Evil Elvis Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Wow thats a first!!! Well done!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 (edited) Mungler - I give up. I agree with every word you have written. I support the Police, but you can't defend the indefensible. However he got the cuts, the fact remains that he got a face full of spray for no good reason. I fully expect some bright spark to repeat that he "had it coming" - absolute lunacy. I also expect that the same bright spark might have a relative in Burnley named Siobhan O'Dowd. Edited July 18, 2010 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 Ozzy, I take my hat off to you matey and you have restored some faith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy518 Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 It's about doing what is right, what you can do according to law.. The police are justified in arresting someone on suspicion of having commited an offence and are legally empowered to use the minimum force necessary to acheive that arrest. In that video , the offender was arrested and restrained. He was not in a position to cause injury or violence of any means to any officer or any member of the public. Yes, he was gobby. I have lost count of how many times a person whom i have arrested has threated to rape my wife/ son/ beat the **** out of me out of uniform etc...however that comes with the territory. The arrested person does not know me , the wife or my family. It is the ramblings of an intioxicated angry person who knows nothing of what he is saying. As police officers we ought to know that sticks and stones etc. Yeah, it's not nice at the time , and it does p*** you off but to react to it with excesive force is , in my opinion, unacceptable, we are supposed to be better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J@mes Posted July 18, 2010 Report Share Posted July 18, 2010 ACPO GUIDELINES: "The spray should not be used at a distance of less than 1 metre unless the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this could not be avoided" Couldn't exactly stand up him, ask him to hold still, take a step back and then spray him, could they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlaserF3 Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 ACPO GUIDELINES: "The spray should not be used at a distance of less than 1 metre unless the nature of the risk to the officer is such that this could not be avoided" Couldn't exactly stand up him, ask him to hold still, take a step back and then spray him, could they? Get a life J@mes, he did not need to be sprayed A decent reply ozzy518 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlosdesilva Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Whats he doing out on the lash with a sixteen year old girl? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 (edited) Whats he doing out on the lash with a sixteen year old girl? And what does that have to do with anything? Oh, I forgot, Daily Mail criteria number 8; he must be guilty! Besides, apparently they weren't "together". If you read the article the 16 year old girl was passing by, objected to the way the police were dealing with him and as a result she got a face full of pavement. EDIT: 1 min 19 seconds into the BBC clip you haven't watched. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/8255953.stm "A 16 year old by stander" Edited July 19, 2010 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlosdesilva Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 (edited) Is it a bird?Is it a plane?.....No its Super Mungler on his quest for justice for Britains town centre drunks!A one man crusade against police brutality.Do you wear spandex? did see the clip,no need to spray him but not the end of the world im sure he will be back on the beer in no time none the worse for his ordeal but a bit richer if he gets some compensation. Edited July 19, 2010 by carlosdesilva Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lez325 Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Handcuffed from behind, sprawled over the bonnet of a car, legs zippy tied and a copper leaning on him? Explain the danger to me again? Also explain why he needed gassing and not shoving in a van and off to the cells? You just can't bring yourself to say the copper was out of order? Not even a teensy bit out of order? Nah, just can't do it...... Lets wait and see what the IPCC say eh? I'll have a fiver on them being a bit more objective on it - but hey, they are the nasty Guardian reading liberal idiots that have to police the police and as such are always wrong and do gooding ******* because they don't know *the job*. I don't know *the job* but I know the police should be subject to the same laws as anyone else. well said that man Les Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silverballer Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 moral of the story is, if you want to go out and get ****** out of your head and become disorderly then theres a chance you're gonna get tasered, gassed, punched, kicked, tickled by cops and thats what the do gooder sandal wearing ******* need to realise. Only thing I disagree with regarding the polices actions is that it still keeps the daily mail in business. Should have tasered the moron in that video who was shouting "*******" at the police as well, he wasn't really helping the situation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guest1957 Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 (edited) Oh good, yet another no win no fee I guess, that is exactly what we need to spend some money on!!! If all these firms were rounded up and sent off to a deserted island somewhere they would all die due to blaming somebody else for not doing something. Pillocks the whole lot of them. My personal feelings are that if you want to play rough, then you have got to expect to get hurt, whoever you play with. If it was me there (in cuffs) I would have expected a beasting, not a squirt of pepper spray. Not likely to happen now though as I grew out of that phase of my life years ago. The police have a difficult job to do and if this blame culture goes on then all we can expect to hear about is " the police stood and watched as the man was beaten to death" headlines. For those who say it won't then how about the pcso's who stood and watched those kids drown because they didn't have the right training? Firstly, the police are not above the law. If they insist on treating restrained people like this they can and should expect criminal and civil proceedings to be brought against them. Secondly, everyone has a right to legal representation. Just because some people here have already hung, drawn and quartered this person in their mind, doesn't mean he hasn't got the right to seek justice under the law just as everyone has. This is particulalry true given that he was cleared of all charges brought against him. I do wonder about the idea of justice some people on here have, maybe they'd also like to see people get a crack over the back of head with a baton if they get caught speeding or a day in the stocks for breaking health and safety legislation I thought not... Edited July 19, 2010 by guest1957 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Mungler / BlaserF3 - I see what you see. I just can't see why others ignore their own eyes or try to introduce other irrelevant factors. The Police, on this occasion let themselves and the Police Force down. It doesn't mean they are like this all the time, but you just can't pretend this is acceptable, because it isn't. The man was assaulted - whether he "had it coming" or not is not the point. He was held down, restrained, covered in blood and then sprayed. Does this mean it is acceptable practice - if you won't shut up - you get a face full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
palombier Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 Mungler Based on the remarks in your post I assume you don't practice criminal law? I would have thought that as a solicitor (i assume you are) you would like to hear all the evidence before rushing to a judgement? As one of the more entertaining and amusing 'posters' on here, I'm sorry to have to say you've lost it a bit on this one. P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 I suspect Mungler knows the law far better than the barrackroom lawyers on here. There is enough evidence to say the Police were wrong. You don't need to see all the evidence to make a judgement. Based on this flawed logic, if you saw a bank being robbed or some pensioner being mugged, you would need to know the criminal's side of it before deciding they were committing a crime. It is all so clear now. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudpatten Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 A lot of thought, some 8 pages worth, has been devoted to what might or might not be a case of "police brutality". Yet we seem to have lost sight of at least some of the background to this incident which is, that almost all of our city centres are now no-go areas after about 10pm. Overrun as they are with drunk,violent and vomiting chavs and chavettes. A police officer makes what may be an error of judgement and the civil rights zealots and ambulance chasing lawyers open the floodgates of outrage. It is an interesting statement about the current state of our society that a moments ill considered action by the police should provoke more interest than the endless anti social bachanalian orgy of excess and violence that is now a normal weekends activity for many. The officer concerned was probably not technically right in what he did. From a policing point of view though, what he did will have a lasting and beneficial effect for all of us. What we really need to be outraged about is not the actions of the officer, but of the society that allowed him to be put in that situation in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 (edited) This really is not about what the bloke did or did not do. I again would however repeat that the bloke in question was found "not guilty" of anything. That includes *not* being drunk and or disorderly and *not* commiting assault. It's about what happens when you are fully restrained and in custody. It is about what is lawful and where the lines are drawn. It's about what a professional police force should and does do. This was not an error of judgment. This was not restraint. It was "ave that" with a can of CS gas. I dislike young drivers who speed; I think they are as anti social as drunks and speeding is against the law and they are therefore criminals. Would it be acceptable for anyone being caught speeding to get whack with an asp, a drop of gas or a quick jolt on the taser? If not, why not? Now, what about people who drop litter? People who park on yellow lines? Where do you draw the line? The lines are already drawn in legislation and for good reason - Google the West Midlands Crime Squad and how / why PACE came into being? This is *not* a police bashing thread. I am completely supportive of professional police officers. The best man at my wedding is a police man and four people in my circle of friends are policemen. Edited July 19, 2010 by Mungler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J@mes Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 This really is not about what the bloke did or did not do. I again would however repeat that the bloke in question was found "not guilty" of anything. That includes *not* being drunk and or disorderly and *not* commiting assault. The lines are already drawn in legislation and for good reason - Google the West Midlands Crime Squad and how / why PACE came into being? NO OFFICER from the West Midlands Police Serious Crime Squad has been successfully prosecuted. looks like everyone is innocent of everything then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 No. I believe the Policeman was guilty of assault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevo--t Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 That's disgusting, being shot at with a 'snot' well spotted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbart Posted July 19, 2010 Report Share Posted July 19, 2010 That will teach me to reply without watching the video first... in that scenario a cannot justify the officers actions in spraying the subject with pava/cs whilst he was clearly restrained and not a threat to anyone. I cannot offer any justification why the officer deemed it necessery to further spray him just for being , it seems , gobby. He is arrested and handcuffed, he does not appear to be violent, therefore the officers actions in this video do not, in my opinion, to be proportionate Well done that man The first policeman i can remember on here actually admiting black is black and white is white. The video is there for all to see and it doesnt matter a jot what he has or hasnt done prior to the vid starting,he is in a controlled situation,cuffed and under arrest,end of. But still some people use the same old same old "they have a hard job,he was a wrong un" like it makes it ok for them to do whatever they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.