Well people have died in police custody. He could be classed as vulnerable because of his age - as you say, the shock could have led to heart attack, or stroke.
In actuality, he's probably perfectly fit, but I don't think the police should take the risk with someone in an obviously older age group.
As he wouldn't co-operate, what else were they to do? Should all badly behaved old gits be allowed to to whatever they please, just in case they get a bruise from being arrested? That's where your logic leads. As has been pointed out, these techniques lessen, not increase the likelihood of injury to suspects who struggle.
As he wouldn't co-operate, what else were they to do? Should all badly behaved old gits be allowed to to whatever they please, just in case they get a bruise from being arrested? That's where your logic leads. As has been pointed out, these techniques lessen, not increase the likelihood of injury to suspects who struggle.
It's not so much injury, as illness. Being forcibly bent down like that might trigger a heart attack or stroke in an old person.
Surely it isn't beyond the wit of police to formulate gentler ways of dealing with older people they need to restrain or arrest.
I'm surprised they were so rough with the old man. If he'd had a heart attack or suchlike, there would have been an almighty backlash. That sort of rough manhandling might be fine for a scrappy drunk on a train, but seems OTT for an old man.
I didn't think they were 'so rough' with the old man. Seems to me they were trying to immobilise him so that they could cuff him. I was surprised at the number, though. This suggests he was resisting. Who knows?
Guns would have been a bit of overkill for a group of fare dodging pensioners.
If you had been seen with a taser then an armed response uniy would have soon been there
You need to read post 18 again in which you claimed you would have tasered police
The homeless man accused of shoving a student in front of a train yesterday appeared in court this morning rambling incoherently about people trying to kill him and seeing 'colors and darkness'.
Hunter College student Maya Leggat, 21, received horrific injuries after she was shoved on to the tracks at White Plains station in New York, allegedly because she refused to give money to Howard J. Mickens, 39.
...
He was charged with attempted murder and made a bizarre appearance in court today saying he was 'guilty with an explanation'.
However, as long as there wasn't a train coming, you could always claim it was just a "prank".
Thing is though, what do they mean by a "valid" or "very good" reason ?
However, in this case, the phrase "Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped." is likely to apply to being "stopped and searched" rather than being prevented from taking photographs / video.
The more important phrase is probably "- there is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff"
Is bending someone forward likely to cause a heart attack in such a person? Come on, we're entering the realms of fantasy here.
He was 65 wasn't he, hardly an ancient wreck on his last legs.
It's nice to see so many here seeing the reality, and that nothing was wrong. The usual exceptions are also here of course.
I disagree with that summation. He probably was perfectly OK, but I just don't think the police should take the chance when dealing with older age groups.
It's not fantasy to suggest that people of that age are much more liable to heart attack or stroke than younger age groups.
Ive seen the clips and can honestly say that they can be taken both ways.... without the full video (if there is one, someone may of only started recording AFTER the initial event that started it off).
I kinda wonder how much of a catch-22 thing there is going on here.
I mean, the guy is, allegedly, "resisting arrest" but what exactly does that mean?
If, as part of the arrest procedure, the BTP were doing that thing, whatever it was, to him and he didn't want to have it done to him then it'd be kind of pathetic to cite that resistance, itself, as being "resisting arrest" and then use it as the reason for doing it to him.
The police certainly shouldn't be able to treat a suspect in whatever way they choose and then, if the suspect objects, be able to claim the person was "resisting arrest".
Course, as somebody has already mentioned, the most likely explanation might be that Nuttall was spitting at the BTP and that's what led to his treatment.
I really do hope it turns out there's some justification for it though.
However, as long as there wasn't a train coming, you could always claim it was just a "prank".
Even if there wasn't a train coming, pushing someone off the edge of a train platform unexpectedly, could lead to their death if they hit their head on the ground - especially a sleeper or the rail.
Large mob of over sixty retired and disabled folk including many middle class people brake the law, one middle class retired man refuses to give their names to the police, argues with police and struggles when being arrested and complains about police "brutality" another retired middle class man who attempted to hinder the police and link arms with the man they were trying to arrest also gets arrested. How dare they be treated in such a manner. While on mass travelling without paying and giving abuse verbal and physical to rail staff, in protest about no longer being able to travel for free on trains. Not that they cannot afford to pay, its the principle they should get to travel for free and woe betide anyone standing between a middle class person and their sense of entitlment, let alone treating a middle class person without deference.
Enraged by this affront the mass protests will continue, with large groups of over sixty to over a hundred retired and disabled folk disrupting train services and traveling on mass without paying. To the defend the principle of well getting to travel for free by train in Shefield unlike everyone else who has to pay and unlike most of the rest of the UK were retired and disabled have always had to pay. Please support this campaign so that retired and disabled folk including many middle class in Shefield can continue to be treated in the preferential manner to which they are accustomed.
Large mob of over sixty retired and disabled folk including many middle class people brake the law, one middle class retired man refuses to give their names to the police, argues with police and struggles when being arrested and complains about police "brutality" another retired middle class man who attempted to hinder the police and link arms with the man they were trying to arrest also gets arrested. How dare they be treated in such a manner. While on mass travelling without paying and giving abuse verbal and physical to rail staff, in protest about no longer being able to travel for free on trains. Not that they cannot afford to pay, its the principle they should get to travel for free and woe betide anyone standing between a middle class person and their sense of entitlment, let alone treating a middle class person without deference.
Enraged by this affront the mass protests will continue, with large groups of over sixty to over a hundred retired and disabled folk disrupting train services and traveling on mass without paying. To the defend the principle of well getting to travel for free by train in Shefield unlike everyone else who has to pay and unlike most of the rest of the UK were retired and disabled have always had to pay. Please support this campaign so that retired and disabled folk including many middle class can continue to be treated in a preferential manner to everyone else.
Middle class retired people like the two who got arrested are perfectly able to pay.
It is them getting upset and protesting at being expected to pay like everyone else that is the cause of the problem. Why should I be outraged at them being treated the same as everyone else, including the same as retired and disabled people across most of the UK.
Personally I don't particularly like middle class people with attitude, what do they expect to happen when they brake the law, refuse to give their name to the police, argue with the police, and when being arrested struggle. Why am I suppose to get outraged at them being treated the same as anyone else would in that situation.
I disagree with that summation. He probably was perfectly OK, but I just don't think the police should take the chance when dealing with older age groups.
It's not fantasy to suggest that people of that age are much more liable to heart attack or stroke than younger age groups.
As he didn't have a heart attack, clearly he was fine. Most people in their 60's are not a heart attack waiting to happen, and they would no doubt be offended if treated as such. I'm nearly there, I know.
Are you suggesting that people over a certain age shouldn't be arrested if they decide to resist?
The method used is actually intended to cause as little harm to the person as possible. When you see several officers tackling one person, it looks over the top to someone with no experience of what it is like to restrain someone. However, if an arrest is made, and the person resists, reasonable force has to be used.
Middle class retired people like the two who got arrested are perfectly able to pay.
It is them getting upset and protesting at being expected to pay like everyone else that is the cause of the problem. Why should I be outraged at them being treated the same as everyone else, including the same as retired and disabled people across most of the UK.
Personally I don't particularly like middle class people with attitude, what do they expect to happen when they brake the law, refuse to give their name to the police, argue, and when being arrested struggle. Why am I suppose to get outraged at them being treated the same as anyone else would in that situation.
Just as a matter of interest, do you know that is what happened immediately prior to the incident ? I'm not saying it necessarily wasn't, but we have no evidence eitherway.
As you probably know some evidence was deleted under duress - link
A reporter was threatened with arrest under anti-terrorism laws and forced to erase potentially important video evidence after filming a protest in Sheffield.
The editor of the Sheffield Star has demanded an explanation as to why his reporter, Alex Evans, was warned off filming a protest against cuts to free travel provision for pensioners and disabled people by railway staff officers on Monday.
Evans claims he was ordered to erase footage he’d recorded on his phone because he did not have permission to film on private property inside Sheffield station. When he initially resisted the request and continued to film, he says he was told he could be arrested under terror laws.
Also, other people at the scene say that Tony Nuttall was not acting in a manner which would normally lead to him being arrested so roughly - local press report
Jen Dunstan, of Sheffield Disabled People Against The Cuts, said: “Dozens of elderly and disabled people have been left with bruising. Some have cuts where their skin has broken from being pushed and shoved.
“A placid and calm gentleman was roughly manhandled. I am angry and shocked. The police are meant to protect elderly people.”
Yorkshire Ambulance Service was called after one protester passed out with breathing difficulties on the platform.
Fran Postlethwaite, aged 62, the wife of another of the campaigners, from Barnsley, said: “My husband was arrested by British Transport Police for absolutely nothing.
“He was completing a peaceful protest and doing nothing at all wrong and he was violently manhandled by police officers.
“We are just peaceful protesters and we are being treated like criminals.
...
Personally I don't particularly like middle class people with attitude, what do they expect to happen when they brake the law, refuse to give their name to the police, argue with the police, and when being arrested struggle.
...
Personally I'm more annoyed at the alleged misconduct of the Police Officer making threats to coerce someone into deleting video footage.
Personally I'm more annoyed at the alleged perversion of the course of justice by a Police Officer making threats to coerce someone into deleting video footage.
Why do the police keep doing this ? It must surely have been drummed into them many times over the years what the law is, yet they still persist in wanting films of their actions deleted, or the person to stop filming. It just makes them look as though they have something to hide.
Makes me suspect that what preceded Nuttall's arrest may have just been somebody standing there peacefully.
There should be station CCTV though. Maybe that will show something.
If the offence was something along the lines of filming an officer in the "lawful" execution of their duties then surely the footage itself would be evidence of the crime.
"They warned me I was committing a criminal offence by not having a valid ticket. I argued and they grabbed me and said they were arresting me"
“I tried to pull back towards the rest of the group but they held on ... three more came over and forced me down onto one of the seats on the platform"
‘I was dragged down the platform with other protesters trying to get me free.’
“There was a struggle before they handcuffed me.”
Mr Nuttall's arrest
when he joined demonstrators objecting to Mr Arthur’s treatment.
when he ‘tried to link arms’ with Mr Arthur as he was being arrested
"Four of five police or security guards jumped on me from behind,”.
“They held my head down to my knees and marched me around the platform in that position.”
Comments
As he wouldn't co-operate, what else were they to do? Should all badly behaved old gits be allowed to to whatever they please, just in case they get a bruise from being arrested? That's where your logic leads. As has been pointed out, these techniques lessen, not increase the likelihood of injury to suspects who struggle.
It's not so much injury, as illness. Being forcibly bent down like that might trigger a heart attack or stroke in an old person.
Surely it isn't beyond the wit of police to formulate gentler ways of dealing with older people they need to restrain or arrest.
I didn't think they were 'so rough' with the old man. Seems to me they were trying to immobilise him so that they could cuff him. I was surprised at the number, though. This suggests he was resisting. Who knows?
If you had been seen with a taser then an armed response uniy would have soon been there
You need to read post 18 again in which you claimed you would have tasered police
I don't think being "gobby" actually warrants an attempted murder.
Homeless man who 'pushed student in front of a train when she refused to give him money' rambles incoherently about people trying to kill him during bizarre court appearance
However, as long as there wasn't a train coming, you could always claim it was just a "prank".
He was 65 wasn't he, hardly an ancient wreck on his last legs.
It's nice to see so many here seeing the reality, and that nothing was wrong. The usual exceptions are also here of course.
However, in this case, the phrase "Unless there is a very good reason, people taking photographs should not be stopped." is likely to apply to being "stopped and searched" rather than being prevented from taking photographs / video.
The more important phrase is probably "- there is no prohibition on photographing front-line uniform staff"
A peaceful demonstration by the elderly and disabled.
I disagree with that summation. He probably was perfectly OK, but I just don't think the police should take the chance when dealing with older age groups.
It's not fantasy to suggest that people of that age are much more liable to heart attack or stroke than younger age groups.
Non of it has any real context.
I mean, the guy is, allegedly, "resisting arrest" but what exactly does that mean?
If, as part of the arrest procedure, the BTP were doing that thing, whatever it was, to him and he didn't want to have it done to him then it'd be kind of pathetic to cite that resistance, itself, as being "resisting arrest" and then use it as the reason for doing it to him.
The police certainly shouldn't be able to treat a suspect in whatever way they choose and then, if the suspect objects, be able to claim the person was "resisting arrest".
Course, as somebody has already mentioned, the most likely explanation might be that Nuttall was spitting at the BTP and that's what led to his treatment.
I really do hope it turns out there's some justification for it though.
Even if there wasn't a train coming, pushing someone off the edge of a train platform unexpectedly, could lead to their death if they hit their head on the ground - especially a sleeper or the rail.
Enraged by this affront the mass protests will continue, with large groups of over sixty to over a hundred retired and disabled folk disrupting train services and traveling on mass without paying. To the defend the principle of well getting to travel for free by train in Shefield unlike everyone else who has to pay and unlike most of the rest of the UK were retired and disabled have always had to pay. Please support this campaign so that retired and disabled folk including many middle class in Shefield can continue to be treated in the preferential manner to which they are accustomed.
That's a helluva chip on your shoulder there.
People getting stuff you're not?
Diddums.
What do you mean by that ?
It is them getting upset and protesting at being expected to pay like everyone else that is the cause of the problem. Why should I be outraged at them being treated the same as everyone else, including the same as retired and disabled people across most of the UK.
Personally I don't particularly like middle class people with attitude, what do they expect to happen when they brake the law, refuse to give their name to the police, argue with the police, and when being arrested struggle. Why am I suppose to get outraged at them being treated the same as anyone else would in that situation.
As he didn't have a heart attack, clearly he was fine. Most people in their 60's are not a heart attack waiting to happen, and they would no doubt be offended if treated as such. I'm nearly there, I know.
Are you suggesting that people over a certain age shouldn't be arrested if they decide to resist?
The method used is actually intended to cause as little harm to the person as possible. When you see several officers tackling one person, it looks over the top to someone with no experience of what it is like to restrain someone. However, if an arrest is made, and the person resists, reasonable force has to be used.
Just as a matter of interest, do you know that is what happened immediately prior to the incident ? I'm not saying it necessarily wasn't, but we have no evidence eitherway.
As you probably know some evidence was deleted under duress - link
Also, other people at the scene say that Tony Nuttall was not acting in a manner which would normally lead to him being arrested so roughly - local press report
The "peaceful demonstration" is grounded in mass organised fare dodging.
Personally I'm more annoyed at the alleged misconduct of the Police Officer making threats to coerce someone into deleting video footage.
If he was being arrested for obstruction, then it wasn't peaceful, and approved methods of restraint were used.
Why do the police keep doing this ? It must surely have been drummed into them many times over the years what the law is, yet they still persist in wanting films of their actions deleted, or the person to stop filming. It just makes them look as though they have something to hide.
Makes me suspect that what preceded Nuttall's arrest may have just been somebody standing there peacefully.
There should be station CCTV though. Maybe that will show something.
I wonder how this would stack up against PACE?
If the offence was something along the lines of filming an officer in the "lawful" execution of their duties then surely the footage itself would be evidence of the crime.
But station CCTV probably wouldn't have audio to go with the pictures and would most likely only show events from a distance.
Mr Arthur refused to reveal his name and address
"They warned me I was committing a criminal offence by not having a valid ticket. I argued and they grabbed me and said they were arresting me"
“I tried to pull back towards the rest of the group but they held on ... three more came over and forced me down onto one of the seats on the platform"
‘I was dragged down the platform with other protesters trying to get me free.’
“There was a struggle before they handcuffed me.”
Mr Nuttall's arrest
when he joined demonstrators objecting to Mr Arthur’s treatment.
when he ‘tried to link arms’ with Mr Arthur as he was being arrested
"Four of five police or security guards jumped on me from behind,”.
“They held my head down to my knees and marched me around the platform in that position.”
For links see post 36