Police punching people in the face

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

  1. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    And your clear implication was that they would be able to police disorder far better than the fuckwit police who you hate with a vengeance ... otherwise why would you mention that the military would be "well-trained" and that the police are "inept" ...

    This is what really pisses me off about you - you plainly have prejudices and it is patently obvious in your posts that you are parading them ... and yet you persist in pretending that you don't. It's absolutely fucking pathetic that you continually try and pretend you are open minded when you are one of the most anti-police prejudiced posters here.
  2. shaman75

    shaman75 Well-Known Member

    I'm not really sure what the relevance of your comment is tbh.

    Would this be a useful defence in court?

    "I broke her foot because I've heard school children have been know to do things wrong."
    HoratioCuthbert likes this.
  3. ChocolateTeapot

    ChocolateTeapot biscuit crumbs & balloons

    well, for nesting parentheses and a caveat with a caveat, that takes some beating
  4. Louis MacNeice

    Louis MacNeice Autumn Journalist

    Translation: what I choose to read into it.

    Louis MacNeice
  5. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    I was merely pointing out how pathetically irrelevant the woman's comment was ... just because she was "a school child" and had on here "Sydenham School uniform" makes absolutely sweet fuck all difference to whether or not any force used was justified or not ... and just because she was "a school child" in a "Sydneham School uniform" does not mean she can't simukltaneously be something else ... like a protestor part of a potentially violent crowd, or even potentially violent herself, or even a bank robber or fucking murderer for that matter ...
  6. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    The fact that you cannot, on the basis of incomplete information, decide whether or not any particular use of force is lawful or not, and that therefore any comment about it at an early stage must be accompanied by caveats is sort of my point ... :D
  7. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    Go on then - provide a convincing alternative explanation for ViolentPanda posting what he did, in the words he chose ...
  8. ChocolateTeapot

    ChocolateTeapot biscuit crumbs & balloons

    I suppose that where the shadow of doubt falls, my friend - a person throwing fists would usually be in the van, no questions asked, but you would have the flip side of "we can't be sure what lead up to that incident"
  9. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    They wouldn't though - questions would be asked usually at the stage of deciding who to arrest / whether to arrest anyone which would always include working out how it came to the point where punches were being thrown (unless the entire incident had been witnessed by the police).

    It may be that everyone was arrested and it would be sorted out in later interviews, especially if the violence had got very serious, people had been significantly injured and / or people didn't stop fighting when the police arrived ... but before any charges were laid (i.e. before any conclusions were drawn about whether the use of force was lawful or excessive or not) questions would be asked.

    There is one difference: a police officer using force is usually acting in a situation in which some force can be justified (i.e. they have a lawful reason for using some force). That may be that they are making an arrest, or enforcing some lawful power (such as a search warrant) or, as here, that they are deployed in a crowd control role and they are using force to prevent disorder spreading / extending. Although other people seen punching may be exercising some lawful power to use force (door staff ejecting violent customers, for instance) this is not usually (and certainly not always) the case. Where there is no lawful basis for the use of force then the situation is frequently far more clear cut, far more quickly and so arrests may well be more rapidly decided upon.

    This difference is not because the police have any special position in relation to the use of force - it is simply because the sorts of situation in which they use force tend to be different from the types of situation in which other people use force. To compare what happens in those two different types of situation is like comparing apples and oranges. They are quite simply different.
  10. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Don't tell me what I was or wasn't implying, there's a good neurotic.
    I can't control what you choose to infer from my writing, but don't make the mistake of believing that just because you've inferred something, that it actually exists.
    Actually, my point was the exact opposite, that you wouldn't want "well-trained soldiers" policing protests (if they were still allowed under martial law.
    Because, as any rational person knows, soldiers with rifles and the power of the law behind them would have little or no restriction on how hard they returned any aggression.
    That, as they say, would be a "bad thing".
    Wrong again. I don't hate the police with a vengeance. I dislike the institution insofar as it has historically as well as currently bred a culture of near-impunity for officers who step outside their remit, and I feel hate for a few individual officers who ruined a friend's life in lieu of being able to pin anything on his older brother, but most of what I feel isn't hate, it's sadness because I know that it isn't in the state's interest to have the police behave other than they do.
    Yet again, you're putting words in my mouth.
    That soldiers are "well-trained" is beyond argument, and if you'd actually quoted what I said about the police, you'd have to admit that what I said was "currently seemingly inept". A fairly neutral assessment based on current form, wouldn't you say?
    We all have prejudices, you twat.
    Based on your incorrect inferences and misrepresentations f what I posted, do you mean?
    Nope, I merely don't manifest the prejudices you attribute to me. You'd realise that if you ever actually managed to manifest the "non-prejudice" you boast of.
    Based on the fact that I argue with you, and nothing else, I suspect, because if you bothered to look through the reams of threads on this issue, you'd find that the line I take on the police isn't "ACAB" at all. I consistently rebut such claims because I don't believe all coppers are. Rather I believe they belong to an organisation whose institutional practices and prejudices can mean that police act in ways that are contrary to the public good, as well as in ways that aren't.
  11. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    That appears to be a fair assessment.
  12. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    So why post what you did in the words that you chose?

    (I notice that despite the reams of self-justificationary blather you actually fail to answer that very basic point ...)
  13. Crispy

    Crispy The following psytrance is baṉned: All

    Right, this is starting to stray outside 'debating the issue' and into 'calling each other names' - be careful.
  14. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Because based on current form, they're a reasonable assessment, perhaps?
    Wrong again.
  15. rikwakefield

    rikwakefield Born to be Mild

    I agree with you. I've seen some horros abroad and over here, as you say, it's generally not the done thing.
  16. unenlightened

    unenlightened New Member

  17. unenlightened

    unenlightened New Member

  18. unenlightened

    unenlightened New Member

    did you see the iraq wikileaks video???...? its called "collateral murder" not even children would be spared.
  19. revlon

    revlon Well-Known Member

    someone just made me sit down and watch 'coppers' edl episode. QED. It's like gravesend never happened
  20. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    No. That can't be right.

    "Well-trained" soldiers can control even the most dangerous crowds without disturbing a hair on anyone's head. It's only the "inept" fucking idiots in the police who can't. ViolentPanda says so ...
  21. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    No I didn't.
    I said almost the exact opposite - that you wouldn't want well-trained soldiers "policing" demos. I also didn't call the police "inept fucking idiots"< I said that they're "currently seemingly inept".
    Now, with any rational person who's kept up with the recent protests, I'm sure that some, perhaps many of them, would agree that the police are "currently seemingly inept", what with protester running rings around them.
    Not you though, you misread/misrepresent that to mean "inept fucking idiots".

    I do believe that such misrepresentation means that you are the only person who qualifies for that label.
  22. ViolentPanda

    ViolentPanda Hardly getting over it.

    Quite. The idea of using troops as an auxiliary police force had bad enough consequences in N.I. Deploying them as such on the mainland with the purpose of policing mass protests would be absolute stupidity.
    HoratioCuthbert likes this.
  23. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  24. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    What fucking 'appears' is that then? 'Appears' indicates that a matter is open to interpretation, there in nothing ambiguous about it, the policeman punched the man several times. :mad: The police are completely out of control.
    Lucy Fur and HoratioCuthbert like this.
  25. HoratioCuthbert

    HoratioCuthbert What’s in these batteries? An I, an O.

    And evidence of one of the rare times Louis MacNeice did not feel comradely enough to say "cheers" :)
  26. Spymaster

    Spymaster Cockney Wanker

    Mation likes this.
  27. Sasaferrato

    Sasaferrato Thank fuck it's not over.

    How would you regard the cases where rape convictions have been overturned, or the case dropped, due to the police withholding evidence? It makes my blood run cold.

    Unless there are charges brought against the negligent officers, I really don't see how the system can be trusted. Corrupt police offers are not on par with the dodo, in terms of being extant, so it is easy to see how a major miscarriage of justice could be engineered. In my view; which as always is open to challenge; they are guilty of Misconduct in Public Office, by virtue of criminal negligence. The maximum punishment is a term of imprisonment.
    19sixtysix likes this.
  28. NoXion

    NoXion It's been 600 years...

    Haven't seen him around recently. Hope he's OK.
    HoratioCuthbert likes this.
  29. Smoking kills

    Smoking kills Well-Known Member

    Unless punchy-boy is a complete fucking psycho (l know about mental health shaming, but you know what l mean), he must have honestly believed that the bloke he was beating was armed.
    There seem to be non riot cops and civilian stewards very close (and photographers).
    Matey will get;
    or gardening leave
    or a verbal warning
    or a medal.
    Just my tupence worth, thanks editor for the bump.
  30. souljacker

    souljacker A bit of skullduggery

    Reminds me of this:

    Kaka Tim, Smoking kills and Callie like this.

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