The Police Application Thread

[Nix]

Not trying to cause any upset, but genuinely curious:

How do those currently serving feel about things like protests? I know the police need to be non-partisan where possible, but how do you feel when you see things like this?

I respect the police and what they do, but I find it quite hard to reconcile the idea of doing the job when they are effectively a tool of an ideological state in situations like the above.

What I'm essentially asking is: how do you deal with policing partisan events if you have leanings in their favour or against the state? Excusing the obvious 'bad eggs' argument, how do you feel when you see things like that video?

As I said, not baiting. Genuinely would like some responses from those on the inside so to speak.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Not trying to cause any upset, but genuinely curious:

How do those currently serving feel about things like protests? I know the police need to be non-partisan where possible, but how do you feel when you see things like this?

My first question is why is the video edited the way it is? Why doesn't it show any context beforehand? I've seen far too many of these types of videos where there is important context which is conveniently edited out to serve an agenda.

I respect the police and what they do, but I find it quite hard to reconcile the idea of doing the job when they are effectively a tool of an ideological state in situations like the above.

I don't see the conflict. If you're on a public order duty, you're there to make sure things stay peaceful and that highways aren't obstructed etc. People can protest quite happily if they stay reasonable.

What I'm essentially asking is: how do you deal with policing partisan events if you have leanings in their favour or against the state? Excusing the obvious 'bad eggs' argument, how do you feel when you see things like that video?

I'm there to do a job, my opinion isn't relevant when you're there to keep the peace. I'll happily voice it elsewhere but it's not needed nor solicited on duty.

 

[Rroff]

Not trying to cause any upset, but genuinely curious:

How do those currently serving feel about things like protests? I know the police need to be non-partisan where possible, but how do you feel when you see things like this?

I respect the police and what they do, but I find it quite hard to reconcile the idea of doing the job when they are effectively a tool of an ideological state in situations like the above.

What I'm essentially asking is: how do you deal with policing partisan events if you have leanings in their favour or against the state? Excusing the obvious 'bad eggs' argument, how do you feel when you see things like that video?

As I said, not baiting. Genuinely would like some responses from those on the inside so to speak.

Hate videos like that, its cut right to the bit whoever produced it wants you to see lacking a wider context.

 

[Nix]

My first question is why is the video edited the way it is? Why doesn't it show any context beforehand? I've seen far too many of these types of videos where there is important context which is conveniently edited out to serve an agenda.

I agree. So, let's be fair and assume context on either side. Let's assume in one context the officer was being antagonised or using self-defence. How do you feel about it then? Let's also assume that the protester was innocent, how would that make you feel?

As an interesting side question, how does it make you feel about people having clear agendas (re: editing)? Do you think it gives you an us vs. them attitude? Do you get frustrated or do you just brush it off? Is there a general consensus within the force about it?

I don't see the conflict. If you're on a public order duty, you're there to make sure things stay peaceful and that highways aren't obstructed etc. People can protest quite happily if they stay reasonable.

I'm there to do a job, my opinion isn't relevant when you're there to keep the peace. I'll happily voice it elsewhere but it's not needed nor solicited on duty.

Understandable. You put on the uniform and do the job. How would you feel though, if you were (as an example) being ordered to 'kettle' peaceful protesters? I understand totally, the no qualms in dealing with public order, etc. but I'm curious in the dissonance when it's less black and white i.e. peaceful protest and heavy-handed tactics.

I saw a video earlier of police hitting people through iron gates with their batons. The protesters were being pushed forward by those behind them and had nowhere to go and obviously weren't going to go through the iron gate. Obviously you're always going to get some idiots in the crowd, but I can't help but feel that a lot of innocent protesters are going to get caught up. I can't understand why an officer feels it's appropriate to hit someone holding a placard through an iron gate when they have nowhere else to go and obviously aren't a danger to the police themselves.

Hate videos like that, its cut right to the bit whoever produced it wants you to see lacking a wider context.

Again, I agree. It's the first thing I wondered too: what happened before? Is there an agenda here?

 

[Burnsy2023]

I agree. So, let's be fair and assume context on either side. Let's assume in one context the officer was being antagonised or using self-defence. How do you feel about it then? Let's also assume that the protester was innocent, how would that make you feel?

So in the first context you're basically asking how do I feel if an officer uses lawful force, in which case my answer is that I use lawful force all the time and regularly justify it. If an officer can justify his actions as lawful it's not a big deal. It's just like asking how a builder feels using a hammer - it's completely normal.

If the protester was indeed completely faultless (which is unlikely in my experience) then that's a crap situation to be in and they are well within their rights to make a complaint. Like I said, it's rarely that black and white though, especially in public order situations.

As an interesting side question, how does it make you feel about people having clear agendas (re: editing)? Do you think it gives you an us vs. them attitude? Do you get frustrated or do you just brush it off? Is there a general consensus within the force about it?

Some people will always have agendas, but they are the minority and as long as we have the support of the vast majority I don't worry about it.

Understandable. You put on the uniform and do the job. How would you feel though, if you were (as an example) being ordered to 'kettle' peaceful protesters? I understand totally, the no qualms in dealing with public order, etc. but I'm curious in the dissonance when it's less black and white i.e. peaceful protest and heavy-handed tactics.

I would be very unlikely to get that order as I'm not a level 2 public order trained officer, but if I were I wouldn't have any issues. I don't have a problem with containment tactics generally. I have never seen "heavy handed" tactics used. I have seen robust tactics that may be seen differently if you're not privy to being there and having all the information though.

 

[Nix]

Assuming the protester was in the wrong, could you explain how the officer's actions were lawful? They seem a little OTT to me. I know editing doesn't help, but we don't see the protester strike the officer and the officer effectively assaults the other individual. The video suggests antagonism rather than self-defence (that is if the protester is in the wrong).

I would be very unlikely to get that order as I'm not a level 2 public order trained officer, but if I were I wouldn't have any issues. I don't have a problem with containment tactics generally. I have never seen "heavy handed" tactics used. I have seen robust tactics that may be seen differently if you're not privy to being there and having all the information though.

That's the very reason why I'm asking silly questions.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Assuming the protester was in the wrong, could you explain how the officer's actions were lawful? They seems a little OTT to me. I know editing doesn't help, but we don't see the protester strike the officer and the officer effectively assaults the other individual. The video suggests antagonism rather than self-defence (that is if the protester is in the wrong).

I've looked at it a few times and there simply isn't enough video to really make any sort of reasoned judgment to whether it was proportionate.

Say the protester put his hand on the officer's taser (assuming he had one) or gave him a shoulder barge. His actions to create a safe space would have been lawful.

What makes you think it's OTT?

 

[Nix]

I've looked at it a few times and there simply isn't enough video to really make any sort of reasoned judgment to whether it was proportionate.

Say the protester put his hand on the officer's taser (assuming he had one) or gave him a shoulder barge. His actions to create a safe space would have been lawful.

What makes you think it's OTT?

He isn't creating a safe-space, he isn't simply pushing the protester back. He is assaulting him; punching him repeatedly in the face. Punching someone in the head is dangerous; it can kill. If the roles were reversed, the protester would be arrested even if the officer was clearly the one in the wrong. But then, I appreciate that's the privilege of wearing the uniform and why it's such a toxic thing to have bag eggs.

Granted again, we don't know the full context, so let's just assume the protester for now didn't do anything physical and was merely mouthing off or ignoring instructions.

I don't understand how attacking someone in that manner is proportionate. It's not as if the officer was alone (we see plenty of other officers) or was being struck himself (from what we can discern).

 

[Burnsy2023]

He is assaulting him

Not if he's using lawful force, assault it the threat of unlawful violence.

punching him repeatedly in the face.

I see one push and one potential strike which doesn't seem to connect.

Punching someone in the head is dangerous; it can kill.

Yes it can.

Granted again, we don't know the full context, so let's just assume the protester for now didn't do anything physical and was merely mouthing off or ignoring instructions.

Perhaps ignoring instructions to move back?

So lets say the Officer asked the protester to move back. He didn't. In fact he moves closer. The officer would be well in his right to use force to move him back. The protester may have then retaliated which justified the strike.

I don't understand how attacking someone in that manner is proportionate. It's not as if the officer was alone or was being struck himself (from what we can discern).

Many people think that just because someone isn't using force, that it's never proportionate for the Police to use force. If you need to move someone for whatever reason and they cross their arms and refuse to move many people seem to think it's OTT for an officer to then use force to move them out of the way.

 

[Nix]

Many people think that just because someone isn't using force, that it's never proportionate for the Police to use force. If you need to move someone for whatever reason and they cross their arms and refuse to move many people seem to think it's OTT for an officer to then use force to move them out of the way.

No, I understand that. I understand that an officer is within his right to use force. The question is more of proportionality.

I don't understand how punching someone is not OTT if someone is merely being passively non-compliant.

If the protester had struck the officer, I fully understand his reaction and agree it's proportional.

If the protester hasn't struck the officer, how is striking them in the face deemed proportional?

 

[Burnsy2023]

If the protester hasn't struck the officer, is striking them in the face deemed proportional?

It could be depending on the circumstances. There is case law to support the use of a preemptive strike.

I don't understand how punching someone is not OTT if someone is merely being passively non-compliant.

What about a push? Is it the use of force you object to or the method?

 

[Nix]

It could be depending on the circumstances. There is case law to support the use of a preemptive strike.



What about a push? Is it the use of force you object to or the method?

The method. Obviously this is assuming that the protester didn't strike the officer or anything similar first.

The officer could have pushed more, he could have restrained (plenty of colleagues on hand as we see to assist), he could have struck another part of the body to make his point. I'm assuming that he didn't have a baton to hand (if he did, he could have struck the legs).

I fail to see how attacking someone in such a manner is proportionate in anything other than self-defence. The officer is effectively attacking the protester. In all respects, it looks to me like the officer lost control of himself.

 

[deuse]

The method. Obviously this is assuming that the protester didn't strike the officer or anything similar first.

The officer could have pushed more, he could have restrained (plenty of colleagues on hand as we see to assist), he could have struck another part of the body to make his point. I'm assuming that he didn't have a baton to hand (if he did, he could have struck the legs).

I fail to see how attacking someone in such a manner is proportionate in anything other than self-defence. The officer is effectively attacking the protester. In all respects, it looks to me like the officer lost control of himself.

It's happening to much. Just one of many.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-claimed-man-slipped-jailed-eight-months.html

 

[Burnsy2023]

The method. Obviously this is assuming that the protester didn't strike the officer or anything similar first.

The officer could have pushed more, he could have restrained (plenty of colleagues on hand as we see to assist), he could have struck another part of the body to make his point. I'm assuming that he didn't have a baton to hand (if he did, he could have struck the legs).

I fail to see how attacking someone in such a manner is proportionate in anything other than self-defence. The officer is effectively attacking the protester. In all respects, it looks to me like the officer lost control of himself.

Perhaps, perhaps he did go a bit too far. Having been in these situations I've learnt that unless you're there and you have all the facts, it's very easy to wildly speculate and make completely false conclusions though. I also know that Police officers are human and also make mistakes.

 

[stopper]

I'm there to do a job

Then you shouldn't be a police officer.
When you swear an oath to protect the people, you should honor it, "doing your job" is just following orders of a higher rank.

 

[Burnsy2023]

"doing your job" is just following orders of a higher rank.

Where on earth did you get that from? Did you read any of the context whatsoever or did you simply ignore it?

 

[MrMoonX]

It's happening to much. Just one of many.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-claimed-man-slipped-jailed-eight-months.html

one down a few thousand like minded bobbies to go, the police, in particular the met have a real culture problem

 

[ScarySquirrel]

Is this still the police application thread, or is it now the police bashing thread?

 

[neoboy]

Surprised the forum hasn't got political in the Armed Forces application thread yet.

 

[jsmoke]

What mainly inspires people to go into the police anyway?

A deep moral sense of law and order, a sense of honour, family tradition, a chip on your shoulder, a stable job, comradeship, or what?

Considering the amount of flak they can take it's hard to imagine. I do think that without them we would either collapse into anarchy or devolve back to a tribal/feudal system however.