Spooky Mulder

Amply demonstrating that these standards have fallen a very long way.

I can understand that hour after hour of dealing with abuse and provocation from wilful protesters at last weeks G20 must be very testing. But that is what they are paid for. What happens in this video is inexcusable and amounts to common assault, possibly manslaughter.

Police assault

Steve vRS

That doesn't look good

Steve

FlightMan

Shocking video. The guy is obviously walking away, hands in pockets and gets a shove from a policeman.

I'd have thought they'd have had better things to be doing.

CrisPDuk

I dipped in and out of various coverage of the protests that day, and to be honest, got the impression that a significant minority of police officers were spoiling for a ruck as much as some of the protestors

And why did most of those in that footage feel the need to have their faces covered

cster

The officer was a bit stupid doing it on camera.
He would have been totally aware of CCTV and assorted reporters being everywhere.
Maybe they just don't give a **** anymore.

Timwinner

iTrader: (3)

20 minutes previous hundreds of people were smashing a public building, The police were holding the line. As most people wanted them to do when they saw images of OUR bank getting looted.
Its sad he died, Its a real shame but its not like it was'nt apparent that a mass dis order was taking place.
If he wanted to get out of the way he could have walked away. Not inched his way around the area infront of the police.
The fact he was cleared from the front line and the fact he died are separate for me.

During a mass dis order its not appropriate to stop and ask everyone there intent with regards to the violence and the protest, You hold the line.
The fact he suffered a heart attack has not yet been attributed to him being pushed over.
The police in the UK use the least amount of force in these situations and if this is deemed to heavy handed they may as well not bother turning up to protests in the future.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Why don't you crawl under a rock and die?

Of course it's ****ing heavy handed to attack someone who is walking away from you, especially from behind. I bet the police officer in question feels like a real hard man, the ******.

Another man dead, another police cover up.

Still, at least this one wasn't shot in the head, I suppose.

Timwinner

iTrader: (3)

And this is the exact reason I dont bother commenting on this forum very often, The days of an adult debate are dead and buried.

Now its personal insult, childish language and stupid comparisons.

If I could have put money on an unwanted response that added nothing to the thread I would have put it on you posting it.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

we aim to please.

Btw, you should check your timings, as if you are referring to the RBS debacle there was 6-7 hours of the odd person smashing the RBS window and this guy being killed.

There were no mass riots, the police totally overreacted and killed a man who was on his way home from work. Nice work.

ScoobyWon't

As a police officer I can tell you that we use a scale that dictates the use of force which we are entitled to use.

It a is constant circle of evaluation of the circumstances that we continuosly go through, reacting to the behaviour of that confronts us.

If I have to deal with someone who is shouting, I will employ Tac-Comms (tactical communications - telling them what to do). If they escalate their behaviour, or threat then I will escalate my response accordingly. If they decrease teir behaviour, then I will decrease mine as well.

An example (that hasn't happened) Should you wave a machete at me or other members of the public, then I am empowered to step up one level further than your actions, thus I would be justified in usig deadly force if you're threatening lives. To be honest, I wouldn't want to kill you, I'd just park my Focus on top of you to nuetralise the threat you are creating. As soon as that threat has been removed, I'd move my Focus off your body.

The situation that needs to be looked at here is that there are offences contrary to the Public Order Act being committed.

The Public Order Act 1986 s.1 states:

1) Where twelve or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

(2) It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.
(3) The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.
(4) No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.
(5) Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.
(6) A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.

Public disorder starts with only one person (section 5) and then escalates.

During a riot, violent disorder etc you cannot start picking out individuals as this is impractical. Ask yourself if you could walk in to a riot and start nicking people on individual offences e.g. criminal damage etc or would you just arrest them for riot, which get's them off the street (and is covered by the above)? Just to help you decide, watch this clip YouTube - Bestwood Riot and tell me how you, as a cop, would go in and identify each crim and nick them on each offence, or if you'd simply just nick them for riot as it covers all offences that you can see.

I'm not going to justify or condemn the actions of the cop involved as I was not there and cannot say what has happened before what we have seen from the clip of the man being pushed over.

ScoobyWon't

Just to reiterate what I've already said...

The Public Order Act 1986 s.1 states:

1) Where twelve or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Well, I suppose it's OK then. I hope I, or anyone I know, don't end up with a protest between my place of work and home in case I'd get pushed over as well.

WRX_Dazza

if the copper was innocent, why doesnt he put his hands up then. he knows he shoved the poor bloke.

the longer it goes on the more suspicious his actions seem imho.

if he can quote "defending the front line" doing his job by the book, then he has nothing to hide from !!

saddening, when it could have been one of the great unwashed, looting, dole mongers instead !!

Spooky Mulder

Your post is well made and at the heart of it is a very useful principle which I quote above.

None of us can comment on what led to this or what happened before. However what we can see would 'appear' to contravene the principle quoted above.

The man has his hands in his pockets and as any psychologist will tell you from looking at him he has a fairly to very submissive physiology. At most he is very passively aggressive by perhaps not moving away as fast as the police want him to.

Of course in his mind, as someone who is not believed to be a protester, he may have felt the police actions were not intended for him. This would also seem to be substantiated by the level of reaction after he was pushed to the ground. He reaction was moderate for someone who had just been violently pushed to the ground from behind. If anything he looked confused by the action. Certainly he was not aggressively finding his feet to retaliate.

Back to the principle above, he does not appear to be escalating his behaviour regarding the line of officers. An officer (not the closest to the victim initially) runs at him and pushes him over. This would appear to be an escalation by the police officer in contravention to the simple and practical principle quoted above.

Outside of the video is the context that this was someone who was simply returning home from work and had not been involved in the earlier 'activities'. Indeed this was much, much later in the day than the attack on the RBS or BoE alluded to by Tim.

Whatever the full story this makes very poor viewing and significantly weakens the Police as figures of authority.

ScoobyWon't

You really need to see what else has gone on before judgements are made. There will no doubt be an inquiry by the Independant Police Complaints Commission, there'll also be a lot of statements by rioters and cops who were there.

I don't think it's fair to use this simpe clip to judge guilt or innocence without looking at the bigger picture. It was only a few years ago that a national red-top published pictures captured on CCTV, of a cop sparking a woman out. These pictures, however, did not show that the woman had the cops ***** in her hand and he was punching her to get her to stop assaulting him - as was shown on a different camera view.

Sosbanite

I'm sorry but you are wrong on this occasion.
The police actions towards this man are uncalled for and unacceptable.
Watching the video clip he appears not to be "tuned in" to the situation and minding his own business. Yes, he was in the way of the advancing police line but he was not participating in the demo or obstructing the police.
Police officers are trained to read body language and to anticipate threats etc as well as being trained to restrain people in a safe manner.
The officers had opportunity to verbally warn him or to ground him safely. Instead he is shoved hard in the back with no chance of using his hands to break his fall and with every chance of landing heavily on his face and of sustaining a head injury al la Natasha Richardson.
The officer concerned failed to discharge his duty of care to a member of the public and should be dealt with accordingly.

ScoobyWon't

I'd like to refer back to the definition of a riot which I posted.

There were more than 12 people.

It is the conduct of them all which is taken in to account

If the cop in question can prove he was in fear he has a defence "such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety".

We have not seen the prior actions of the victim or officer here so it is unfair for us to make judgements using this short clip. Had they been arguing before? Had they been fighting before? We simply can't tell from that clip.

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

But this clip shows the attack from start to finish. Clearly the man isn't a threat to the police officers when he's walking away from them, so (to me, who arguably perhaps isn't the most objective person when it comes to police "violence" against protestors) I personally can not see how this level of force can ever be justified.

I'm not bothered with if it's "legal" use of force. Morally, I think it's absolutely wrong, and if this is deemed to be legal by the IPCC, then the law needs changing (in my personal opinion).

ScoobyWon't

Why?
What was the man doing before he was caught on camera?
Again, what was he doing before the video started recording?
We are also trained to escalate our actions to match and go one step further than those of the subject in order to neutralise the situation. At the end of the day, I'm risking my life in a riot to prevent a breach pf the Queen's Peace which is somrthing all citizens in the UK have a right to.
The video doesn't show if tac-comms were used or the actions dictating at which level the officers should start at. This will be down to the IPCC and/or Courts to decide, but I can tell you simply that if he over stepped the mark then the police will jettison him to distance themselves from him and his actions in order to keep a good image of themselves by condemning his actions. There are probably more enemies within the force for an officer than there are on the outside.

Spooky Mulder

And taking your principle - whatever happened before is somewhat irrelevant - whilst the video is short there is little evidence that the behaviour was 'escalating'. Even if there were 12 or more people present. There is no evidence that at this moment the behaviour was escalating. There is significant evidence that at least for this individual it was de-escalating as he was walking away submissively with his hands in his pockets.

There is even less evidence that in this moment that the officer was in fear of someone walking away, unless he suffers from dorsiphobia.

Even if they had just been arguing furiously the action in the video is a de-escalation. So at best it is an officer with a slow reaction time/slow fuse.

Turbohot

IMO based upon the video footage, policeman is wrong. He needs a good seeing to, by a just judge.

Sosbanite

Like everyone else I am well aware that the camera can lie - so to speak.
So, let's assume that seconds before the clip starts he has been giving the police the full verbals etc and is fully involved in the demo.
My point still stands that the incident involves a police officer shoving a person in the back inviting the possibility the they will fall and seriously injure themselves!
Even in the self contained time frame of the clip and allowing for the circumstances the officers actions are, in my opinion, indefensible.
I do not expect the police to lower themselves to the same levels of behaviour as protesters whatever the provocation.

ScoobyWon't

There is a riot in progress.

You cannot escalate above a riot which is the highest offence of public disorder (section 1 Public Order Act)

It's a riot so it is the conduct of all which is taken in to account (as per definition)

As I've said, we need all of the facts to be able to try this case. I could bore you stupid with the conspiracy theories thrown at me during investigations in order to debunk them. Some people seem to think we have a room full of fingerprints filed away which we just take out of storage and take to a scene of crime to fit them up. You simply need to remain objective.

If you cannot believe in the justice system then the country may as well not be policed and we should just let the crims do what they want. Including rioters, kiddie fiddlers, Subaru stealing joy riders etc...

ScoobyWon't

Maybe the cop was punched off camera and had to take him to the ground in order to be able to cuff him... We need to know the full facts. Simple as.

Without the full facts and an objective investigation no outcome will benefit the public or the police. We police with consent. If you do not consent to us policing, then we'll simply end up with either the military on the street or a dictatorhip. Not a nice thought if you think back to Germany between 1939-1945. A fair, objective investigation is what is called for.

Spooky Mulder

Just out of interest the video has been changed - there is now slightly longer footage to the video I initially viewed.

It now seems to be clearer that a line of police is clearing a street. By all accounts the 'rioting' had been over some time before this incident.

Bottom line is a that man with hands in pockets clearly does not move out of the way fast enough and is roughly pushed to the ground.

I don't know when they BBC changed the video so we may have been looking at different evidence.

Spooky Mulder

I think much of the problem experienced today is that very few people would subscribe to the notion that policing is done by consent.

There was a police chief a few years ago attributed a significant shift in the public relationship with the police to the introduction of speed cameras as it removed the actual relationship between police and public creating resentment. This is a thread in it's own right.

You seem to be an idealist and I can only hope that my own personal experience of the police is merely bad luck and there are more like you serving all our interests.

ScoobyWon't

I've not been in long enough yet to become cynical

I simply want to make the country a better place for the children of tomorrow to grow up in. However, I recognise that there are issues which need to be overcome by both sides.

People may agree or disagree with me, but at the end of the day, underneath the uniform I am still human.

The uniform just makes me sexier See, the five-0 do have a sense of humour.

Spooky Mulder

Just for reference - I don't find you sexy in a police uniform!

DCI Gene Hunt

The bloke was taking the juice, walking as slow as he could with his back to the police and both hands in pockets. They were telling him to move on and he kept slowing down.

He should've done what he was told and he wouldn't have been pushed, anyhow his heart attack came later so how they can say the two events were linked is beyond me. I've often seen idiots like him on telly, winding up the police, so as far as being pushed to the floor, well he got his just deserves!

People moan that the police do nothing.... when they do something people moan, strange that

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

Tim, I apologise for the above statement.

Now in the morning, I realise that even though we'll never agree on these issues, this is not the way forward


Sorry.