I think officers involved in any incident like this should be treated liek anyone else commiting assault and the public should be kept informed. I think as well that if there is any evidence of foul play the officer in question be taken off any duties dealing with the public.
I don't know how complaints are handled but it all seems a bit too in house to be properly effective. All complaints should be made to a completely seperate body from the poilice (if this is not already the case)
Unfortunatly there far more arseholes on the street, then problem police. I can imagine quite a few police would be off the street over minor things that have been exagarrated.
Some of the public seem to want to know everything nowdays, especially the armchair pundits who think they have the solution to everything, and maybe even too much time on their hands.
Well if all of those things happened the way you claim, they are not approved methods anyway, so there is no use in reviewing proper tactics to address those.
But the choke holds were approved as was the doubling up of people, they were HO approved methods that are no longer allowed.
i think like in any profession you are always going to get a small minority of bad apples - i'm sure the Police have always had their share. Just like many other things because of the technological world we live in now these things get out. I remember the guy who stuck the recorder on his mobile on to secretly record the police being racist towards him and so forth... slightly OT but in general i would like to see more real Police on the streets.
btw again a bit OT but was anyone else struck by the disparity that when the powers that be were saying that there had been no police wrong doing when they shot unarmed DeMenezes to death in cold blood at the same time a copper was being sacked for clipping a yob around the ear...
Changes are always taking place, and any Officer acting illegally will not be protected by the job.
I am sorry Deep Purple, but that really is quite a bit of nonsense. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the officers in the Tomlinson case, for example, didn't close ranks? That they stood by and allowed the thug in a uniform to knock an innocent man to the ground? Those eight or so officers standing next to him, knew exactly who the offender was but kept quiet about it, (especially with the practise of removing ones shoulder number). Are we to believe that ALL officers will grass his "mate" up when he has done wrong?
There have always been over the top responses, but I would suggest there are less now than there used to be. What has changed is that every now and again we get something like this, and people on forums take it to pieces.
And so they should. The day we allow this behaviour go unchallenged will be a very bad day for our civil liberty. But isn't it about time they stopped happening altogether?
When I joined, the older Officers, and lags used to talk of the days when a good hiding for anyone resisting arrest was the norm, and very few people complained about it.
There was a reason for that. One, I feel, still exists today.
We dont have that now, because times, and standards have changed.
Those of us with experience of the job understand this, but we are not believed.
One would hope so, but incidents such as this do not go a long way to support that theory.
What do you think needs changing Bom, and how do you take the human element out of a very volatile situation, because that is what the cause is of these few cases.
i think like in any profession you are always going to get a small minority of bad apples - i'm sure the Police have always had their share. Just like many other things because of the technological world we live in now these things get out. I remember the guy who stuck the recorder on his mobile on to secretly record the police being racist towards him and so forth... slightly OT but in general i would like to see more real Police on the streets.
What, in your opinion, are real Police on the streets?
btw again a bit OT but was anyone else struck by the disparity that when the powers that be were saying that there had been no police wrong doing when they shot unarmed DeMenezes to death in cold blood at the same time a copper was being sacked for clipping a yob around the ear...
no idea and i am not going to go searching for a link on it. I just remember it being reported (completely seperately) around the same time as Menezes - he may have been suspended rather than sacked
eta
didn't see the bit in my quote:
by real Police i mean Police with full Police powers not the community police
I think officers involved in any incident like this should be treated liek anyone else commiting assault and the public should be kept informed. I think as well that if there is any evidence of foul play the officer in question be taken off any duties dealing with the public.
I don't know how complaints are handled but it all seems a bit too in house to be properly effective. All complaints should be made to a completely seperate body from the poilice (if this is not already the case)
Well the public are not kept informed of the ongoing enquiry into anyone else, so in that respect the Police are treated the same. Where they differ is that they can be subject to two lots of punishment if found guilty, in the courts, and through an internal tribunal.
As for taking them off public duties, at what point does that happen? A huge number of trivial, and unfounded complaints are made all the time. If everyone subject of such complaints was removed from full time duties, numbers would be greatly reduced.
In the case of very serious allegations, suspension, or removal from such duties does happen, and cases can be investigated by the independent IPCC.
As for other complaints, they are dealt with by Professional Standards Depts, and anyone subject of such enquiries will tell you they are not pleasant, and not done in a way to get you off.
I am sorry Deep Purple, but that really is quite a bit of nonsense. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the officers in the Tomlinson case, for example, didn't close ranks? That they stood by and allowed the thug in a uniform to knock an innocent man to the ground? Those eight or so officers standing next to him, knew exactly who the offender was but kept quiet about it, (especially with the practise of removing ones shoulder number). Are we to believe that ALL officers will grass his "mate" up when he has done wrong?
And so they should. The day we allow this behaviour go unchallenged will be a very bad day for our civil liberty. But isn't it about time they stopped happening altogether?
There was a reason for that. One, I feel, still exists today.
One would hope so, but incidents such as this do not go a long way to support that theory.
It depends on which human your referring to.
The job has not protected the Tomlinson Officers. They are still subject of action.
It would be great if everyone behaved exactly as they should, in all walks of life, but that is asking the impossible.
Few complained in the old days, because those on the receiving end understood the standards across the board, and took it. I'm certainly not saying that is right, but by relating this, it shows how things have changed for the better in modern times.
All humans are capable of misbehaving, and the Police are no different.
There will be taser deaths just as there are in the States when every office has them,
It's not that likely to be honest, what are you suggesting would kill someone?
And please don't for one minute compare Taser use in the US with that of the UK, the two countries are different, policing is very different and the usage of Taser in the states is something you'd never find acceptable over here.
Over the last 24 months Taser issuing to officers has grown at a large rate, and yet there are no horror stories, no deaths etc. (and of course no positive press stories passing this good news on :rolleyes:) A lot of the public is unaware that more and more non-AFOs are carrying the weapon each month and yet there's no flood of stories to the media.
Kind of makes the Taser hype that was whipped up a while back look a tad silly...
the film showed the officer sparying the yob from a few inches, yet the scene around showed just the girlfirend and a passer by on the floor, the officer's actions could have easily incited more yobs to wade in.
That seems to be a speculation, I still suggest we're better to wait and see the outcome of an enquiry before we make any guesses on limited facts.
Although it is difficult to see, it also appears as though the officer strikes the woman in the face. Now, to all of those who will inevitably say, "well she shouldn't be shouting at the officer," how would that be justified by smacking her in the face?
Thing is though, why shouldn't she be shouting at the Officer. He's just an ordinary bloke, and a public servant, not Lord God Almighty. If he can't take a few words of protest, without resorting to actions like those of a wife beater, it's a pretty poor show.
If a woman shouted at me in the street, and I slapped her face, wrested her to the ground, and put cuffs on her, I'd be looking at a stretch inside. But they can act like common bullies with impunity, and getaway with it.
What did I dodge? I've never called driving offenders yobs, so why call a Police Officer who you say was convicted of an offence that doesn't exist one?
If you look at my first post on this thread, you'll see I've stated the actions in this case do not appear to be justified. If that is proven to be so, the Officer will get all he deserves.
The thread developed from there into yet more generalised Police bashing from some, and i responded to that.
As for jumping in, you are one that always comes in and attacks the Police without any specific facts,and then get the hump when you are challenged.
Sorry, but you do dodge questions and pertinent points, DP. You did so a number of times in the recent big Tony Martin thread. I'm raising that because you frequently refer to what I have said in other unrelated threads, in order to use it against me.
why methods should be reviewed,---well let me see now.
The slap in the chops method, using choke holds until innocent women in betting shops pass out, children bent double, until they could no longer breathe and choke to death in cells, adults and kids being forcibly stripped searched without good cause.
None of which is trained to officers. So again, why should training be changed???
All these methods, either caught on CCTV, mobile or reported on need to be reviewed and were/are being changed.
If someone doing something they shouldn't have been has been caught on camera and dealt with that's certainly no need to change the training, because they were doing something they shouldn't have been doing which points out it's not what all officers do, there's no an issue with training and you get an odd minority issue that some people get hysterical about and call for changes.
Agreed but as I stated earlier completely inappropriate in this instance IMO.
That may be the case, however I'm waiting for the full facts to emerge before making a decision. I know what it looks like, but I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, even for cops.
And where does that leave your comments on observational evidence you were banging on about about in another thread,
I can give you link to it if you wish, it's quite recent.
I'm sure you can, however you're clearly unable to distinguish the difference between me pointing out on another thread that someone's making an assumption instead of dealing with facts and me stating that I'll wait for facts to be delivered instead of a small news article showing a few seconds worth of footage and not providing all the facts of the evidence.
You are of course welcome to your own opinion, I'm just one of those people who prefer to get the full facts instead of a knee jerk reaction when presented with little information. If you're happy jerking that knee, keep on moving
The reason I say these sorts of incidents are not unusual is because I am geting used to seeing them being reported on the news and in the papers.
Despite the papers being over eager to jump on anything along these lines and not so happy to reflect on any good work done that often, I still don't think we see things like this often on the news and certainly not enough to think they are 'usual occurrences'. And even though these memories stick in your mind, does part of you not think about the number of officers working per day and the incidents dealt with by each force? Look at the ratio.
I don't claim that this is the normal way of going about things or that it is encouraged in any way. Of course I only have a laymans perspective on this but you can't just say that because my experience is limited that my point is invalid. I admit to not having a full understanding of police operations. You are also right that I do not have an entirely positive atitude towards the police but that is down to my own personal experiences. Some good, some woefuly bad but I should have kept that bias out of this argument.
Your negative attitude towards the police showed in your posts and made me wonder if perhaps you had an agenda for criticism and this incident openly invited you to do so, however whether that's the case or not at least you were honest in admitting your feelings about the service which is refreshing on here at times.
To hear you talk one would have to say there is nothing significantly wrong with how the police behave when in some cases that is clearly not the case.
I would suggest that on the whole there is nothing wrong, however there is the odd bad apple although they are in an extreme minority. Just as in any line of work.
Harold Shipman killed a load of patients, does that mean it's fair to suggest all GPs are badly trained and it's 'usual' for them to be killers?
I know from first hand experience that it is not or at least was not uncommon for officers not to be visably displaying their numbers for which any one of a number of excuses is proffered.
I don't know where you live, but where I am everyone shows their numbers whenever on duty. We have extremely strict supervision when it comes to this, to not show them just isn't worth it and none of us have anything to hide.
Although you say it's a statisticaly small amount of incidents it is still the case that some officers are behaving unacceptably so if as you say it is not a training issue and it is not a systemic one then what do you think should be done to make sure the police do not behave like this so that they can be filmed. What in your opinion should change.
What should change? Perhaps your over reaction which appears to still insult the majority of the service, very unfairly.
Every line of work has the odd idiot seeded in there. Look at the Army, we get the odd story about how soldiers have mistreated people while abroad in the current campaigns, is this then 'usual' behaviour for the Army and should we now insist that all our soldiers are badly trained?
Going back to Shipman, same issue?
There are mistakes, acts of a malicious nature and other issues that can rear there ugly heads occasionally with the odd, extremely minority number, in pretty much all lines of work. To then suggest the whole industry or other employees are the same is unfair to that industry not to mention inaccurate.
Can you not at least speculate? You did say that there could be some justification, I am simply asking under what circumstances this could be. If you can come up with a plausible reason it might help your argument.
I'm not trying to argue / defend him. I'm stating my position, I'm waiting for the facts before making a decision.
Exactly whose fault is it that the public peception of how the police behave is so low? Is it all down to us simply not understanding how things are done or what a hard time police have?
I'd say part of the blame lies with people like you. Quick to judge, quick to blame, without knowing the full facts or actually being at the incident. There's no room for innocent until proven guilty it seems and you've already created posts calling for training to be changed and suggesting there are problems throughout. As people read this sort of stuff it churns in their head, the more impressionable folk may start to think along those lines instead of seeking out fact.
As a matter of fact it took only a few seconds. These things tend to stick in ones mind.
Indeed they do, in fact most police officers should certainly remember it as they actually use that video in training now when giving the diversity input. It's getting a little old now and someone who has a lot of experience of police work and someone who really cannot stand racism I can assure you that such officers are rare and if they appear are quickly dealt with.
However, your assertion that these "yobs" would have been identified, it is important to remember that they were actually serving officers by this time.
These were officers being trained at Bruche, a facility that has since been closed down. They were new officers, going through initial training. They had been sent to places like the Sedgley Park centre that we saw on the film to continue their training and spent a short time in company with tutor officers, so they were just in the process of becoming officers on the beat and leaving the training environment. They were still on probation and were quite rightly dismissed. It's also worth pointing out that Bruche had thousands of officers pass through it on a regular basis, training officers from many forces, and even at the time of that being made there were plenty of other officers there too and yet they were only able to find a handful of racist people trying to make a career in the police service. Once the evidence was presented, they were out without question.
I also recall the maker trying to make a second version of the film and having to rely desperately on old material from the first because lessons had been learnt from that film including a difference in recruitment and training and racism as well as other issues is really tackled well.
The more alarming aspect of this, was the postures adopted by the long serving officers, who were charged with training these new recruits in diversity and tolerance. Surely this is what should worry you even more. They were not found out in a reasonable amount of time, they had been in the force for decades.
'Old Sweats', still not representitive of the majority, but sadly some leftovers from a time when such activities perhaps weren't as questioned as they are now, nowadays such attitudes are questioned and the people removed.
Yes, which is why I was shocked that lala, an experienced officer should question or express surprise why current methods shouldn't be reviewed.
Perhaps you should take greater care in reading the thread then. My comments were in relation to a user having read a small article on an accusation and then, based on that article, claimed that the police training and recruitment needed changing. I'm all for constant review, that's how we get better - including the recommendation to issue Taser to all - but to have a knee jerk reaction based on an article seems a bit extreme.
But some times the only way widespread change or reviews comes about is because of report/s like this.
Not really. This report shows that there's a possibility that an individual may have acted incorrectly. If that's the case then the individual needs dealing with, however this is not standard practice, so a mass review of the whole force based on the single, unusual action of one surely doesn't seem right even in your world?
Yes, lala will but doesn't see the need even when an action is questionable.
An action being questionable, by one person, wouldn't suggest to me that the many, many thousands of other officers are acting wrong. One person doesn't speak or act for everyone and to tar everyone with the same brush is something I don't like doing, but if you allow yourself to have prejudice views against the police that's your decision.
So, we can take that there are no circumstances where this action my be justified?
You can take it however you wish, my initial point was that spraying CS so close can be justified depending on the circumstances of an incident. Whether it was in this one remains to be seen.
Not at all. I have answered the question and you seem unable to interpret the answer.
If you look back at the question where you raised this, #83, you'll see I gave a valid answer. I genuinely don't know what the circumstances were surrounding his CS usage as I wasn't there.
However if you want to know when it can be used at such close quarters, if the circumstances were that it was required to prevent injury or death then it could be justified. It all depends on the circumstances. I could of course make up a situation where it would be justified to use it at close range, however that would be irrelevant to this case. In terms of this case, I cannot speculate as I wasn't there and I'm not an armchair judge.
Under what circumstances would these actions ever be considered to be justified? It's a simple enough question, I would have thought.
The news article itself gives an example of when it would be justified, what more do you want? Did you not actually watch the video we are debating here before joining in???
Comments
Unfortunatly there far more arseholes on the street, then problem police. I can imagine quite a few police would be off the street over minor things that have been exagarrated.
Some of the public seem to want to know everything nowdays, especially the armchair pundits who think they have the solution to everything, and maybe even too much time on their hands.
But the choke holds were approved as was the doubling up of people, they were HO approved methods that are no longer allowed.
btw again a bit OT but was anyone else struck by the disparity that when the powers that be were saying that there had been no police wrong doing when they shot unarmed DeMenezes to death in cold blood at the same time a copper was being sacked for clipping a yob around the ear...
I am sorry Deep Purple, but that really is quite a bit of nonsense. Are you seriously trying to tell us that the officers in the Tomlinson case, for example, didn't close ranks? That they stood by and allowed the thug in a uniform to knock an innocent man to the ground? Those eight or so officers standing next to him, knew exactly who the offender was but kept quiet about it, (especially with the practise of removing ones shoulder number). Are we to believe that ALL officers will grass his "mate" up when he has done wrong?
And so they should. The day we allow this behaviour go unchallenged will be a very bad day for our civil liberty. But isn't it about time they stopped happening altogether?
There was a reason for that. One, I feel, still exists today.
One would hope so, but incidents such as this do not go a long way to support that theory.
It depends on which human your referring to.
What, in your opinion, are real Police on the streets?
To what case are you referring?
EDIT: To correct quotes.
no idea and i am not going to go searching for a link on it. I just remember it being reported (completely seperately) around the same time as Menezes - he may have been suspended rather than sacked
eta
didn't see the bit in my quote:
by real Police i mean Police with full Police powers not the community police
So they have been changed then, as often happens.
Well the public are not kept informed of the ongoing enquiry into anyone else, so in that respect the Police are treated the same. Where they differ is that they can be subject to two lots of punishment if found guilty, in the courts, and through an internal tribunal.
As for taking them off public duties, at what point does that happen? A huge number of trivial, and unfounded complaints are made all the time. If everyone subject of such complaints was removed from full time duties, numbers would be greatly reduced.
In the case of very serious allegations, suspension, or removal from such duties does happen, and cases can be investigated by the independent IPCC.
As for other complaints, they are dealt with by Professional Standards Depts, and anyone subject of such enquiries will tell you they are not pleasant, and not done in a way to get you off.
The job has not protected the Tomlinson Officers. They are still subject of action.
It would be great if everyone behaved exactly as they should, in all walks of life, but that is asking the impossible.
Few complained in the old days, because those on the receiving end understood the standards across the board, and took it. I'm certainly not saying that is right, but by relating this, it shows how things have changed for the better in modern times.
All humans are capable of misbehaving, and the Police are no different.
Yes, which is why I was shocked that lala, an experienced officer should question or express surprise why current methods shouldn't be reviewed.
They are reviewed all the time, but I think his point was more in answer to widespread change because of reports like this one.
Lala will know things are under constant review more than most.
I am wondering what the officer involved was trying to prevent the man from saying?
And please don't for one minute compare Taser use in the US with that of the UK, the two countries are different, policing is very different and the usage of Taser in the states is something you'd never find acceptable over here.
Over the last 24 months Taser issuing to officers has grown at a large rate, and yet there are no horror stories, no deaths etc. (and of course no positive press stories passing this good news on :rolleyes:) A lot of the public is unaware that more and more non-AFOs are carrying the weapon each month and yet there's no flood of stories to the media.
Kind of makes the Taser hype that was whipped up a while back look a tad silly...
That seems to be a speculation, I still suggest we're better to wait and see the outcome of an enquiry before we make any guesses on limited facts.
What an unusual request...
Pretty appalling I'd say. There was no need to CS the guy whilst he was already helpless.
Of course the Officer will be whitewashed, as ever.
Incidentally, talking about the G20, I notice it's gone very quiet over the Ian Tomlinson death.
Thing is though, why shouldn't she be shouting at the Officer. He's just an ordinary bloke, and a public servant, not Lord God Almighty. If he can't take a few words of protest, without resorting to actions like those of a wife beater, it's a pretty poor show.
If a woman shouted at me in the street, and I slapped her face, wrested her to the ground, and put cuffs on her, I'd be looking at a stretch inside. But they can act like common bullies with impunity, and getaway with it.
Sorry, but you do dodge questions and pertinent points, DP. You did so a number of times in the recent big Tony Martin thread. I'm raising that because you frequently refer to what I have said in other unrelated threads, in order to use it against me.
If someone doing something they shouldn't have been has been caught on camera and dealt with that's certainly no need to change the training, because they were doing something they shouldn't have been doing which points out it's not what all officers do, there's no an issue with training and you get an odd minority issue that some people get hysterical about and call for changes.
That may be the case, however I'm waiting for the full facts to emerge before making a decision. I know what it looks like, but I still believe in innocent until proven guilty, even for cops.
I'm sure you can, however you're clearly unable to distinguish the difference between me pointing out on another thread that someone's making an assumption instead of dealing with facts and me stating that I'll wait for facts to be delivered instead of a small news article showing a few seconds worth of footage and not providing all the facts of the evidence.
You are of course welcome to your own opinion, I'm just one of those people who prefer to get the full facts instead of a knee jerk reaction when presented with little information. If you're happy jerking that knee, keep on moving
Your negative attitude towards the police showed in your posts and made me wonder if perhaps you had an agenda for criticism and this incident openly invited you to do so, however whether that's the case or not at least you were honest in admitting your feelings about the service which is refreshing on here at times. I would suggest that on the whole there is nothing wrong, however there is the odd bad apple although they are in an extreme minority. Just as in any line of work.
Harold Shipman killed a load of patients, does that mean it's fair to suggest all GPs are badly trained and it's 'usual' for them to be killers?
I don't know where you live, but where I am everyone shows their numbers whenever on duty. We have extremely strict supervision when it comes to this, to not show them just isn't worth it and none of us have anything to hide. What should change? Perhaps your over reaction which appears to still insult the majority of the service, very unfairly.
Every line of work has the odd idiot seeded in there. Look at the Army, we get the odd story about how soldiers have mistreated people while abroad in the current campaigns, is this then 'usual' behaviour for the Army and should we now insist that all our soldiers are badly trained?
Going back to Shipman, same issue?
There are mistakes, acts of a malicious nature and other issues that can rear there ugly heads occasionally with the odd, extremely minority number, in pretty much all lines of work. To then suggest the whole industry or other employees are the same is unfair to that industry not to mention inaccurate.
I'm not trying to argue / defend him. I'm stating my position, I'm waiting for the facts before making a decision.
These were officers being trained at Bruche, a facility that has since been closed down. They were new officers, going through initial training. They had been sent to places like the Sedgley Park centre that we saw on the film to continue their training and spent a short time in company with tutor officers, so they were just in the process of becoming officers on the beat and leaving the training environment. They were still on probation and were quite rightly dismissed. It's also worth pointing out that Bruche had thousands of officers pass through it on a regular basis, training officers from many forces, and even at the time of that being made there were plenty of other officers there too and yet they were only able to find a handful of racist people trying to make a career in the police service. Once the evidence was presented, they were out without question.
I also recall the maker trying to make a second version of the film and having to rely desperately on old material from the first because lessons had been learnt from that film including a difference in recruitment and training and racism as well as other issues is really tackled well.
'Old Sweats', still not representitive of the majority, but sadly some leftovers from a time when such activities perhaps weren't as questioned as they are now, nowadays such attitudes are questioned and the people removed. That's up to you, you are welcome to your own opinion, but I know differently. The job does not tolerate racism or any other issues like that.
Perhaps you should take greater care in reading the thread then. My comments were in relation to a user having read a small article on an accusation and then, based on that article, claimed that the police training and recruitment needed changing. I'm all for constant review, that's how we get better - including the recommendation to issue Taser to all - but to have a knee jerk reaction based on an article seems a bit extreme.
An action being questionable, by one person, wouldn't suggest to me that the many, many thousands of other officers are acting wrong. One person doesn't speak or act for everyone and to tar everyone with the same brush is something I don't like doing, but if you allow yourself to have prejudice views against the police that's your decision.
I didn't see any evidence of the officer trying to silence the man, and CS spray doesn't stop you talking.
So, we can take that there are no circumstances where this action my be justified?
You can take it however you wish, my initial point was that spraying CS so close can be justified depending on the circumstances of an incident. Whether it was in this one remains to be seen.
Under what circumstances would these actions ever be considered to be justified? It's a simple enough question, I would have thought.
If you look back at the question where you raised this, #83, you'll see I gave a valid answer. I genuinely don't know what the circumstances were surrounding his CS usage as I wasn't there.
However if you want to know when it can be used at such close quarters, if the circumstances were that it was required to prevent injury or death then it could be justified. It all depends on the circumstances. I could of course make up a situation where it would be justified to use it at close range, however that would be irrelevant to this case. In terms of this case, I cannot speculate as I wasn't there and I'm not an armchair judge.
The news article itself gives an example of when it would be justified, what more do you want? Did you not actually watch the video we are debating here before joining in???