Police - excessive force on this week's news
Discussion
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?
Fair enough, but it you don't ask/tell him first you open up the potential for a complaint of excessive force when you go hands on and he claims he would have complied if he'd been asked to do so. Cat
La Liga said:
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?).
The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
What's the betting there won't be any footage from the officers body cams
WinstonWolf said:
I'm old enough and ugly enough to know when someone is being an asshole, in this case the officer was the one who was bang out of order.
The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
So how did it escalate to the point somebody decided to video it?The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
TooMany2cvs said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm old enough and ugly enough to know when someone is being an asshole, in this case the officer was the one who was bang out of order.
The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
So how did it escalate to the point somebody decided to video it?The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
La Liga said:
.
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.
Pretty sure you don't either, so seems bizarre to use it to prop up your argument in any way whatsoever.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.
I could just as easily say "you don't know what the police did to him before filming started to make him so defensive" but it would rightly be irrelevant as we don't know.
Also, re your first point, if almost everyone thinks it's an OTT response, no amount of shouting "IT IS!!!!!" and waving silly little charts around is going to change the fact that that's what it is!
I don't have a problem with the Police in general and appreciate they put up with a lot but by any reasonable judgement, this was a non-threatening chap and a heavy handed response like that was completely uncalled for.
I'm probably going to get a lot of hate from the PH BIB for this, but BTP are, in my admittedly limited experience, generally some of the most arrogant, unprofessional and incompetent Police officers I have ever dealt with.
I have witnessed several incidents like this, mostly in London, when they have inflamed situations with their overly aggressive and completely inappropriate approach.
I'm not sure what it is that causes them to react like this, but something is going wrong somewhere.
Please note that unlike some on here, I have no axe to grind with BTP or the UK Police in general.I think they do a great job anyway, and I'd probably p
s off too many of my family and friends if I did, it's just purely an observation based on personal experience. 
I have witnessed several incidents like this, mostly in London, when they have inflamed situations with their overly aggressive and completely inappropriate approach.
I'm not sure what it is that causes them to react like this, but something is going wrong somewhere.
Please note that unlike some on here, I have no axe to grind with BTP or the UK Police in general.I think they do a great job anyway, and I'd probably p
s off too many of my family and friends if I did, it's just purely an observation based on personal experience. WinstonWolf said:
I'm old enough and ugly enough to know when someone is being an asshole, in this case the officer was the one who was bang out of order.
Looks like a wholly lawful arrest to me that escalated according to the non-compliance. WinstonWolf said:
The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
Except for the first two seconds where he's actively resisting and the rest of the video. DisastrousPretty said:
sure you don't either, so seems bizarre to use it to prop up your argument in any way whatsoever.
Not really, as how can you accurately judge disproportion if you don't know what occurred prior?Additional information could be of fundamental importance to using force.
DisastrousPretty said:
I could just as easily say "you don't know what the police did to him before filming started to make him so defensive" but it would rightly be irrelevant as we don't know.
Indeed, which is why I wouldn't align it with some theoretical disproportionate offence in the US as there is an incomplete picture. DisastrousPretty said:
Also, re your first point, if almost everyone thinks it's an OTT response, no amount of shouting "IT IS!!!!!" and waving silly little charts around is going to change the fact that that's what it is!
No amount of people who have no knowledge of the law, experience in using force and arresting, concluding that something is wrong will mean it's wrong. "Silly little charts" vs the opinions of those who don't know what they are talking about. I wonder which has more weight...
If you, or anyone else, wants to point out why something is unlawful or wrong - other than just making it up - then feel free.
I'd suggest starting with the law regarding using force and go from there.
DisastrousPretty said:
I don't have a problem with the Police in general and appreciate they put up with a lot but by any reasonable judgement, this was a non-threatening chap and a heavy handed response like that was completely uncalled for.
Reasonable according to you. anonymous said:
[redacted]
In effect according what what skewed logic? The more critical amongst us have said there is an incomplete picture so no definitive conclusions can be drawn.
It's clear from the footage there's is escalation in the officer response to make the arrest so some reasonable conclusions can be drawn as to the cause and effect.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Because it undoes your opinion and is actually factual and objective. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Where did I assume that? I said I'd speculate it isn't given the press wording. La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm old enough and ugly enough to know when someone is being an asshole, in this case the officer was the one who was bang out of order.
Looks like a wholly lawful arrest to me that escalated according to the non-compliance. WinstonWolf said:
The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
Except for the first two seconds where he's actively resisting and the rest of the video. DisastrousPretty said:
sure you don't either, so seems bizarre to use it to prop up your argument in any way whatsoever.
Not really, as how can you accurately judge disproportion if you don't know what occurred prior?Additional information could be of fundamental importance to using force.
DisastrousPretty said:
I could just as easily say "you don't know what the police did to him before filming started to make him so defensive" but it would rightly be irrelevant as we don't know.
Indeed, which is why I wouldn't align it with some theoretical disproportionate offence in the US as there is an incomplete picture. DisastrousPretty said:
Also, re your first point, if almost everyone thinks it's an OTT response, no amount of shouting "IT IS!!!!!" and waving silly little charts around is going to change the fact that that's what it is!
No amount of people who have no knowledge of the law, experience in using force and arresting, concluding that something is wrong will mean it's wrong. "Silly little charts" vs the opinions of those who don't know what they are talking about. I wonder which has more weight...
If you, or anyone else, wants to point out why something is unlawful or wrong - other than just making it up - then feel free.
I'd suggest starting with the law regarding using force and go from there.
DisastrousPretty said:
I don't have a problem with the Police in general and appreciate they put up with a lot but by any reasonable judgement, this was a non-threatening chap and a heavy handed response like that was completely uncalled for.
Reasonable according to you. anonymous said:
[redacted]
In effect according what what skewed logic? The more critical amongst us have said there is an incomplete picture so no definitive conclusions can be drawn.
It's clear from the footage there's is escalation in the officer response to make the arrest so some reasonable conclusions can be drawn as to the cause and effect.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Because it undoes your opinion and is actually factual and objective. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Where did I assume that? I said I'd speculate it isn't given the press wording. WinstonWolf said:
So it's standard practice to put everyone on the floor when they don't buy a ticket now is it?
Again, you don't seem capable of separating each component and thinking about them separately. I literally presented them as 1, 2 and 3 earlier on. If that doesn't make it obvious, then I lack the capability to explain in terms equal to your level of understanding.
The severity of the offence isn't directly correlated to the force needed to make an arrest. Is that really that hard to understand?
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
So it's standard practice to put everyone on the floor when they don't buy a ticket now is it?
Again, you don't seem capable of separating each component and thinking about them separately. I literally presented them as 1, 2 and 3 earlier on. If that doesn't make it obvious, then I lack the capability to explain in terms equal to your level of understanding.
Its not standard practice to put everyone on the floor whos arrested
WinstonWolf said:
So it's standard practice to put everyone on the floor when they don't buy a ticket now is it?
And therein lies the discord.I'll refrain from getting into the procedurals of what's right or wrong, but I'd just add that BTP did themselves no favours (and neither do our resident BiBs in leaping to defend, when equally, they know no more than the rest of us) in their handling of this situation.
A shambles, if you ask me.
In no other walk of life
Not good enough chaps, not by a long way.
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm old enough and ugly enough to know when someone is being an asshole, in this case the officer was the one who was bang out of order.
Looks like a wholly lawful arrest to me that escalated according to the non-compliance. WinstonWolf said:
The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
Except for the first two seconds where he's actively resisting and the rest of the video. DisastrousPretty said:
sure you don't either, so seems bizarre to use it to prop up your argument in any way whatsoever.
Not really, as how can you accurately judge disproportion if you don't know what occurred prior?Additional information could be of fundamental importance to using force.
DisastrousPretty said:
I could just as easily say "you don't know what the police did to him before filming started to make him so defensive" but it would rightly be irrelevant as we don't know.
Indeed, which is why I wouldn't align it with some theoretical disproportionate offence in the US as there is an incomplete picture. DisastrousPretty said:
Also, re your first point, if almost everyone thinks it's an OTT response, no amount of shouting "IT IS!!!!!" and waving silly little charts around is going to change the fact that that's what it is!
No amount of people who have no knowledge of the law, experience in using force and arresting, concluding that something is wrong will mean it's wrong. "Silly little charts" vs the opinions of those who don't know what they are talking about. I wonder which has more weight...
If you, or anyone else, wants to point out why something is unlawful or wrong - other than just making it up - then feel free.
I'd suggest starting with the law regarding using force and go from there.
DisastrousPretty said:
I don't have a problem with the Police in general and appreciate they put up with a lot but by any reasonable judgement, this was a non-threatening chap and a heavy handed response like that was completely uncalled for.
Reasonable according to you. anonymous said:
[redacted]
In effect according what what skewed logic? The more critical amongst us have said there is an incomplete picture so no definitive conclusions can be drawn.
It's clear from the footage there's is escalation in the officer response to make the arrest so some reasonable conclusions can be drawn as to the cause and effect.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Because it undoes your opinion and is actually factual and objective. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Where did I assume that? I said I'd speculate it isn't given the press wording. Apologies if I'm missing a joke.
That aside, all you've come back with really is "I know the law and you don't!" Which is fine, but doesn't really address my main argument which is that their actions were unnecessary and OTT, regardless of whether they were legal or not.
As most on here appear to agree, I'll rate my judgement of human beings over your silly chart if it's all the same?
I'd also suggest if you as an officer would genuinely have felt threatened by that wee man shrugging his shoulders and saying he'll come with you, perhaps you're better suited to something a bit less confrontational (I don't have chart for that I'm afraid - just not scared of small, polite, middle-aged men!).
Sump said:
But we don't know what those dangerous children had done before the camera started so I'm with the Police.
Anyway, seems like pretty responsible escalation of control IMO.
This whole thing is a sorry looking affair. I must admit I am glad I don't use public transport much as I would not have fancied getting on the floor of some manky station. I would have let them cuff me though so I guess I would be passive on the chart shown earlier.
Attacking someone with a weapon is out of order though when he was not doing anything more than having a tantrum like some oversized two year old. He was not getting away as there were barriers everywhere. As Members of the Public we could all see us being beaten round the legs before we knew where we were. Just like that newspaper salesmen who died which jumped into my mind when the officer swung that baton thing.
The chart management type thing seemed an interesting concept but again it's wasted on us as we don't think like that.
Police have a tough job to do and when it's portrayed like it is in the video many members of the public feel "Crikey! That could be me having my legs bashed in and being treated like a criminal!"
It's quite shocking and makes you wonder what else could be going on but then criminals take many forms and rarely have the word crook written on them!
Attacking someone with a weapon is out of order though when he was not doing anything more than having a tantrum like some oversized two year old. He was not getting away as there were barriers everywhere. As Members of the Public we could all see us being beaten round the legs before we knew where we were. Just like that newspaper salesmen who died which jumped into my mind when the officer swung that baton thing.
The chart management type thing seemed an interesting concept but again it's wasted on us as we don't think like that.
Police have a tough job to do and when it's portrayed like it is in the video many members of the public feel "Crikey! That could be me having my legs bashed in and being treated like a criminal!"
It's quite shocking and makes you wonder what else could be going on but then criminals take many forms and rarely have the word crook written on them!
tumble dryer said:
I'll refrain from getting into the procedurals of what's right or wrong
Unsurprisingly, as you won't have much to go in with from that angle. tumble dryer said:
In no other walk of life would should that level of mismanagement be tolerated. Certainly not without impunity.
If it's a lawful arrest and lawful use of force, then why would it be mismanagement? By what measure are you using to make that judgement? As I've invited others to, feel free to start with the law then perhaps move on to the training structures and responses I've previously linked.
Disastrous said:
That aside, all you've come back with really is "I know the law and you don't!" Which is fine, but doesn't really address my main argument which is that their actions were unnecessary and OTT, regardless of whether they were legal or not.
Apart from the parts where I've shown the escalation and potential thought processes, as well as having spoken of the law and provided the levels of subject behaviour and officer responses. Aside from those minor things I just say 'I know the law'... If it's a lawful arrest and lawful use of force which was escalated according the police training, then your argument means little vs any objective reference point.
Disastrous said:
As most on here appear to agree, I'll rate my judgement of human beings over your silly chart if it's all the same?
Sure, but since the 'silly chart' actually has some relevance with law and procedure, I'll assign it more weight than people who just don't like it because... well because they don't. How convincing. Disastrous said:
I'd also suggest if you as an officer would genuinely have felt threatened by that wee man shrugging his shoulders and saying he'll come with you, perhaps you're better suited to something a bit less confrontational (I don't have chart for that I'm afraid - just not scared of small, polite, middle-aged men!).
Who said it was anything to do with a threat or that was primarily the driver? It was about making an arrest and the force which was required to meet that objective. It could have been compliant had the male not resisted. He chose not to which created the escalation.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Looks to me like these clowns need to re-visit Peel's principles of policing.
It seems like they were pretty spot on with principle 6. 
Ok I'm Sat comfortably in my armchair, one of the officers is either new or is an inactive third party. At 30secs he had easy and ample opportunity to get a cuff on. If he didn't or was a rabbit in the headlights why didn't he shove his cuffs into his vest or holder and use both hands to assist?
The more time drags on the more time the person has to balloon, escape or draw attention. Get it done.
Anyway, we all make mistakes in the office. That is one major fk up.
Let's see what comes out. Hopefully they'll keep their accounts honest.
As for actual body harm, wtf.
The more time drags on the more time the person has to balloon, escape or draw attention. Get it done.
Anyway, we all make mistakes in the office. That is one major f
k up.Let's see what comes out. Hopefully they'll keep their accounts honest.
As for actual body harm, wtf.
Bigends said:
TooMany2cvs said:
WinstonWolf said:
I'm old enough and ugly enough to know when someone is being an asshole, in this case the officer was the one who was bang out of order.
The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
So how did it escalate to the point somebody decided to video it?The bloke was trying to comply, the police handled him exceptionally badly.
Don't be ridiculous.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff