Brit cop punch man 5 times in the face.

And another incident surfaces... This time the victim was stabbed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11646559

I love how the Policeman in the article says 'CCTV can never show the full story', really? Why use it then? Or does he mean when the Police do something wrong it doesn't show 'The full story?' but when anyone else does 'It is clearly seen on CCTV' ;) Perhaps as CCTV does not show 'The full story' it should be inadmissible in a Court of Law?
 
Well all I saw was the victim grab the officers leg, so the officer hit him. Jobs a good 'un, couldn't care if there were 3 of them.
 
Last edited:
Do you think that CCTV does tell the full story ?

It is very common for a rough and tumble to be seen on CCTV but the facts leading up to an incident are not.

Examples are things like a report of a person carrying a weapon, fleeing a domestic and threatening to stab a copper if they come near him etc. It does happen.

As for making CCTV inadmissable ..... that would help cops who do cross the line quite a lot wouldn't it ?
 
And another incident surfaces... This time the victim was stabbed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11646559

I love how the Policeman in the article says 'CCTV can never show the full story', really? Why use it then? Or does he mean when the Police do something wrong it doesn't show 'The full story?' but when anyone else does 'It is clearly seen on CCTV' ;) Perhaps as CCTV does not show 'The full story' it should be inadmissible in a Court of Law?

It's a form of evidence, along with all the other forms. But as VonS has pointed out, what is shown on the news and You-Tube never shows the build-up to the events, just the sexy bit that can be used to discredit the police. At the very best it's the truth and nothing but, but certainly not the whole. In court of course, the whole thing will be played, but you won't see that on Y-T or the news because that might spoil the noise of the grinding axes. To take the stabbing case: holding down a struggling stabbing victim will invite then to wrench the wound open even further: punching them will quieten them down. A split lip is a lot easier to fix then a ripped open cut. And as for the original story: if, just before the film starts, the victim had told the police he had a knife in his pocket then they are NOT going to be subtle to stop him struggling and get him cuffed. And neither would any of you armchair police. If you think you could do better then sign up and prove it.


M
 
VS, this is off topic so feel free to ignore...

If the police wanted to access your personal email account, they would need a judge to sign it off, right? I assume the same doesn't apply to work email accounts and they can simply ask your employer to give them access. Is that correct?
 
Both stories in this thread.

1: The policeman lost control of the mans arm while he was resisting so punched him in the face, yes. Excessive and yes the Cop will probably be in trouble for it. BUT, The guy shouldnt have been resisting, and resisting enough to wriggle free!

2. The man was violent. So was the police man. EVENSIES
 
Do you think that CCTV does tell the full story ?


Well it does in this and many other cases.

"POLICE 'regularly' made up intelligence to persuade CCTV operators in the Bay to snoop on suspected drink-drivers outside pubs,
a disciplinary probe has revealed"

""PC 5548 Morrison admitted this was invented by him and a lie. He went on to say that he and his colleagues targeted vehicles outside public houses and regularly persuaded CCTV operators to watch vehicles by inventing intelligence"

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/n...ul-arrest/article-2723716-detail/article.html

The bent coppers have still got a job...says it all really.
 
VS, this is off topic so feel free to ignore...

If the police wanted to access your personal email account, they would need a judge to sign it off, right? I assume the same doesn't apply to work email accounts and they can simply ask your employer to give them access. Is that correct?

I have a work e-mail account which can be monitored at any time by Professional Standards.

For work e-mails to be accessed, the OIC could ask the employer for access but they wouldn't be under any legal obligation to comply.

If access to personal e-mails was required as part of an investigation then it would have to be signed of by a judge who wouldn't do it on a whim.

Well it does in this and many other cases.

"POLICE 'regularly' made up intelligence to persuade CCTV operators in the Bay to snoop on suspected drink-drivers outside pubs,
a disciplinary probe has revealed"

""PC 5548 Morrison admitted this was invented by him and a lie. He went on to say that he and his colleagues targeted vehicles outside public houses and regularly persuaded CCTV operators to watch vehicles by inventing intelligence"

http://www.thisissouthdevon.co.uk/n...ul-arrest/article-2723716-detail/article.html

The bent coppers have still got a job...says it all really.

It seems there is only one who can be described as ' bent. '

Words of advice of the officers mentioned seems fair to me but Pc Morrison is unlikely to keep his job if his disciplinary case is proven.
 
Words of advice of the officers mentioned seems fair to me but Pc Morrison is unlikely to keep his job if his disciplinary case is proven.


"In respect of the PROVEN complaint against PC MORRISON, I recommend consideration to be given to taking him before a ‘Full Powers Misconduct Hearing’"

He will get away with it. But I will be following this one for sure.

"In respect of the PROVEN complaints against Sergeant’s COOK, WYLES and MAKER, I recommend the officers receive ‘Words of Advice’ from their respective BCU and Departmental Commanders."

LMFAO..now don't do it again..ok!

"
In respect of the PROVEN complaints against Sergeant SMOOTHY and PC DAVIES, I recommend their BCU Commander give the officers ‘Words of Advice’."

Here is my words of advice..Get another job.

Taken from "Misconduct Investigator G G BATES QPM\
PSD/CO/270/07"
 
"In respect of the PROVEN complaint against PC MORRISON, I recommend consideration to be given to taking him before a ‘Full Powers Misconduct Hearing’"

The case isn't yet fully proven. Morrison has to go before a full powers hearing where a proven or not proven outcome is the result. A full powers tribunal means, if found guilty, officer could face caution, reprimand, written warning, demotion, a fine, requirement to resign or dismissal.

"In respect of the PROVEN complaints against Sergeant’s COOK, WYLES and MAKER, I recommend the officers receive ‘Words of Advice’ from their respective BCU and Departmental Commanders."

LMFAO..now don't do it again..ok!

More than likely this will be a superintendent's warning or similar which is on record. Are you suggesting that the three sergeants face a full powers hearing ? If so then we will have to disagree.

"
In respect of the PROVEN complaints against Sergeant SMOOTHY and PC DAVIES, I recommend their BCU Commander give the officers ‘Words of Advice’."

Here is my words of advice..Get another job.

If so they take your advice that would leave a vacancy deuse. Interested ?
 
[TW]Fox;17651403 said:
Is it not time we all had a reality check in this thread? Half of you post like you are some sort of glorious freedom fighter in a tyrannical police state.

If you are being wrongfully arrested by the police you'd need to be completely mad to attempt to resist arrest. What do you think it will acheive? Do you actually think that if you spend a good 10 minutes fighting them they'll turn round and say 'Perhaps he didnt do anything, let him go?'

Of course not. All you'll do is add a legitimate offence to the one you claim you are innocent of, with a bunch of witnesses.

The way our legal system works, and has worked since before all of us were born, is that police can arrest somebody on suspicion of commiting an offence.

Thats right - suspicion. Police are not prosecutors or juries. They arrest people they SUSPECT of crime, and then our legal process judges them either innocent or guilty. Thats how it works. Therefore fighting the police on the street because you did nothing wrong isnt standing up for your freedoms, it's completely bone headed.

What would you hope to acheive by such action?

The ONLY way to deal with being wrongfully arrested is to go peacefully and be reasonable. Starting a pavement brawl won't help your case.

Sadly however much you hate the bully with the badge our law often mandates that in some circumstances, we must do what they tell us. We might not like this, but thats what we have to do. Thats not bending over, thats not being a pussy, thats just what a rational member of society should do.

Your innocence can be fought for after this has taken place, and rightfully so.

Short of going to live in Somalia this is pretty much a fact of life rather than a UK thing.

I think the police in this country do a really tough job for really very little pay in the grand scheme of things. Society would fall apart without them and the vast majority of them deserve our respect not our contempt. There are bad apples everywhere you go - you cant judge an entire force on the behaviour (Or out of context behaviour) of a few. I really dont think I'll ever understand why it's perceived cool on this forum to be anti police and anti authority. Perhaps if more of us respected the police we'd all have less trouble with them. Even the most bone-headed of power hungry police officer isn't going to fire a tazer at you and beat you to the ground if you politely speak to him in a non-threatening way and comply with his wishes. No matter how much you wish it was otherwise, he has the power in the situation, not you or me.


Baaaaaaaaaaa
 
And another incident surfaces... This time the victim was stabbed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-11646559

I love how the Policeman in the article says 'CCTV can never show the full story', really? Why use it then? Or does he mean when the Police do something wrong it doesn't show 'The full story?' but when anyone else does 'It is clearly seen on CCTV' ;) Perhaps as CCTV does not show 'The full story' it should be inadmissible in a Court of Law?

I'd prefer to see the CCTV footage with a timestamp before making a judgement, to me there is a skip at around 7-8s where they go from attending to his injuries to all of a sudden being on the floor trying to restrain him.
 
He doesn't need to use that level of force, and was totally out of line.

(Based on that video in the OP).
 
Back
Top Bottom