[News] The police.. and not the one with Sting in it

[marlowe]

OK - let's leave it there.

You gave your opinion that 'maybe' the police officer instigated the trouble, and had her nose broken without knowing the full facts.

It was precisely because he wasn't aware of the full facts that he used the term "maybe". He wasn't making a statement of fact, he was merely speculating on the possibilities in the absence of the knowledge of those facts.

Even those who were speaking in support of the police before the second video was released were speculating on the possibilities without knowledge of any facts.

There is therefore no moral highground to be claimed by anyone despite what the second video subsequently revealed.

 

[Baldseagull]

You’ll agree some of the comments early in the thread by allegedly respected posters were absolutely horrifying and disgraceful.

Without knowing exactly which posts you are referring to, I would say there were some accusations of Police racism being a factor, that I have seen no evidence for, and were unwarranted.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

It was precisely because he wasn't aware of the full facts that he used the term "maybe". He wasn't making a statement of fact, he was merely speculating on the possibilities in the absence of the knowledge of those facts.

Even those who were speaking in support of the police before the second video was released were speculating on the possibilities without knowledge of any facts.

There is therefore no moral highground to be claimed by anyone despite what the second video subsequently revealed.

Says it all.

 

[Baldseagull]

OK - let's leave it there.

You gave your opinion that 'maybe' the police officer instigated the trouble, and had her nose broken without knowing the full facts.

If you really wanted me to leave it there, you should not have then made a point afterwards that I might want to respond to.

I didn't come up with that possibility because I thought it likely, I made it to counter someone saying that because an Officer got their nose broken, the guy must have deserved what happened to him. The most opposite possibility I came up with was that the Officer had kicked things off and deserved the broken nose. We didn't know how the violence started.

 

[Zeberdi]

22 pages of arguments over an incident that will be judged by standards set in law, not opinion but guess that’s never stopped trial by internet before.

‘Reasonable force’ and what may be considered as such, is governed by PACE 1984, S3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, S76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

From the College of Policing guidelines on what determining (un) reasonable force:

“The three core questions for police (as to when force may be used, and to what extent)

1. Would the use of force have a lawful objective (e.g. the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed?
2. Are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
3. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm), what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?”

I would suggest, on prima facia evidence based on one or two short videos, the police acted beyond reasonable force by kicking a bloke in the head when he was tasered and lying face down BUT until the full context and facts of the situation have been investigated for their legality and the IOPC have examined all videos and interviewed the officers involved, that can’t be determined as a matter of fact. It certainly can’t be determined by football fans on a fan site who are NOT in possession of the full facts and lacking apparently an understanding of the law.

Until then the Officer remains rightly suspended while an investigation is made. If unreasonable force was determined to be used, then the police officer is not immune from a charge of criminal assault.

Either way, moral outrage or political opinion/what we think of chavs/the police etc does not decide whether the Police acted with unreasonable force, the law does.

https://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPref/use-of-force-briefing.pdf

 

[Chicken Run]

22 pages of arguments over an incident that will be judged by standards set in law, not opinion but guess that’s never stopped trial by internet before.

‘Reasonable force’ and what may be considered as such, is governed by PACE 1984, S3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, S76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

From the College of Policing guidelines on what determining (un) reasonable force:

“The three core questions for police (as to when force may be used, and to what extent)

1. Would the use of force have a lawful objective (e.g. the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed?
2. Are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
3. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm), what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?”

I would suggest, on prima facia evidence based on one or two short videos, the police acted beyond reasonable force by kicking a bloke in the head when he was tasered and lying face down BUT until the full context and facts of the situation have been investigated for their legality and the IOPC have examined all videos and interviewed the officers involved, that can’t be determined as a matter of fact. It certainly can’t be determined by football fans on a fan site who are NOT in possession of the full facts and lacking apparently an understanding of the law.

Until then the Officer remains rightly suspended while an investigation is made. If unreasonable force was determined to be used, then the police officer is not immune from a charge of criminal assault.

Either way, moral outrage or political opinion/what we think of chavs/the police etc does not decide whether the Police acted with unreasonable force, the law does.

https://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPref/use-of-force-briefing.pdf

TL;DR

 

[Baldseagull]

He hadn't been cuffed and restrained, how do you know or more importantly the police there know he wasn't going to get back up?

Our police don't just boot prisoners, we have had some tragic incidents over the years that involve the police, but they are very rare.

What shit and giggles did the police officers get from the incident?

The officer didn't know that he wouldn't try and get back up, but he wasnt trying to get back up, if he had tried to get back up then he should have pulled the trigger on his taser again.
If the guy getting back up was a massive worry, I am surprised he left him laying there, uncuffed, and went over to boot the other guy.

 

[jcdenton08]

The officer didn't know that he wouldn't try and get back up, but he wasnt trying to get back up, if he had tried to get back up then he should have pulled the trigger on his taser again.
If the guy getting back up was a massive worry, I am surprised he left him laying there, uncuffed, and went over to boot the other guy.

Police also have to be very careful with this; there are strict guidelines on Taser usage, the number of seconds pressed on the trigger for instance. There are multiple reported cases of police misusing Taser. There is a lot to think about in the heat of the moment and potentially with your head spinning from being punched by an assailant.

That said, I maintain that the kick and stomp was not a good look either.

 

[HillBarnTillIDie]

Take away uniforms. If these videos were of a fight in West Street on a Saturday night, would you think that stamping on someones head when they are already on the floor reasonable?
I've always been taught, and have taught my kids, never to kick someone when they're down, metaphorically and physically. Admittedly we've never been in that kind of situation but if someone's on the floor and you're standing upright, you have the upper hand.
There was no need for it and in my eyes it's wrong, no matter what the situation and who did what before.
He had more justification for shooting him instead of tasering him & then kicking him.
It's the fact that he kicked him when he was already on the floor that's annoying most people.

It’s a fair point and reasonable in the situation you describe. Say the chap on the floor in your scenario has a weapon, a machete, and your with children and no way to escape…?
Do you wait for the chap to get up or keep the upper hand?

Im sure if the chap had followed the police’s directions and behaved in the correct manner then neither the taser or kick would have occurred. But he didn’t and In other countries, maybe he would have been shot in such a high security location being any airport.

 

[Mr Bridger]

22 pages of arguments over an incident that will be judged by standards set in law, not opinion but guess that’s never stopped trial by internet before.

‘Reasonable force’ and what may be considered as such, is governed by PACE 1984, S3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, S76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

From the College of Policing guidelines on what determining (un) reasonable force:

“The three core questions for police (as to when force may be used, and to what extent)

1. Would the use of force have a lawful objective (e.g. the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed?
2. Are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
3. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm), what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?”

I would suggest, on prima facia evidence based on one or two short videos, the police acted beyond reasonable force by kicking a bloke in the head when he was tasered and lying face down BUT until the full context and facts of the situation have been investigated for their legality and the IOPC have examined all videos and interviewed the officers involved, that can’t be determined as a matter of fact. It certainly can’t be determined by football fans on a fan site who are NOT in possession of the full facts and lacking apparently an understanding of the law.

Until then the Officer remains rightly suspended while an investigation is made. If unreasonable force was determined to be used, then the police officer is not immune from a charge of criminal assault.

Either way, moral outrage or political opinion/what we think of chavs/the police etc does not decide whether the Police acted with unreasonable force, the law does.

https://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPref/use-of-force-briefing.pdf

Would've only been a couple pages if you hadn't posted.

 

[marlowe]

Says it all.

No, what says it all is my entire post, not just the parts of a sentence you have chosen to break down and selectively highlight. That merely represents a distortion of what I said.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

No, what says it all is my entire post, not just the parts of a sentence you have chosen to break down and selectively highlight. That merely represents a distortion of what I said.

I quoted your whole post........

 

[marlowe]

I quoted your whole post........

So why did you break down and then selectively highlight a part of one sentence. Your comment was clearly in reference to that part only.

Why did you not also highlight the part where I said:
"Even those who were speaking in support of the police before the second video was released were speculating on the possibilities without knowledge of any facts"

.... Or perhaps in keeping with how you might have highlighted it:

"Even those who were speaking in support of the police before the second video was released were speculating on the possibilities without knowledge of any facts" .

 

[Baldseagull]

It’s a fair point and reasonable in the situation you describe. Say the chap on the floor in your scenario has a weapon, a machete, and your with children and no way to escape…?
Do you wait for the chap to get up or keep the upper hand?

Im sure if the chap had followed the police’s directions and behaved in the correct manner then neither the taser or kick would have occurred. But he didn’t and In other countries, maybe he would have been shot in such a high security location being any airport.

Unarmed people are not generally shot by Police in most countries, and when it does happen, usually the Officer shooting is in trouble.

 

[carlzeiss]

Proportionate force.
See Tony Martin, and many others who have gone OTT, the law applies to coppers too.

22 pages of arguments over an incident that will be judged by standards set in law, not opinion but guess that’s never stopped trial by internet before.

‘Reasonable force’ and what may be considered as such, is governed by PACE 1984, S3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967, S76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.

From the College of Policing guidelines on what determining (un) reasonable force:

“The three core questions for police (as to when force may be used, and to what extent)

1. Would the use of force have a lawful objective (e.g. the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed?
2. Are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
3. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm), what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?”

I would suggest, on prima facia evidence based on one or two short videos, the police acted beyond reasonable force by kicking a bloke in the head when he was tasered and lying face down BUT until the full context and facts of the situation have been investigated for their legality and the IOPC have examined all videos and interviewed the officers involved, that can’t be determined as a matter of fact. It certainly can’t be determined by football fans on a fan site who are NOT in possession of the full facts and lacking apparently an understanding of the law.

Until then the Officer remains rightly suspended while an investigation is made. If unreasonable force was determined to be used, then the police officer is not immune from a charge of criminal assault.

Either way, moral outrage or political opinion/what we think of chavs/the police etc does not decide whether the Police acted with unreasonable force, the law does.

https://library.college.police.uk/docs/APPref/use-of-force-briefing.pdf

Whatever the legal outcome will be , those that are dependent on the Police to provide a service are entitled to have and express an opinion of their own of the incident and the actions of the Officers involved .

 

[BluesRockDJ]

What lies are you referring to?

Must include Boris and the Tories in that too !

 

[Berty23]

Just so I can be clear. Do the Tommy crew on here think the police should be dishing out their own justice tonight with the EDL thugs ruining the vigil and burning the police vans. I assume Farage, tice, Anderson etc have all condemned the mob taking on the police who bravely ran towards danger yesterday?

 

[Cotton Socks]

I've seen this a few times, I don't see the comparison

A fight on West Street between a couple of chavs is not the same as an arrest, police are allowed to use force to arrest, which can include kicking and stamping.

He was on the floor, why was anymore force needed?

It’s a fair point and reasonable in the situation you describe. Say the chap on the floor in your scenario has a weapon, a machete, and your with children and no way to escape…?
Do you wait for the chap to get up or keep the upper hand?

Im sure if the chap had followed the police’s directions and behaved in the correct manner then neither the taser or kick would have occurred. But he didn’t and In other countries, maybe he would have been shot in such a high security location being any airport.

If the chap on the floor in my scenario had a weapon, a machete and I was with my children with no way to escape. I'd say kick him in the head, or as they were armed police, shoot him if he tried to get up.
He didn't try to get up though, there was no need to kick him in the head.

The police have been getting a bad press these days (rightly so in cases) but we do still actually need them. I don't agree with what he did, I don't think it was a proportionate use of force.

People are saying ''police are bad, look at Sarah Everand'' (not on here that I can see). Things are becoming conflated. I'm of the opinion that the police are there to help. I've been lucky enough not to personally need them. I'm not going full on N.W.A - F**k Tha Police, but neither am I going to say that in this case 'he was doing his job'. The PC's job is to uphold law and order, not kick someone in the head when they've been floored with a taser & another taser ready if they move. I expect self control from PC's. I expect them to abide by the laws that they are there to uphold. Shooting him before taser would've been a more reasonable use of force, kicking in the head after is a lack of self control.

 

[Pretty Plnk Fairy]

Just so I can be clear. Do the Tommy crew on here think the police should be dishing out their own justice tonight with the EDL thugs ruining the vigil and burning the police vans. I assume Farage, tice, Anderson etc have all condemned the mob taking on the police who bravely ran towards danger yesterday?

Tipical lefty. It’s okay to break a coppers nose as we saw last night in Southport IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY. Do I have to spel it out for you

Regards

DF

 

[BN9 BHA]

Tipical lefty. It’s okay to break a coppers nose as we saw last night in Southport IF YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY. Do I have to spel it out for you

Regards

DF

Is this joke account now wearing a big thin? It was funny when the real PPF was here but he must have been banned for over 2 years now.
I imagine these posts are lost on many new members of this forum.

Just my thoughts but please carry on if people are genuinely splitting their sides with laughter.