Police punching people in the face

Discussion in 'UK politics, current affairs and news' started by fractionMan, Dec 2, 2010.

  1. shaman75

    shaman75 Well-Known Member

    Why take the streets and fight for your rights to protest etc... and then come home, take it on the chin and stfu when you can land another punch 'whining' about the treatment of protesters by the police though?
  2. albionism

    albionism A successful virus clinging to a speck of mud.

    When did Prince join the Met ?

  3. cantsin

    cantsin Well-Known Member

    plse forget that rubbish, even Chief Pig at the first Millbank demo was forced to admit he was lying re: supposed anarcho hihackers, etc - everyone nicked was a student : http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...ot-suspects.do
  4. unenlightened

    unenlightened New Member

    couldn't imagine how much worse police brutality would become if marshal law is ever enforced / maybe that guy just really pissed off the cop (yo mama joke) or something and the cop was like fuck you..and punched his ass? or maybe perhaps maybe hes a corrupted government manufactured brain washed scum bag :hmm:
  5. shaman75

    shaman75 Well-Known Member

  6. ferrelhadley

    ferrelhadley These violent delights have violent ends.

    Water cannon and CS gas are used to disperse crowds or deny a space to an unprepaired group, kettling is intended to contain the crowd. People who shout for water cannons and CS are actually morons. Kettling is far better psychologically and in terms of containing physical damage to the town or city. It is a mentally draining experianince that your are contantly being dominated, your physically energy is run down and you are released with much of the fight out of you. CS and Water cannons allow groups to slope off and create havock elsewhere. I also strongly suspect it is far more effective PR wise at creating pressure to engineer riots that post the fact justify the kettling to the media. From a law enforcement point of view the kettle is massively better and more modern than water and gas.

    Course the fact that its a huge detterent for a lot of people against protest, basically amounts to illegal detention and mass punishment of thousands for often the actions of a dozen or so at best and usually no one breaking the law. Whats more it is often used in a manner that seems designed to instigate riots is a side issue for the police.
  7. S☼I

    S☼I already bored

  8. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    The TSG would be immesurably improved by a significant increase in the (currently tiny) number of female officers amongst their number ...
  9. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    Well it can't be any ACAB Collective ... because they don't exist ... apparently ... :D
  10. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    Yes. There was no point to raise in relation to it's substantive story - it is common knowledge that police officers and PCSOs have demonstrated poor understanding of their powers (especially newly-introduced ones) and I have frequently posted to the effect that the continuation training and day-to-day supervision of front-line officers is pretty shit and that the training implications should be (but rarely are) taken into account by the government when coming up with their latest legislative wheeze.

    I did however feel that the irony of The Register, whilst taking a critical and superior tone and slagging off the police for failing to know their powers, managing to make a very basic mistake in their own outlining of what the powers actually are was worthy of note. It is a classic example of the media (traditional or contemporary) failing miserably in their role of educating and informing the public accurately.

    Why are you so pathologically incapable of seperating out issues? Why do you seem to think that it is always necessary to comment on all aspects of a post or story ... or none at all?
  11. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    And whinging about every use of force by the police as being excessive and unlawful, and about every tactic used by them as being excessive and unlawful is not only naive in the extreme but it totally undermines the genuine issues which should be raised when there actually is excessive force used or when a tactic is used in a way which excessively interferes with people's rights to protest, etc.

    If you go on a protest and there are clear grounds for the police to suspect that it will develop into violence and significant damage being caused you know that they will be likely to restrict the movement of the protestors and use containment, etc. at an early stage. If you are on a protest that is expected to be peaceful and it starts kicking off then you know the police are likely to start using more robust tactics. If you encounter a police line blocking a street or whatever and the protest attempts to break through that line, you can expect the police will resist and that if you are daft enough to remain at the front of the protestors you are likely to be the bit of the crowd which feels the actual use of force used by the police.

    Protestors should get real. Their constant whinging is ridiculous, as is the media reporting. And, more importantly, it obscures the genuine debates and issues which should be being raised about how policing is done.
  12. DotCommunist

    DotCommunist slowtime

    those 'robust tactics' killed a man at the g20 protests and the media were slow on the mark to cover that. Still, he was an alcoholic drifter ennit. :rolleyes:
  13. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    Are you really suggesting that the police shouldn't enquire of a photographer taking pictures of random children what they are about? Are you really suggesting that that behaviour does not amount to raising suspicions about motive?

    This is perhaps one of the most powerful arguments for my point that we, as individuals, should have the power to control our own images and that if an individual, or, in the case of a juvenile their parent or carer, objects a photographer should be required to (a) stop taking any more pictures and (b) undertake not to publish any already taken.

    We worry about the State having our photographs, even though they are unlikely to post them on YouTube or send them to Harry Hill's All-New You've Been Framed ... but we are seemingly totally happy for any random individual to have them even though they may do absolutely anything they like with them without any restriction whatsoever.

    I honestly believe that the vast majority of the public do not realise that they have no power to stop anyone taking photographs of them or theior children and doping absolutely anything they like with them. If photographers do not take a realistic view of this situation, and do not voluntarily acknowledge that whilst they have a default right to take photographs in public places that they should respect people's specific requests not to, or to not publish or deal with the images they have in a particular way (and to provide the subject with contact details so that they can pursue any subsequent breaches of any agreement) then they are likely to find the public will turn against them at some point.
  14. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    No, they're the same ones. But seen through non-prejudiced eyes ... :rolleyes:
  15. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    It's not hard at all. It is, and always has been, absolutely central to how I believe a democratic society should operate and how policing should work. I have been pointing out that the policing of protest has moved too far towards control and away from facilitation since long before Denis O'Connors "Adapting to Protest" report after G20 ... (the use of police vans to obscure the banners of Chinese protestors alongside The Mall during the Chinese State Visit about ten years ago was an example I focused on as being inappropriate policing - the police's job was to ensure they did not attack the Chinese visitors, not to ensure that the protestor's (entirely lawful) views were kept from them.
  16. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    Self-harm such as that whilst being arrested or whilst detained in a cell is not at all unusual ... :(
  17. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    Whether it was "classic text book" or not is largely, if not entirely, irrelevant to whether it was lawful. Just because you use a recognised tactic it does not mean that you do not need to justify the use of force. Personally I felt that his use of a baton was what made it excessive!

    [quoteSo we have this odd stand off in public order training where coppers are taught to act in a certain way, rather than legal training where coppers are taught to act lawfully. This allows coked-up bully boys to act on a whim and know it will be defended in court by some lawyer or other.[/quote]
    What you have is coppers taught to BOTH act in a certain way AND to act lawfully. The personal accountability for any use of force is stressed throughout all use of force training.

    The big fault line is between officer safety training - where tactics are taught which are entirely appropriate for officers acting in ones, twos and threes to restrain a violent offender outside a pub on Saturday night or whatever - and public order training where the use of those individual tactics by individual officers working together as a unit are inappropriate (maybe unlawful, but certainly not helpful tactically). If you are in the first situation you are not going to take any level of pushing and shoving without some sort of physical response (because you will shortly be overwhelmed, your prisoner will be freed or whatever) but when you are one of a line of fifty officers blocking a street against a large crowd you usually should be taking a significant level of pushing and shoving, and perhaps even more, before you should individually use your personal officer safety training tactics.

    This basic difference in situation, and the difference in appropriateness of tactics has not, in my view, been adequately trained or understood.

    It is absolutely the job of the TSG to know what law they are acting under (in both legal terms and policing terms).
  18. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    That is absolutely fair comment (and I must say what a pleasure it is to meet a poster here who is capable of making balanced comment) ... but I would point out that the tolerance levels of the police (individually and as an organisation) were pushed through by the violence of those who were out for a fight and it is simply not possible to seperate out any response to a crowd to ensure that it is only applied to the "bad" individuals within that crowd ... hence "good" people in the crowd end up getting pushed back, contained or whatever along with the "bad". The police need to minimise that impact (and I think they could do more and certainly individual officers could be expected to have a better understanding of the "good" and "bad" individuals immediately in front of them when they use gross control tactics such as a charge or containment) ... but it is simply impossible for it to be removed entirely and protestors need to recognise that it sort of goes with the territory when things kick off!
  19. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    "Will no-one think of the children!!" bollocks of the first order! Because, as every fool knows, no school child has ever done anything wrong ever ... :rolleyes:
  20. revlon

    revlon Well-Known Member

    again we're on different sides of the barricade. At the student demo the amount of shit the students took from riot police (sideways riot shield to the face seems to be a particular favourite to anyone under 18 or in a school uniform - and yes part of the training!) before they starting hitting back was immense.

    Students only ever repsonded after being provoked. And it seem the role of the tsg on that particular day was to provoke. Tactical training or coked up bad apple?

    Ps i've never met a riot cop who ever understood the law he was acting under. Ever. They are given instructions on how to behave on demonstartions to be fulfilled violently. It's their role. A major part of which is making sure you can get away with it. Missing numbers was always a key part to it.
  21. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    Well you've met some complete and fucking idiots then ... the law on the use of force is absolutely basic, foundation training for pretty much all use of coercive powers in any situation, not just public disorder.

    What is unclear is the use of force by "the police" (i.e. an organisation, deployed by a senior commander) against "the crowd" (i.e. a large group of people, maybe led by some identifable individual at some point, often not). If a senior commander orders a street to be cleared, or a crowd to be pushed back, it is usually impossible for that to be done in anything like an efficient manner without a group of police officers applying force, as a group, to a group of protestors (i.e. the ones who happen to be in that street, or directly in front of police lines at that time). But, of course, that force is, at the pointed end, applied by an individual officer to an individual protestor and there may well be no individual justification for the use of force at all.

    The usual explanation for this being lawful is that the use of police crowd control tactics are intended to prevent crime, or to defend potential victims of unlawful violence (i.e. self-defence on a large scale) and that the individual officers are entitled to rely on the lawfulness of that overall objective as the basis for any individual force they need to use to enforce the tactic. Alternatively, there is an approach that to resist an individual request (made in words or by actions) to mnove back or clear a street or not pass through a police line deployed as part of an overall police operation intended to quell disorder or to prevent further disorder (which would be entirely lawful duties of the police) would amount to an obstruction of the individual police officer in the execution of their duty and they would be entitled to use reasonable and necessary force to overcome any such obstruction.

    Whilst I am convinced that any case brought before the Courts would find the police had the right (duty, probably) to deploy tactics to manage crowds to prevent disorder and violence and that individual officers in units deployed by an overall commander must be entitled to use reasonable and necessary force to deliver the tactics ordered, the law is not as clear as it is in a case where an individual officer is acting alone or with one or two colleagues on their own initiative outside a pub on a Saturday night. This is an area in which some additional clarity could be brought (and this is alikely to happen as more and more cases based on the Human Rights Act find their way into case law).

    If you got into a discussion with an officer about this area of the law on the use of force you would find that their understanding was likely to be far less clear than their understanding of the basic law on the use of force which they use all the time.
  22. revlon

    revlon Well-Known Member


  23. ChocolateTeapot

    ChocolateTeapot biscuit crumbs & balloons

    Detective boy, I am not particularly anti police and I take the earlier point you made although very mealy-mouthed, but watch that clip again and notice the differenece between the early fist throwing antics, the very fast glance at a possible phone cam and that fist become a pointing finger
  24. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    Yeah, I've seen that. It doesn't change anything I've said - it doesn't add to what led up to the initial use of force which is what is needed to move towards a definitive view as to whether or not it was justified; it tends to suggest that he knew it wouldn't look good on camera (though whether or not something looks good or not isn't the defnining feature of whether it is lawful or not) and it would be an absolutely typical change in approach where a use of force has succeeded in moving someone back and you now want to keep them back (using voice and non-verbal communication) regardless of whether or not the initial use of force had been lawful.
  25. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    If martial law was declared, the police would be the smallest of your problems, because martial law means military law, and well-trained soldiers "policing" protests (if protest were still legal under martial law, which I doubt), rather than the (currently seemingly inept) old bill.
  26. ChocolateTeapot

    ChocolateTeapot biscuit crumbs & balloons

    I can understand that to a point, but I don't see anyone around that particular policeman feeling any need to throw fist - asides from anything else, detective boy, I would have thought that flinging a punch in a riot control line was reallt quite irresponsible to fellow officers if you took a swipe and went off your feet?
  27. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    And the military would, of course, be willing to allow any level of disorder and damage without intervening, and would be able to control violent crowds without recourse to any level of force at all ... :rolleyes:
  28. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    You're not non-prejudiced.
    You are the melodramatic tart who believes there's a "collective" of people on this board who band together to hound you.
    You are the melodramatic tart who believes there's an "ACAB tendency" on Urban, when any NEUTRAL appraisal of any of the threads where you claim this would see that no such thing exists and that you're neurotic.

    Grow up, there's a good chap.
  29. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Please don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken, there's a good fellow.
    My point (as any "non-prejudiced" reader will have noted) was exactly that martial law would mean well-trained soldiers on the street. People with guns and quite possibly combat experience.

    Get a grip, there's a good chap.
  30. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    I've said earlier that the use of punches would not normally be helpful (in terms of either tactics (as it opens up a gap in the line which could be exploited by the crowd whilst you are punching an individual) or in terms of general perception (as it would be likely, even if justified in law, to be perceived as excessively aggressive and it could precipitate a more aggressive response from the crowd)) and so whether or not it was lawful, it was certainly inappropriate.

    As for the fact that other officers weren't reacting in the same way, that isn't in and of itself indicative of whether it was lawful - as I said earlier the individual protestor may have represented a different, higher level of threat to that officer than any others did to the others (e.g. he may (and we don;t know whether this happened or not - I am just using it as an example of how an individual use of force may be justified even when others nearby are not) have already specifically struck the officer (or threatened to) or done something else which merited the use of a couple of punches).

    It certainly seems that his use of force was in excess of that used by others - to decide whether it was unlawful, or excessive in absolute terms we would need to know more. And it may be that other officers would have been legally entitled to use similar force but had chosen to act in a more restrained way ... which sort of takes us back to the first point I made about it being inappropriate whether or not theoretically legal.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice