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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uther said:
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.
Click to expand...

I personally don't care for the ethnicity in this instance, its a case of **** around and find out.

I doubt the person having his head kicked was far from innocent.

Is it any wonder the people no longer respect the police?

Are we really expecting people to make the right decision 100% of the time, and the second they make an error of judgement they are sacked? Not a profession I'd want to be in!
 
SkodaMart said:
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.
Click to expand...
Were they called over as "armed police" or called over as "police, who may or may not be armed".

When a call goes out for assistance any officers not dealing with something else will generally attend if they are close enough, it doesn't matter if they're carry a gun, a taser or a donut. In an airport there is a good chance that officers are going to be armed, that doesn't mean they only respond to "armed" calls.

IIRC A lot of motoring officers in some forces are armed*, that doesn't mean that when you're pulled over for speeding or there is a major accident that the armed police are needed for their guns they're needed for their general policing actions.

*as oddly enough there is a fair bit of overlap in equipment and training and it's cost effective to have armed officers who will usually have the vehicle training and fast cars respond to motoring incidents than to have armed officers sit around doing nothing.
 
R3dRaven said:
Don't judge but there's a new article on the daily mail where GMP says there was a real risk of the officers who were knocked to the floor of losing their firearms.
Click to expand...

So we've gone from one of them apparently trying to get the taser out of an officer's holster to it just being a risk that it could have happened?
 
Last edited:
gavinh87 said:
Are we really expecting people to make the right decision 100% of the time, and the second they make an error of judgement they are sacked? Not a profession I'd want to be in!
Click to expand...
We're expecting supposedly highly trained professionals who have been given the right by the state to use force against the public to act within their training and be marginally better than a chucking out time brawler. AFAIK there is no force or training in the UK where kicking someone in the head, or stomping on their head is "acceptable" or "standard".
This wasn't an extra punch when someone was down, or a single kick to the chest, it was sustained, aimed and deliberate, that is the sort of thing that whenever there is any question of "as the force reasonable" it tends to go against the person.

The weird thing is, I'm arguing that the level of force in this case seems to have been excessive, when I'm fairly sure in the past I've argued with some of the same people that an armed officer firing at someone was probably justified.
 
Werewolf said:
Were they called over as "armed police" or called over as "police, who may or may not be armed".
Click to expand...
An armed officer cannot ‘pop to the locker room’ and deposit his weapons before attending an emergency call.

The weapon(s) they carry are both a help and a hindrance. It actually prevents them carrying out their standard duties - for risk of loosing the weapon.
I’m pretty sure the training book says Rule 1 - don’t get disarmed
Rule 2 - see rule 1.
 
Werewolf said:
IIRC A lot of motoring officers in some forces are armed*, that doesn't mean that when you're pulled over for speeding or there is a major accident that the armed police are needed for their guns they're needed for their general policing actions.
Click to expand...

It is a few years back so I can't remember specifics now but I saw an altercation at a fuel station once where an armed response vehicle responded (probably closest) and they went hard no messing about.
 
Werewolf said:
We're expecting supposedly highly trained professionals who have been given the right by the state to use force against the public to act within their training and be marginally better than a chucking out time brawler. AFAIK there is no force or training in the UK where kicking someone in the head, or stomping on their head is "acceptable" or "standard".
This wasn't an extra punch when someone was down, or a single kick to the chest, it was sustained, aimed and deliberate, that is the sort of thing that whenever there is any question of "as the force reasonable" it tends to go against the person.

The weird thing is, I'm arguing that the level of force in this case seems to have been excessive, when I'm fairly sure in the past I've argued with some of the same people that an armed officer firing at someone was probably justified.
Click to expand...
100% this! It's about the situation and regardless of the previous situation that had happened there isn't a justification for the officers action in the video at that stage.
 
Rroff said:
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.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. On far more intelligent forums than GD there are those discussing if it would be ever appropriate to kick someone in the head, I would argue that yes, if he was not compliant and a danger, in the same way it’s acceptable to shoot someone in the head.
 
hurfdurf said:
Absolutely. On far more intelligent forums than GD there are those discussing if it would be ever appropriate to kick someone in the head, I would argue that yes, if he was not compliant and a danger, in the same way it’s acceptable to shoot someone in the head.
Click to expand...

There are many many instances where a measured boot to the head has been used as part of neutralisation to dissuade a suspect from subsequent violent action - which might shock some posters here :s, in this instance it doesn't appear to be a measured response however.

EDIT: Anecdote on this but my dad was, ill advisedly, involved in an incident where someone violently engaged with several police officers including punching one to the ground, pushing another off a station platform and threw a female officer who was trying to block his path out the way and my dad (semi-professional player when he was younger) decided to rugby tackle him and got a knee to the chest for that :s but there was a few boots involved in taking down the suspect.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
We're expecting supposedly highly trained professionals who have been given the right by the state to use force against the public to act within their training and be marginally better than a chucking out time brawler. AFAIK there is no force or training in the UK where kicking someone in the head, or stomping on their head is "acceptable" or "standard".
This wasn't an extra punch when someone was down, or a single kick to the chest, it was sustained, aimed and deliberate, that is the sort of thing that whenever there is any question of "as the force reasonable" it tends to go against the person.

The weird thing is, I'm arguing that the level of force in this case seems to have been excessive, when I'm fairly sure in the past I've argued with some of the same people that an armed officer firing at someone was probably justified.
Click to expand...
Even people at the top of their game make split second errors.

Should he lose his job for this?
 
Rroff said:
There are many many instances where a measured boot to the head has been used as part of neutralisation to dissuade a suspect from subsequent violent action - which might shock some posters here :s, in this instance it doesn't appear to be a measured response however.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. I’d also argue if he was led on a grenade or knife or something, and refusing to present it having already presented as aggressive with it, and the taser wasn’t working.
 
gavinh87 said:
Even people at the top of their game make split second errors.

Should he lose his job for this?
Click to expand...

I think it would be difficult to argue that it was just a split second error. He's on the ground planking under the taser and then this cop decides not only to kick him in the head once, but to follow it up with a stomp.

He then has the opportunity to restrain him properly, but decides to make another mistake by moving on to someone else at the scene.

In professions with high standards and high risks, it's common to lose your job if you make a mistake. It's not like we're talking about some CEO making a bad business decision.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom