Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[Cat]

spookly said:

I guess the irony is that reasonable force and the use of such in preventing crime is also available to you as a member of the public. It isn't a specific police power, and anyone can do it. You would of course, as a police officer would, have to justify any actions and force used.

The CPS site is probably a good read on the subject, as it would be they who would consider placing charges against you for misuse of force. Link.

No irony, you were making a comparison with what would happen to you in terms of disciplinary action at work if you acted in the same way as the police officer. I simply pointed out why that comparison was flawed.

The CPS's website is irrelevant to disciplinary procedures at work.

Cat

[spookly]

Cat said:

No irony, you were making a comparison with what would happen to you in terms of disciplinary action at work if you acted in the same way as the police officer. I simply pointed out why that comparison was flawed.

The CPS's website is irrelevant to disciplinary procedures at work.

Cat

Disciplinary action in the police, I imagine, works in pretty much the same way.
Do something wrong, and there will be investigation/hearing. Possible suspension in the meantime. Then an outcome following a decision.

Just because the police have to face violence or other unpleasant behaviour does not justify going off the deep end when there is not a reason to do so.

Otherwise we are giving the police a license to assault all of us, or destroy our property, then blame it on the behaviour of others who have been violent towards them. Clearly that is not acceptable.

In certain situations the police must use force, that much is obvious. In some circumstances they might need to reduce the risk to themselves or others by using force, that much is also obvious.

There is clearly a happy middle ground the police are aiming for. Reducing the risk to officers, but not using undue force.
Cuffing almost everyone they arrest is one such thing that is done routinely, I suspect with little thought to necessity. I imagine it is done as a routine way of reducing risk from those they have arrested who have been violent.

[Bigends]

spookly said:

Cat said:

No irony, you were making a comparison with what would happen to you in terms of disciplinary action at work if you acted in the same way as the police officer. I simply pointed out why that comparison was flawed.

The CPS's website is irrelevant to disciplinary procedures at work.

Cat

Disciplinary action in the police, I imagine, works in pretty much the same way.
Do something wrong, and there will be investigation/hearing. Possible suspension in the meantime. Then an outcome following a decision.

Just because the police have to face violence or other unpleasant behaviour does not justify going off the deep end when there is not a reason to do so.

Otherwise we are giving the police a license to assault all of us, or destroy our property, then blame it on the behaviour of others who have been violent towards them. Clearly that is not acceptable.

In certain situations the police must use force, that much is obvious. In some circumstances they might need to reduce the risk to themselves or others by using force, that much is also obvious.

There is clearly a happy middle ground the police are aiming for. Reducing the risk to officers, but not using undue force.
Cuffing almost everyone they arrest is one such thing that is done routinely, I suspect with little thought to necessity. I imagine it is done as a routine way of reducing risk from those they have arrested who have been violent.

Interestingly the routine handcuffing of prisoners 'for your and my safety!!' was raised at work today. Routine cuffing for no good reason isnt lawful and should only be used if there is a fear of fight or flight by the prisoner and must be justified

[Cat]

spookly said:

Disciplinary action in the police, I imagine, works in pretty much the same way.
Do something wrong, and there will be investigation/hearing. Possible suspension in the meantime. Then an outcome following a decision.

You said "If I assaulted someone or smashed their property I'd be gone before my feet hit the floor" implying that in those circumstances there would be no investigation/hearing. I simply pointed out why that would likely be the case as your job would never require you to do that.

spookly said:

Just because the police have to face violence or other unpleasant behaviour does not justify going off the deep end when there is not a reason to do so.

I never suggested it did.

Cat

[spookly]

Bigends said:

spookly said:

Cat said:

No irony, you were making a comparison with what would happen to you in terms of disciplinary action at work if you acted in the same way as the police officer. I simply pointed out why that comparison was flawed.

The CPS's website is irrelevant to disciplinary procedures at work.

Cat

Disciplinary action in the police, I imagine, works in pretty much the same way.
Do something wrong, and there will be investigation/hearing. Possible suspension in the meantime. Then an outcome following a decision.

Just because the police have to face violence or other unpleasant behaviour does not justify going off the deep end when there is not a reason to do so.

Otherwise we are giving the police a license to assault all of us, or destroy our property, then blame it on the behaviour of others who have been violent towards them. Clearly that is not acceptable.

In certain situations the police must use force, that much is obvious. In some circumstances they might need to reduce the risk to themselves or others by using force, that much is also obvious.

There is clearly a happy middle ground the police are aiming for. Reducing the risk to officers, but not using undue force.
Cuffing almost everyone they arrest is one such thing that is done routinely, I suspect with little thought to necessity. I imagine it is done as a routine way of reducing risk from those they have arrested who have been violent.

Interestingly the routine handcuffing of prisoners 'for your and my safety!!' was raised at work today. Routine cuffing for no good reason isnt lawful and should only be used if there is a fear of fight or flight by the prisoner and must be justified

Does anyone ever not get cuffed these days? I assumed it was just always done. I'm guessing it would be difficult to get a complaint upheld if you were cuffed, as an officer just needs to say he was concerned/worried etc.

[carinaman]

spookly said:

Does anyone ever not get cuffed these days? I assumed it was just always done. I'm guessing it would be difficult to get a complaint upheld if you were cuffed, as an officer just needs to say he was concerned/worried etc.

I know someone that was taken to the police station in the back of a car without cuffing them. The officer was not single crewed.

I think it's understandable if single crewed officers cuffed detainees. If nothing else it would allow them to concentrate on their driving and be less concerned or distracted by an uncuffed detainee. Cuffing the detainee would reduce the multiplicity of different potential outcomes and risks.

And there's the issue of police station closures and how much driving and manpower is used to get people to custody suites.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1521936/Sol...

[Bigends]

carinaman said:

spookly said:

Does anyone ever not get cuffed these days? I assumed it was just always done. I'm guessing it would be difficult to get a complaint upheld if you were cuffed, as an officer just needs to say he was concerned/worried etc.

I know someone that was taken to the police station in the back of a car without cuffing them. The officer was not single crewed.

I think it's understandable if single crewed officers cuffed detainees. If nothing else it would allow them to concentrate on their driving and be less concerned or distracted by an uncuffed detainee. Cuffing the detainee would reduce the multiplicity of different potential outcomes and risks.

And there's the issue of police station closures and how much driving and manpower is used to get people to custody suites.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1521936/Sol...

Single crewing is no reason for cuffing if the prisoner is compliant and no threat, Staffing levels arent their fault.
We'd regularly convey uncuffed prisoners whilst both single or double crewed. All depended on the circumstances of arrest

[XCP]

I can recall getting an almighty rollicking for bringing in an uncuffed detainee single crewed. Lots of reasons not to do it.

[Bigends]

XCP said:

I can recall getting an almighty rollicking for bringing in an uncuffed detainee single crewed. Lots of reasons not to do it.

Lots of rules to stop you doing it as well - use of force is down to YOU and nobody else

[XCP]

Thanks. I had no idea that was the case.

[Bigends]

XCP said:

Thanks. I had no idea that was the case.

I assume you hit back at whoever was doing the rollicking then

[XCP]

Bigends said:

I assume you hit back at whoever was doing the rollicking then

I explained my reasoning, if that is what you mean. On reflection, he had a good point and it didn't happen again. Even bringing cuffed prisoners in alone is inherently dangerous and leaves you open to all sorts of allegations, let alone problems when evidence is subsequently found concealed in the back of the car.

[surveyor_101]

Bigends said:

Lots of rules to stop you doing it as well - use of force is down to YOU and nobody else

Avon and Somerset cuff single crew no matter how pleasant snd compliant.

There is a thinking that if the person turned nasty in the rear and attacked you while driving it could be messy.

[XCP]

surveyor_101 said:

Avon and Somerset cuff single crew no matter how pleasant snd compliant.

There is a thinking that if the person turned nasty in the rear and attacked you while driving it could be messy.

That was the mob I was in. I'd have had to think very very carefully about bringing anyone in single crewed, and even then probably not do it. I appreciate things may have changed now with less staff available. I don't envy you.

[Cat]

surveyor_101 said:

Avon and Somerset cuff single crew no matter how pleasant snd compliant.

There is a thinking that if the person turned nasty in the rear and attacked you while driving it could be messy.

Here is an example of what can go wrong if prisoners are not properly restrained.

Cat

[Bigends]

surveyor_101 said:

Bigends said:

Lots of rules to stop you doing it as well - use of force is down to YOU and nobody else

Avon and Somerset cuff single crew no matter how pleasant snd compliant.

There is a thinking that if the person turned nasty in the rear and attacked you while driving it could be messy.

Fair enough if each officer can justify using cuffs. There clearly needs to be a law change so that all arrests are cuffed. A prisoner can still turn nasty even with cuffs on - all would have to be cuffed to the rear - not always appropriate - secure cells in the backs of cars will be a better answer. Also by cuffing means putting prisoners at risk as they cant wear a seat belt properly.

[Bigends]

Cat said:

surveyor_101 said:

Avon and Somerset cuff single crew no matter how pleasant snd compliant.

There is a thinking that if the person turned nasty in the rear and attacked you while driving it could be messy.

Here is an example of what can go wrong if prisoners are not properly restrained.

Cat

Very rare though

[Bigends]

Bigends said:

Cat said:

surveyor_101 said:

Avon and Somerset cuff single crew no matter how pleasant snd compliant.

There is a thinking that if the person turned nasty in the rear and attacked you while driving it could be messy.

Here is an example of what can go wrong if prisoners are not properly restrained.

Cat

Very rare though

He's one they could have easily justified cuffing

[Cat]

Bigends said:

Very rare though

That'll be a comfort for the family.

Cat

[Bigends]

Cat said:

Bigends said:

Very rare though

That'll be a comfort for the family.

Cat

Still very rare though

Policings a risk business. The only way of preventing death or injury is cease all contact with the public. He could have assaulted them at the scene or on arrival at the nick - youll never eliminate all risk - its part of the job.

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 27th September 19:39