This is why people are losing respect for the police...

Caporegime
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
29,978
Location
Chadsville
If it's correct he was reaching for a firearm

What have you read to suggest that this happened? It was nonsense that people made up on the basis of the police statement.

It was a risk they considered and it's always a risk with anyone in close proximity to a firearms officer. It didn't mean that an attempt had been made.
 
Last edited:
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,120
Location
Panting like a fiend
People don't seem to understand it doesn't matter what happened in the lead up.
That is pretty much the key thing.

Given the police are allowed to use "reasonable force", and once someone is down you can't keep kicking them as that's not "reasonable" and if the officer doing the shoeing then moved on to attack another person without ensuring the person they've just stomped is secure then they've not even got the defence of "I was restraining the suspect" as they didn't complete the restraint.

At the very least the officer is likely to get any firearms certification he's got for the force revoked because they are meant to justify every single round, or even just pulling their weapon, and if they can't be trusted to deal with something that hasn't reached the level of "potentially lethal force justified" they can't be trusted with having the option of lethal force.


I always wonder what the public backlash would be if the lad who got booted in the face was a typical council estate chav in a kappa tracksuit.

I doubt it would even warrant a post on reddit, nevermind national news.
Oddly enough for me it wouldn't matter if the guy being stomped was white, black, or pink with yellow spots*, was dressed smartly, casually or in rags.



*Well maybe in that instance, we all know Mr Blobby was a creature from another dimension sent to test the sanity of the UK population, and liked to slow roast anyone without the right ward who got lost in Crinkley Bottom.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
33,120
Location
Panting like a fiend
one thing is certain there is certain, violence against the police should NEVER be tolerated and we should NEVER pander to the mob.



woke soft leaders ruined everything
ah "woke", I guess Maggie was "woke" when she started to reform the police after their excesses and unrestrained actions in the 70's and early 80's started to come back to bite the forces in the form of all the coerced "confessions" and bribery/corruption scandals that tainted them from back in "the good old days" when whatever a police officer did was obviously right and the criminal always obviously deserved it (please ignore all the cases where the "criminal" was found not guilty, or the conviction was overturned when the real evidence was uncovered despite the best efforts of the officers involved).


I have this really weird thing, I expect people that we as a society have given the authority to use force and weapons that the general public are banned from using, to actually behave like trained professionals, not like 80's Milwall supporters after they've had a a couple of bottles of cheap cider and watched their team lose 5 nil.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Feb 2012
Posts
54
What have you read to suggest that this happened? It was nonsense that people made up on the basis of the police statement.

It was a risk they considered and it's always a risk with anyone in close proximity to a firearms officer. It didn't mean that an attempt had been made.
It was mentioned that the officer who they attacked was on the floor and he tried to get the taser out of their holster.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jul 2009
Posts
5,012
Location
Manchester
ah "woke", I guess Maggie was "woke" when she started to reform the police after their excesses and unrestrained actions in the 70's and early 80's started to come back to bite the forces in the form of all the coerced "confessions" and bribery/corruption
Shame she didn’t have a look at the BBC whilst she was at it.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,934
What are you basing this on though?

It's fairly basic knowledge!

The time it takes for a cyst to form depends on the type of cyst:

  • Ganglion cysts: Can appear suddenly and grow quickly

Why are you talking about joint issues? The claim here isn't that they stamped on his kneecap and a ganglion cyst formed but rather he's had a CT scan on his brain after a blow to the head and a cyst on the brain was apparently observed.

I appreciate that the misleading reporting has had an impact on you even though that was the very thing that I was highlighting; that the journalist presenting it without context would cause people to draw incorrect causal inferences and that seems to have occurred here with you.

But now you seem to have been googling cysts and learned about a type of cyst that affects joints - it's not really relevant and frankly grasping at straws a bit.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2005
Posts
24,134
Location
In the middle
The guy could be every bit the nasty crim everyone expects him to be and it would still be wrong for the officer to do what he did.

I really don't understand why anyone thinks that somehow it is justified.
If you've read my other posts you'll see I think the officer went totally over he top, and he'll hopefully pay the price for it, job loss is pretty much a given and I think he'll do jail time for assault too.
Nobody here knows the full story though. Those two could be innocent bystanders or involved in an attack on three police officers which put them in hospital. Doesn't mean the officers actions were justified, because they weren't, but IF they were involved in the assault, they should be in jail, not at home.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
29 Jan 2015
Posts
4,911
Location
West Midlands
If you've read my other posts you'll see I think the officer went totally over he top, and he'll hopefully pay the price for it, job loss is pretty much a given and I think he'll do jail time for assault too.
Nobody here knows the full story though. Those two could be innocent bystanders or involved in an attack on three police officers which put them in hospital. Doesn't mean the officers actions were justified, because they weren't, but IF they were involved in the assault, they should be in jail, not at home.

What a sad time we live in where the police officer will be punished more severely than the thug that broke an officers nose.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Feb 2006
Posts
5,188
It fits the definition perfectly, an excessive and unwarranted use of force.

It makes no difference whether you think the aggressor deserved it or not.
Hypocritical coming from someone who is happy to violently assault someone for squirting a water gun at their family!!!!!!!!!
 
Soldato
Joined
17 Dec 2009
Posts
10,262
What a sad time we live in where the police officer will be punished more severely than the thug that broke an officers nose.

He is held to a far higher standard. There’s losing your temper and punching someone. Then there’s having the responsibilities of state violence and completely disregarding them to attack someone.

Both are deserving of punishment.

To hit a police officer is completely unacceptable.

For a police officer to attack beyond the scope of their duty is also completely unacceptable.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Apr 2014
Posts
29,978
Location
Chadsville
Hypocritical coming from someone who is happy to violently assault someone for squirting a water gun at their family!!!!!!!!!

Yes, because giving someone a slap who attacks your child without provocation is the same as trying to stomp the skull through the floor of someone who is already subdued.

Another common plasmahal L.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2005
Posts
24,134
Location
In the middle
I'm sure some of the responses here would have been different if it had been an Asian officer stomping on a white persons head which is, well, a shame really.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
92,016
People don't seem to understand it doesn't matter what happened in the lead up.

It absolutely does though. If there is credible reason to believe the suspect still presented a threat of serious injury or to life, despite appearing subdued, almost anything could be justified. Somewhat undone here by the conduct of the officer as if there was that kind of justification it would make securing the suspect a priority unless there was some other serious threat which didn't appear to be the case and their behaviour towards the second suspect.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jul 2009
Posts
5,012
Location
Manchester
It absolutely does though. If there is credible reason to believe the suspect still presented a threat of serious injury or to life, despite appearing subdued, almost anything could be justified. Somewhat undone here by the conduct of the officer as if there was that kind of justification it would make securing the suspect a priority unless there was some other serious threat which didn't appear to be the case and their behaviour towards the second suspect.
Exactly firearms officers are trained to react with lethal force if a situation escalates enough to warrant it.
This ‘situation’ had already gone way past the point that the standard airport police could handle.
 
Back
Top Bottom