Leaving her on the pavement is infinitely less dangerous than leaving her in the road. You saw on the video how empty the pavement was, but even if busy, the likelihood of her being trampled is negligible.
The Chief Constable was 100% correct in speaking out and answering quite reasonable media questions when put on the spot. No other answer than what he gave could have been given. Had he done so, newspaper headlines saying that the ACC condones or may condone leaving incapacitated people lying in the road, would have occurred. That really would have left him open to questioning.
I'm incredulous that people are either too obtuse or too biased to see this really basic fact.
Leaving her on the pavement may not be the ideal solution either, but it doesn't even bear comparison with leaving her in the road.
The chief constable didn't need to make any comment that would leave him open to accusations of leaving incapacitated people lying in the road. The officers judged that the woman was capable based probably on her actions in the second video so it wasn't a case of an incapacitated person being left on the road. He should have promised a complete investigation and assured the public that any wrongdoing would be punished that way he can't be accused of condoning any wrongdoing but he isn't prejudicing the investigation by deciding on the officers guilt before it's even begun.
She wasn't physically incapacitated, but her mental state may have rendered her far more vulnerable than normal. Indeed, the very video you linked to yesterday, showed her continuing to lie in the road, long after she had been left there.
And there we have it. She was responsible for her own actions. She was attacking the Police, they took hold of her, and moved her. She was kicking her legs as they let go of her, and she went to ground. They immediately left with their prisoner.
How were they to know she would stay on the ground in a strop, when she'd been active enough seconds before?
Police Officers are not trained to assess the mental state of a drunk kicking off in the street, and even Drs wont attempt to assess such a thing in a drunken person.
If she was incapable, she shouldn't have been left anywhere. If she wasn't, she is not their responsibility.
The chief constable didn't need to make any comment that would leave him open to accusations of leaving incapacitated people lying in the road. The officers judged that the woman was capable based probably on her actions in the second video so it wasn't a case of an incapacitated person being left on the road. He should have promised a complete investigation and assured the public that any wrongdoing would be punished that way he can't be accused of condoning any wrongdoing but he isn't prejudicing the investigation by deciding on the officers guilt before it's even begun.
Exactly. That is how any comments regarding a complaint should be, and usually are handled. In this case, the ACC got carried away with the headlines, and wanted to placate people, rather than say what he should have done.
And there we have it. She was responsible for her own actions. She was attacking the Police, they took hold of her, and moved her. She was kicking her legs as they let go of her, and she went to ground. They immediately left with their prisoner.
How were they to know she would stay on the ground in a strop, when she'd been active enough seconds before?
Police Officers are not trained to assess the mental state of a drunk kicking off in the street, and even Drs wont attempt to assess such a thing in a drunken person.
If she was incapable, she shouldn't have been left anywhere. If she wasn't, she is not their responsibility.
Correct. Even AMHP's (Approved Mental Health Professionals), Psychiatrists and Consultant's will not assess drunk people for mental health issues, so how a police officer is meant to is beyond me. Being drunk is absolutely not a medical issue until they are intoxicated to a level that they are unable to safely move or communicate. She had none of these problems, she was just a vile, stroppy drunk.
Exactly. That is how any comments regarding a complaint should be, and usually are handled. In this case, the ACC got carried away with the headlines, and wanted to placate people, rather than say what he should have done.
Again you're right. Him making a judgement isn't the issue here, because we all make a judgement before knowing the full circumstances. The problem is that a man in his position then made that judgement public, thus prejudging any investigation that was to follow.
And there we have it. She was responsible for her own actions. She was attacking the Police, they took hold of her, and moved her. She was kicking her legs as they let go of her, and she went to ground. They immediately left with their prisoner.
How were they to know she would stay on the ground in a strop, when she'd been active enough seconds before?
Police Officers are not trained to assess the mental state of a drunk kicking off in the street, and even Drs wont attempt to assess such a thing in a drunken person.
If she was incapable, she shouldn't have been left anywhere. If she wasn't, she is not their responsibility.
I note that despite the fact I have adddressed this point several times, you still continue to parrot the same unthought out lines.
Try and imagine - if you can - an individual who has full physical capacity - but who has a mental health issue, either temporary or permanent, which renders their ability to react normally to danger, somewhat or completely eliminated. As a result, as in this instance, the person continues to expose themselves to a dangerous situation. In Mongan's case this may have been as a result of alcohol or hysteria.
For the police to leave such a person lying in the road, is negligent at best. Especially as all they had to do was carry her a few more yards to safety.
That's why Chief Constable Hamilton, correctly spoke out. Once again I'd remind you that I haven't heard any other complaint about what he said, other than a few FM's on here, who jump to the defence of the police as a knee jerk unthought out reaction, every time they are criticised.
I'd also remind you that his opinion aces yours, by many orders of magnitude.
Try and imagine - if you can - an individual who has full physical capacity - but who has a mental health issue, either temporary or permanent, which renders their ability to react normally to danger, somewhat or completely eliminated. As a result, as in this instance, the person continues to expose themselves to a dangerous situation. In Mongan's case this may have been as a result of alcohol or hysteria.
The officers can only make a judgement on whether she is capable or not based on what they know at the time and they decided that she was drunk but not at the point where she would be incapable. If you expect officers to act on the assumption that every drunk person they deal with might have underlying problems that makes them incapable at that time then they will have to take every drunk to hospital can you see that being a realistic option?
That's why Chief Constable Hamilton, correctly spoke out. Once again I'd remind you that I haven't heard any other complaint about what he said, other than a few FM's on here, who jump to the defence of the police as a knee jerk unthought out reaction, every time they are criticised.
You obviously didn't notice my complaint about what he said then because I don't jump to the defence of the police every time they get criticized and actually right now in a thread about Mark Duggan I'm in disagreement with Deep Purple about officers being allowed to confer when writing up statements.
The officers can only make a judgement on whether she is capable or not based on what they know at the time and they decided that she was drunk but not at the point where she would be incapable. If you expect officers to act on the assumption that every drunk person they deal with might have underlying problems that makes them incapable at that time then they will have to take every drunk to hospital can you see that being a realistic option?
If they'd left her standing in the road, it would have been wrong, but to leave her lying there, is just plain wrong. I'm truly astounded that so many FM's simply cannot see this very basic fact, and are defending the officers who left her lying in the road !!!
You obviously didn't notice my complaint about what he said then because I don't jump to the defence of the police every time they get criticized and actually right now in a thread about Mark Duggan I'm in disagreement with Deep Purple about officers being allowed to confer when writing up statements.
Well I wasn't really referring to you in the first place. You've only been here since last October. These arguments have been going on for a number of years.
Try and imagine - if you can - an individual who has full physical capacity - but who has a mental health issue, either temporary or permanent, which renders their ability to react normally to danger, somewhat or completely eliminated.
This is a complete nonsense. Do we all have 'mental health issues' when we're drunk or is it just this woman?
This is a complete nonsense. Do we all have 'mental health issues' when we're drunk or is it just this woman?
Why is it nonsense exactly ?
How would they have known what the woman's mental state was when they moved her, and then subsequently, left her lying in the road ? They would have been full well aware she was just lying there, when they backed off.
You've also acknowledged she was drunk. So think about the potential effects of alcohol on the human body. Depending on the level of intoxication, people can suddenly lose consciousness, feel very ill, or behave oddly, thus making them vulnerable and in harms way.
For the police to leave such a person in the road, is irresponsible in the extreme. Hence Mr Hamilton's description of the event as "horrendous".
You've also acknowledged she was drunk. So think about the potential effects of alcohol on the human body. Depending on the level of intoxication, people can suddenly lose consciousness, feel very ill, or behave oddly, thus making them vulnerable and in harms way.
For the police to leave such a person in the road, is irresponsible in the extreme. Hence Mr Hamilton's description of the event as "horrendous".
Assuming that I agree with your claim that she was incapable where should they have left her instead of the road?
I note that despite the fact I have adddressed this point several times, you still continue to parrot the same unthought out lines.
Try and imagine - if you can - an individual who has full physical capacity - but who has a mental health issue, either temporary or permanent, which renders their ability to react normally to danger, somewhat or completely eliminated. As a result, as in this instance, the person continues to expose themselves to a dangerous situation. In Mongan's case this may have been as a result of alcohol or hysteria.
For the police to leave such a person lying in the road, is negligent at best. Especially as all they had to do was carry her a few more yards to safety.
That's why Chief Constable Hamilton, correctly spoke out. Once again I'd remind you that I haven't heard any other complaint about what he said, other than a few FM's on here, who jump to the defence of the police as a knee jerk unthought out reaction, every time they are criticised.
I'd also remind you that his opinion aces yours, by many orders of magnitude.
Once again you ignore the impossibility of assessing a drunk for mental health issues.
She was running around, like many other drunks every day when they moved her. She went to ground, kicking, and they left the scene. How would they know she wouldn't get up? There was nothing in her behaviour to suggest she would do that.
She was not incapable, which you finally agreed, so the Police are not responsible for her.
As for the CC, his dealings with drunks will not come close to mine, and whatever his rank, he shouldn't have condemned his Officers this way without knowing the full facts. You know that too, but finally having a Policeman saying something you agree with outweighs common sense for you.
How would they have known what the woman's mental state was when they moved her, and then subsequently, left her lying in the road ? They would have been full well aware she was just lying there, when they backed off.
You've also acknowledged she was drunk. So think about the potential effects of alcohol on the human body. Depending on the level of intoxication, people can suddenly lose consciousness, feel very ill, or behave oddly, thus making them vulnerable and in harms way.
For the police to leave such a person in the road, is irresponsible in the extreme. Hence Mr Hamilton's description of the event as "horrendous".
How would anyone? Who is capable of assessing a drunks mental health?
Should all drunks be locked up on sight, for assessment, which actually cant happen until they are sober?
surely they could [and should] have arrested her for being drunk and disorderly?
We've covered this already. They could also have arrested for her obstructing police too. However they already had somebody under arrest and didn't have the capability to deal with another prisoner.
We've covered this already. They could also have arrested for her obstructing police too. However they already had somebody under arrest and didn't have the capability to deal with another prisoner.
i`m not wading through twenty eight pages for that.
were they the only police officers on duty that day?
Personally I'd bring back the lock ups they used to have in towns and villages where they would just put the drunk in there until they were sober (the next day).
well were their radios broken then? for what reason could they not have called for other officers?
Nobody said they couldn't call for other officers, either. Where are you reading this?
They had a prisoner, in a car. A man who is known by the public to be a member of a violent criminal family, so the officers would have known far more about him than that. He was their priority, he was sat in their vehicle and they would shortly be transporting him to a custody block. Whilst they were dealing with her (even if only waiting for another crew), they were not watching him. He could have been up to anything at the time he was left alone; he could have been slipping out of his handcuffs, he could be removing a weapon from within his clothing, this 'weapon' could be something as innocent as a lighter, or a pen, or this, a very innocent looking mobile phone, right? These are all things that have happened before, and will happen again, so action has to be taken to reduce the chances.
By leaving him to focus on her they were increasing the risks to their own personal safety, in this case unnecessarily because they didn't need to arrest her. They did what they did, she wasn't hurt, and they took their prisoner to custody. The only problem is that leaving her in the road (rather than on the pavement) looked bad.
Nobody said they couldn't call for other officers, either. Where are you reading this?
They had a prisoner, in a car. A man who is known by the public to be a member of a violent criminal family, so the officers would have known far more about him than that. He was their priority, he was sat in their vehicle and they would shortly be transporting him to a custody block. Whilst they were dealing with her (even if only waiting for another crew), they were not watching him. He could have been up to anything at the time he was left alone; he could have been slipping out of his handcuffs, he could be removing a weapon from within his clothing, this 'weapon' could be something as innocent as a lighter, or a pen, or this, a very innocent looking mobile phone, right? These are all things that have happened before, and will happen again, so action has to be taken to reduce the chances.
By leaving him to focus on her they were increasing the risks to their own personal safety, in this case unnecessarily because they didn't need to arrest her. They did what they did, she wasn't hurt, and they took their prisoner to custody. The only problem is that leaving her in the road (rather than on the pavement) looked bad.
i still cannot see how they could not have radioed for someone else to deal with one or the other. leaving her in the road WAS bad, it doesn`t just look it.
i still cannot see how they could not have radioed for someone else to deal with one or the other. leaving her in the road WAS bad, it doesn`t just look it.
Nobody said they couldn't have radioed somebody else to deal with her. Again where are you getting this from?
If they had radioed for somebody else, how would they have contained both prisoners at the same time, whilst waiting for another crew to attend?
i still cannot see how they could not have radioed for someone else to deal with one or the other. leaving her in the road WAS bad, it doesn`t just look it.
She wasn't incapable. She chose to stay there. You deal with the likes of her all the time, and it is not practical to call for back up to every drunk you encounter.
Comments
The chief constable didn't need to make any comment that would leave him open to accusations of leaving incapacitated people lying in the road. The officers judged that the woman was capable based probably on her actions in the second video so it wasn't a case of an incapacitated person being left on the road. He should have promised a complete investigation and assured the public that any wrongdoing would be punished that way he can't be accused of condoning any wrongdoing but he isn't prejudicing the investigation by deciding on the officers guilt before it's even begun.
And there we have it. She was responsible for her own actions. She was attacking the Police, they took hold of her, and moved her. She was kicking her legs as they let go of her, and she went to ground. They immediately left with their prisoner.
How were they to know she would stay on the ground in a strop, when she'd been active enough seconds before?
Police Officers are not trained to assess the mental state of a drunk kicking off in the street, and even Drs wont attempt to assess such a thing in a drunken person.
If she was incapable, she shouldn't have been left anywhere. If she wasn't, she is not their responsibility.
Exactly. That is how any comments regarding a complaint should be, and usually are handled. In this case, the ACC got carried away with the headlines, and wanted to placate people, rather than say what he should have done.
Correct. Even AMHP's (Approved Mental Health Professionals), Psychiatrists and Consultant's will not assess drunk people for mental health issues, so how a police officer is meant to is beyond me. Being drunk is absolutely not a medical issue until they are intoxicated to a level that they are unable to safely move or communicate. She had none of these problems, she was just a vile, stroppy drunk.
Again you're right. Him making a judgement isn't the issue here, because we all make a judgement before knowing the full circumstances. The problem is that a man in his position then made that judgement public, thus prejudging any investigation that was to follow.
I note that despite the fact I have adddressed this point several times, you still continue to parrot the same unthought out lines.
Try and imagine - if you can - an individual who has full physical capacity - but who has a mental health issue, either temporary or permanent, which renders their ability to react normally to danger, somewhat or completely eliminated. As a result, as in this instance, the person continues to expose themselves to a dangerous situation. In Mongan's case this may have been as a result of alcohol or hysteria.
For the police to leave such a person lying in the road, is negligent at best. Especially as all they had to do was carry her a few more yards to safety.
That's why Chief Constable Hamilton, correctly spoke out. Once again I'd remind you that I haven't heard any other complaint about what he said, other than a few FM's on here, who jump to the defence of the police as a knee jerk unthought out reaction, every time they are criticised.
I'd also remind you that his opinion aces yours, by many orders of magnitude.
The officers can only make a judgement on whether she is capable or not based on what they know at the time and they decided that she was drunk but not at the point where she would be incapable. If you expect officers to act on the assumption that every drunk person they deal with might have underlying problems that makes them incapable at that time then they will have to take every drunk to hospital can you see that being a realistic option?
You obviously didn't notice my complaint about what he said then because I don't jump to the defence of the police every time they get criticized and actually right now in a thread about Mark Duggan I'm in disagreement with Deep Purple about officers being allowed to confer when writing up statements.
If they'd left her standing in the road, it would have been wrong, but to leave her lying there, is just plain wrong. I'm truly astounded that so many FM's simply cannot see this very basic fact, and are defending the officers who left her lying in the road !!!
Well I wasn't really referring to you in the first place. You've only been here since last October. These arguments have been going on for a number of years.
This is a complete nonsense. Do we all have 'mental health issues' when we're drunk or is it just this woman?
Why is it nonsense exactly ?
How would they have known what the woman's mental state was when they moved her, and then subsequently, left her lying in the road ? They would have been full well aware she was just lying there, when they backed off.
You've also acknowledged she was drunk. So think about the potential effects of alcohol on the human body. Depending on the level of intoxication, people can suddenly lose consciousness, feel very ill, or behave oddly, thus making them vulnerable and in harms way.
For the police to leave such a person in the road, is irresponsible in the extreme. Hence Mr Hamilton's description of the event as "horrendous".
Assuming that I agree with your claim that she was incapable where should they have left her instead of the road?
Once again you ignore the impossibility of assessing a drunk for mental health issues.
She was running around, like many other drunks every day when they moved her. She went to ground, kicking, and they left the scene. How would they know she wouldn't get up? There was nothing in her behaviour to suggest she would do that.
She was not incapable, which you finally agreed, so the Police are not responsible for her.
As for the CC, his dealings with drunks will not come close to mine, and whatever his rank, he shouldn't have condemned his Officers this way without knowing the full facts. You know that too, but finally having a Policeman saying something you agree with outweighs common sense for you.
How would anyone? Who is capable of assessing a drunks mental health?
Should all drunks be locked up on sight, for assessment, which actually cant happen until they are sober?
We've covered this already. They could also have arrested for her obstructing police too. However they already had somebody under arrest and didn't have the capability to deal with another prisoner.
i`m not wading through twenty eight pages for that.
were they the only police officers on duty that day?
It has been discussed in the last two (maybe three) pages.
Of course they weren't the only police officers on duty. Nobody said they were.
well were their radios broken then? for what reason could they not have called for other officers?
Nobody said they couldn't call for other officers, either. Where are you reading this?
They had a prisoner, in a car. A man who is known by the public to be a member of a violent criminal family, so the officers would have known far more about him than that. He was their priority, he was sat in their vehicle and they would shortly be transporting him to a custody block. Whilst they were dealing with her (even if only waiting for another crew), they were not watching him. He could have been up to anything at the time he was left alone; he could have been slipping out of his handcuffs, he could be removing a weapon from within his clothing, this 'weapon' could be something as innocent as a lighter, or a pen, or this, a very innocent looking mobile phone, right? These are all things that have happened before, and will happen again, so action has to be taken to reduce the chances.
By leaving him to focus on her they were increasing the risks to their own personal safety, in this case unnecessarily because they didn't need to arrest her. They did what they did, she wasn't hurt, and they took their prisoner to custody. The only problem is that leaving her in the road (rather than on the pavement) looked bad.
i still cannot see how they could not have radioed for someone else to deal with one or the other. leaving her in the road WAS bad, it doesn`t just look it.
Nobody said they couldn't have radioed somebody else to deal with her. Again where are you getting this from?
If they had radioed for somebody else, how would they have contained both prisoners at the same time, whilst waiting for another crew to attend?
She wasn't incapable. She chose to stay there. You deal with the likes of her all the time, and it is not practical to call for back up to every drunk you encounter.
so there was really no excuse then.
did they have handcuffs? how would they [police officers] normally proceed if they encountered two situations at once? it can`t be unusual.