There isn't. (What there is is much speculation and claims of deaths attributable to Taser from the US ... but none which is "good evidence", generally accepted).
Please feel free to link to any that you know of ...
nottingham police taser & beat man
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
Please feel free to link to any that you know of ...
If you mean sprayed from the air by a crop-sprayer type device, maybe ... but that would be far more akin to the use of gas (indiscriminate) rather than hand-held spray (which is far more directable).
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
If you mean sprayed from the air by a crop-sprayer type device, maybe ... but that would be far more akin to the use of gas (indiscriminate) rather than hand-held spray (which is far more directable).
Directable into somebody's eyes. That's like saying cruise missiles are great because you can get them to fly right in through the window of a children's ward.
Well I'd pretty much be stuck there talking to them until they calmed down enough that I could safely let go and help them up. You tend to have to be a bit creative when you can't use pain compliance or excessive physical force.
Edit: There is an obvious difference in that I'm working in a more contained environment, but the point remains the same, you shouldn't need to punch somebody in order to restrain them. Saying that, restraining somebody face down in the first place is probably more dangerous that punching them anyway.
It looked like a punch in the face to me on the video, perhaps I was mistaken.
Er, yes. That's the point of it ...
Indeed - but no-one is talking about using excessive force - that would be illegal for the officers just as it would for you.
My point is what would you do if they don't calm down enough tobe safely let go in a reasonable time? The answer (which I suspect you know
) is that you would call the police and they would take over and, if justified, arrest (or detain under Mental Health Act or other powers). The difference in environment is a key point. Concerns for the officers would include: does the suspect have a knife or other weapon? does the suspect have friends who will try and attack us / rescue him? are there people around who may take the opportunity of attacking the detainee as we are restraining him (e.g. anyone he has already attacked)? These things all mitigate against any lengthy debate in trying to get compliance with handcuffs. They also need to pick the detainee up (whether or not he is now happy), put him in a van and take him to a police station (all of which means he needs to be handcuffs or he will again become a threat). Some or all of those issues may also apply to you but, as a general rule, you would be usually be able to safely restrain on the ground for longer than they could before having to do something else. You would also usually have a good background knowledge of the person concerned which would advise your risk assessment.
It is the handcuffing which they are trying to achieve and which is almost impossible without compliance - the punches are a recognised tactic for trying to achieve non-compliant handcuffing (effectively intended to cause a temporary "dead arm"). If you had handcuffs (and lots of non-police people do), and had justifiable grounds for using them, you would be entitled to use that punching tactic to apply them in a non-compliant situation.
Indeed. Which is another reason why the time available to the police to try and persuade a detainee to comply is restricted - they are only too well aware of the number of deaths which occur due to positional asphyxia during arrest and restraint.
It's not 100% clear, but there were about three or four punches and certainly most of them hit arm or shoulder and, as I said, that would be a recognised way of trying to overcome resistance to handcuffing. If there were intentional punches to the face, I cannot see that that would be at all justifiable.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Threads like this always remind me of that classic Frisco-punk track "Police Truck" by The Dead Kennedys:
Tonight's the night that we got the truck,
We're goin' downtown gonna beat up drunks.
Your turn to drive, I'll bring the beer,
It's the late, late shift no one to fear.
And ride, ride how we ride.
We ride, low-ride.
It's round-up time where the good whores meet,
We're gonna drag one screaming off the street!
And ride, ride how we ride.
Got a black uniform and a silver badge,
Playin' cops for real/playin' cops for pay!
Lets ride, low-ride
Pull down your dress here's a kick in the ass,
Let's beat you blue till you shit in your pants.
Don't move, child got a big black stick,
There's six of us babe, so suck on my dick!
And ride, ride how we ride.
Lets ride, low-ride
The left newspapers may whine a bit,
But the guys at the station they don't give a shit
Dispatch calls "are you doin' something wicked?"
"No sirree, Jack, we're just givin' tickets!"
As we ride, ride, how we ride.
Lets ride, low-ride!!!
Those American cops, eh? Lucky our boys would never dream of pulling shit like that!
Tonight's the night that we got the truck,
We're goin' downtown gonna beat up drunks.
Your turn to drive, I'll bring the beer,
It's the late, late shift no one to fear.
And ride, ride how we ride.
We ride, low-ride.
It's round-up time where the good whores meet,
We're gonna drag one screaming off the street!
And ride, ride how we ride.
Got a black uniform and a silver badge,
Playin' cops for real/playin' cops for pay!
Lets ride, low-ride
Pull down your dress here's a kick in the ass,
Let's beat you blue till you shit in your pants.
Don't move, child got a big black stick,
There's six of us babe, so suck on my dick!
And ride, ride how we ride.
Lets ride, low-ride
The left newspapers may whine a bit,
But the guys at the station they don't give a shit
Dispatch calls "are you doin' something wicked?"
"No sirree, Jack, we're just givin' tickets!"
As we ride, ride, how we ride.
Lets ride, low-ride!!!
Those American cops, eh? Lucky our boys would never dream of pulling shit like that!
I'll come back on the rest of your post when I've woke up a bit (just got up) but where, outside of the police, are handcuffs common practice?
I wouldn't say they're "common" but there are a lot of different settings in which sometimes staff have access to handcuffs and other restraint equipment - secure mental health facilities, secure care homes, aircraft, ships, security staff in a range of different venues. Handcuffs are not an offensive weapon and, hence, are not illegal to possess or to use as a "reasonable and necessary" use of force where that is legal.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Just goes to show that the concept of "offensive weapons" is flawed. Speedcuffs especially can be very nasty if misused. Years ago, as they were just coming in, I was given a demonstration on one of those police open days. One hand in the speedcuffs, pressure on the nerve: ouch. Serious ouch. People who say Tasers can be misused for torture need to look more closely at some regular police kit. Just about anything can be used for torture; just as many legitimate objects can become "offensive weapons". ("Baldrick, an eternity in Hell with Bezebub and his devils will be nothing comparing to five minutes with me and this pencil."
) Intent is the key, not the tool it uses, but it's easier to ban things. Of course, absent mental illness or police brutality, there's an excellent way to avoid being clubbed, tasered, or walloped. Don't resist arrest. Yet the like of Liberty and Henry Porter prefer to disarm the police than ask why the arms might be necessary.
Indeed ... which is one of the principal reasons why I argue that the use of Taser (or blows to the upper arm) which may look bad, are probably less damaging that the alternative which is the pretty uncontrolled twisting and wrenching of speedcuffs trying to catch the second wrist as it flails around ....
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Well that's an excellent solution isn't it, and expandable to avoiding police brutality in all situations. Do whatever the police tell you, and in general stay out of their way.
Honestly, it very much depends on the situation. Often, it's best to wait until it's safe to back away so that the person being restrained can stand themselves up, if they continue to kick off, it can be dealt with without having to resort to potentially dangerous restraint on the floor.Indeed - but no-one is talking about using excessive force - that would be illegal for the officers just as it would for you.
My point is what would you do if they don't calm down enough tobe safely let go in a reasonable time? The answer (which I suspect you know
I don't know about common/good practice when it comes to handcuffs, but surely it's not necessary to both tase and punch somebody within a short period of time in order to get their hands into a position in which the can be cuffed?
Either way, it just seems (from what little can be discerned via the media) that this is a classic case of physical intervention by the police escalating a situation to the point where people are being restrained face down on the floor and tased.
Surely it'd be better to not restrain face down in the first place?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't a number of highly repressive regimes use tasers as a means of torture? When you think about it, they're pretty perfect for that purpose, only a small chance of serious physical harm, but pretty severe pain and emotional trauma. Whatever way you look at it, tasers are a form of pain compliance, which is dodgy in all kinds of ways.
Monkfish 2.0
New Member
What if he had only just walked down the street after helping old ladies cross the road?
The police are not the law, they are simply the upholders of it. I would make an awful policeman because I would not act fairly, this is why I would never do the job (well one of the many many reasons). After being on the recieving end of unfair police force (luckily not anywhere near as bad as this) I think its outrageous that someone could say this sort of show of force might be legitimate.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I think qualifying my suggestion with "absent mental illness and police brutality" makes it clear I don't think it's a cover-all. Don't see how suggesting that getting into brawls with the cops raises the risk of injury can be expanded into an argument for blind obedience to authority. Are you saying that if the man in the video hadn't resisted, and allowed himself to be cuffed and transported without fuss, he'd still have been zapped?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
I'd get your eyesight checked out if I were you then.
In case you hadn't notived the police brutality sometimes only starts when resisting arrest. But, following your logic, if they were polite whilst illegally arresting you, you should meekly go along with it.
No carte blanche there at all, oh no
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
I think you still have a legal right to resist an illegal arrest (but for goodness' sake check with a lawyer before you consider it!), but since the practical effect could well be a conviction for assaulting a police officer if you get it wrong, I wouldn't advise it. You're entitled to sue for false imprisonment etc down the line.
I don't know what advice Liberty give on the matter, but the American ACLU advise people to co-operate and fight it later in the courts. Are they "meek"? A street confrontation isn't the place to be debating the law.
And what about all those arrests that are perfectly legal? Would compliance lower the risk of being zapped? Surely you're not suggesting that drunk people who resist being cuffed are fighting out of principle?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
'The street' isnt the place for the cops to make up the law either.
Its often too late by the time anything gets to court, cops dont care about that, its not their money. They've stopped you doing whatever they wanted you to stop doing, which is all they're bothered about. Much better to resist immediately.
I wonder how well the iranian protestors would get on suing for wrongful beating up?
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Perfectly valid POV. I'm being pragmatic, but if you feel the need to fight a wrongful arrest, that's your call.
Principled resistance to unlawful arrest simply doesn't apply to cases like the one featured in this thread, though. It's a red-herring. In the run-of-the-mill arrest of violent drunks, robbers and that sort, what alternative do you suggest to the Taser?
Whilst that point of view has a sound argument behind it as regards anything short of arrest ... once you're being arrested it really is the time to give up and stop physical resistance ... you simply won't achieve anything by resisting - they won't give up the attempt and you may well commit criminal offences of assault even if the arrest was unlawful. Verbally maintain your resistance by all means ... but give up fighting. Save it for the complaint / civil case later.
How?
It's not "necessary" to do both in a short time ... but it IS necessary to handcuff and it MAY BE necessary to do that a.s.a.p. ... and bothe techniques ARE legitimate tactics for trying to achieve that.
Again, yes it would be ... except for the fact that you need to handcuff them, so you need their handcuffs behind their back (handcuffing to the front is pretty useless as a means of reducting the threat they present).
You're probably right ... but they do so behind closed doors, in cells, when people are already fully detained, not in the street in full view of passers-by, cameraphones, CCTV ...
This is different. It is the use of the same kit but in a very different context. It's like saying that hypodermic needles are used to adminster truth drugs therefore no hypodermic needles should ever be used on prisoners for any reason.
I've previously seen advice similar to mine - note detals, verbally maintain resistance but give up significant physical resistance once arrest is being made - but the only one I can find at the moment is from a briefs:
http://www.kevinboone.com/lawglos_PowerOfArrest.html
(ETA: Found some vegetarian / animal rights protestor advice now ... they recommend even being verbally pleasant!
If you would actually achieve preventing them stopping you doing what you want to do, fine ... but how, exactly do you suggest resisting arrest (not things short of arrest, arrest) will achieve that? Do you really suggest that if you fight them enough they'll go "Oh, OK then. You win. Crack on ..." and let you get on with it?
winjer
holocene death beat
It'll be interesting to see if anyone manages to get acquitted for resisting an unlawful arrest by relying on Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which changes the legal basis of self-defence.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
Tear gas (lachrymotory shell) is referred to throughout Graves' 'Goodbye to All That' and Jungers 'Storm of Steel'. So that's WW1 covered. Pretty sure the smoke shell used by the Germans on the Eastern Front in WW2 had effects on breathing and tear ducts too but I can't recall where I know that from nor be arsed looking it up.
Despite the media blather and hype, I can't see that it actually changes anything, other than putting into statute the current practice of the common law.
But you are right to say that the common law of self-defence is the basis for resisting an unlawful arrest. Thus if you do not know that the people arresting you are the police you will be entitled to resist a kidnapping (there being no reasonable alternative of waiting until you're down the police station, ringing the duty brief and starting your civil claim against those "arresting" you). But managing to convince a jury that you honestly believed you had no reasonable alternative to GBH-ing police officers will be a real uphill struggle ...
But that isn't the point - people are arguing that you should physically resist arrest because otherwise the police will succeed in their aim of taking you out of the way whether or not they later get sued as if that would not be the case if you physicaly resisted. That is simply wrong - if you physically resist you are still going to be arrested and taken away - all that you are doing is risking more injury to yourself / others and very, very much risking the possiblity of serious assault charges, convictions and sentences. It will NOT achieve the aim it is proposed to achieve.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
wasn't kenneth noye involved in an incident where he encountered a man he believed not to be a cop?
Yes. And he was lucky to be acquitted ... (not because it was a cop - the bit about him not knowing who the fuck it was sounded pretty reasonable, but because of the amount of force he used (repeated pitchforking) which the jury could easily have interpreted as unreasonable and excessive no matter who he thought it may be).
That case (and the case of Tony Martin) are exactly why the current law of self-defence, though difficult to define in clear "can I? can't I?" terms, does NOT put people at risk of being convicted if they use force to defend themselves / their property against intruders. That is hysteria whipped up by the fuckwit Daily Mail-esque parts of the media who would do far better to spend their time and column inches informing and educating people as to what their lawful rights actually are.
Similar threads
