Police - excessive force on this week's news
Discussion
La Liga said:
he first two seconds literally show the man pulling away from the officers and therefore demonstrating active resistance.
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?
He was cleary (as confirmed a few seconds later) trying to resist assault from a thug in uniform.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?
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. 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.
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.
The actions of the offender were quite clear. He was pulling away. He was failing to conform to directions. He was, at the very least, waving his arms around. It looks as if he actually connected with the officer at one time. 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.
I'm not being funny but he was in the process of being arrested. If he doesn't stop still, what do you expect the officers to do?
If the offender is told he is under arrest, he is under arrest. If he then walks away, flails with his arms, he is not doing what he should be doing.
You say he seemed willing to accompany the officers. The only evidence I can see of that is what he says, and that is contradicted by his actions. Even in his statements, he was setting conditions, that's not going along with the officers. He's under arrest. He doesn't set conditions.
'The gloves' are never off. Police should, must, conform to the law in their treatment of prisoners. It is not difficult.
You say you see no reason why he should be taken to ground. You are not the arresting officer. It is his decision, one which he will have to justify if anyone makes a complaint. If a police officer loses a prisoner it is, or at least was, a serious discipline offence. The only prisoner I ever lost was a found dog, and we found something that looked similar, so that was no problem. But I took care of mine, as do all officers who want to stay in the job.
We know nothing about what went on before the video started, but one question went through my mind: Why was the bloke in the middle of the concourse? Suspects are not normally walked far from the barriers. But, of course, we don't know.
In my experience, the vast majority of offenders come without problems. I've had to wrestle with a few on arrest, but that's always because they've fought or tried to run away. The offender is acting oddly in my experience.
Bigends said:
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.
Why? The PPE definitions give people here some insight into the training and thought processes the police use. It also helped you remember the difference between passive and active 
I never said they chose the best approach / tactics. Early on I suggested PAVA was the better tactical option than continued hands-on and the baton.
It would also be better than your suggestion of taking someone who appears quite strong to the floor as that would probably require a fair bit of force and thus increase the probability of injury to the male.
NoNeed said:
He was cleary (as confirmed a few seconds later) trying to resist assault from a thug in uniform.
AKA you were wrong and unable to apply a simple definition to two seconds of a recording. Feel free to make a third party complaint and then appeal it to the IPCC when everyone else NFAs it. The IPCC will do the same but may send you a nice letter. Although I'd suggest 'up-skilling' yourself to the stage where you can recognise and understand the wording, 'the person pulls away', and then recognise the first two seconds of a recording where a person pulls away.
La Liga said:
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. [quote]Can I ask your rank and/or department? Not prying, just trying to ascertain if you're more likely to be out on the streets or more office based. Understand if you're reluctant to answer, but (for example) saying you're a sergeant in the traffic division wouldn't divulge your identity.
Derek Smith 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. 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.
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.
The actions of the offender were quite clear. He was pulling away. He was failing to conform to directions. He was, at the very least, waving his arms around. It looks as if he actually connected with the officer at one time. 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.
I'm not being funny but he was in the process of being arrested. If he doesn't stop still, what do you expect the officers to do?
If the offender is told he is under arrest, he is under arrest. If he then walks away, flails with his arms, he is not doing what he should be doing.
You say he seemed willing to accompany the officers. The only evidence I can see of that is what he says, and that is contradicted by his actions. Even in his statements, he was setting conditions, that's not going along with the officers. He's under arrest. He doesn't set conditions.
'The gloves' are never off. Police should, must, conform to the law in their treatment of prisoners. It is not difficult.
You say you see no reason why he should be taken to ground. You are not the arresting officer. It is his decision, one which he will have to justify if anyone makes a complaint. If a police officer loses a prisoner it is, or at least was, a serious discipline offence. The only prisoner I ever lost was a found dog, and we found something that looked similar, so that was no problem. But I took care of mine, as do all officers who want to stay in the job.
We know nothing about what went on before the video started, but one question went through my mind: Why was the bloke in the middle of the concourse? Suspects are not normally walked far from the barriers. But, of course, we don't know.
In my experience, the vast majority of offenders come without problems. I've had to wrestle with a few on arrest, but that's always because they've fought or tried to run away. The offender is acting oddly in my experience.
It's not as if we're just saying, "no, you're wrong". We're literally taking the time to talk through each facet and explain them.
A10 said:
Can I ask your rank and/or department? Not prying, just trying to ascertain if you're more likely to be out on the streets or more office based. Understand if you're reluctant to answer, but (for example) saying you're a sergeant in the traffic division wouldn't divulge your identity.
More likely to be out on the streets. La Liga said:
Bigends said:
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.
Why? The PPE definitions give people here some insight into the training and thought processes the police use. It also helped you remember the difference between passive and active I never said they chose the best approach / tactics. Early on I suggested PAVA was the better tactical option than continued hands-on and the baton.
It would also be better than your suggestion of taking someone who appears quite strong to the floor as that would probably require a fair bit of force and thus increase the probability of injury to the male.
NoNeed said:
He was cleary (as confirmed a few seconds later) trying to resist assault from a thug in uniform.
AKA you were wrong and unable to apply a simple definition to two seconds of a recording. Feel free to make a third party complaint and then appeal it to the IPCC when everyone else NFAs it. The IPCC will do the same but may send you a nice letter. Although I'd suggest 'up-skilling' yourself to the stage where you can recognise and understand the wording, 'the person pulls away', and then recognise the first two seconds of a recording where a person pulls away.
I said they had no grounds /right to order him to the floor if they wanted him there they should have put him there and taken control
I'm fully aware of all of the definitions and the use of force continuum. This was just a mess
Bigends said:
I said they had no grounds /right to order him to the floor if they wanted him there they should have put him there and taken control
I'm fully aware of all of the definitions and the use of force continuum. This was just a mess
How can you say they had no grounds to order him to the floor (there's nothing to stop such a verbal communication as it is a lesser use of force and shows escalation once again) and then say they should have put him there if they wanted?I'm fully aware of all of the definitions and the use of force continuum. This was just a mess
If they had no grounds to ask him to go on the floor, then I don't think they'd have grounds to put him there.
Once he'd pulled away a couple of times and resisted a quick burst of PAVA would have sorted the matter. It would have been a low level of force and highly probable to be effective.
La Liga said:
Bigends said:
I said they had no grounds /right to order him to the floor if they wanted him there they should have put him there and taken control
I'm fully aware of all of the definitions and the use of force continuum. This was just a mess
How can you say they had no grounds to order him to the floor (there's nothing to stop such a verbal communication as it is a lesser use of force and shows escalation once again) and then say they should have put him there if they wanted?I'm fully aware of all of the definitions and the use of force continuum. This was just a mess
If they had no grounds to ask him to go on the floor, then I don't think they'd have grounds to put him there.
Once he'd pulled away a couple of times and resisted a quick burst of PAVA would have sorted the matter. It would have been a low level of force and highly probable to be effective.
Why would you expect anyone to comply with such an order? This isnt the states. Is this now part of the training? - I dont ever recall telling anybody to do such a thing unless they were in an arm entanglement and were being taken down to be cuffed and were then encouraged to get on the ground
Bigends said:
I said they had no grounds /right to order him to the floor if they wanted him there they should have put him there and taken control
So they had no grounds/right to instruct him to get on the ground but they did have the grounds/right to physically take him to ground? You'll have to explain that one. Cat
Bigends said:
Why would you expect anyone to comply with such an order? This isnt the states. Is this now part of the training? - I dont ever recall telling anybody to do such a thing unless they were in an arm entanglement and were being taken down to be cuffed and were then encouraged to get on the ground
It's a tactic that can be used if you need to keep distance between someone and you think they may have a weapon, for example. It's not one I'd use in the circumstances such as the video, but each to their own.
They were far too patient and messed around far too long. The practical opposite of what a few think on here. Like you sort of say, they needed to get effective control.
The video begins with the officer screaming "GET DOWN ON THE FLOOR" like the bloke out of Withnail and I who shouts "GETTINTHEBACKOFTHEVANNNN!"
Who on earth would simply lie down on a station floor if they thought there was some misunderstanding and they weren't actually a serious criminal??
I would absolutely not, and much like our erstwhile hero, would tell the officers I was more than happy to go with them to resolve this but would I f
k be ruining my suit lying on the ground. I genuinely wouldn't expect to then be clubbed for my troubles!
I don't think other people know better than me by default so wouldn't automatically obey someone screaming irrelevant instructions in my face in this instance. Would anyone??
It reminded me of the completely disproportionate US police videos that end with people being shot through their car window for 'answering back'. No doubt there's a US version of PH where that is considered a reasonable response to 'failing the attitude test' but it's ridiculous in a civilised country.
Who on earth would simply lie down on a station floor if they thought there was some misunderstanding and they weren't actually a serious criminal??
I would absolutely not, and much like our erstwhile hero, would tell the officers I was more than happy to go with them to resolve this but would I f
k be ruining my suit lying on the ground. I genuinely wouldn't expect to then be clubbed for my troubles!I don't think other people know better than me by default so wouldn't automatically obey someone screaming irrelevant instructions in my face in this instance. Would anyone??
It reminded me of the completely disproportionate US police videos that end with people being shot through their car window for 'answering back'. No doubt there's a US version of PH where that is considered a reasonable response to 'failing the attitude test' but it's ridiculous in a civilised country.
Cat said:
Bigends said:
I said they had no grounds /right to order him to the floor if they wanted him there they should have put him there and taken control
So they had no grounds/right to instruct him to get on the ground but they did have the grounds/right to physically take him to ground? You'll have to explain that one. Cat
Disastrous said:
It reminded me of the completely disproportionate US police videos that end with people being shot through their car window for 'answering back'. No doubt there's a US version of PH where that is considered a reasonable response to 'failing the attitude test' but it's ridiculous in a civilised country.
Since it's not 'completely disproportionate' for a lot of the aforementioned legal reasoning, it isn't comparable to the theoretical US PH. P.S. You don't know what went on prior to filming nor the circumstances of the offences he was suspect of and how that may have influenced the decision-making.
Moominator said:
Reference the Hobby bobby comment.
I wouldn't even dignify it with a response when you read the total garbage that accompanied it. La Liga said:
They were far too patient and messed around far too long. The practical opposite of what a few think on here. Like you sort of say, they needed to get effective control.
I'd certainly agree on the evidence of the video. I felt like shouting to the PC. The officer who took hold of him seemed nervous, so I wonder what went on earlier. The other chap appeared more willing to wait for back-up.But as I said, we have limited evidence of the circumstances.
La Liga said:
Disastrous said:
It reminded me of the completely disproportionate US police videos that end with people being shot through their car window for 'answering back'. No doubt there's a US version of PH where that is considered a reasonable response to 'failing the attitude test' but it's ridiculous in a civilised country.
Since it's not 'completely disproportionate' for a lot of the aforementioned legal reasoning, it isn't comparable to the theoretical US PH. P.S. You don't know what went on prior to filming nor the circumstances of the offences he was suspect of and how that may have influenced the decision-making.
Moominator said:
Reference the Hobby bobby comment.
I wouldn't even dignify it with a response when you read the total garbage that accompanied it. 
Based on my experience there won't be any useful bodycam footage either. Conveniently.
Disastrous said:
Who on earth would simply lie down on a station floor if they thought there was some misunderstanding and they weren't actually a serious criminal??
<puts hand up> I bloody would.Then, once it had all calmed down, I'd explain my side like a rational human being.
Except, of course, I've got more sense than to have escalated it to the point that the police were called - and, if they happened to be nearby and get involved, escalate it even further to the point all the bystanders thought "Oooh, this is getting interesting" and got their cameras out.
Bigends said:
I meant they had no right to demand he got on the floor = sorry wrong wording on my part - i'd certainly do so at gunpoint but not with some spotty young officer yelling at me to do so Would you? Did they honestly expect him to lay down, arms outstretched, palms up legs crossed looking away etc etc like they do in the gym in training?
Who knows? He may be young in service. We all need to learn and gather experience. Well, it's acceptable in every other occupation, at least. TooMany2cvs said:
Except, of course, I've got more sense than to have escalated it to the point that the police were called - and, if they happened to be nearby and get involved, escalate it even further to the point all the bystanders thought "Oooh, this is getting interesting" and got their cameras out.
Indeed. I'd have let them take hold of my wrists and compliantly handcuff me to the front, which is what I expect they were intending to do in the first seconds of the recording. That preceded the instruction to go on the floor (as well as anything that was recorded prior) so it wouldn't have been relevant.
I was stop / searched once. It was lawful and justified but I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I left them finish the search and then went on my way. What I didn't do was try to pull away from the officers.
WinstonWolf said:
He potentially didn't have a ticket, that obviously makes it OK to drop him to the floor
Based on my experience there won't be any useful bodycam footage either. Conveniently.
Again, as with others, you're seemingly incapable of separating each component. Based on my experience there won't be any useful bodycam footage either. Conveniently.
Regardless of the offence, the officers concluded there was a necessity for an arrest. Once they decide to arrest that becomes a separate matter to the offence. Whether that is low-level and compliant, or requires more force based on the 'subject's' behaviour, there is no relevance to the offence suspected.
Is that not obvious?
He was also arrest for 2 x assault which I expect were not upon the police (did you miss that part to consider?).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff