Brit cop punch man 5 times in the face.

[Von Smallhausen]

If they was in any other job they would be sacked on the spot for gross misconduct.

Policing isn't exactly any other job though is it ?

But the police drag it out and pay them for months hoping the public forget about it.

Come off it deuse. Are you seriously suggesting that the head of PS, the IPCC, an SIO appointed from another force in the interests of impartiality or the Chief Constable has a word with the likes of Pc Morrison and says something like don't worry mate, we will sweep all of this under the carpet when the dust settles ?

With respect deuse, you clearly haven't been subject to an internal police investigation if your thoughts are anything to go by.

 

[Robbo]

With respect deuse, you clearly haven't been subject to an internal police investigation if your thoughts are anything to go by.

I'm surprised you even bother responding to him, he's obviously just another one of these 'the police are all evil' deluded people.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

I do it because I'd prefer to tell how it really is rather than what people think it is based on lack of experience or believing the media who rarely, if ever, report impartially.

It is often akin to banging your head off a brick wall though Robbo I have to agree.

 

[Lakeland]

I like how in the report is says CCTV can't prove they did wrong because it doesn't show the full picture, yet when a ***** is seen on camera doing something they use it as fact

 

[Deadbeat]

I like how in the report is says CCTV can't prove they did wrong because it doesn't show the full picture, yet when a ***** is seen on camera doing something they use it as fact

It's really not the same situation at all. If a ***** on CCTV punches another ***** in the face, he's committed a crime. Saying second ***** was acting violently and first ***** was having trouble restraining second ***** won't change that, whereas the police have rightful powers of restraint and the authority to decide how much force is necessary.

That being said, the two examples in this thread don't look good. I've mentioned already that I'm normally in favour of the police, but particularly the second clip just cries out thuggery. It's all very well to say that the full story isn't there, and there are some extreme circumstances where that level of brutality might be warranted, but I consider it much more likely that the cameras have caught the 1%ers of the force in action. The man had already been stabbed in the head - punching him in the head like that doesn't sound like any techniques they taught me on my first aid course.

 

[deuse]

Or perhaps they're just through about it? Sacking anyone should not be done lightly.

He admitted it..where is the problem? sack him... it happens a lot in the REAL WORLD.

Policing isn't exactly any other job though is it ?

Same as any job in the real world. You muck up or you get caught doing dirty deeds you get the sack...simples.

He is a bent copper and should be sacked with out pay and I hope he gets jail time.

Now I hear that the other people the guy has nicked are coming forward
to get a review of their case
if this is true this will cost the tax payer even more money because of this bent copper.

 

[Von Smallhausen]

Same as any job in the real world. You muck up or you get caught doing dirty deeds you get the sack...simples.

After a disciplinary process which is still ongoing.

He is a bent copper and should be sacked with out pay and I hope he gets jail time.

His actions were certainly corrupt. His fate will be decided by others who are privvy to all the facts.

Now I hear that the other people the guy has nicked are coming forward
to get a review of their case
if this is true this will cost the tax payer even more money because of this bent copper.

I personally think you can't put a price or cap on weeding out corruption. Money well spent in my opinion.

 

[The Running Man]

To be honest it's pretty difficult to argue how the nasty the police are based on personal experience of being involved in a riot. If people didnt get involved in riots etc we wouldnt have the problem in the first place..

No.

theres a difference between a right to protest - and being attacked by a riot squad while you are protesting.

the thing that a lot of people seem to be missing is that the police are employed to 'protect' the public. this guy in the video is of ZERO threat to anyone at the moment of the video. Forget what has gone before, he could have just had a mass brawl, it doesnt matter, he isnt having a brawl when the police are holding him.

Even if he is on drugs their job is to protect the public, from himself if needs be, and at no point in that video did he require protection that warranted punching him to the face that many times after tazering him..

it is a complete and undefendable action of agression, not protection.

2. The man was violent. So was the police man. EVENSIES

he wasnt violent, he had a knee on his head. he gets tazered - MOVES (not does not strike out at policeman) and gets his faced mashed in.?

i mean seriously, all you people defending the police, i think you need to review this video.

 

[Werewolf]

Nick, the police ALSO have a right to protect themselves, and the obligation to restrain him if he's suspected of committing an offence.

If he's struggling and they feel he is likely to get away they can use force to complete the restraint.
If they are trying to restrain him, and they fear he is about to do something that puts them at risk they have the right to use force to stop it/protect themselves (even joe public can use force if they feel threatened*)

As has been said many, many times, the video only shows what the camera can see, it doesn't show anything like everything that is going on, nor does it show that the person on the ground may have just said to the police officer "pig i'm going to stick you", or that the officer may have spotted something that the guy was moving his hard towards.

A lot of people seem to forget that the police not only are allowed to use forces to restrain people, but have exactly he same right to protect themselves from harm as we do, and they are expected to put themselves in harms way just to do the job.

The police may be expected to protect the public, but that does not overrule their right to protect themselves, their colleagues or the fact that force may be required to restrain someone, no matter how bad it looks on a short bit of footage or a single pictures form hundreds.


*You may end up in court/with it being investigated, but if it's reasonable for you to have suspected that someone was about to do something to harm you, you can even hit first (and oddly enough this is pretty much what seems to be happening in this case, it's being investigated with possibly outcomes including criminal prosecution).

 

[Zefan]

In the first video the guy being arrested was trying to grab the taser, from what I can see. If I was a cop I'd probably be pretty upset with that too.

 

[rapid64k]

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 said.