Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now they're robbing money out of dead people's wallets "Doesn't surprise me at all. But still there will be posters coming along defending these action. Just because they're the police and should be treated differently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Now they're robbing money out of dead people's wallets "When you think some of the recent vile behaviours can't be topped, to lose his job and going to jail too.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days" Many more not .   | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://news.sky.com/story/humiliating-searches-banning-lawyers-missing-cctv-has-greater-manchester-police-learned-from-baird-review-13185264 Tell that this is the Policing that people want or deserve . . . " I dunno, people on the other thread were advocating for US style policing where they shoot and kill their own citizens. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not . "But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up. Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not .
But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up.
Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are.
"If we're to have a 'wide ranging investigation' into police behaviour, why can't we have one into the population? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not .
But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up.
Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are.
If we're to have a 'wide ranging investigation' into police behaviour, why can't we have one into the population?"Go for it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not .
But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up.
Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are.
If we're to have a 'wide ranging investigation' into police behaviour, why can't we have one into the population?
Go for it."I'm not arsed. I wondered whether you would advocate for that seeing as a minority of police are criminals and you want one for them. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not .
But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up.
Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are.
If we're to have a 'wide ranging investigation' into police behaviour, why can't we have one into the population?
Go for it.
I'm not arsed. I wondered whether you would advocate for that seeing as a minority of police are criminals and you want one for them. "Criminals are a minor part of the population. Let’s let them carry on regardless then. We wouldn’t need the police at all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not .
But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up.
Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are.
If we're to have a 'wide ranging investigation' into police behaviour, why can't we have one into the population?
Go for it.
I'm not arsed. I wondered whether you would advocate for that seeing as a minority of police are criminals and you want one for them.
Criminals are a minor part of the population. Let’s let them carry on regardless then. We wouldn’t need the police at all. "I think you're confused. You're calling for a 'wide ranging investigation' into police criminality because of a minor percentage. I just wonder if you'll call for the same for the population because of a minor percentage? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not .
But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up.
Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are.
If we're to have a 'wide ranging investigation' into police behaviour, why can't we have one into the population?
Go for it.
I'm not arsed. I wondered whether you would advocate for that seeing as a minority of police are criminals and you want one for them.
Criminals are a minor part of the population. Let’s let them carry on regardless then. We wouldn’t need the police at all.
I think you're confused.
You're calling for a 'wide ranging investigation' into police criminality because of a minor percentage.
I just wonder if you'll call for the same for the population because of a minor percentage?"Can't see where Catevolution called for " a widespread investigation ". You used the word first. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not .
But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up.
Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are.
If we're to have a 'wide ranging investigation' into police behaviour, why can't we have one into the population?
Go for it.
I'm not arsed. I wondered whether you would advocate for that seeing as a minority of police are criminals and you want one for them.
Criminals are a minor part of the population. Let’s let them carry on regardless then. We wouldn’t need the police at all.
I think you're confused.
You're calling for a 'wide ranging investigation' into police criminality because of a minor percentage.
I just wonder if you'll call for the same for the population because of a minor percentage?
Can't see where Catevolution called for " a widespread investigation ". You used the word first."It has its own thread. You can find it, it's on the first page of the politics section, it was only 2 days ago I believe. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the police as an institution seem to protect bad violent & corrupt officers rather than reporting them , the incident at the airport only came to light because members of the public observed & filmed it " And there is the answer. Right there. Fiesty  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the police as an institution seem to protect bad violent & corrupt officers rather than reporting them , the incident at the airport only came to light because members of the public observed & filmed it And there is the answer. Right there. Fiesty "And you don't think communities protect 'their own'? Come on you're not that naive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the police as an institution seem to protect bad violent & corrupt officers rather than reporting them , the incident at the airport only came to light because members of the public observed & filmed it " The incident at the airport either wasn't fully filmed or they released only what they wanted you to see. You're guess is probably not as good as mine  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the police as an institution seem to protect bad violent & corrupt officers rather than reporting them , the incident at the airport only came to light because members of the public observed & filmed it The incident at the airport either wasn't fully filmed or they released only what they wanted you to see. You're guess is probably not as good as mine "Exactly. There's a police woman with a broken nose and other offices needed hospital treatment too. Obviously not the whole story is out yet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the police as an institution seem to protect bad violent & corrupt officers rather than reporting them , the incident at the airport only came to light because members of the public observed & filmed it The incident at the airport either wasn't fully filmed or they released only what they wanted you to see. You're guess is probably not as good as mine
Exactly. There's a police woman with a broken nose and other offices needed hospital treatment too.
Obviously not the whole story is out yet."Well the video is out now, still can’t see/hear what started it but the office was in ever right to shot him in my opinion he made the decision to stop him getting back up without using his gun, You don’t attack airport police who have guns and they’re there to stop potentially terrorist attacks | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this." Yup. It's quite clear in the video that it's the piece of shit who was kicked when he was on the floor who went for both the female officers, punching them brutally to the floor. They really don't give a shit about women, do they? Another video shows the guy trying to get up from the floor just before he got kicked. The truth will always come out. The copper did the right thing by preventing him from attacking anyone else but the luvvies will see him hauled over the coals for protecting the public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this." This footage will be cleansed with comments such as, the police should have handled it better, the police should be above this, the police etc... These thugs are vicious and created an absolute worst case scenario by attacking so violently, armed officers in an airport. Absolute idiots and don't get me started on their lawyer! I do hope they get a lot of prison time for what they have done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this." good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this.good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. " Watch it again, I thought the same thing on first watch. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Aye there's seems to a lot of scumbags in uniform these days Many more not .
But this is precisely the thing, isn't it. Just as many of the population aren't criminals, nobody is suggesting we lock them up.
Likewise, nobody is suggesting that we lock up police personnel that aren't behaving in a criminal fashion. Just the ones who are.
If we're to have a 'wide ranging investigation' into police behaviour, why can't we have one into the population?
Go for it.
I'm not arsed. I wondered whether you would advocate for that seeing as a minority of police are criminals and you want one for them.
Criminals are a minor part of the population. Let’s let them carry on regardless then. We wouldn’t need the police at all. "Years ago, when I was into punk, I thought I was an anarchist. But I read a few books on the subject, and the more I learned, the more I realised what a nightmare it would be. I saw all these scrawny spotty faced punks, heard all the Anti Pasti and Discharge records, and realised something else. These people would very quickly be dead if real Anarchy in the UK ever happened. Motörhead did a song called live to win, it was quite simple. It would be hell on earth, survival would be impossible for anybody. One of the most important things we have got, that stops the possibility of any kind of anarchy, is the police. Without them we would all be fucked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What a doofus that lawyer is. Hope they wade through a the bullshit that has come from this and hand sentences out to those that deserve it. Savages whether they be in uniform or not. One things for sure those brothers are not as innocent as they have made out to the suckers that brought their bullshit. " Thick as! Who gets into a full on attack on armed police officers in an airport? In my opinion, the type of person who should not be allowed to be in an airport in the first place. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this.good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. " For me it isn’t the first head kick (bad as that is) it is the second head stamp. I think it is clear these guys needed to be dealt with using serious force and I hope they get what they deserve and get prosecuted. But the head kicks were not appropriate. The guy in blue had ben tasered. He wasn’t getting up. The officer needs to face the music too! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What a doofus that lawyer is. Hope they wade through a the bullshit that has come from this and hand sentences out to those that deserve it. Savages whether they be in uniform or not. One things for sure those brothers are not as innocent as they have made out to the suckers that brought their bullshit. Thick as! Who gets into a full on attack on armed police officers in an airport? In my opinion, the type of person who should not be allowed to be in an airport in the first place. " For sure. But not to have their heads stamped on. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this.good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. For me it isn’t the first head kick (bad as that is) it is the second head stamp. I think it is clear these guys needed to be dealt with using serious force and I hope they get what they deserve and get prosecuted. But the head kicks were not appropriate. The guy in blue had ben tasered. He wasn’t getting up. The officer needs to face the music too!" Humour me. Let’s take a step back and look at what was unfolding not what unfolded, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Armed officers being brutally attacked, a police officer manages to overwhelm the worst of the attackers and his hands are holding a weapon. Does he drop his weapon, or incapacitate the assailant with the only thing he has free, his feet. Do we accept the officer could assume from the violence already dished out by the attacker, he could still be a danger and posses weapons himself? If we step away from the act and look at the whole thing objectively, I can support this officers actions, he did his job and neutralised a threat with just enough force, it could have been so much worse, they could be burying the attacker now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this.good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. For me it isn’t the first head kick (bad as that is) it is the second head stamp. I think it is clear these guys needed to be dealt with using serious force and I hope they get what they deserve and get prosecuted. But the head kicks were not appropriate. The guy in blue had ben tasered. He wasn’t getting up. The officer needs to face the music too! Humour me. Let’s take a step back and look at what was unfolding not what unfolded, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Armed officers being brutally attacked, a police officer manages to overwhelm the worst of the attackers and his hands are holding a weapon. Does he drop his weapon, or incapacitate the assailant with the only thing he has free, his feet. Do we accept the officer could assume from the violence already dished out by the attacker, he could still be a danger and posses weapons himself? If we step away from the act and look at the whole thing objectively, I can support this officers actions, he did his job and neutralised a threat with just enough force, it could have been so much worse, they could be burying the attacker now. " Just watched it again, twice. The officer who uses the taser is the one who kicks guy in blue in the head (twice, second a head stamp) after he is down and incapacitated. The “weapon” the officer is holding is the taser. Assume you know how a taser works right? So not sure what you are saying? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this.good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. For me it isn’t the first head kick (bad as that is) it is the second head stamp. I think it is clear these guys needed to be dealt with using serious force and I hope they get what they deserve and get prosecuted. But the head kicks were not appropriate. The guy in blue had ben tasered. He wasn’t getting up. The officer needs to face the music too! Humour me. Let’s take a step back and look at what was unfolding not what unfolded, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Armed officers being brutally attacked, a police officer manages to overwhelm the worst of the attackers and his hands are holding a weapon. Does he drop his weapon, or incapacitate the assailant with the only thing he has free, his feet. Do we accept the officer could assume from the violence already dished out by the attacker, he could still be a danger and posses weapons himself? If we step away from the act and look at the whole thing objectively, I can support this officers actions, he did his job and neutralised a threat with just enough force, it could have been so much worse, they could be burying the attacker now. Just watched it again, twice. The officer who uses the taser is the one who kicks guy in blue in the head (twice, second a head stamp) after he is down and incapacitated. The “weapon” the officer is holding is the taser. Assume you know how a taser works right? So not sure what you are saying?" What role does this officer have in this situation? End it or prolong it. Did he make the right choice in hindsight, possibly not, but looking at the aggressive attack at the start, the person carrying out that attack should thank think themselves as lucky they were not shot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. " Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this.good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. For me it isn’t the first head kick (bad as that is) it is the second head stamp. I think it is clear these guys needed to be dealt with using serious force and I hope they get what they deserve and get prosecuted. But the head kicks were not appropriate. The guy in blue had ben tasered. He wasn’t getting up. The officer needs to face the music too! Humour me. Let’s take a step back and look at what was unfolding not what unfolded, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Armed officers being brutally attacked, a police officer manages to overwhelm the worst of the attackers and his hands are holding a weapon. Does he drop his weapon, or incapacitate the assailant with the only thing he has free, his feet. Do we accept the officer could assume from the violence already dished out by the attacker, he could still be a danger and posses weapons himself? If we step away from the act and look at the whole thing objectively, I can support this officers actions, he did his job and neutralised a threat with just enough force, it could have been so much worse, they could be burying the attacker now. Just watched it again, twice. The officer who uses the taser is the one who kicks guy in blue in the head (twice, second a head stamp) after he is down and incapacitated. The “weapon” the officer is holding is the taser. Assume you know how a taser works right? So not sure what you are saying? What role does this officer have in this situation? End it or prolong it. Did he make the right choice in hindsight, possibly not, but looking at the aggressive attack at the start, the person carrying out that attack should thank think themselves as lucky they were not shot." Tbh if one of them had grabbed a fire arm from one of the officers assaulted then another officer would have probably been ok in using lethal force to remove any further risk.. At that point.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had" I'm not sure either, if he had used it and I would expect in his role he would have the two shot model.. In any case there should always be if available another officer covering from a different angle who could if told their colleague was 'out' then engage.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this.good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. For me it isn’t the first head kick (bad as that is) it is the second head stamp. I think it is clear these guys needed to be dealt with using serious force and I hope they get what they deserve and get prosecuted. But the head kicks were not appropriate. The guy in blue had ben tasered. He wasn’t getting up. The officer needs to face the music too! Humour me. Let’s take a step back and look at what was unfolding not what unfolded, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Armed officers being brutally attacked, a police officer manages to overwhelm the worst of the attackers and his hands are holding a weapon. Does he drop his weapon, or incapacitate the assailant with the only thing he has free, his feet. Do we accept the officer could assume from the violence already dished out by the attacker, he could still be a danger and posses weapons himself? If we step away from the act and look at the whole thing objectively, I can support this officers actions, he did his job and neutralised a threat with just enough force, it could have been so much worse, they could be burying the attacker now. Just watched it again, twice. The officer who uses the taser is the one who kicks guy in blue in the head (twice, second a head stamp) after he is down and incapacitated. The “weapon” the officer is holding is the taser. Assume you know how a taser works right? So not sure what you are saying? What role does this officer have in this situation? End it or prolong it. Did he make the right choice in hindsight, possibly not, but looking at the aggressive attack at the start, the person carrying out that attack should thank think themselves as lucky they were not shot. Tbh if one of them had grabbed a fire arm from one of the officers assaulted then another officer would have probably been ok in using lethal force to remove any further risk.. At that point.." I can’t imagine the outcry or even the consequences that would have fallen onto the police officer had he drawn his firearm when the assailants were punching and wrestling with firearms officers. How do we get to a place that people don’t attack armed police officers in an airport to begin with, and if it does happen the public dont expect the response to be a 10 minute time out with cuddles on the naughty step? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. " Tasers don’t always work | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had" If you tase someone the prongs go in and tase them, if you pull the trigger it will send more current and tase them again, or you can reload it and put another cartridge in. The officer shot the taser, continued aiming, so I assume could have sent another current but instead chose to kick him in the head them stamp on his head. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had I'm not sure either, if he had used it and I would expect in his role he would have the two shot model.. In any case there should always be if available another officer covering from a different angle who could if told their colleague was 'out' then engage.." The other officers were a tad busy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had I'm not sure either, if he had used it and I would expect in his role he would have the two shot model.. In any case there should always be if available another officer covering from a different angle who could if told their colleague was 'out' then engage.." If his backup was no longer available in his mind after he watched them punched and thrown around, he too was taken down, where does he go from there? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Tasers don’t always work " the taser had worked. The guy was down. It didn't need two more attacks imo. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/new-manchester-airport-video-shows-29625111 Full video available here. It's audacious how these guys thought it's okay to go after the police like this.good link. It's hard to tell whats going on but my first watch made me think a copper threw the first punch. It escalated massively quickly. And I think it was the same cooper who did the head kick. And I hadn't realised the head kick came seconds after being tasered. For me it isn’t the first head kick (bad as that is) it is the second head stamp. I think it is clear these guys needed to be dealt with using serious force and I hope they get what they deserve and get prosecuted. But the head kicks were not appropriate. The guy in blue had ben tasered. He wasn’t getting up. The officer needs to face the music too! Humour me. Let’s take a step back and look at what was unfolding not what unfolded, hindsight is a beautiful thing. Armed officers being brutally attacked, a police officer manages to overwhelm the worst of the attackers and his hands are holding a weapon. Does he drop his weapon, or incapacitate the assailant with the only thing he has free, his feet. Do we accept the officer could assume from the violence already dished out by the attacker, he could still be a danger and posses weapons himself? If we step away from the act and look at the whole thing objectively, I can support this officers actions, he did his job and neutralised a threat with just enough force, it could have been so much worse, they could be burying the attacker now. Just watched it again, twice. The officer who uses the taser is the one who kicks guy in blue in the head (twice, second a head stamp) after he is down and incapacitated. The “weapon” the officer is holding is the taser. Assume you know how a taser works right? So not sure what you are saying? What role does this officer have in this situation? End it or prolong it. Did he make the right choice in hindsight, possibly not, but looking at the aggressive attack at the start, the person carrying out that attack should thank think themselves as lucky they were not shot. Tbh if one of them had grabbed a fire arm from one of the officers assaulted then another officer would have probably been ok in using lethal force to remove any further risk.. At that point.. I can’t imagine the outcry or even the consequences that would have fallen onto the police officer had he drawn his firearm when the assailants were punching and wrestling with firearms officers. How do we get to a place that people don’t attack armed police officers in an airport to begin with, and if it does happen the public dont expect the response to be a 10 minute time out with cuddles on the naughty step? " Not saying that an officer should or might draw their weapon in a melee with other armed officers and whomever, the points been said several times as a sort of train for the later head kick and stamp that they might have went for his gun and the police put out that as a might have etc.. Your right given what you say that the shit storm would have been large.. As to the latter question I don't know the answer, there's a whole bunch of societal issues in that subject.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had I'm not sure either, if he had used it and I would expect in his role he would have the two shot model.. In any case there should always be if available another officer covering from a different angle who could if told their colleague was 'out' then engage.. The other officers were a tad busy." Not all of them at that point, there's clearly visible in the short video a female officer close by.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Tasers don’t always work the taser had worked. The guy was down. It didn't need two more attacks imo. " Agreed BUT even if we acknowledge that blood snd Adrenalin was understandably elevated, as it would be, the trained fire arms officer would have the skills to restrain a tasered man prone on the floor. A kick in the ribs perhaps but TWO kicks/stamps in/on the head! No! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had I'm not sure either, if he had used it and I would expect in his role he would have the two shot model.. In any case there should always be if available another officer covering from a different angle who could if told their colleague was 'out' then engage.. If his backup was no longer available in his mind after he watched them punched and thrown around, he too was taken down, where does he go from there? " Same procedure if he was in a situation where he was isolated, if he genuinely believes there's a continued threat to himself or the general public he could use spray or draw his fire arm.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had If you tase someone the prongs go in and tase them, if you pull the trigger it will send more current and tase them again, or you can reload it and put another cartridge in. The officer shot the taser, continued aiming, so I assume could have sent another current but instead chose to kick him in the head them stamp on his head. " I’m seeing how you are thinking in the literal and not the evolving, such as ‘“that should have worked”, “shit my firearms colleagues have been taken out”. We are reacting to video footage of an atrocious attack on armed police officers, that simply does not happen here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had If you tase someone the prongs go in and tase them, if you pull the trigger it will send more current and tase them again, or you can reload it and put another cartridge in. The officer shot the taser, continued aiming, so I assume could have sent another current but instead chose to kick him in the head them stamp on his head. I’m seeing how you are thinking in the literal and not the evolving, such as ‘“that should have worked”, “shit my firearms colleagues have been taken out”. We are reacting to video footage of an atrocious attack on armed police officers, that simply does not happen here." I will repeat my reply to another poster… Agreed BUT even if we acknowledge that blood and Adrenalin was understandably elevated, as it would be, the trained fire arms officer would have the skills to restrain a tasered man prone on the floor. A kick in the ribs perhaps but TWO kicks/stamps in/on the head! No! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Tasers don’t always work the taser had worked. The guy was down. It didn't need two more attacks imo. " Considering he started to get up again after the kick, that’s debatable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had If you tase someone the prongs go in and tase them, if you pull the trigger it will send more current and tase them again, or you can reload it and put another cartridge in. The officer shot the taser, continued aiming, so I assume could have sent another current but instead chose to kick him in the head them stamp on his head. I’m seeing how you are thinking in the literal and not the evolving, such as ‘“that should have worked”, “shit my firearms colleagues have been taken out”. We are reacting to video footage of an atrocious attack on armed police officers, that simply does not happen here. I will repeat my reply to another poster… Agreed BUT even if we acknowledge that blood and Adrenalin was understandably elevated, as it would be, the trained fire arms officer would have the skills to restrain a tasered man prone on the floor. A kick in the ribs perhaps but TWO kicks/stamps in/on the head! No!" I think from the replies in terms of threat to the firearms officers being beaten, it would have been better for the officer to have shot the attacker rather than tackling him with less force. Would you agree? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had If you tase someone the prongs go in and tase them, if you pull the trigger it will send more current and tase them again, or you can reload it and put another cartridge in. The officer shot the taser, continued aiming, so I assume could have sent another current but instead chose to kick him in the head them stamp on his head. I’m seeing how you are thinking in the literal and not the evolving, such as ‘“that should have worked”, “shit my firearms colleagues have been taken out”. We are reacting to video footage of an atrocious attack on armed police officers, that simply does not happen here. I will repeat my reply to another poster… Agreed BUT even if we acknowledge that blood and Adrenalin was understandably elevated, as it would be, the trained fire arms officer would have the skills to restrain a tasered man prone on the floor. A kick in the ribs perhaps but TWO kicks/stamps in/on the head! No!" Firearms officers don’t restrain prisoners, they cover them whilst unarmed officers do the handcuffing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Had he used the taser which was in his hand he wouldn't be facing a possible criminal charge.. He had one of the lawful tools rightly provided to help him do his duty in his hand .. Had he already used it? I’m not sure how any times a taser can be used, if he had If you tase someone the prongs go in and tase them, if you pull the trigger it will send more current and tase them again, or you can reload it and put another cartridge in. The officer shot the taser, continued aiming, so I assume could have sent another current but instead chose to kick him in the head them stamp on his head. I’m seeing how you are thinking in the literal and not the evolving, such as ‘“that should have worked”, “shit my firearms colleagues have been taken out”. We are reacting to video footage of an atrocious attack on armed police officers, that simply does not happen here. I will repeat my reply to another poster… Agreed BUT even if we acknowledge that blood and Adrenalin was understandably elevated, as it would be, the trained fire arms officer would have the skills to restrain a tasered man prone on the floor. A kick in the ribs perhaps but TWO kicks/stamps in/on the head! No! I think from the replies in terms of threat to the firearms officers being beaten, it would have been better for the officer to have shot the attacker rather than tackling him with less force. Would you agree? " I will reserve judgement. We need to know: 1. What led up to that point? 2. Did they attempt to take the gun(s) from the firearms officers (their holsters are locked so not easy to pull a gun unless already released. 3. Could the taser still deliver another charge. In addition from the footage it is clear the kicking officer could see other officers were still available for support. And as I have said, it is the second head stamp which is the most disturbing. But to be clear, I am not in any way supporting the man in blue and his mate who attacked and fought with the police. I hope that they feel the full weight of the law and hope that the kicking officer’s subsequent action does not mitigate their punishment in any way. But based on what we can see, the officer went way too far and should also face punishment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's easy to be outside the scene and pass judgements about the optimal response to the situation. You are looking at a policeman who was punched on his head by the two guys and having his two companions already down. I couldn't imagine anyone in the situation taking those split-second decisions with perfect rationality by the rules, trained or not. A single bad decision and he could have been taken down again. Legally speaking, if you leave aside the fact that he is police, UK self-defence rules allow us to act in the "heat of the moment"? " Only with reasonable and proportional force. The first kick might be possible to argue away. The second stamp on the head could not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I watched all the videos that were released slowly a few times to untangle them. Here's what the videos show, as far as I can see.(If I've made any mistakes, I apologise. But this is what happened as far as I can see.) 3 cops initially apprehended the blue top guy. All is calm at this point. Then cop 1 grabbed the back of the guy's head/neck and seemed to force it into what looks like a ticket or cash machine. At this point, the heavier tshirt guy approaches. He seems to try to pull the cop's hand off blue top guy's neck/head. And the cop punches tshirt guy in the head. This is when it all really goes to shit. Cop 1 and tshirt guy punch each other. Cop 2 comes in and punches tshirt guy too. Blue top guy punches cop 2. Blue top guy and cop 3 seem to punch each other. Cop 2 heads back in to blue top guy, who punches that cop again. Then cop 1 gets up, pulls a taser and points it at tshirt guy. Tshirt guy surrenders and sits, hands up. Blue top guy sees cop 1 pointing a weapon at tshirt guy and rushes over, punching cop 1. Cop 2 tases blue top guy, putting him down. Blue top guy raises his head slightly. I think the rest is well known at this point. Cop 1 kicks blue top guy in the head. Cop 1 stamps on his head. Then cop 1 heads over and shouts something at tshirt guy, who's sitting with his hands up. As tshirt guy gets down, seemingly doing what he's told, cop 1 kicks him then hits him in the back of the head with the hand holding the taser. A further video seems to show cop 1 pepper spraying a man who seems to be filming what happened while people shout he hasn't done anything. Cop 1 then tries to get that man in a headlock and wrestles him to the ground Of course the guys who fought with the police should not have done so. And of course the police were justified in using force to defend themselves." Just rewatched myself and I think you are correct. Cop 2 tasers blue top. Cop 1 then covers with his taser (assume not discharged) and kicks blue top in head twice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So I assume all the people who are telling us what the police "should Have done" have been in a life threatening situation where a spit second decision may cost the life of a colleague or a bystander? I would assume so...as you are all experts on the actions that need to be taken ... Just take a moment to put your self in the place of a the police offices who where at the scene .. who protect out freedom of travel..and protect against things like 9/11 and 7/7 if you haven't been in their shoes then you aren't an expert " The incidents in question are not split second decisions. Nor are they the actions of one rogue police officer. There are clearly some systemic problems that need addressing. “”Proceedings involving police officers Of the cases finalised in the year ending 31 March 2023, the misconduct level finding was known for 971 officers referred to misconduct proceedings in England and Wales. Of these, 828 officers (85% in total) were found proven of any form of misconduct (including gross misconduct). For 123 officers (13%) no misconduct was found and for a further 20 officers (2%) the case proceeding was discontinued. in the year ending 31 March 2023, by proceeding type: of the 518 police officers referred to a misconduct meeting (where the misconduct finding level was known), misconduct was found proven for 79% (409) of officers of the 266 police officers that were referred to a misconduct hearing, gross misconduct was found proven for 78% (207) and misconduct was found proven for 9% (25) of the 187 police officers that were referred to an accelerated misconduct hearing, gross misconduct was found proven for 99% (186) of officers and misconduct was found proven for 1% (1) of officers”” | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot." Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. " Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head." If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently." I agree with this but the key point here is the second stamp in the head in an already prone and tasered man. If blue top got a kick in the ribs or if Cop 1 had knelt on him “a but too hard” I’d have little sympathy as blue top got what he deserved. But the kick and then stomp on the head! No! If you or I did that in a fight trying to claim self defence we would be in deep shit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently." "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone seen the video of the "fracas" on her plane? We are making judgements without the full facts. " Someone had made a racist comment, she pointed out who was racists to her, then all hell breaks lose when the police arrive, in short. For me I would have alerted security staff not gone after those alleged to have been racist. That has no bearing on the officers behaviour. Rule one of working with the public, do not attack said public, even if they have attacked. That is what was required from me and my like and we know the police have the same rules as to how they behave. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone seen the video of the "fracas" on her plane? We are making judgements without the full facts. " No we are not. Nobody is claiming the police cannot use appropriate force as befits the risk and circumstances. The thugs got what they deserved up to the point where the officer kicks the now defenceless (tasered and lying face down) man in blue top in the head once and then stamps on his head a second time. As I said above, I hope those men face the full weight of the law for their actions and hope the subsequent actions of that officer does not mitigate the severity of their punishment. However, that officer also needs to be punished. Firearms officers undergo rigorous training and ongoing mental assessments to retain their licence. This officer clearly lost it and his blood was up. But he had the skills and equipment to handle a thug without resorting to a head stomp after the blue top guy was already down. If blue top had a gun or bomb then that would be appropriate as there would be a threat to life. This would be a whole different conversation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone seen the video of the "fracas" on her plane? We are making judgements without the full facts. No we are not. Nobody is claiming the police cannot use appropriate force as befits the risk and circumstances. The thugs got what they deserved up to the point where the officer kicks the now defenceless (tasered and lying face down) man in blue top in the head once and then stamps on his head a second time. As I said above, I hope those men face the full weight of the law for their actions and hope the subsequent actions of that officer does not mitigate the severity of their punishment. However, that officer also needs to be punished. Firearms officers undergo rigorous training and ongoing mental assessments to retain their licence. This officer clearly lost it and his blood was up. But he had the skills and equipment to handle a thug without resorting to a head stomp after the blue top guy was already down. If blue top had a gun or bomb then that would be appropriate as there would be a threat to life. This would be a whole different conversation." Did he say anything that may have suggested that he might have a gun or bomb? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so." He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If blue top had a gun or bomb then that would be appropriate as there would be a threat to life. This would be a whole different conversation." We know he didn’t but would a policeman have known that during the incident. I haven’t seen any footage or news coverage of the story, just commenting on a comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://news.sky.com/story/humiliating-searches-banning-lawyers-missing-cctv-has-greater-manchester-police-learned-from-baird-review-13185264 Tell that this is the Policing that people want or deserve . . . " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Has anyone seen the video of the "fracas" on her plane? We are making judgements without the full facts. No we are not. Nobody is claiming the police cannot use appropriate force as befits the risk and circumstances. The thugs got what they deserved up to the point where the officer kicks the now defenceless (tasered and lying face down) man in blue top in the head once and then stamps on his head a second time. As I said above, I hope those men face the full weight of the law for their actions and hope the subsequent actions of that officer does not mitigate the severity of their punishment. However, that officer also needs to be punished. Firearms officers undergo rigorous training and ongoing mental assessments to retain their licence. This officer clearly lost it and his blood was up. But he had the skills and equipment to handle a thug without resorting to a head stomp after the blue top guy was already down. If blue top had a gun or bomb then that would be appropriate as there would be a threat to life. This would be a whole different conversation. Did he say anything that may have suggested that he might have a gun or bomb?" Now you are in pure realm of speculation. But I would say that had he said any such thing the officers would have drawn firearms. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. " disagree, it must be the strongest possible punishment to nip this growing culture of rogue policing in the bud. an example must be set. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. " In new footage, we see three officers assaulted by two violent men. Now remember, the officer in question was an armed officer of the type deployed at airports. Do we want him rolling around the floor with a thug in a public area? The officer had to take fast and decisive action to stop the chaos, which he did. Did he go too far? Possibly, but he didn't have a week to think about it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://news.sky.com/story/humiliating-searches-banning-lawyers-missing-cctv-has-greater-manchester-police-learned-from-baird-review-13185264 Tell that this is the Policing that people want or deserve . . . " The incident started on the plane. Then on arrival three armed, airport cops get punched to the ground. One with a broken nose, another with a head injury. What sort of person/people kick off with armed cops at an airport. Cops are getting a kicking. One female cop hopeless if not scared during the incident. Cop turns up who can handle himself. Gets stuck in. Brings situation under control. Violence meets Violence. Fight fire with fire. Perpetrators are now the victims. Bollocks. They got what they deserved. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If blue top had a gun or bomb then that would be appropriate as there would be a threat to life. This would be a whole different conversation. We know he didn’t but would a policeman have known that during the incident. I haven’t seen any footage or news coverage of the story, just commenting on a comment. " Perhaps watch the footage
The emerging picture is that there was an issue on an incoming plane, possibly involving the mother of blue top guy and t-shirt guy. It led to a fracas in arrivals lounge and police were called. Following that it appears, watching the video (another poster above provides a break down) the police then went to arrest t-shirt guy and things kicked off.
At present this bears no resemblance to a terrorist attack and all the hallmarks of two thugs resisting arrest and a fight breaking out with the police.
You can see a woman wearing a head covering, who I suspect is the mother, trying to intervene and maybe even stop her sons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Ian Tomlinson a bystander was killed by the police, officer charged for manslaughter. They are not above the law, one good outcome of this incident is that the police need to review their procedures. " Agreed, they should not get into physical altercations putting themselves and their firearms in danger, use the tools provided and shoot them if the offender is such a threat. That should stop all the anger about any police officer in the future using his feet to incapacitate a violent attacker. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. disagree, it must be the strongest possible punishment to nip this growing culture of rogue policing in the bud. an example must be set." Disagree, police should be equiped to tackle down violent thugs like the ones in the airport. If people lose respect to police, law and order as we know ceases to exist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. In new footage, we see three officers assaulted by two violent men. Now remember, the officer in question was an armed officer of the type deployed at airports. Do we want him rolling around the floor with a thug in a public area? The officer had to take fast and decisive action to stop the chaos, which he did. Did he go too far? Possibly, but he didn't have a week to think about it." Exactly! It's so easy for people to sit on their computers and pass judgements on how he should have acted. After that guy took down the two policewomen, it is was one guy against the two. It would give shivers to anyone, even a trained police officer. He did a great job handling the situation. He got a bit emotional in the end and has to be warned about it. But people asking for his head while not focusing on the bigger issue of criminals attacking the police, have got all their priorities screwed up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"if the rogue policeman couldn't conduct himself despite the level of training and money spent on him then he should have be removed from duty and someone else in who is at a functioning level of competence should've replaced him. " Watch the full video on X then make your ill judge conclusion. Plus it was a racist attack on the police. Pakistani attacking white police officers, but you will never hear that in the media. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If blue top had a gun or bomb then that would be appropriate as there would be a threat to life. This would be a whole different conversation. We know he didn’t but would a policeman have known that during the incident. I haven’t seen any footage or news coverage of the story, just commenting on a comment. Perhaps watch the footage
The emerging picture is that there was an issue on an incoming plane, possibly involving the mother of blue top guy and t-shirt guy. It led to a fracas in arrivals lounge and police were called. Following that it appears, watching the video (another poster above provides a break down) the police then went to arrest t-shirt guy and things kicked off.
At present this bears no resemblance to a terrorist attack and all the hallmarks of two thugs resisting arrest and a fight breaking out with the police.
You can see a woman wearing a head covering, who I suspect is the mother, trying to intervene and maybe even stop her sons."I think you sum it up completely with your comment, ‘the emerging picture is…..’ We all have the benefit of repeated reviewing of footage and drawing conclusions from our armchairs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. " The training he has received puts mine in the shade and there is also a cost, there is no excuse, none that can excuse a professional public servant who serves the public, to attack said public. And as I have stated before the law is clear, once I/you are not being attacked we then have to cease our defence, if we carry on and do the attacker harm, from that moment the attacker becomes the victim and you/I become the attacker. Which is at present this policemen's position. Another reason is this policemen has now put these thugs in the position of victim his training should of told him that. In short people cannot go around kicking others in the head this includes the police who police by our consent. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"the police as an institution seem to protect bad violent & corrupt officers rather than reporting them , the incident at the airport only came to light because members of the public observed & filmed it The incident at the airport either wasn't fully filmed or they released only what they wanted you to see. You're guess is probably not as good as mine
Exactly. There's a police woman with a broken nose and other offices needed hospital treatment too.
Obviously not the whole story is out yet."Does it really matter what the whole story was? There were clearly crimes committed by the man that was apprehended. And he should be punished accordingly. But since when was our legal system founded on 2 wrongs make a right? Once the guy was tasered and on the floor, the only reason for the level of force used was retribution and that is not the role of the police. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. In new footage, we see three officers assaulted by two violent men. Now remember, the officer in question was an armed officer of the type deployed at airports. Do we want him rolling around the floor with a thug in a public area? The officer had to take fast and decisive action to stop the chaos, which he did. Did he go too far? Possibly, but he didn't have a week to think about it." If I ever got in a situation, I know that after the guy is on the floor I can kick him in the head and say it was spur of the moment. NOT. I would be in jail, it is that simple and some would say deserved. Now put on a uniform and do the same and I have all sorts of excuses, and I can do it to others because I am a policemen who has a difficult job which is stressful and only seconds to act which is usually someone getting hurt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. In new footage, we see three officers assaulted by two violent men. Now remember, the officer in question was an armed officer of the type deployed at airports. Do we want him rolling around the floor with a thug in a public area? The officer had to take fast and decisive action to stop the chaos, which he did. Did he go too far? Possibly, but he didn't have a week to think about it. Exactly! It's so easy for people to sit on their computers and pass judgements on how he should have acted. After that guy took down the two policewomen, it is was one guy against the two. It would give shivers to anyone, even a trained police officer. He did a great job handling the situation. He got a bit emotional in the end and has to be warned about it. But people asking for his head while not focusing on the bigger issue of criminals attacking the police, have got all their priorities screwed up." A+B does not equal C. I am not seeing anyone supporting the two thugs or ignoring the criminal issue to focus on the police. It is possible to condemn both and want to see both things tackled. I will keep saying this. Up to the point where blue top guy got kicked in the head and then a second stomp on the head, they got all they deserved. You might be able to argue the first kick as an instant reaction. Not so the second stomp on the head. It is about appropriate and proportional force. I reckon had the officer booted blue top in the ribs or stomach the story would vanish. As above, even the first kick to the head might be argued away. It is the stomp that goes too far to be acceptable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" If blue top had a gun or bomb then that would be appropriate as there would be a threat to life. This would be a whole different conversation. We know he didn’t but would a policeman have known that during the incident. I haven’t seen any footage or news coverage of the story, just commenting on a comment. Perhaps watch the footage
The emerging picture is that there was an issue on an incoming plane, possibly involving the mother of blue top guy and t-shirt guy. It led to a fracas in arrivals lounge and police were called. Following that it appears, watching the video (another poster above provides a break down) the police then went to arrest t-shirt guy and things kicked off.
At present this bears no resemblance to a terrorist attack and all the hallmarks of two thugs resisting arrest and a fight breaking out with the police.
You can see a woman wearing a head covering, who I suspect is the mother, trying to intervene and maybe even stop her sons.
I think you sum it up completely with your comment, ‘the emerging picture is…..’
We all have the benefit of repeated reviewing of footage and drawing conclusions from our armchairs. "Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Only a threat to life can be met with an equally severe response. If we find put these thugs were armed or said they had a bomb or some such then I will say it was proportionate. I hope those two thugs get severely punished for assaulting police officers. However, that officer also needs to be punished. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. " More footage coming out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. " They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely? "Two wrongs do not make a right! I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception. However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack. The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on. The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. In new footage, we see three officers assaulted by two violent men. Now remember, the officer in question was an armed officer of the type deployed at airports. Do we want him rolling around the floor with a thug in a public area? The officer had to take fast and decisive action to stop the chaos, which he did. Did he go too far? Possibly, but he didn't have a week to think about it. Exactly! It's so easy for people to sit on their computers and pass judgements on how he should have acted. After that guy took down the two policewomen, it is was one guy against the two. It would give shivers to anyone, even a trained police officer. He did a great job handling the situation. He got a bit emotional in the end and has to be warned about it. But people asking for his head while not focusing on the bigger issue of criminals attacking the police, have got all their priorities screwed up. A+B does not equal C. I am not seeing anyone supporting the two thugs or ignoring the criminal issue to focus on the police. It is possible to condemn both and want to see both things tackled. I will keep saying this. Up to the point where blue top guy got kicked in the head and then a second stomp on the head, they got all they deserved. You might be able to argue the first kick as an instant reaction. Not so the second stomp on the head. It is about appropriate and proportional force. I reckon had the officer booted blue top in the ribs or stomach the story would vanish. As above, even the first kick to the head might be argued away. It is the stomp that goes too far to be acceptable." I think the the bit where he goes and kicks the second guy while he was sitting with his hands up and had gotten to his knees is even more unexplainable. He had already taken the opportunity to realease some adrenaline, blue mist etc on first guy and should have been returning to a resemblance of professionalism and self control. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"All I know is that any police officer who kicks me and mine in the head whilst down, will face hell. He may as well just give me his house and all of his possessions. Plus the officer struck first and got a beating for it, tough. Anyone hits me, they get hit back police officer or not, I have the right to protect myself (ive heard that recently), but if I was to floor a person and then kick and stamp on their head, I know I am going to prison as the law states to continue to attack a person who has attacked me is unlawful if they can no longer attack me. And that is why the officer is wrong he did attack a person in his custody who was on the floor after being immobilised. There is no excuse, he polices by consent, not by his boot. Your description is probably how the officer sees things too. Moreover, he/she doesn't have the luxury of time to consider actions - they have to make split-second decisions to protect themselves and the public. I can agree a kick, followed by a stamp, to the head are extreme actions, but if my kids had been in that Arrivals Hall I might cut the officer some slack. Even if the officer who threw the first punch had thought that, he has no business going through with it. You/I are on the floor, you/I had attacked me/you so you/I defended ourselves that is why you/I are on the floor the law allows that, what the law cannot allow is for the attack to continue. If my kids had seen that I would of had to explain that a policeman is not there to hurt people but to protect them and this officer had made a mistake he will now have to pay a price for, and that they should never stamp on anyones head as it may kill or disable them. As for giving slack what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The police police by consent, my consent will not change to it is ok for the police to kick a person in the head like a football and then stamp on the same head. If these idiots really cared about being hit back, how about complying with the police instead of acting violently and punching those female police officers? They can't punch the police and then cry like cowards when they got hit back? It's almost like violent actions will have violent consequences. Don't like violent consequences? Don't act violently. "Do not act violently" are you referring to the police? If they are crying like cowards that's up to them, for what they did they will pay a price. The powers the police have are powers that we have allowed them to have for the circumstances the police face, and these powers have come from example. Now the example is they are allowed to punch me with no recourse, put me to the floor and assault me is that their new power? It is simple, the law states that if one has defended themselves and the attacker can no longer attack then one will have to stop their attack otherwise they have broken the law I saw the same officer attack two members of the public. That is why this officer is facing an investigation a criminal one and it should be so. He is under investigation, yes. But I believe if there is a punishment, it must be as minimal as possible. The video shows the situation the police officer was in, and I could hardly imagine anyone else not losing the cool there. The focus should be on the criminals who started the whole thing. In new footage, we see three officers assaulted by two violent men. Now remember, the officer in question was an armed officer of the type deployed at airports. Do we want him rolling around the floor with a thug in a public area? The officer had to take fast and decisive action to stop the chaos, which he did. Did he go too far? Possibly, but he didn't have a week to think about it. Exactly! It's so easy for people to sit on their computers and pass judgements on how he should have acted. After that guy took down the two policewomen, it is was one guy against the two. It would give shivers to anyone, even a trained police officer. He did a great job handling the situation. He got a bit emotional in the end and has to be warned about it. But people asking for his head while not focusing on the bigger issue of criminals attacking the police, have got all their priorities screwed up. A+B does not equal C. I am not seeing anyone supporting the two thugs or ignoring the criminal issue to focus on the police. It is possible to condemn both and want to see both things tackled. I will keep saying this. Up to the point where blue top guy got kicked in the head and then a second stomp on the head, they got all they deserved. You might be able to argue the first kick as an instant reaction. Not so the second stomp on the head. It is about appropriate and proportional force. I reckon had the officer booted blue top in the ribs or stomach the story would vanish. As above, even the first kick to the head might be argued away. It is the stomp that goes too far to be acceptable. I think the the bit where he goes and kicks the second guy while he was sitting with his hands up and had gotten to his knees is even more unexplainable. He had already taken the opportunity to realease some adrenaline, blue mist etc on first guy and should have been returning to a resemblance of professionalism and self control. " He ordered the man to the ground whilst man was complying the policemen drop a kick into the mans outa thigh. Yeh saw that as well, two assaults on defenceless members of the public. There were no bombs or fearing the policemen losing his weapon as it was holstered securely. So there is no excuse. The mayor has stated that there is more to this, but is still shocked by the kicking and stomping. We will see how the IOCP thinks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too." He was filming, that's the reason. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason." From the Metropolitan Police Website 'Guidance for Police' *******Freedom to photograph and film Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.******** | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason." Is that confirmed or hearsay? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Typical News Media. Always showing only part of the whole situation and getting everyone's back up against the Police. Seen this so many times in the past and after checking the facts you find out the Police, pretty much always, have/had no alternative solution. Never been in the Police but I have known a few in the past who have died from injuries sustained when attempting to arrest someone. There are many stories around Police brutality and many are real. The Police are humans so you will get the bad individuals in the nest, but by far, the Vast Majority of the Police are good and I'm sure any that are bad get found out and the law brought down on them in no uncertain terms. I've always stood up for the Police and honor their bravery in extremely difficult and often very dangerous jobs. This story is a typical example of people jumping up and down in anger against the Police after the News Media report cut down versions of the true event. But people don't learn so it will continue to happen. I'd love to see what some of those who condemn the Police for their actions, if they were confronted with a similar situation. I would suggest they would crawl into a ball and cry. The Police don't have that option, its their duty and training to handle any situation to keep the public safe. Their own lives often second to the Publics. I don't condone any violence to anyone but in this situation I can fully understand the action taken by those Police officers." I hear you but I am not seeing people on here (you may be referring more broadly beyond Fab of course) criticising “the police” they are criticising this particular officer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay?" Its mentioned on the bbc news article but they havent included the footage in their verified footage. So i guess that makes it hearsay with a high possibility of being true | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay? Its mentioned on the bbc news article but they havent included the footage in their verified footage. So i guess that makes it hearsay with a high possibility of being true " Like the hearsay of it being a racist unprovoked attack? That had a 'high possibility of being true' before we knew the facts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I don't condone any violence to anyone but in this situation I can fully understand the action taken by those Police officers. I hear you but I am not seeing people on here (you may be referring more broadly beyond Fab of course) criticising “the police” they are criticising this particular officer. " Thanks for pointing that out. Yes was speaking more broadly. But I still stand by what I said about my feelings of what happened in that instance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay? Its mentioned on the bbc news article but they havent included the footage in their verified footage. So i guess that makes it hearsay with a high possibility of being true Like the hearsay of it being a racist unprovoked attack? That had a 'high possibility of being true' before we knew the facts. " Ive never said that had a high possibility of being true. If it was reported in a bbc article that they had seen footage that they were still verifying if it being racially motivated then i dont think i saw that either. In my opinion, that a bbc article found it appropriate to report it gives it a high probability of being likely. But actually it wont matter if they were or were not filming anyway because filming a police officer is not illegal and being sprayed in the face with pepper spray is still not appropriate response | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not. "You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion. What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently? If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do. I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country. We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay? Its mentioned on the bbc news article but they havent included the footage in their verified footage. So i guess that makes it hearsay with a high possibility of being true Like the hearsay of it being a racist unprovoked attack? That had a 'high possibility of being true' before we knew the facts. Ive never said that had a high possibility of being true. If it was reported in a bbc article that they had seen footage that they were still verifying if it being racially motivated then i dont think i saw that either. In my opinion, that a bbc article found it appropriate to report it gives it a high probability of being likely. But actually it wont matter if they were or were not filming anyway because filming a police officer is not illegal and being sprayed in the face with pepper spray is still not appropriate response " Is it this line you're speaking about 'Another officer appears to pepper-spray bystanders who are filming the incident'? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. From the Metropolitan Police Website 'Guidance for Police' *******Freedom to photograph and film Members of the public and the media do not need a permit to film or photograph in public places and police have no power to stop them filming or photographing incidents or police personnel.********" Auditors who post to YouTube are arrested or searched or just harassed when filming by the police so that guidance you posted was sent to every officer that PINAC is acceptable and photographers are free to film by their governing body, as the civil claims were getting pricey. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
"Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension. The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers. The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay?" In one of the videos there are 3 men approached by police, and the officer with the taser in hand can be heard asking if he was being filmed, he then points at the photographer and says lock up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue."You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment. He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm. Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me! in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
"@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
"Well he will pay dearly for his mistake as when a person cannot hurt me, I need to stop simple or I have broken the law. even worst when a policemen assaults a person he can only assault them if the person is passive and controlled and then carries on his attack. As we have seen. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay? In one of the videos there are 3 men approached by police, and the officer with the taser in hand can be heard asking if he was being filmed, he then points at the photographer and says lock up." I thought it was 4 men, it was days ago that I watched it so maybe mistaken. He may have asked if he was being filmed, is that the reason, confirmed, that he pepper sprayed the guy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head."I do understand perfectly. You have only responded with the officer was wrong. Your comment about they deserved a beating, I asked you what logic is this, can you tell me your definition of a beating and when is a beating going to far, or not far enough? Can we say they deserved a beating and then condone a beating? To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay? In one of the videos there are 3 men approached by police, and the officer with the taser in hand can be heard asking if he was being filmed, he then points at the photographer and says lock up. I thought it was 4 men, it was days ago that I watched it so maybe mistaken. He may have asked if he was being filmed, is that the reason, confirmed, that he pepper sprayed the guy?" One of the problems they were facing and hasn't been shown to date is bystanders getting involved, which is what I think you might have seen, (The guy in the red t-shirt) At one point it looked like many more than 2 in the thick of things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head.
I do understand perfectly.
You have only responded with the officer was wrong.
Your comment about they deserved a beating, I asked you what logic is this, can you tell me your definition of a beating and when is a beating going to far, or not far enough?
Can we say they deserved a beating and then condone a beating?
To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations.
"You need to read my posts in this thread as zi am simply repeating myself. 1. These two men resisted arrest and attacked the police, including punching a female officer. 2. If during this melee a few more punches were landed on these two men by the police (a beating) then so be it. Guy in blue got tasered which probably isn’t very nice! 3. T shirt guy sat still once he saw blue tasered. Blue was face down and no longer a threat (or certainly less if a threat as be was being covered by both the officer who tasered him and the officer who then kicks him). 4. So blue was no longer a threat and could not attack therefore the subsequent head kick and head stomp were disproportional in their response. So point 2 is the beating they deserved but point 4 is not. Not sure why you cannot see the difference. As others have said, if YOU got into a fight and was defending yourself (as with point 2) you cam plead self defence. But once the attacker can no longer attack (as with point 4) them you become the attacker in eyes of the law. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head.
I do understand perfectly.
You have only responded with the officer was wrong.
Your comment about they deserved a beating, I asked you what logic is this, can you tell me your definition of a beating and when is a beating going to far, or not far enough?
Can we say they deserved a beating and then condone a beating?
To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations.
You need to read my posts in this thread as zi am simply repeating myself.
1. These two men resisted arrest and attacked the police, including punching a female officer.
2. If during this melee a few more punches were landed on these two men by the police (a beating) then so be it. Guy in blue got tasered which probably isn’t very nice!
3. T shirt guy sat still once he saw blue tasered. Blue was face down and no longer a threat (or certainly less if a threat as be was being covered by both the officer who tasered him and the officer who then kicks him).
4. So blue was no longer a threat and could not attack therefore the subsequent head kick and head stomp were disproportional in their response.
So point 2 is the beating they deserved but point 4 is not.
Not sure why you cannot see the difference. As others have said, if YOU got into a fight and was defending yourself (as with point 2) you cam plead self defence. But once the attacker can no longer attack (as with point 4) them you become the attacker in eyes of the law."I will leave it there, we are not communicating effectively enough. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head.
I do understand perfectly.
You have only responded with the officer was wrong.
Your comment about they deserved a beating, I asked you what logic is this, can you tell me your definition of a beating and when is a beating going to far, or not far enough?
Can we say they deserved a beating and then condone a beating?
To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations.
You need to read my posts in this thread as zi am simply repeating myself.
1. These two men resisted arrest and attacked the police, including punching a female officer.
2. If during this melee a few more punches were landed on these two men by the police (a beating) then so be it. Guy in blue got tasered which probably isn’t very nice!
3. T shirt guy sat still once he saw blue tasered. Blue was face down and no longer a threat (or certainly less if a threat as be was being covered by both the officer who tasered him and the officer who then kicks him).
4. So blue was no longer a threat and could not attack therefore the subsequent head kick and head stomp were disproportional in their response.
So point 2 is the beating they deserved but point 4 is not.
Not sure why you cannot see the difference. As others have said, if YOU got into a fight and was defending yourself (as with point 2) you cam plead self defence. But once the attacker can no longer attack (as with point 4) them you become the attacker in eyes of the law.
I will leave it there, we are not communicating effectively enough. "Maybe not but this is what I think you are trying to say in simple terms… It is ok for this police officer to kick blue in the head and stamp on his head because…extenuating circumstances. You seem to be arguing for unquestioning support for the police due to how hard their job is. You seem to be implying that those who do not agree with this must be supporting blue and t-shirt guy and don’t seem to understand that it is possible to condemn both? Or that it is possible to condemn a single officer without condemning the entire police force. Or are you saying something else because it really isn’t clear? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head.
I do understand perfectly.
You have only responded with the officer was wrong.
Your comment about they deserved a beating, I asked you what logic is this, can you tell me your definition of a beating and when is a beating going to far, or not far enough?
Can we say they deserved a beating and then condone a beating?
To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations.
You need to read my posts in this thread as zi am simply repeating myself.
1. These two men resisted arrest and attacked the police, including punching a female officer.
2. If during this melee a few more punches were landed on these two men by the police (a beating) then so be it. Guy in blue got tasered which probably isn’t very nice!
3. T shirt guy sat still once he saw blue tasered. Blue was face down and no longer a threat (or certainly less if a threat as be was being covered by both the officer who tasered him and the officer who then kicks him).
4. So blue was no longer a threat and could not attack therefore the subsequent head kick and head stomp were disproportional in their response.
So point 2 is the beating they deserved but point 4 is not.
Not sure why you cannot see the difference. As others have said, if YOU got into a fight and was defending yourself (as with point 2) you cam plead self defence. But once the attacker can no longer attack (as with point 4) them you become the attacker in eyes of the law.
I will leave it there, we are not communicating effectively enough.
Maybe not but this is what I think you are trying to say in simple terms…
It is ok for this police officer to kick blue in the head and stamp on his head because…extenuating circumstances.
You seem to be arguing for unquestioning support for the police due to how hard their job is.
You seem to be implying that those who do not agree with this must be supporting blue and t-shirt guy and don’t seem to understand that it is possible to condemn both? Or that it is possible to condemn a single officer without condemning the entire police force.
Or are you saying something else because it really isn’t clear?"From my previous post to you: "To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head.
I do understand perfectly.
You have only responded with the officer was wrong.
Your comment about they deserved a beating, I asked you what logic is this, can you tell me your definition of a beating and when is a beating going to far, or not far enough?
Can we say they deserved a beating and then condone a beating?
To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations.
You need to read my posts in this thread as zi am simply repeating myself.
1. These two men resisted arrest and attacked the police, including punching a female officer.
2. If during this melee a few more punches were landed on these two men by the police (a beating) then so be it. Guy in blue got tasered which probably isn’t very nice!
3. T shirt guy sat still once he saw blue tasered. Blue was face down and no longer a threat (or certainly less if a threat as be was being covered by both the officer who tasered him and the officer who then kicks him).
4. So blue was no longer a threat and could not attack therefore the subsequent head kick and head stomp were disproportional in their response.
So point 2 is the beating they deserved but point 4 is not.
Not sure why you cannot see the difference. As others have said, if YOU got into a fight and was defending yourself (as with point 2) you cam plead self defence. But once the attacker can no longer attack (as with point 4) them you become the attacker in eyes of the law.
I will leave it there, we are not communicating effectively enough.
Maybe not but this is what I think you are trying to say in simple terms…
It is ok for this police officer to kick blue in the head and stamp on his head because…extenuating circumstances.
You seem to be arguing for unquestioning support for the police due to how hard their job is.
You seem to be implying that those who do not agree with this must be supporting blue and t-shirt guy and don’t seem to understand that it is possible to condemn both? Or that it is possible to condemn a single officer without condemning the entire police force.
Or are you saying something else because it really isn’t clear?
From my previous post to you:
"To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations".
"I agree with this statement. The police do a very difficult job. Things WILL go wrong in fluid situations. And…? So what. That statement is true and inarguable. But are you putting that forwards as defence for the officer who lost control? If so then that will not hold much weight in law. Taking it to another extreme. That is one reason we have murder and manslaughter. With the latter the killer did not intentionally kill but they still face consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay? In one of the videos there are 3 men approached by police, and the officer with the taser in hand can be heard asking if he was being filmed, he then points at the photographer and says lock up. I thought it was 4 men, it was days ago that I watched it so maybe mistaken. He may have asked if he was being filmed, is that the reason, confirmed, that he pepper sprayed the guy?" The policemen asked the photographer confirms, the policemen looks at his assistant points at photographer says lock up, the the assistant sprays the photographer tries to grab phone then attempts a headlock. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's not also forget the man stood with back to a wall (this is some minutes after the kicking event)- not moving or gesticulating - the sound doesn't even suggest that he is speaking either - the same officer walks up to him and pepper sprays him in the face then headlocks him and wrestles him to the ground. It is difficult to see the reasoning here, too. He was filming, that's the reason. Is that confirmed or hearsay? In one of the videos there are 3 men approached by police, and the officer with the taser in hand can be heard asking if he was being filmed, he then points at the photographer and says lock up. I thought it was 4 men, it was days ago that I watched it so maybe mistaken. He may have asked if he was being filmed, is that the reason, confirmed, that he pepper sprayed the guy? The policemen asked the photographer confirms, the policemen looks at his assistant points at photographer says lock up, the the assistant sprays the photographer tries to grab phone then attempts a headlock." That really doesn't answer my question, thanks though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head.
I do understand perfectly.
You have only responded with the officer was wrong.
Your comment about they deserved a beating, I asked you what logic is this, can you tell me your definition of a beating and when is a beating going to far, or not far enough?
Can we say they deserved a beating and then condone a beating?
To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations.
You need to read my posts in this thread as zi am simply repeating myself.
1. These two men resisted arrest and attacked the police, including punching a female officer.
2. If during this melee a few more punches were landed on these two men by the police (a beating) then so be it. Guy in blue got tasered which probably isn’t very nice!
3. T shirt guy sat still once he saw blue tasered. Blue was face down and no longer a threat (or certainly less if a threat as be was being covered by both the officer who tasered him and the officer who then kicks him).
4. So blue was no longer a threat and could not attack therefore the subsequent head kick and head stomp were disproportional in their response.
So point 2 is the beating they deserved but point 4 is not.
Not sure why you cannot see the difference. As others have said, if YOU got into a fight and was defending yourself (as with point 2) you cam plead self defence. But once the attacker can no longer attack (as with point 4) them you become the attacker in eyes of the law.
I will leave it there, we are not communicating effectively enough.
Maybe not but this is what I think you are trying to say in simple terms…
It is ok for this police officer to kick blue in the head and stamp on his head because…extenuating circumstances.
You seem to be arguing for unquestioning support for the police due to how hard their job is.
You seem to be implying that those who do not agree with this must be supporting blue and t-shirt guy and don’t seem to understand that it is possible to condemn both? Or that it is possible to condemn a single officer without condemning the entire police force.
Or are you saying something else because it really isn’t clear?
From my previous post to you:
"To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations".
I agree with this statement. The police do a very difficult job. Things WILL go wrong in fluid situations. And…? So what. That statement is true and inarguable. But are you putting that forwards as defence for the officer who lost control? If so then that will not hold much weight in law.
Taking it to another extreme. That is one reason we have murder and manslaughter. With the latter the killer did not intentionally kill but they still face consequences. "No I’m not putting it in defence of any actions. it could be me and the way I’m presenting things but I’m not convinced it is. I will write more clearly. I have a problem with people making snap judgements on situations they have absolutely no understanding of, to the point they undermine the very fabric of our society. Be vocal and damning of his actions once the full picture is understood and due process has taken place, right now it will be virtually impossible for this officer to return to duty, even if found to have acted in accordance to the rules. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes the whole story but the officer stomped on the guys head. That is not acceptable or proportionate. Depends. If there was a real risk that the thugs got hold of a live weapon, the action was absolutely proportionate. They'd floored 3 cops already, so the situation was spiralling out of control with few options open to the remaining capable officer. They should shoot if this happens again, removes the awful images of a police officer making sure an attacker doesn't keep having opportunities by using non lethal force. Everybody will be happy, surely?
Two wrongs do not make a right!
I can see your repeated attempts at shifting the perception.
However, stamping on someone’s head would not be construed as non-lethal. As others have said, self defence ceases to be a legal defence once the person you are defending yourself against is no longer able to attack.
The issue here is that clearly these two men had it coming. I have no sympathy. You do not attack or fight the police. But once immobilised you should not have your head stamped on.
The law had these two banged to rights. Resisting arrest. Assaulting police officers. Etc. what concerns me now is that their sentencing will be leaner due to the officer’s actions. I hope not.
You may think I’m trying to move perception, because your perception is possibly 1 dimensional in terms of right from wrong in your opinion.
What is the answer to a situation that is escalating out of control, obviously it needs to cover all bases so it can be measured consistently?
If you don’t judge this by best outcome and hindsight, you may arrive at a conclusion that it is impossible to dictate the next best action in such circumstances. We have seen this same response by police with football hooligans and right wing racist, there was no outcry from memory never very vocal, with the emphasis being on the hooligans and far right being violent thugs making policing very hard to do.
I’m honestly disappointed that we do not support our police officers better in this country.
We need to improve the things that need improvement but I draw a line at the calls for complete overhauls and reforms, it really must be hard to make a difficult decision as a police officer.
Ok so most of your post was a broad statement rather than a response directly to me. That’s fine and like I said to the other chap, I hear you except…you opening point (which is directed at me) re 1 dimension.
The law is clear on what constitutes self defence and proportional response. I am not seeing much call for police reform and I do not think it is necessary. We have a great set of police forces and officers for the most part. However, THIS officer got it wrong. He lost control. Someone who cannot maintain control in the most stressful of situations has no place being a firearms officer in the UK. His actions shame other officers.
The two thugs deserved a beating. They went toe-to-toe with the police and lost. You do not assault police officers. They deserve the full weight of the law on them. But that does not excuse the actions of that one officer. Other video footage is out now showing him continuing his actions with a further kick to t-shirt guy after having head stomped guy in blue.
You’re simply repeating the mantra it wasn’t the correct cause of action, it was for that officer in that moment.
He will pay and is paying dearly for his actions, it worries me that people in this country are happy to throw an individual under the bus who is trying to their best, in difficult situations against people who are intent on doing harm.
Saying they deserve a beating for going toe to toe with the police and then saying he went too far, what logic is this? It doesn’t make sense to me!
in a situation that is frightening and stressful, there are no moments of reflection or discussion to be had, it is pure reaction until the threat is no longer a threat, mistakes will be made.
@NotMe you simply do not seem to understand proportional response or that you cannot claim self defence when the person is no longer in a position to attack you. Guy in blue was down, tasered, he did not need a kick in the head, he certainly did not need the second stomp on the head.
I do understand perfectly.
You have only responded with the officer was wrong.
Your comment about they deserved a beating, I asked you what logic is this, can you tell me your definition of a beating and when is a beating going to far, or not far enough?
Can we say they deserved a beating and then condone a beating?
To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations.
You need to read my posts in this thread as zi am simply repeating myself.
1. These two men resisted arrest and attacked the police, including punching a female officer.
2. If during this melee a few more punches were landed on these two men by the police (a beating) then so be it. Guy in blue got tasered which probably isn’t very nice!
3. T shirt guy sat still once he saw blue tasered. Blue was face down and no longer a threat (or certainly less if a threat as be was being covered by both the officer who tasered him and the officer who then kicks him).
4. So blue was no longer a threat and could not attack therefore the subsequent head kick and head stomp were disproportional in their response.
So point 2 is the beating they deserved but point 4 is not.
Not sure why you cannot see the difference. As others have said, if YOU got into a fight and was defending yourself (as with point 2) you cam plead self defence. But once the attacker can no longer attack (as with point 4) them you become the attacker in eyes of the law.
I will leave it there, we are not communicating effectively enough.
Maybe not but this is what I think you are trying to say in simple terms…
It is ok for this police officer to kick blue in the head and stamp on his head because…extenuating circumstances.
You seem to be arguing for unquestioning support for the police due to how hard their job is.
You seem to be implying that those who do not agree with this must be supporting blue and t-shirt guy and don’t seem to understand that it is possible to condemn both? Or that it is possible to condemn a single officer without condemning the entire police force.
Or are you saying something else because it really isn’t clear?
From my previous post to you:
"To be ultra clear, I'm not saying we should allow the police to be rogue in their responsibilities, I'm asking that we recognise they are doing one of the most difficult jobs in the world and things will go wrong in fluid situations".
I agree with this statement. The police do a very difficult job. Things WILL go wrong in fluid situations. And…? So what. That statement is true and inarguable. But are you putting that forwards as defence for the officer who lost control? If so then that will not hold much weight in law.
Taking it to another extreme. That is one reason we have murder and manslaughter. With the latter the killer did not intentionally kill but they still face consequences.
No I’m not putting it in defence of any actions. it could be me and the way I’m presenting things but I’m not convinced it is.
I will write more clearly.
I have a problem with people making snap judgements on situations they have absolutely no understanding of, to the point they undermine the very fabric of our society.
Be vocal and damning of his actions once the full picture is understood and due process has taken place, right now it will be virtually impossible for this officer to return to duty, even if found to have acted in accordance to the rules.
"Now that is clearer. I think you weren’t presenting very well
It isn’t real life though is it? People make judgements based on very little all the time. It starts a conversation. Otherwise the forums would be pretty quiet | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you watch all the footage released so far, it seems like one cop is at the centre of so much that went wrong here. He grabbed the head/neck of blue top guy at the start and seemed to push it into a ticket/cash machine? Why? Until then, everything seemed calm. And there were three cops on that guy. This is not a good way to keep a situation calm or to restrain or talk with anybody. It's not a good way to search anybody either. And if they were worried he had a weapon or was dangerous, they should have started their interaction at a safer distance. It seems like the cop went in v angry and aggressive from the start. When tshirt guy reacted by trying to pull the cop's hold off blue top's neck/head, the cop punched tshirt guy in the head. This escalated everything, resulting in lots of flying fists. (Tshirt guy and blue guy should not have fought the cops, but when somebody close to you swings a punch at you, it can be instinctive to punch back. I have a long background in martial arts. If you see enough fights, you often see person A acts person B reacts without thinking.) A far better response from the cop when tshirt guy tried to pull him off blue guy would be to shove him hard away and shout an order. Distance is a strange thing when fighting. When most people are swinging away, close to each other, they're not really thinking. If you create a bit of distance + noise, it can really make many people think twice. Couple this with seeing a copper in uniform shouting an order, there's a good chance the tshirt guy would have stopped right there. Moving on a bit, 1 of the other cops did a good job of getting distance, tasing blue top and putting him down. Then we get to the crux of it. The 1st copper kicks blue top in the head then stamps on his head. When blue top is on the floor, face down, hands empty of any weapon, offering no threat at all in that moment. This was the perfect time for a trained copper to cuff him. I can see no way that action at that moment could be described as reasonable force. I can see no way that could be described as self defence. It looked an awful lot like the copper really lost his temper and lashed out. 1 of the things I was taught early in martial arts is you use it to defend yourself, but when your opponent is down like that, the fight is over. I was literally taught you don’t kick their head or stamp on their head or you'll likely end up in jail. But this copper did exactly that. Twice. When the fight was already over. The copper is v lucky he didn't seriously injure or kill the guy. The same copper then went over to tshirt guy who had seemingly surrendered + raised his empty hands earlier when threatened with a taser. Then the copper seemed to order this man to the ground. As he seemed to comply, the copper kicked him and struck him in the back of the head with the hand holding his taser. Again, this seems like unjustified force. There is no threat at this moment. The guy seems to have surrendered and is complying. This is when you cuff him. According to a later vid clip, the same copper then pepper sprays another guy who just seems to be recording what was happening. He then tries to put that guy in a headlock and drags him to the ground. Again, I can see no justified reason for that level of force there. In all the footage so far released, that copper seems to be the one acting very angrily and without thinking. And he must have had training in deescalating situations & approaching/searching/restraining suspects. Based on the released footage, that training seems not to have stuck with him. The really scary part is he was even deemed safe to carry a gun. Based on the footage, this is not a man who is good at controlling a situation or himself. (Disclaimers: of course the two guys who fought should face a legal process. But based on the footage, so should that 1 copper. If I’ve seen anything wrong or something more comes to light, I apologise for any error. But I’ve watched the footage a lot on slow speeds and I’ve got an eye for how fights play out after many years of training.) " Seems ok to me, I will say I never saw the copper push the guys head into the vending machine until many views so I am glad someone else caught that and the image of the copper striking first I think he got two in before the blue guy hit back. There will be CCTV footage from the airport as well to consider, and if the guys accused of being racist on the flight what happened to them did the asian guys attack them, before the police came? So there's still questions to be answered. As for you stating that hitting a man whilst defenceless on the ground, ive been stating that all day a person will be jailed for doing that there is no alternative for the judge, so the policeman is not above the law and should be treated accordingly. Along with those guys but they may have a defence now due to the actions of one policeman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have been reading an update about this incident. This from Andy Burnham There was an altercation on either flight into UK which arrived at 1920pm or in T2 baggage area. Then a violent altercation in the T2 area involving members of public at about 2022pm. Then at 2028pm another involving the police officers at the terminals car parking area ticket machines. The police and mayor has opened a public portal for any more public video of all incidents. Plus they have to check all CCTV in areas. So not all video , CCTV has been released or seen yet. To find out exactly how this all occurred . " ----------------------- this is from my post above yours. "There will be CCTV footage from the airport as well to consider, and if the guys accused of being racist on the flight what happened to them did the asian guys attack them, before the police came? So there's still questions to be answered". | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Tell *me* that this is the Policing that people want or deserve . . . " probably best to wait until you have seen the full video before making a judgement…. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ " GMP are not racist they were found to be Institutionally racist. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-57982273 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ " There has been many a report over the decade that sum up with just that sentiment. 'The Police are Institutionaly Racist (and misogynist). Sadly, the protestor is most likely speking from experience. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The Baird Inquiry on GMP has literally only just been published. https://news.sky.com/story/humiliating-searches-banning-lawyers-missing-cctv-has-greater-manchester-police-learned-from-baird-review-13185264 And it makes for shocking reading." Similar to the Met post Steven Lawrence when they were going to get their house in order yet as we've seen since then appear to have gone backwards in several areas.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ " That's the missing part of the puzzle! The racist police setup the brothers to start fighting with other passengers and resist arrest. Crazy for me to have missed that! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 Shocked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not a fan of social studies and society, then. Shocked. "I can never tell who you are interacting with, maybe using the reply and quote might help | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ That's the missing part of the puzzle! The racist police setup the brothers to start fighting with other passengers and resist arrest. Crazy for me to have missed that!" So let’s assume GMP are institutionally racist. Are these protestors now saying that means it is ok for blue and t-shirt to resist arrest and fight with police officers? The whole two (or is it now three) wrongs don’t make a right issue for me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ That's the missing part of the puzzle! The racist police setup the brothers to start fighting with other passengers and resist arrest. Crazy for me to have missed that! So let’s assume GMP are institutionally racist. Are these protestors now saying that means it is ok for blue and t-shirt to resist arrest and fight with police officers? The whole two (or is it now three) wrongs don’t make a right issue for me." If I was a cynical person, I would consider this type of story and narrative to be used to soften the punishment of the 2 brothers. It is a good job I'm not cynical and I can see the police being institutionally racist, means all police officers are racist and up to no good. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ That's the missing part of the puzzle! The racist police setup the brothers to start fighting with other passengers and resist arrest. Crazy for me to have missed that! So let’s assume GMP are institutionally racist. Are these protestors now saying that means it is ok for blue and t-shirt to resist arrest and fight with police officers? The whole two (or is it now three) wrongs don’t make a right issue for me." It's clear that they are saying that it is more likely that the police will deal with people of colour differently. Many reviews of the police, including GMP have stated this as factually correct. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ That's the missing part of the puzzle! The racist police setup the brothers to start fighting with other passengers and resist arrest. Crazy for me to have missed that! So let’s assume GMP are institutionally racist. Are these protestors now saying that means it is ok for blue and t-shirt to resist arrest and fight with police officers? The whole two (or is it now three) wrongs don’t make a right issue for me. It's clear that they are saying that it is more likely that the police will deal with people of colour differently. Many reviews of the police, including GMP have stated this as factually correct. " You do love to mansplain
Not disputing that. My point is that just because A is bad it doesn’t excuse B. As NotMe just said, I can see both this and the head stomp being used to lighten the punishment for blue and t-shirt. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having seen the altercation before the kick, I can understand the officers reaction. Amazing how the lad is sitting at home after breaking an officers nose though." The policeman has been charged with assault apparently, after a barrage of punches thrown at him and colleagues The culprits are lucky this is the UK. In their own country the police may not have been so understanding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ That's the missing part of the puzzle! The racist police setup the brothers to start fighting with other passengers and resist arrest. Crazy for me to have missed that! So let’s assume GMP are institutionally racist. Are these protestors now saying that means it is ok for blue and t-shirt to resist arrest and fight with police officers? The whole two (or is it now three) wrongs don’t make a right issue for me. It's clear that they are saying that it is more likely that the police will deal with people of colour differently. Many reviews of the police, including GMP have stated this as factually correct. You do love to mansplain
Not disputing that. My point is that just because A is bad it doesn’t excuse B. As NotMe just said, I can see both this and the head stomp being used to lighten the punishment for blue and t-shirt."As I'm NOT a man - mansplaining is not in my ability to do. To your second point - I don't see that anybody said it was okay to fight with the police. So why suggest they did? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ That's the missing part of the puzzle! The racist police setup the brothers to start fighting with other passengers and resist arrest. Crazy for me to have missed that! So let’s assume GMP are institutionally racist. Are these protestors now saying that means it is ok for blue and t-shirt to resist arrest and fight with police officers? The whole two (or is it now three) wrongs don’t make a right issue for me. It's clear that they are saying that it is more likely that the police will deal with people of colour differently. Many reviews of the police, including GMP have stated this as factually correct. You do love to mansplain
Not disputing that. My point is that just because A is bad it doesn’t excuse B. As NotMe just said, I can see both this and the head stomp being used to lighten the punishment for blue and t-shirt.
As I'm NOT a man - mansplaining is not in my ability to do.
To your second point - I don't see that anybody said it was okay to fight with the police. So why suggest they did?"Mansplaining is possible to undertake regardless of gender state the obvious that people already know ta
I haven’t said anyone has said that though have I? I stated a position of concern, that bad behaviour here becomes a let off on bad behaviour over there. Been saying the sane thing throughout this thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The New Arab website is claiming its racist now 'Shocking' police attack in Manchester Airport sparks 'racism, Islamophobia' accusations‘ "What is going on, is that the police is institutionally racist. Let’s make that clear, the police is a racist organisation," one protester said outside Rochdale police station’ That's the missing part of the puzzle! The racist police setup the brothers to start fighting with other passengers and resist arrest. Crazy for me to have missed that! So let’s assume GMP are institutionally racist. Are these protestors now saying that means it is ok for blue and t-shirt to resist arrest and fight with police officers? The whole two (or is it now three) wrongs don’t make a right issue for me. It's clear that they are saying that it is more likely that the police will deal with people of colour differently. Many reviews of the police, including GMP have stated this as factually correct. You do love to mansplain
Not disputing that. My point is that just because A is bad it doesn’t excuse B. As NotMe just said, I can see both this and the head stomp being used to lighten the punishment for blue and t-shirt.
As I'm NOT a man - mansplaining is not in my ability to do.
To your second point - I don't see that anybody said it was okay to fight with the police. So why suggest they did?
Mansplaining is possible to undertake regardless of gender state the obvious that people already know ta
I haven’t said anyone has said that though have I? I stated a position of concern, that bad behaviour here becomes a let off on bad behaviour over there. Been saying the sane thing throughout this thread."NOT A MAN - So. Can't MANSPLAIN ! lmfao Then begin your sentence 'I have an area of concern' Then it won't come across as a generalisation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Given that none of us know the full extent of what happened it looks to me that the violence that blue top guy used against the police put him outside of normal behaviour and therefore the police took his actions to warrant the use of the highest degree of non lethal force. I don’t agree with the head kick or stamp but in another jurisdiction it is quite possible he would have been shot dead. He was lucky that they were not airside as the force used there would have been lethal " English football fans got a harsher hiding than this by the French police. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people keep adding - if it was in another jurisdiction, they would be shot? It's a useless addition to the current discussion. They are not. They are in Manchester, England. UK. " Thank you for the geographical update. It's not a useless point, it's about proportionately and the officers genuine belief of violence. The officers showed restraint in drawing taser and not a firearm given the violence and close proximity of other members of the public. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people keep adding - if it was in another jurisdiction, they would be shot? It's a useless addition to the current discussion. They are not. They are in Manchester, England. UK. Thank you for the geographical update. It's not a useless point, it's about proportionately and the officers genuine belief of violence. The officers showed restraint in drawing taser and not a firearm given the violence and close proximity of other members of the public. " Doesn't change the fact that it is Manchester England UK. And it's a null point in a conversation to say that if they were someplace else they would be shot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Why do people keep adding - if it was in another jurisdiction, they would be shot? It's a useless addition to the current discussion. They are not. They are in Manchester, England. UK. Thank you for the geographical update. It's not a useless point, it's about proportionately and the officers genuine belief of violence. The officers showed restraint in drawing taser and not a firearm given the violence and close proximity of other members of the public. " Agreed, the idiots fighting armed police in such a sensitive area are lucky they were not shot. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People still concentrating on the stamp, which was only split seconds after the same officer had come over after being punched multiple times in the head. What about when the offender punched the female officer on the face and put another on the floor? Those injuries could have easily been far more serious than concussion and a broken nose. All that's happened with this incident, is that two serious offenders are still walking the street because of pathetic pity society." they aren't walking free because of the pity society. Afaik, they are still being investigated. And people can focus on both sides. These injuries could have been worse. And we all hope the attackers have the book thrown at them. I've not seen anyone defend them. But also the injuries from a head kick and stamp could have been worse. We can't couldawouldashoulda to justify this. I can understand why he kicked out. That doesn't mean it was right. As I said earlier I think his earlier behaviour, plus stamping and punching the second guy, is going to play against any justification he has. Finally, I've not seen anyone mention the second male cop who showed a different way of managing the escalation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"People still concentrating on the stamp, which was only split seconds after the same officer had come over after being punched multiple times in the head. What about when the offender punched the female officer on the face and put another on the floor? Those injuries could have easily been far more serious than concussion and a broken nose. All that's happened with this incident, is that two serious offenders are still walking the street because of pathetic pity society." As a layperson I see a difference, I see one bloke as a highly trained person equipped and rightly given certain powers under law to carry out what is an extremely difficult role in society.. And the other bloke who it looks like he went looking to have a row with someone over an allegation of an offended relation who would have been a bit fired up in that situation.. Then it kicks off and the police are fully entitled and right to use what they deem necessary and appropriate to deal with it when it kicked off but.. Whilst I can go with adrenaline and being assaulted and seeing colleagues knocked about which is wrong and might mitigate the head kick, the stamp is well out of order and goes beyond everything the guy knows is necessary or he's protected under the law in doing.. I don't think he should lose his job but there needs to be a period where he's not on front line duties till his fitness to return to front line duties if that's the case .. And I want the ones who attacked the police to be fucking hammered as much as the law allows.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
