond, then all gloves are off. However, he really seemed willing to accompany the officers.
Except for the parts throughout where he kept pulling away from the officers and actively preventing them from handcuffing. You also don't know what went on beforehand.
La Liga said:
don4l said:
My problem with this video is that I believe the suspected fare dodger when he says that he is willing to go with the police. I don't see any evidence that he resisted arrest.
Again, the first two seconds of the video. Apply the definitions I have shown in the pictures to what actually is happening. Unfortunately, the person under arrest doesn't dictate the arrest and whether or not the officer will apply handcuffs.
don4l said:
I see no reason why he should be forced to the ground.
Because it's a suitable response to active resistance. don4l said:
He was clearly assaulted and I think that the officer(s) who assaulted him should be held to the same standards as the rest of us.
He wasn't clearly assaulted at all. don4l said:
If, after a legal arrest, he had tried to abscond, then all gloves are off. However, he really seemed willing to accompany the officers.
Except for the parts throughout where he kept pulling away from the officers and actively preventing them from handcuffing. You also don't know what went on beforehand.
Save the PPE definitions for the witness box and complaints investigations - for all practical purposes he wasnt fighting or attacking the officers - if they want him on the floor - they should take control and put him there
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff