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.
No, you weren't there. But surely you can see that the man was subdued and helpless. Therefore he didn't represent a further threat. The circumstances are quite clear.
Why then should he CS the guy ?
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???
I'm not entirely sure which video you are referring to, but if it is the one in the OP, then the poster you were replying to actually posted the link in which it appeared.
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.
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???
You gave no answer at all, except to say that you were not there. The question was in case you have forgotten:
"Under what circumstances would these actions ever be considered to be justified?"
The news article only gave examples of when it would not be justified, I am asking you, seeing as you were the one who suggested it, when it would be justified. I would have thought that a serving police officer, who has apparently been highly trained, would know the answer.
No, you weren't there. But surely you can see that the man was subdued and helpless. Therefore he didn't represent a further threat. The circumstances are quite clear.
Why then should he CS the guy ?
I'm not entirely sure which video you are referring to, but if it is the one in the OP, then the poster you were replying to actually posted the link in which it appeared.
It doesn't appear that Lalaland's observational powers seem to be working.
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.
No problem with that, but which pertinent point have I dodged?
You gave no answer at all, except to say that you were not there. The question was in case you have forgotten:
"Under what circumstances would these actions ever be considered to be justified?"
The news article only gave examples of when it would not be justified, I am asking you, seeing as you were the one who suggested it, when it would be justified. I would have thought that a serving police officer, who has apparently been highly trained, would know the answer.
I think lalalands point of not making something up is relevant, because any attempt to make up something will be shot down in flames.
However, there could be reasons, although I have no idea if they apply, and I will repeat that the use from what we see appears unjustified.
It could be that a bigger problem was going on away from the camera, and Officers needed assistance. Although cuffed, it does not always mean someone is compliant. To bring someone under control when that is happening, brute force has to be used, or some other method, and CS is preferred to brute force.
I'm not saying that happened here, but several of you are going on about whether it could ever be appropriate, and that is an example of where it could.
No problem with that, but which pertinent point have I dodged?
do you think a sober police officer trained and evaluated
not to mention paid not to use or be violent
is any less dangerous than as you put it a "drunken yob "
out of his head and without the powers of reason that sobriety brings ?
do you think a sober police officer trained and evaluated
not to mention paid not to use or be violent
is any less dangerous than as you put it a "drunken yob "
out of his head and without the powers of reason that sobriety brings ?
I think lalalands point of not making something up is relevant, because any attempt to make up something will be shot down in flames.
However, there could be reasons, although I have no idea if they apply, and I will repeat that the use from what we see appears unjustified.
It could be that a bigger problem was going on away from the camera, and Officers needed assistance. Although cuffed, it does not always mean someone is compliant. To bring someone under control when that is happening, brute force has to be used, or some other method, and CS is preferred to brute force.
I'm not saying that happened here, but several of you are going on about whether it could ever be appropriate, and that is an example of where it could.
But three officers restraining a cuffed man, there should be no need for any further help from CS.
These three men have now been withdrawn from front line operations; about time.
But then Lalaland did say that were circumstances when it would be justified, I am still waiting to read about which ones.
But three officers restraining a cuffed man, there should be no need for any further help from CS.
These three men have now been withdrawn from front line operations; about time.
But then Lalaland did say that were circumstances when it would be justified, I am still waiting to read about which ones.
The example I gave was one. If the bigger picture required Officers getting this bloke in a van quickly, and he was resisting, then force of a kind could be used to subdue him quickly. That could be physical force, or CS. I would have preferred tweaking the cuffs, but that can cause injury, so CS can be preferred.
It is unlikely that happened, but we dont really know. On the face of it, this was unjustified, which we have both acknowledged.
I don't want to take this thread off topic. But if you care to re-open the Tony Martin thread, I will gladly point them all out to you.
Of more importance to the issue here, you do dodge points DP. You can deny all you like, but it is true.
So what have I dodged here?
I think you'll find everyone we disagree with has the appearance of dodging points if they do not give the answer we want.
I think I was subjected to what could be called a personal attack by the person making the allegation here, and I dont think the point he was making bore much relevance.
Looks like some pissed up arseholes getting what they deserve.
The police officer spraying the lad with the spray was totally out of order. He used that spray when the suspect was absolutely no threat to him. He needs to be warned very firmly indeed about it, however, I suspect he'll not be punished at all. This was unbelievable. Police acting like a bunch of amateurs.
Of course. You soon realise what types they are when they start behaving like obnoxious yobs.
You also soon realise what type of officers they are when they start behaving like idiots like the ones in the video in the link in the first post. You ALWAYS are defending the police with rose coloured glasses on. The lad turned his face away after being sprayed in the face with pepper spray, but oh no, the copper wasn't having any of that. He then leant over a bit and started spraying him again. If he's made a formal complaint against that officer, good.
I think you'll find everyone we disagree with has the appearance of dodging points if they do not give the answer we want.
I think I was subjected to what could be called a personal attack by the person making the allegation here, and I dont think the point he was making bore much relevance.
I don't know what you've dodged here. I'm simply making the generic point, that you do dodge points. I wouldn't make such an accusation if it weren't true. Believe me.
You also soon realise what type of officers they are when they start behaving like idiots like the ones in the video in the link in the first post. You ALWAYS are defending the police with rose coloured glasses on.
Did you read the posts where I have said this Officer looks to be wrong.
I have gone on the defensive against the usual wider ranged attacks.
As for obnoxious drunken yobs, they are easily identifiable. Would you disagree with that?
I don't know what you've dodged here. I'm simply making the generic point, that you do dodge points. I wouldn't make such an accusation if it weren't true. Believe me.
Sorry
Well, I disagree. By making the accusation here, when it is unfounded, it will continue, unfairly.
I say what I want here, and am usually in the minority, so dont always personally address every post. I'm not sure anyone does that.
Did you read the posts where I have said this Officer looks to be wrong.
I have gone on the defensive against the usual wider ranged attacks.
As for obnoxious drunken yobs, they are easily identifiable. Would you disagree with that?
I apologise then. I just like people to be slagged off when they deserve to be slagged off. And yes, drunken yobs are easily identifiable. I thought you were venting all this on the lad in that video being sprayed.
hes using violent actions sober when hes paid and trained not to :eek:
and fellow officers in the pressence of such an arrest
not taking the guy to one side are almost worse
The police officer spraying the lad with the spray was totally out of order. He used that spray when the suspect was absolutely no threat to him. He needs to be warned very firmly indeed about it, however, I suspect he'll not be punished at all. This was unbelievable. Police acting like a bunch of amateurs.
Absolutely, especially when you read this:-
Ms Ferguson said: "CS gas should be used as a weapon of last resort and certainly should not be used at the range it was in the video because of its dangerous side effects."
This is a bit rich:-
A 40-year-old woman was given a police caution for using threatening behaviour likely to cause alarm and distress.
As if what the police were doing, didn't. Whatever she was doing, I bet it didn't involve physical violence on their scale.
I apologise then. I just like people to be slagged off when they deserve to be slagged off. And yes, drunken yobs are easily identifiable. I thought you were venting all this on the lad in that video being sprayed.
Thank you. I have not commented on the person being arrested. I was talking in general terms about the widespread drunken yobbery on our streets.
hes using violent actions sober when hes paid and trained not to :eek:
and fellow officers in the pressence of such an arrest
not taking the guy to one side are almost worse
Of all the videos I've seen, they all seem to contain the same scenes. A copper committing a possibly illegal act and the rest of them just not bothering at all. However, I've been told that this is because if ever the other coppers need help some day, they'll then receive it for not stopping their colleague whilst they were doing something that was wrong.
hes using violent actions sober when hes paid and trained not to :eek:
and fellow officers in the pressence of such an arrest
not taking the guy to one side are almost worse
This is one incident, which is under investigation. I have said he appears to be in the wrong. If it is as it appears, then he deserves all he'll get.
You took it further than the one incident, when I mentioned drunken yobs.
There is no doubt about the scale of that problem, and any visit to an A&E Dept at night will result in finding victims of drunken yobs, rather than sober Police.
Of all the videos I've seen, they all seem to contain the same scenes. A copper committing a possibly illegal act and the rest of them just not bothering at all. However, I've been told that this is because if ever the other coppers need help some day, they'll then receive it for not stopping their colleague whilst they were doing something that was wrong.
I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense, and one of the reasons I get exasperated with some of the stuff that appears here.
Every Officer is different, and there is no such policy in place.
Well, I disagree. By making the accusation here, when it is unfounded, it will continue, unfairly.
I say what I want here, and am usually in the minority, so dont always personally address every post. I'm not sure anyone does that.
It's not the posts you don't reply to, which are so much the issue. It's the ones you do reply to, in which you don't address the questions being asked.
Of all the videos I've seen, they all seem to contain the same scenes. A copper committing a possibly illegal act and the rest of them just not bothering at all. However, I've been told that this is because if ever the other coppers need help some day, they'll then receive it for not stopping their colleague whilst they were doing something that was wrong.
Very good point. We saw that in the Ian Tomlinson incident, par excellence.
This is one incident, which is under investigation. I have said he appears to be in the wrong. If it is as it appears, then he deserves all he'll get.
You took it further than the one incident, when I mentioned drunken yobs.
There is no doubt about the scale of that problem, and any visit to an A&E Dept at night will result in finding victims of drunken yobs, rather than sober Police.
its not one incident though purple as the thread title suggests its a few .
there you go again diverting away with dialogue out of cops on camera about yobs in a&e
this guy was cuffed ,at g20 he was walking away hands in pocket .
your comparision again suggests a bias those vicyims in a& e will have the attackers arrested if caught the same is not
applicable to police officers even with video evidence .
Comments
No, you weren't there. But surely you can see that the man was subdued and helpless. Therefore he didn't represent a further threat. The circumstances are quite clear.
Why then should he CS the guy ?
I'm not entirely sure which video you are referring to, but if it is the one in the OP, then the poster you were replying to actually posted the link in which it appeared.
You gave no answer at all, except to say that you were not there. The question was in case you have forgotten:
"Under what circumstances would these actions ever be considered to be justified?"
The news article only gave examples of when it would not be justified, I am asking you, seeing as you were the one who suggested it, when it would be justified. I would have thought that a serving police officer, who has apparently been highly trained, would know the answer.
It doesn't appear that Lalaland's observational powers seem to be working.
No problem with that, but which pertinent point have I dodged?
I think lalalands point of not making something up is relevant, because any attempt to make up something will be shot down in flames.
However, there could be reasons, although I have no idea if they apply, and I will repeat that the use from what we see appears unjustified.
It could be that a bigger problem was going on away from the camera, and Officers needed assistance. Although cuffed, it does not always mean someone is compliant. To bring someone under control when that is happening, brute force has to be used, or some other method, and CS is preferred to brute force.
I'm not saying that happened here, but several of you are going on about whether it could ever be appropriate, and that is an example of where it could.
do you think a sober police officer trained and evaluated
not to mention paid not to use or be violent
is any less dangerous than as you put it a "drunken yob "
out of his head and without the powers of reason that sobriety brings ?
Yes..
But three officers restraining a cuffed man, there should be no need for any further help from CS.
These three men have now been withdrawn from front line operations; about time.
But then Lalaland did say that were circumstances when it would be justified, I am still waiting to read about which ones.
The example I gave was one. If the bigger picture required Officers getting this bloke in a van quickly, and he was resisting, then force of a kind could be used to subdue him quickly. That could be physical force, or CS. I would have preferred tweaking the cuffs, but that can cause injury, so CS can be preferred.
It is unlikely that happened, but we dont really know. On the face of it, this was unjustified, which we have both acknowledged.
I don't want to take this thread off topic. But if you care to re-open the Tony Martin thread, I will gladly point them all out to you.
Of more importance to the issue here, you do dodge points DP. You can deny all you like, but it is true.
So what have I dodged here?
I think you'll find everyone we disagree with has the appearance of dodging points if they do not give the answer we want.
I think I was subjected to what could be called a personal attack by the person making the allegation here, and I dont think the point he was making bore much relevance.
The police officer spraying the lad with the spray was totally out of order. He used that spray when the suspect was absolutely no threat to him. He needs to be warned very firmly indeed about it, however, I suspect he'll not be punished at all. This was unbelievable. Police acting like a bunch of amateurs.
You also soon realise what type of officers they are when they start behaving like idiots like the ones in the video in the link in the first post. You ALWAYS are defending the police with rose coloured glasses on. The lad turned his face away after being sprayed in the face with pepper spray, but oh no, the copper wasn't having any of that. He then leant over a bit and started spraying him again. If he's made a formal complaint against that officer, good.
I don't know what you've dodged here. I'm simply making the generic point, that you do dodge points. I wouldn't make such an accusation if it weren't true. Believe me.
Sorry
Did you read the posts where I have said this Officer looks to be wrong.
I have gone on the defensive against the usual wider ranged attacks.
As for obnoxious drunken yobs, they are easily identifiable. Would you disagree with that?
Well, I disagree. By making the accusation here, when it is unfounded, it will continue, unfairly.
I say what I want here, and am usually in the minority, so dont always personally address every post. I'm not sure anyone does that.
I apologise then. I just like people to be slagged off when they deserve to be slagged off. And yes, drunken yobs are easily identifiable. I thought you were venting all this on the lad in that video being sprayed.
and fellow officers in the pressence of such an arrest
not taking the guy to one side are almost worse
Absolutely, especially when you read this:-
This is a bit rich:-
As if what the police were doing, didn't. Whatever she was doing, I bet it didn't involve physical violence on their scale.
Thank you. I have not commented on the person being arrested. I was talking in general terms about the widespread drunken yobbery on our streets.
Of all the videos I've seen, they all seem to contain the same scenes. A copper committing a possibly illegal act and the rest of them just not bothering at all. However, I've been told that this is because if ever the other coppers need help some day, they'll then receive it for not stopping their colleague whilst they were doing something that was wrong.
This is one incident, which is under investigation. I have said he appears to be in the wrong. If it is as it appears, then he deserves all he'll get.
You took it further than the one incident, when I mentioned drunken yobs.
There is no doubt about the scale of that problem, and any visit to an A&E Dept at night will result in finding victims of drunken yobs, rather than sober Police.
I'm sorry, but that is just nonsense, and one of the reasons I get exasperated with some of the stuff that appears here.
Every Officer is different, and there is no such policy in place.
It's not the posts you don't reply to, which are so much the issue. It's the ones you do reply to, in which you don't address the questions being asked.
Very good point. We saw that in the Ian Tomlinson incident, par excellence.
its not one incident though purple as the thread title suggests its a few .
there you go again diverting away with dialogue out of cops on camera about yobs in a&e
this guy was cuffed ,at g20 he was walking away hands in pocket .
your comparision again suggests a bias those vicyims in a& e will have the attackers arrested if caught the same is not
applicable to police officers even with video evidence .