Police - excessive force on this week's news
Discussion
I feel there is context to this incident which the video doesn't portray.
If it is the case that the man just dodged a fare (wrong obviously) then the Police do seem to be overreacting - not to mention causing a whole load of fuss over something which could be dealt with quickly and easily.
If it is the case that the man just dodged a fare (wrong obviously) then the Police do seem to be overreacting - not to mention causing a whole load of fuss over something which could be dealt with quickly and easily.
That made me angry watching it, there might have been something prior to the video but that BTP screaming and hitting the guy with an asp trying to get him on the ground "because I say so" is embarrassing and worrying, and the fact it took nearly 10 of them to arrest a guy who only wanted to know what he was being arrested for? Deary me!!! 
Looked like a Benny Hill sketch when all the backup arrived, not sure blocking camera phones is the best use of police time.
The officer on the right at the beginning seems very worked up, even his colleague takes a step back. If the plan was to arrest him why didn't they work together and do that or were they just waiting for more officers?
If the plan was to wait then that could have been done without the tussling and hitting.
(Armchair hindsight off)
The officer on the right at the beginning seems very worked up, even his colleague takes a step back. If the plan was to arrest him why didn't they work together and do that or were they just waiting for more officers?
If the plan was to wait then that could have been done without the tussling and hitting.
(Armchair hindsight off)
king clowns. Plain and simple.
Oh, he says he'll go with the police. That's OK then. People who allegedly commit dishonest offences (if the fare dodging is accurate) always magically become honest and tell the truth when under arrest. They never look to escape or take advantage of being unrestrained...
The officers have decided to make an arrest and have decided to handcuff. That is what is going to happen. The person arrested can either make that easy or harder. The officers want it to be easy.
He's clearly not being compliant or calm - in what world do people think that's the case? It takes very little resistance to make handcuffing and arresting hard work. If someone's doing enough to prevent you from handcuffing and arresting them e.g. pulling their arms away and physically moving away from you, then you need to escalate to level in order to arrest and handcuff.
They tried 1) officer presence 2) verbal communication 3) primary control skills (restraint). A clear patten of escalation and proportionality.
Whilst you're dancing around with them in close proximity as they pull and move away, then you're at risk. They could escalate against you at any point. Generally, the longer this goes on the more likely it is to occur.
The floor is generally the safest place to arrest someone. Police training pretty much teaches to take non-compliant people to the floor for safety reasons. The problem here is you need the capability to do it.
Batons are a waste of time on large muscle groups unless you're built and skilled like a baseball player. They also look a lot worse than the damage they're likely to inflict.
I'm not one for shouting at people. You can't really go anywhere above it.
Handcuffs shouldn't really be out until there's control but this is often compromised.
It's not a good arrest from a safety point of view. Once he'd shown he was unwilling to be handcuffed through verbal resistance, moving away and moving his arms away then they needed to be more effective.
Keeping a safe distance and deploying PAVA (pepper spray) would be more effective.
The officers have decided to make an arrest and have decided to handcuff. That is what is going to happen. The person arrested can either make that easy or harder. The officers want it to be easy.
He's clearly not being compliant or calm - in what world do people think that's the case? It takes very little resistance to make handcuffing and arresting hard work. If someone's doing enough to prevent you from handcuffing and arresting them e.g. pulling their arms away and physically moving away from you, then you need to escalate to level in order to arrest and handcuff.
They tried 1) officer presence 2) verbal communication 3) primary control skills (restraint). A clear patten of escalation and proportionality.
Whilst you're dancing around with them in close proximity as they pull and move away, then you're at risk. They could escalate against you at any point. Generally, the longer this goes on the more likely it is to occur.
The floor is generally the safest place to arrest someone. Police training pretty much teaches to take non-compliant people to the floor for safety reasons. The problem here is you need the capability to do it.
Batons are a waste of time on large muscle groups unless you're built and skilled like a baseball player. They also look a lot worse than the damage they're likely to inflict.
I'm not one for shouting at people. You can't really go anywhere above it.
Handcuffs shouldn't really be out until there's control but this is often compromised.
It's not a good arrest from a safety point of view. Once he'd shown he was unwilling to be handcuffed through verbal resistance, moving away and moving his arms away then they needed to be more effective.
Keeping a safe distance and deploying PAVA (pepper spray) would be more effective.
MrBarry123 said:
causing a whole load of fuss over something which could be dealt with quickly and easily.
Could it? How do you know that? La Liga said:
The officers have decided to make an arrest and have decided to handcuff. That is what is going to happen.
If he was fare dodging, then the decision to make an arrest was OTT. "That is what is going to happen" - is that the world you want to live in? Where some prick can arbitrarily decide to relieve you of your liberty for something so minor? Arrest should be a last resort, intended to get dangerous people off the street, and misuse of it should rightly be highlighted and individual officers held to account.Bigends said:
Poorly handled no matter how you look at it. He was displaying passive resistance, shrugging the officers off - they then start with defensive blows!!
It's active resistance. AH33 said:
La Liga said:
The officers have decided to make an arrest and have decided to handcuff. That is what is going to happen.
If he was fare dodging, then the decision to make an arrest was OTT. "That is what is going to happen" - is that the world you want to live in? Where some prick can arbitrarily decide to relieve you of your liberty for something so minor? Arrest should be a last resort, intended to get dangerous people off the street, and misuse of it should rightly be highlighted and individual officers held to account.You have no idea. The offence isn't relevant. It's the the necessity criteria which is.
AH33 said:
"That is what is going to happen" - is that the world you want to live in?
If you believe an arrest isn't lawful then the remedy isn't achieved on the street. It's through the force's PSD, the IPCC or through civil means. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why's that? anonymous said:
[redacted]
What happened before the filming occurred? anonymous said:
[redacted]
Is it? Is that how police legal departments work? They just roll over at every complaint aimed at compensation? I don't think you know what you're talking about. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Why was it disproportionate? They escalated through different responses (as I descried earlier). That's one of the most effective ways to demonstrate proportionality. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Humans make continual subconscious risk-assessments. Knowing the odds are not in your favour usually results in de-escalation. anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's a little melodramatic. If he'd allowed the officers to handcuff and arrest him initially, then it wouldn't have escalated. anonymous said:
[redacted]
The offence is irrelevant. It's the necessity which is. anonymous said:
[redacted]
Exactly, which could provide key information into different facets of the decision-making. anonymous said:
[redacted]
I think they choose the wrong options to affect the arrest. They spent most of the time trying to gain control in an ineffective manner.
Fundamentally, they provided the male with ample time and opportunities to comply prior to escalation.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So if you think the police are being heavy-handed, the best way to stop / prevent that would be to resist, would it? If you're being arrested, the best thing to do is make it as easy as possible for the officers. If you feel it's unlawful then your remedies are available post-arrest.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Sorry, but you make yourself look foolish then trying to blag like this. It's just clear you have no idea what you're talking about. anonymous said:
[redacted]
It depends on the necessity for arrest. I'm sure the BTP deal with loads of fare dodgers and look to use disposals that mean an arrest isn't necessary. There's always the chance that an offence which is normally dealt with without arrest needs to be dealt with via an arrest. For example, I may want to issue you with an FPN for speeding. If you refuse to give me your details then that'd generate a necessity to arrest.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I love the irony of you talking about the real world whilst bypassing the realities of the real world i.e. if a Constable decides to arrest then that is what is going to occur. In the real world the only thing resisting and protesting to that event does on the street is escalate the matter. Lots of people who are lawfully and justifiably arrested who probably see it as an injustice. Is your advice to them to escalate the situation?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The suspect was not complying with the officer's orders. They weren't unreasonable. The bloke was resisting. It is clear enough in the video. He kept pulling away. I counted up to five occasions where the bloke did so, then got bored. The officer gave him more freedom than many would. It is extremely difficult to handcuff a resisting prisoner.
The act of arrest means that the person will, more or less, comply with any reasonable demand. Is the sort of attitude you want from police officers one where, if the offender does not want to get in a car, then that's it? They could make their own way to the custody suite of course, but I have the sneaking feeling that most would not. An arrest isn't the start point of a discussion. It is the exercise of lawful force. It is an assault in most cases as the police officer will lay hands on the offender.
I would not have been happy placing this bloke in a seat behind me when driving him to the cells, unless he was cuffed.
That's real world policing, and not some dream of the perfect world. The person who resists being restrained is often the one who should be. There's a certain real world truth in that.
If you are ever arrested and feel that the officer hasn't got just cause, then whether or not you come meekly, you will come. That's what arrest means.
It is my experience that most prisoners are innocent at the time of the arrest. One of those real world policing facts. Spooky but true.
HappyMidget said:
Oh, BTP. Not real police then, just jumped up security guards with the same attitude but with the feeling that they are superior.
BTP are 'real' Police ... i dare you to say ' you aren;t real' to the other 'fake ' police forces in the Uk i.e. MoDPlod or the CNC ... an ASP would be the least of your worries then .Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff