bickster Posted July 28 Moderator Share Posted July 28 This most intelligent thread on the issue just about sums up the situation perfectly. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 41 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: His actions moment earlier warranted it imo You may feel so but this isn’t how the law works. The police are to detain people, not be the judge and executioner. They are to use a whole ladder of tools, with the two uppermost steps being violence and threat of death. In this instance they jumped right over several steps on the ladder. They aren’t the jury or judge. No matter what criminals do, they are supposed to be de-escalating, not going all American History X on people. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will87 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Could the fact that he'd been struck a number of times in the head, including a running suckerpunch from behind be any defence for the police officer? Did he know what day of the week it was let alone who was and wasn't still a threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 20 minutes ago, will87 said: Could the fact that he'd been struck a number of times in the head, including a running suckerpunch from behind be any defence for the police officer? Did he know what day of the week it was let alone who was and wasn't still a threat? The way he’s walking around that really doesn’t seem the case. Looks like classic red mist, mixed with mental health, steroids, or a whole raft of other things that no one really knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 1 hour ago, magnkarl said: Looks like classic red mist, mixed with mental health, steroids, or a whole raft of other things that no one really knows. That’s quite an assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 3 hours ago, magnkarl said: You may feel so but this isn’t how the law works. The police are to detain people, not be the judge and executioner. They are to use a whole ladder of tools, with the two uppermost steps being violence and threat of death. In this instance they jumped right over several steps on the ladder. They aren’t the jury or judge. No matter what criminals do, they are supposed to be de-escalating, not going all American History X on people. They are human though. I haven’t followed this case that closely as I’m on my jollies, clearly one police officer was overly aggressive but he is also a human and probably acting on instinct and adrenaline at what had gone before. I think you have to take that into account, and the fact that the person on the receiving end clearly is scum who played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. It’s not right, but it certainly is a mitigating factor to take into consideration. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Just now, Genie said: They are human though. I haven’t followed this case that closely as I’m on my jollies, clearly one police officer was overly aggressive but he is also a human and probably acting on instinct and adrenaline at what had gone before. I think you have to take that into account, and the fact that the person on the receiving end clearly is scum who played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. It’s not right, but it certainly is a mitigating factor to take into consideration. His instinct to use excessive force when a detainee is under control mitigates it? Those instincts are not acceptable for an armed officer in stressful situations. Or the fact he was dealing with "scum" mitigates it? Because policemen deal with criminals quite a lot, so this basically invalidates the concept of excessive force. We're talking about a highly trained individual walking around an airport with a firearm. It's important that the people in these jobs have the right temperament and adequate training. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy Lifeboats Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 8 hours ago, will87 said: Could the fact that he'd been struck a number of times in the head, including a running suckerpunch from behind be any defence for the police officer? Did he know what day of the week it was let alone who was and wasn't still a threat? Yes. It's a valid defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) 8 hours ago, Genie said: They are human though. I haven’t followed this case that closely as I’m on my jollies, clearly one police officer was overly aggressive but he is also a human and probably acting on instinct and adrenaline at what had gone before. I think you have to take that into account, and the fact that the person on the receiving end clearly is scum who played a stupid game and won a stupid prize. It’s not right, but it certainly is a mitigating factor to take into consideration. Yes, they are human. And trained, trained for years on end. His colleagues should've stopped him, cuffed him and behaved in the way they were trained. Not escalate times a hundred when someone is subdued. For the people defending this police officer, what happens when he thinks you are the 'criminal scum' that needs dealing with? Your dad, or your brother? That stomp is beyond the pale, a better connection and the 'scum' as you put it, would be dead or paralyzed. Hitting someone in the temple with a taser who has submitted is also absolutely GBH. It's not good, so get off it. Edited July 29 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 29 Moderator Share Posted July 29 4 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Hitting someone in the temple with a taser who has submitted is also absolutely GBH. Not it’s not, it depends on the injuries sustained and their long term prognosis. The boundary between ABH and GBH is all to do with the injury and not the method of attack. From what is in the public domain, we can’t determine that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted July 29 VT Supporter Share Posted July 29 3 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Yes, they are human. And trained, trained for years on end. His colleagues should've stopped him, cuffed him and behaved in the way they were trained. Not escalate times a hundred when someone is subdued. For the people defending this police officer, what happens when he thinks you are the 'criminal scum' that needs dealing with? Your dad, or your brother? That stomp is beyond the pale, a better connection and the 'scum' as you put it, would be dead or paralyzed. It's not good, so get off it. The man who git kicked is clearly not a good guy. However, armed police are meant to act in a manner above regular people and not be subject to their emotions in this way. Their training is meant to help them keep calm and deescalate situations. They are given powers and privileges above ordinary people and as such are meant to act in a manner above ordinary people. There is never an excuse to stomp on someone's head when they're lying on the floor. This is especially true when you're meant to be the one keeping the peace and upholding the law. What's to stop him pulling his gun and killing someone next time? Whether the fault is with him, or with his training not being at a good enough level, or a combination of both. A police officer stomping on someone's head is not a desired outcome. Arresting him in a peaceful manner and deescalating the situation is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
desensitized43 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, magnkarl said: Yes, they are human. And trained, trained for years on end. His colleagues should've stopped him, cuffed him and behaved in the way they were trained. Not escalate times a hundred when someone is subdued. For the people defending this police officer, what happens when he thinks you are the 'criminal scum' that needs dealing with? Your dad, or your brother? That stomp is beyond the pale, a better connection and the 'scum' as you put it, would be dead or paralyzed. Hitting someone in the temple with a taser who has submitted is also absolutely GBH. It's not good, so get off it. I think part of what you're saying is right but when I look at the footage you can see that everything literally happens within the space of a few seconds. Within that few seconds he's tried to restrain a guy, his mate has then gone nuts, punched a few other officers and sucker punched him from behind. The guy has then been tasered...I would ask if he even knew if the reason the guy had gone down was a taser? Then he's acted in a moment and done something that's over the top. I suspect he'll get sacked for it because as a police officer the standards are such that you just can't do that. When it comes to criminal prosecution, any decent lawyer will be able to defend this as the threshold will be totally different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted July 29 Moderator Share Posted July 29 10 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: I would ask if he even knew if the reason the guy had gone down was a taser? It’s obvious when a tazer has been deployed. See the whole thread I posted above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) 22 minutes ago, desensitized43 said: I think part of what you're saying is right but when I look at the footage you can see that everything literally happens within the space of a few seconds. Within that few seconds he's tried to restrain a guy, his mate has then gone nuts, punched a few other officers and sucker punched him from behind. The guy has then been tasered...I would ask if he even knew if the reason the guy had gone down was a taser? Then he's acted in a moment and done something that's over the top. I suspect he'll get sacked for it because as a police officer the standards are such that you just can't do that. When it comes to criminal prosecution, any decent lawyer will be able to defend this as the threshold will be totally different. The man on the floor had been tasered. There's absolutely no justification except for madness or red mist which can defend that stomp. The officer doesn't seem groggy at all when he 10 seconds later goes on to pistol whip and kick the next guy. Excusing criminals is bad either way. This officer is by all accounts just as bad as the other two as he is supposed to uphold the law, not willfully break it and pretend like he's the judge and executioner, if we can get past the reform talking points I think everyone can agree on that. No matter what a criminal has done, there are rules and a whole host of techniques to use, especially when the suspect is lying half paralyzed on the floor after being tased. 'But he was bad!'. Sure he was bad. What happens next time someone in the police mistakes someone being bad? I don't think any of us want the police to be the agents of both detainment and judication. Edited July 29 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 I seem to recall people weren't happy about anti royalist protestors being pre-emptively detained during the Queens funeral and Charles coronation how do those same people feel about this new plan of taking preventative action by to restrict the movement of "some people "before they can board a train etc I mean it s a bit minority report isn't it , potentially someone can be stopped from going somewhere because they "might " commit a crime , will be interesting to see how they police it 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I seem to recall people weren't happy about anti royalist protestors being pre-emptively detained during the Queens funeral and Charles coronation how do those same people feel about this new plan of taking preventative action by to restrict the movement of "some people "before they can board a train etc I mean it s a bit minority report isn't it , potentially someone can be stopped from going somewhere because they "might " commit a crime , will be interesting to see how they police it Yeah it’s not a great move, it’s another step on the authoritarian path. I was against it for Just Stop Oil, against it for the Not My King protest, against it during the miners’ strike and against it tomorrow for whoever. I didn’t quite catch it on the news, are we talking facial recognition to stop people getting on trains? You’d need police and train guards so it’s probably a bit theoretical. Another new law to disguise existing shortfall in resource. It sounded a little convoluted and niche. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 37 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I seem to recall people weren't happy about anti royalist protestors being pre-emptively detained during the Queens funeral and Charles coronation how do those same people feel about this new plan of taking preventative action by to restrict the movement of "some people "before they can board a train etc I mean it s a bit minority report isn't it , potentially someone can be stopped from going somewhere because they "might " commit a crime , will be interesting to see how they police it Football banning orders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 4 minutes ago, blandy said: Football banning orders you've committed a crime during a certain type of events, therefore you cannot attend these events anymore. don't have a problem with it personally 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 (edited) 9 minutes ago, blandy said: Football banning orders That's not banning people from going somewhere because they might commit a crime, it's banning people from returning to the kind of facility at which they've previously committed a crime for which they've been convicted, and part of their punishment is not being able to attend live football. Though I'm slightly uncomfortable with the requirement to surrender passports while international football is on. All we have to go on for this is rumours in the press so the devil will be in the detail, I suppose, and hopefully if anything like this facial recognition around train stations were to be a thing it would also require a previous conviction for violent disorder. Giving the police these powers to use on the general public is ripe for abuse. Edited August 1 by Davkaus 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam-AVFC Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 44 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: I seem to recall people weren't happy about anti royalist protestors being pre-emptively detained during the Queens funeral and Charles coronation how do those same people feel about this new plan of taking preventative action by to restrict the movement of "some people "before they can board a train etc I mean it s a bit minority report isn't it , potentially someone can be stopped from going somewhere because they "might " commit a crime , will be interesting to see how they police it Still don't like it. If people go and incite or partake in violence then arrest and charge them, but don't pre-empt that. I even wont call for them to be hanged if they protest peacefully and cause disruption by being there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts