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 .
So we have this incident, and G20, both of which are being investigated, and both of which I have said the Officers appear to be in the wrong. That is not defending those individuals.
This thread has been taken far wider than those two incidents, so I have answered in a wider sense too. Whats wrong with that?
Your last point is far vaguer than anything I've said. Police Officers are regularly investigated. It is not as simple as you make out though, because they are the ones sent to deal with the violent among us on a daily basis, and they are allowed to use force. Brief clips of an incident do not always tell the full story, and that should be understood.
To suggest that the Police are responsible for more violence than drunken yobs is silly, and pointless.
So we have this incident, and G20, both of which are being investigated, and both of which I have said the Officers appear to be in the wrong. That is not defending those individuals.
This thread has been taken far wider than those two incidents, so I have answered in a wider sense too. Whats wrong with that?
Your last point is far vaguer than anything I've said. Police Officers are regularly investigated. It is not as simple as you make out though, because they are the ones sent to deal with the violent among us on a daily basis, and they are allowed to use force. Brief clips of an incident do not always tell the full story, and that should be understood.
To suggest that the Police are responsible for more violence than drunken yobs is silly, and pointless.
how more bloody simple do you want it , its on video with police officers as witnesses of an attack on a restrained man and officers standing by doing nothing to stop it taking place
all on video which in the shape of cctv the police claim is
failsafe evidence in any criminal case and used as evidence
if availible to convict .
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.
You mentioned reviews I responded to that, I was writing about techniques that were/are permitted to be used by the police in the exercise of their duty and should be reviewed as required.
If you are referring to this thread, I not sure anyone got hysterical but many have strong feelings about what they see as strong arm tactics.
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.
So do other people and they aren't trained, but know abuse or disproportionate behavior when they see it.
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.
No I was pointing out that clearly I understood you, that on the one hand you were slating those coming to assumptions because of what was "written" on another thread compared to here where there is photographic evidence of possible abuse, something they can clearly observe but they still faces your criticism.
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
Now who can't distinguish between a knee jerk reaction and others here expressing a simple view that the use of CS, based not on what's written but observed, was inappropriate in their opinion.
how more bloody simple do you want it , its on video with police officers as witnesses of an attack on a restrained man and officers standing by doing nothing to stop it taking place
all on video which in the shape of cctv the police claim is
failsafe evidence in any criminal case and used as evidence
if availible to convict .
And if it is proved the force was unnecessary, and he is charged, the evidence will be available.
I'm not sure which incident we are talking about now, because you change from specifics to general ones to suit, then have a go at me for defending general tactics.
In summary, the Police do a good job in very difficult circumstances. Sometimes individuals do bad things. I've no problem condemning them, but what we always get is an extension to attack all Police, which has again happened here.
And if it is proved the force was unnecessary, and he is charged, the evidence will be available.
I'm not sure which incident we are talking about now, because you change from specifics to general ones to suit, then have a go at me for defending general tactics.
In summary, the Police do a good job in very difficult circumstances. Sometimes individuals do bad things. I've no problem condemning them, but what we always get is an extension to attack all Police, which has again happened here.
I think that you're kidding yourself again Deep Purple.
He was perfectly under control. All they were doing was risking antagonising other people in the crowd who might have seen them do this which can only be a bad thing when what is needed is calm.
Thats says more about the crowd than anything else, what the hell does an arrest have to do with a crowd, mob mentality is becoming a problem in this country, everyone after a few pints is suddenly an expert in the alw and feels entitled to but in and disapprove of everything .
If you are being arrested then allow it to happen, common sense says that aggressive behaviour will not prevent it, if you feel it is worng the best thing is to co-operate , say nothing and wait until you have a solicitor with you.
With your self confessed hatred for the Police, for no particular reason, I dont think you're in a position to make such a comment.
If you have something to say about the incident, please enlighten us.
Perhaps this letter in today's Times from Leslie Rout,
Chief Superintendent (ret’d), Bury St Edmunds will persuade you to remove the rose coloured specs Deep Purple.
Perhaps this letter in today's Times from Leslie Rout,
Chief Superintendent (ret’d), Bury St Edmunds will persuade you to remove the rose coloured specs Deep Purple.
What have they learnt? More importantly, is there anything they should have learnt?
All I'll say is that trying to control those who operate outside of the law must become increasingly difficult when police officers have to operate within so many rules and regulations.
What have they learnt? More importantly, is there anything they should have learnt?
All I'll say is that trying to control those who operate outside of the law must become increasingly difficult when police officers have to operate within so many rules and regulations.
Oh I don't think they always operate within the rules and regulations !
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 ?
It's interesting to see that you agree with me that I wasn't there after I make the point that as I wasn't there I don't know the circumstances and then you demand from me an explanation for the officer's actions in those circumstances. As I've already stated, I cannot answer for the officer, I wasn't there.
We don't see everything going on and while what we do see at this time looks pretty damning, I still say that I'll be awaiting the outcome of the whole thing prior to personally deciding on my view of the officer's actions.
I recall a few years back some video of South Yorkshire officer emerged, showing him punching a female several times around the back of a nightclub. He was instantly found guilty by the usual home armchair judges and condemned, based solely on the very damning CCTV footage that showed a similar amount of information to this one. However he was cleared of any wrong doing when other evidence, the full information and an investigation showed his actions to be lawful because the full circumstances were revealed which didn't simply show him punching her. Made the armchair judges look a tad silly for making judgements without the full facts....
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.
Yes, and it appears from their next post following yours that I am replying to now that they didn't watch it properly
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 you need to watch the link again, but properly this time, because it doesn't only give examples of when it's not justified, despite what you're saying here. This makes you look very silly indeed, you posted the link, but you've not watched it properly it seems as you've missed this rather important item.
I'll quote the exact text, and audio, from the video you posted here to help you
The spray should not be used at a distance of less than one metre unless the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this cannot be avoided.
I've also made it simply for you to spot by making the part that states when it can be justified in bold. I hope that helps you and you now realise that your question was answered by your own first post and that you just didn't watch it properly or you'd have known this
It doesn't appear that Lalaland's observational powers seem to be working.
That's quite amusing that you of all people should say that, because as I've just pointed out the answer to your question was already in the video you posted. Further to that, you claimed the information wasn't there, when it was, and was plain to see.
I would suggest that it is indeed your powers of observation that are severely lacking here my friend, which is then humoured by your comments above.
You mentioned reviews I responded to that, I was writing about techniques that were/are permitted to be used by the police in the exercise of their duty and should be reviewed as required.
If you are referring to this thread, I not sure anyone got hysterical but many have strong feelings about what they see as strong arm tactics.
There were people making comments in relation to the training of all officers that appeared to be hysterical, based on the assumed actions of a few.
So do other people and they aren't trained, but know abuse or disproportionate behavior when they see it.
I'm sure most people know that too, however we're only seeing part of the picture here, not the whole situation. Yes, it looks damning at present, but some people are too keen to assume guilt based on the limited information we have. That's the difference.
No I was pointing out that clearly I understood you, that on the one hand you were slating those coming to assumptions because of what was "written" on another thread compared to here where there is photographic evidence of possible abuse, something they can clearly observe but they still faces your criticism.
You're still not quite grasping it Seacam, but that's fine I accept we're all different here.
Without wanting to drag things off topic, which it appears your thread is tipping towards, I'll quickly explain to hopefully help you understand.
On the other thread someone wrote some brief circumstances and ask for help. Others then arrived and quickly made up their own circumstances based purely on speculation and assumption.
On this thread we have a video showing part of the story, I'm wanting to wait for the full information to arrive before deciding in my own mind if I see someone as guilty, where as others are happy to condemn on the limited information we have.
There is a difference, however I see that some people on here are quicker to jump to conclusions than others, so your behaviour is to be expected.
Now who can't distinguish between a knee jerk reaction and others here expressing a simple view that the use of CS, based not on what's written but observed, was inappropriate in their opinion.
You, quite clearly.
There are people reacting in a 'knee jerk' fashion calling for all sorts in relation to training and recruitment based on partial stories in this video. That is a knee jerk reaction. If you fail to see that then fair enough, I won't mock you for it and accept we all see things differently. I being someone who waits for fact before making such decisions and there are others who immediately call for such things based on one point of view.
I recall a few years back some video of South Yorkshire officer emerged, showing him punching a female several times around the back of a nightclub. He was instantly found guilty by the usual home armchair judges and condemned, based solely on the very damning CCTV footage that showed a similar amount of information to this one. However he was cleared of any wrong doing when other evidence, the full information and an investigation showed his actions to be lawful because the full circumstances were revealed which didn't simply show him punching her. Made the armchair judges look a tad silly for making judgements without the full facts....
I know that video, I know the circumstances, the actions of that police officer was IMO over kill.
I understand the dreadfully consequences that inquiry had on that police officer and his family.
The problem with you lala is you sit pretty, have access to information others might not and able to take a narrower view but I get pretty pissed off when you and others condemn those that pass comments as armchair judges.
People may not always have the full facts, may not know what led up to an incident but 2+2 make 4 and always will with most people and in many case of police brutality/injustice, 4 is the right conclusion, no matter the findings or twisted arguments and logic.
F*ck face slapping a women in the chops like that is not acceptable, removing numbers so officers could not be identified, is unacceptable, if that makes us armchair judges, so be it but we don't need an inquiry for any of us to make reasonable comments.
The problem the police service have in this country is public perception the CS incident doesn't help, but the police service truly don't give a shit,----another nail is all it is to them.
Yesterday I read a grandmother was killed by a newish police driver, slammed right into her, doing nearly 60 in a 30 mile zone, what was the officer doing, delivering a birthday card.
To be fair to the officer he admitted his guilt but not before he was put on restricted duties, which was wrong.
When I was first aware of this case, the unbelievable nonsense/comments passed by other officers that came to their colleagues defense, quite indefensible.
Things like that above don't help.
You seem to feel lala that others shouldn't come to conclusions before the full facts are known,
on a level playing field I would agree, but police services across the country are not truefull with the facts as expected of them and don't deal with the public on a level playing field.
The situation remains, a them and us scenario.
Level playing field, how could that be so when until recently under certain circumstances police officers were allowed to swap or look at each others notes.
And you and I know lala it hasn't stopped this practice, it's just not allowed that's all.
So lala get your arse out of your armchair and instead on being judgmental of others, just see what things are for what they are and in the case of the CS incident, yob, drunken w*nker the idiot was behaving like, the use of CS doesn't look condemning, it is, it was completely unnecessary and a breach of the rules under the circumstances.
You know what seacam, you do everything you accuse lala of doing, but from the other side of the fence.
The Officer hitting the woman in south Yorks was doing nothing wrong. This case looks like the Officer is in the wrong, although we dont know for sure at the moment.
You know what seacam, you do everything you accuse lala of doing, but from the other side of the fence.
The Officer hitting the woman in south Yorks was doing nothing wrong. This case looks like the Officer is in the wrong, although we dont know for sure at the moment.
But that's my point Deep, it's my opinion, not because I am being an armchair judge.
Don't you get it Deep, " This case looks like the Officer is in the wrong"---looks, it deeply offends public opinion and trust that this officer still has a job.
And what does removing badges ID look like Deep.
What does it look like Deep when the public learns the Met have been advising/selling to the country that protects the killers of Yvonne Fletcher, their services.
You may think Deep I have a go constantly at the police even having serving officers in my family but I know where my loyalties lay.
My kids have to go out there and face public perception of their office.
EDIT,
You know what seacam, you do everything you accuse lala of doing, but from the other side of the fence.
You prove my point, "the other side of the the fence" the them and us I speak of.
I know that video, I know the circumstances, the actions of that police officer was IMO over kill.
However that's your view as someone looking in from the outside, making a decision based on only the facts released to the public and making a decision with no experience or expertise in the area concerned. You are welcome to your own opinion of course, however I would suggest that this highlights the issues with how views differ to investigations.
I understand the dreadfully consequences that inquiry had on that police officer and his family.
Yes, a dreadful outcome, and one that I feel some of the blame lies partly with the armchair judges that we often see on forums and threads such as this one.
The problem with you lala is you sit pretty, have access to information others might not and able to take a narrower view but I get pretty pissed off when you and others condemn those that pass comments as armchair judges.
I have no access to information concerning either of the incidents discussed here. And as for comments relating to arm chair judges, perhaps there are those of us equally concerned about people who sit behind a keyboard and make decisions of guilt when they know little or nothing about an incident, especially when you yourself highlight the outcome of the unfortunate SYP bobby above after going through a similar ordeal....
People may not always have the full facts, may not know what led up to an incident but 2+2 make 4 and always will with most people and in many case of police brutality/injustice, 4 is the right conclusion, no matter the findings or twisted arguments and logic.
Are you really suggesting that the 2 + 2 of the people simply viewing a press article arrives at a more accurate conclusion than that found by an official investigation presented with the full facts and not relying on a press report?? I think there in itself, the issue of the arm chair is highlighted...
face slapping a women in the chops like that is not acceptable, removing numbers so officers could not be identified, is unacceptable, if that makes us armchair judges, so be it but we don't need an inquiry for any of us to make reasonable comments.
Look back over some comments made in this thread, you can't quickly gloss over some of the knee jerk reactions made with nothing more than a press report and part of a story.
The problem the police service have in this country is public perception the CS incident doesn't help, but the police service truly don't give a shit,----another nail is all it is to them.
You're completely wrong here. The fact that so much effort goes in to public relations and being PC highlights quite the opposite of what you suggest. If the police really didn't care, and again I think your use of foul language is a little uncalled for while making your point, then you'd find a completely different police service in the UK.
Yesterday I read a grandmother was killed by a newish police driver, slammed right into her, doing nearly 60 in a 30 mile zone, what was the officer doing, delivering a birthday card.
To be fair to the officer he admitted his guilt but not before he was put on restricted duties, which was wrong.
When I was first aware of this case, the unbelievable nonsense/comments passed by other officers that came to their colleagues defense, quite indefensible.
Things like that above don't help.
And yet as a response and pursuit trained driver myself I have never done anything as stupid as that or abused my position, neither have any of my colleagues to my knowledge. Again I would say this is the stupidity of one person, not the actions of a service and I couldn't even being to guess the number of police vehicle usage each day that goes without incident.
You seem to feel lala that others shouldn't come to conclusions before the full facts are known,
People are entitled to their own views and opinions, however if they enter them to a debate as we have here then I will debate with them. I am a person who believes in innocent until proven guilty, sadly there are others on here who don't appear to share the same view, hence the situation we're in now.
on a level playing field I would agree, but police services across the country are not truefull with the facts as expected of them and don't deal with the public on a level playing field.
I don't agree. An investigation is in progress, which means information won't be publicly released. This is the same for public or police officer while there's an investigation going on. There's been no lack of truth that I am aware of here by the officer's force unless you can show different?
I know of officers found guilty of offences just as members of the public have been. From what I've personally seen, the officers got harsher sentences for the same offences. It is perhaps a 'them and us' situation in some ways, but one that sees the officer coming off worse if found guilty.
Level playing field, how could that be so when until recently under certain circumstances police officers were allowed to swap or look at each others notes.
And you and I know lala it hasn't stopped this practice, it's just not allowed that's all.
So lala get your arse out of your armchair and instead on being judgmental of others, just see what things are for what they are and in the case of the CS incident, yob, drunken w*nker the idiot was behaving like, the use of CS doesn't look condemning, it is, it was completely unnecessary and a breach of the rules under the circumstances.
Your abusive language suggests to me that you're angry while typing this and perhaps that has affected your posts, who knows. However you appear to be judging this person on limited information, so you get comfy in that armchair and continue as you wish, I'll await the outcome before making my decision on them
To DP, as ever your following post was correct, I think Seacam has been blinded by their anger and sadly proven the opposite of what they were arguing about in the first place
But that's my point Deep, it's my opinion, not because I am being an armchair judge.
Don't you get it Deep, " This case looks like the Officer is in the wrong"---looks, it deeply offends public opinion and trust that this officer still has a job.
You say this now, but in your last post you made the following comment
the use of CS doesn't look condemning, it is, it was completely unnecessary and a breach of the rules under the circumstances.
You clearly state that it didn't LOOK to be condemning, you stated that it IS condemning. That's a declaration that you are making, a judgement, stating that you are already at your conclusion of the incident and are confident to state your judgement without seeing the full facts. That to me is an armchair judge, knowing little but stating all.
What does it look like Deep when the public learns the Met have been advising/selling to the country that protects the killers of Yvonne Fletcher, their services.
You may think Deep I have a go constantly at the police even having serving officers in my family but I know where my loyalties lay.
My kids have to go out there and face public perception of their office.
I have to admit that your anger in your last post is clearly displayed and yet you've done nothing so far to convince me that you're not an armchair judge. You've happily stated this incident was wrong and yet you've based that purely on a short video showing some of the incident and a press report. That says a lot about you, sadly pushing you in to the armchair of DS homeland justice....
You prove my point, "the other side of the the fence" the them and us I speak of.
I can't speak for DP, but I got a different impression of his comment. The fence appeared to be more in terms of views, not as to who we are or what we all do etc. There's clearly a difference in opinion here, you could say that we are sat on a different side of 'the fence' based on our views, nothing more.
To me, your suggestion that DP's comment suggests a 'them and us' feel says to me that you're more looking for such a thing and it would serve you better to think so. However that's just my view based on your post, I am sure you can state otherwise to confirm.
Thats says more about the crowd than anything else, what the hell does an arrest have to do with a crowd, mob mentality is becoming a problem in this country, everyone after a few pints is suddenly an expert in the alw and feels entitled to but in and disapprove of everything .
If you are being arrested then allow it to happen, common sense says that aggressive behaviour will not prevent it, if you feel it is worng the best thing is to co-operate , say nothing and wait until you have a solicitor with you.
Of course people have a right to but in if they see someone being abused. They should be concerned at some one who is bleeding, shackled, physically restrained being then gassed and thenk god they were.
It says more about your attitude, that you expect people to passively stand by and not be concerned at the polices' behaviour than it does about the public.
But that's my point Deep, it's my opinion, not because I am being an armchair judge.
Don't you get it Deep, " This case looks like the Officer is in the wrong"---looks, it deeply offends public opinion and trust that this officer still has a job.
And what does removing badges ID look like Deep.
What does it look like Deep when the public learns the Met have been advising/selling to the country that protects the killers of Yvonne Fletcher, their services.
You may think Deep I have a go constantly at the police even having serving officers in my family but I know where my loyalties lay.
My kids have to go out there and face public perception of their office.
EDIT,
You prove my point, "the other side of the the fence" the them and us I speak of.
It's not an us and them, more a different way of seeing something, based on much experience of personally being involved in many of the type of incidents discussed here.
It is understandable people will see something, and go off on one about it, but it's equally understandable people like lala and myself will try to give a different take on it, if there is one, which there usually is.
Comments
So we have this incident, and G20, both of which are being investigated, and both of which I have said the Officers appear to be in the wrong. That is not defending those individuals.
This thread has been taken far wider than those two incidents, so I have answered in a wider sense too. Whats wrong with that?
Your last point is far vaguer than anything I've said. Police Officers are regularly investigated. It is not as simple as you make out though, because they are the ones sent to deal with the violent among us on a daily basis, and they are allowed to use force. Brief clips of an incident do not always tell the full story, and that should be understood.
To suggest that the Police are responsible for more violence than drunken yobs is silly, and pointless.
how more bloody simple do you want it , its on video with police officers as witnesses of an attack on a restrained man and officers standing by doing nothing to stop it taking place
all on video which in the shape of cctv the police claim is
failsafe evidence in any criminal case and used as evidence
if availible to convict .
If you are referring to this thread, I not sure anyone got hysterical but many have strong feelings about what they see as strong arm tactics. So do other people and they aren't trained, but know abuse or disproportionate behavior when they see it. No I was pointing out that clearly I understood you, that on the one hand you were slating those coming to assumptions because of what was "written" on another thread compared to here where there is photographic evidence of possible abuse, something they can clearly observe but they still faces your criticism. Now who can't distinguish between a knee jerk reaction and others here expressing a simple view that the use of CS, based not on what's written but observed, was inappropriate in their opinion.
And if it is proved the force was unnecessary, and he is charged, the evidence will be available.
I'm not sure which incident we are talking about now, because you change from specifics to general ones to suit, then have a go at me for defending general tactics.
In summary, the Police do a good job in very difficult circumstances. Sometimes individuals do bad things. I've no problem condemning them, but what we always get is an extension to attack all Police, which has again happened here.
I think that you're kidding yourself again Deep Purple.
Thats says more about the crowd than anything else, what the hell does an arrest have to do with a crowd, mob mentality is becoming a problem in this country, everyone after a few pints is suddenly an expert in the alw and feels entitled to but in and disapprove of everything .
If you are being arrested then allow it to happen, common sense says that aggressive behaviour will not prevent it, if you feel it is worng the best thing is to co-operate , say nothing and wait until you have a solicitor with you.
With your self confessed hatred for the Police, for no particular reason, I dont think you're in a position to make such a comment.
If you have something to say about the incident, please enlighten us.
Perhaps this letter in today's Times from Leslie Rout,
Chief Superintendent (ret’d), Bury St Edmunds will persuade you to remove the rose coloured specs Deep Purple.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6839086.ece
Nothing to do with this incident, and I agree with much of what he says in relation to crime investigation.
Still more "isolated incidents" Deep Purple. Twenty one incidents ignored. What a fine body of men and women eh Deep Purple. How do you sleep ?
Very well thanks.
All I'll say is that trying to control those who operate outside of the law must become increasingly difficult when police officers have to operate within so many rules and regulations.
Oh I don't think they always operate within the rules and regulations !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ&feature=fvw
I never said they do but that it must become increasingly difficult for them to do so...
We don't see everything going on and while what we do see at this time looks pretty damning, I still say that I'll be awaiting the outcome of the whole thing prior to personally deciding on my view of the officer's actions.
I recall a few years back some video of South Yorkshire officer emerged, showing him punching a female several times around the back of a nightclub. He was instantly found guilty by the usual home armchair judges and condemned, based solely on the very damning CCTV footage that showed a similar amount of information to this one. However he was cleared of any wrong doing when other evidence, the full information and an investigation showed his actions to be lawful because the full circumstances were revealed which didn't simply show him punching her. Made the armchair judges look a tad silly for making judgements without the full facts....
Yes, and it appears from their next post following yours that I am replying to now that they didn't watch it properly
I'll quote the exact text, and audio, from the video you posted here to help you
I've also made it simply for you to spot by making the part that states when it can be justified in bold. I hope that helps you and you now realise that your question was answered by your own first post and that you just didn't watch it properly or you'd have known this
That's quite amusing that you of all people should say that, because as I've just pointed out the answer to your question was already in the video you posted. Further to that, you claimed the information wasn't there, when it was, and was plain to see.
I would suggest that it is indeed your powers of observation that are severely lacking here my friend, which is then humoured by your comments above.
I'm sure most people know that too, however we're only seeing part of the picture here, not the whole situation. Yes, it looks damning at present, but some people are too keen to assume guilt based on the limited information we have. That's the difference.
You're still not quite grasping it Seacam, but that's fine I accept we're all different here.
Without wanting to drag things off topic, which it appears your thread is tipping towards, I'll quickly explain to hopefully help you understand.
On the other thread someone wrote some brief circumstances and ask for help. Others then arrived and quickly made up their own circumstances based purely on speculation and assumption.
On this thread we have a video showing part of the story, I'm wanting to wait for the full information to arrive before deciding in my own mind if I see someone as guilty, where as others are happy to condemn on the limited information we have.
There is a difference, however I see that some people on here are quicker to jump to conclusions than others, so your behaviour is to be expected.
You, quite clearly.
There are people reacting in a 'knee jerk' fashion calling for all sorts in relation to training and recruitment based on partial stories in this video. That is a knee jerk reaction. If you fail to see that then fair enough, I won't mock you for it and accept we all see things differently. I being someone who waits for fact before making such decisions and there are others who immediately call for such things based on one point of view.
I know that video, I know the circumstances, the actions of that police officer was IMO over kill.
I understand the dreadfully consequences that inquiry had on that police officer and his family.
The problem with you lala is you sit pretty, have access to information others might not and able to take a narrower view but I get pretty pissed off when you and others condemn those that pass comments as armchair judges.
People may not always have the full facts, may not know what led up to an incident but 2+2 make 4 and always will with most people and in many case of police brutality/injustice, 4 is the right conclusion, no matter the findings or twisted arguments and logic.
F*ck face slapping a women in the chops like that is not acceptable, removing numbers so officers could not be identified, is unacceptable, if that makes us armchair judges, so be it but we don't need an inquiry for any of us to make reasonable comments.
The problem the police service have in this country is public perception the CS incident doesn't help, but the police service truly don't give a shit,----another nail is all it is to them.
Yesterday I read a grandmother was killed by a newish police driver, slammed right into her, doing nearly 60 in a 30 mile zone, what was the officer doing, delivering a birthday card.
To be fair to the officer he admitted his guilt but not before he was put on restricted duties, which was wrong.
When I was first aware of this case, the unbelievable nonsense/comments passed by other officers that came to their colleagues defense, quite indefensible.
Things like that above don't help.
You seem to feel lala that others shouldn't come to conclusions before the full facts are known,
on a level playing field I would agree, but police services across the country are not truefull with the facts as expected of them and don't deal with the public on a level playing field.
The situation remains, a them and us scenario.
Level playing field, how could that be so when until recently under certain circumstances police officers were allowed to swap or look at each others notes.
And you and I know lala it hasn't stopped this practice, it's just not allowed that's all.
So lala get your arse out of your armchair and instead on being judgmental of others, just see what things are for what they are and in the case of the CS incident, yob, drunken w*nker the idiot was behaving like, the use of CS doesn't look condemning, it is, it was completely unnecessary and a breach of the rules under the circumstances.
The Officer hitting the woman in south Yorks was doing nothing wrong. This case looks like the Officer is in the wrong, although we dont know for sure at the moment.
But that's my point Deep, it's my opinion, not because I am being an armchair judge.
Don't you get it Deep, " This case looks like the Officer is in the wrong"---looks, it deeply offends public opinion and trust that this officer still has a job.
And what does removing badges ID look like Deep.
What does it look like Deep when the public learns the Met have been advising/selling to the country that protects the killers of Yvonne Fletcher, their services.
You may think Deep I have a go constantly at the police even having serving officers in my family but I know where my loyalties lay.
My kids have to go out there and face public perception of their office.
EDIT,
You prove my point, "the other side of the the fence" the them and us I speak of.
Yes, a dreadful outcome, and one that I feel some of the blame lies partly with the armchair judges that we often see on forums and threads such as this one.
I have no access to information concerning either of the incidents discussed here. And as for comments relating to arm chair judges, perhaps there are those of us equally concerned about people who sit behind a keyboard and make decisions of guilt when they know little or nothing about an incident, especially when you yourself highlight the outcome of the unfortunate SYP bobby above after going through a similar ordeal....
Are you really suggesting that the 2 + 2 of the people simply viewing a press article arrives at a more accurate conclusion than that found by an official investigation presented with the full facts and not relying on a press report?? I think there in itself, the issue of the arm chair is highlighted...
There's no need for such language surely? Look back over some comments made in this thread, you can't quickly gloss over some of the knee jerk reactions made with nothing more than a press report and part of a story.
You're completely wrong here. The fact that so much effort goes in to public relations and being PC highlights quite the opposite of what you suggest. If the police really didn't care, and again I think your use of foul language is a little uncalled for while making your point, then you'd find a completely different police service in the UK.
And yet as a response and pursuit trained driver myself I have never done anything as stupid as that or abused my position, neither have any of my colleagues to my knowledge. Again I would say this is the stupidity of one person, not the actions of a service and I couldn't even being to guess the number of police vehicle usage each day that goes without incident.
People are entitled to their own views and opinions, however if they enter them to a debate as we have here then I will debate with them. I am a person who believes in innocent until proven guilty, sadly there are others on here who don't appear to share the same view, hence the situation we're in now.
I don't agree. An investigation is in progress, which means information won't be publicly released. This is the same for public or police officer while there's an investigation going on. There's been no lack of truth that I am aware of here by the officer's force unless you can show different?
I know of officers found guilty of offences just as members of the public have been. From what I've personally seen, the officers got harsher sentences for the same offences. It is perhaps a 'them and us' situation in some ways, but one that sees the officer coming off worse if found guilty.
Your abusive language suggests to me that you're angry while typing this and perhaps that has affected your posts, who knows. However you appear to be judging this person on limited information, so you get comfy in that armchair and continue as you wish, I'll await the outcome before making my decision on them
To DP, as ever your following post was correct, I think Seacam has been blinded by their anger and sadly proven the opposite of what they were arguing about in the first place
I have to admit that your anger in your last post is clearly displayed and yet you've done nothing so far to convince me that you're not an armchair judge. You've happily stated this incident was wrong and yet you've based that purely on a short video showing some of the incident and a press report. That says a lot about you, sadly pushing you in to the armchair of DS homeland justice....
I can't speak for DP, but I got a different impression of his comment. The fence appeared to be more in terms of views, not as to who we are or what we all do etc. There's clearly a difference in opinion here, you could say that we are sat on a different side of 'the fence' based on our views, nothing more.
To me, your suggestion that DP's comment suggests a 'them and us' feel says to me that you're more looking for such a thing and it would serve you better to think so. However that's just my view based on your post, I am sure you can state otherwise to confirm.
Of course people have a right to but in if they see someone being abused. They should be concerned at some one who is bleeding, shackled, physically restrained being then gassed and thenk god they were.
It says more about your attitude, that you expect people to passively stand by and not be concerned at the polices' behaviour than it does about the public.
It's not an us and them, more a different way of seeing something, based on much experience of personally being involved in many of the type of incidents discussed here.
It is understandable people will see something, and go off on one about it, but it's equally understandable people like lala and myself will try to give a different take on it, if there is one, which there usually is.
Where do your loyalties lie?