|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 12:42:01 GMT
Really? Please do provide us with the police guidelines that permit a an armed officer to show a suspect, one who is already tasered, and on the ground face-down. Have to confess, I couldn't find one the other day when I was looking through the police guidelines for using force on an already subdued suspect. All The Best Irrelevant. Police guidelines, if such exist, do not override the law. It is not illegal to kill someone. It is not illegal to use extreme amounts of force. It is not illegal to stamp on someone's head. It is not illegal to use a pre-emptive strike. The only relevant factor is the justification of that use of force. That is the law. And we haven't heard the officers rationale for his use of force in the circumstances as he saw them to be. It is irrelevant what you think, what I think, what the IOPC think or even what the video(s) show. Use of force is subjective. That is the law. So you can't provide guidelines that would permit the extra-judicial execution of an already subdued suspect. Just admit it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 31, 2024 12:45:45 GMT
Irrelevant. Police guidelines, if such exist, do not override the law. It is not illegal to kill someone. It is not illegal to use extreme amounts of force. It is not illegal to stamp on someone's head. It is not illegal to use a pre-emptive strike. The only relevant factor is the justification of that use of force. That is the law. And we haven't heard the officers rationale for his use of force in the circumstances as he saw them to be. It is irrelevant what you think, what I think, what the IOPC think or even what the video(s) show. Use of force is subjective. That is the law. So you can't provide guidelines that would permit the extra-judicial execution of an already subdued suspect. Just admit it. All The Best Irrelevant. Google Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. That's the relevant law. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 13:47:53 GMT
So you can't provide guidelines that would permit the extra-judicial execution of an already subdued suspect. Just admit it. All The Best Irrelevant. Google Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. That's the relevant law. Which is all to say that any force used for defence has to be justifiable. I already knew that. Now, how you justify using potentially lethal force against a subject that is a) on the floor face down, b) semi-conscious from just being tasered, and c) surrounded by multiple police officers. Willing to bet it can't be done. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 31, 2024 13:53:14 GMT
And, as i said days ago, that's for the officer to justify to a court.
And what you're willing to bet is totally irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2024 13:55:52 GMT
Irrelevant. Police guidelines, if such exist, do not override the law. It is not illegal to kill someone. It is not illegal to use extreme amounts of force. It is not illegal to stamp on someone's head. It is not illegal to use a pre-emptive strike. The only relevant factor is the justification of that use of force. That is the law. And we haven't heard the officers rationale for his use of force in the circumstances as he saw them to be. It is irrelevant what you think, what I think, what the IOPC think or even what the video(s) show. Use of force is subjective. That is the law. So you can't provide guidelines that would permit the extra-judicial execution of an already subdued suspect. Just admit it. All The Best How do you know he was already effectively subdued? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2024 14:01:21 GMT
Irrelevant. Google Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. That's the relevant law. Which is all to say that any force used for defence has to be justifiable. I already knew that. Now, how you justify using potentially lethal force against a subject that is a) on the floor face down, b) semi-conscious from just being tasered, and c) surrounded by multiple police officers. Willing to bet it can't be done. All The Best a) he raised his head as though to get up before the kick arrived b) you do not know what state of consciousness he was in c) he had been surrounded before by multiple police officers and put three of them on the deck and attacked a fourth from behind as he was trying to arrest his mate. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 31, 2024 14:17:12 GMT
Irrelevant. Google Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. That's the relevant law. Which is all to say that any force used for defence has to be justifiable. I already knew that. Now, how you justify using potentially lethal force against a subject that is a) on the floor face down, b) semi-conscious from just being tasered, and c) surrounded by multiple police officers. Willing to bet it can't be done. All The Best In any other Airport in the world apart from the UK he would have been shot in the head, not kicked. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 14:36:34 GMT
Which is all to say that any force used for defence has to be justifiable. I already knew that. Now, how you justify using potentially lethal force against a subject that is a) on the floor face down, b) semi-conscious from just being tasered, and c) surrounded by multiple police officers. Willing to bet it can't be done. All The Best a) he raised his head as though to get up before the kick arrived b) you do not know what state of consciousness he was in c) he had been surrounded before by multiple police officers and put three of them on the deck and attacked a fourth from behind as he was trying to arrest his mate. a) Did he fuck, he turned his head in the direction of the Officer shouting instructions at him. Neither has hands, arms or chest were raided off the ground, and without all three of those happening it is impossible for him to stand up. b) The very fact he did not move his arm to try try and defend against the stamp to the head would indicate he had impaired motor function, given that we already know he had been tased it is highly likely he was, at best, semi-conscious. c) Yes, but he was stood up to do that wasn't he? I mean I know some people here want the stamp to the head to be justifiable for no other reason than the colour of his skin (and it is both deeply shameful and against Pro-Boards ToS that Mods here not only do nothing to not try and stamp out that racism, but are sometime complicit in it) but don't try and fool the rest of us that what happened was in any way justifiable. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 14:38:58 GMT
Which is all to say that any force used for defence has to be justifiable. I already knew that. Now, how you justify using potentially lethal force against a subject that is a) on the floor face down, b) semi-conscious from just being tasered, and c) surrounded by multiple police officers. Willing to bet it can't be done. All The Best In any other Airport in the world apart from the UK he would have been shot in the head, not kicked. Right. So? We are not in any other part of the world. We are in the UK. UK Law applies here - like it or not. If you don't like then I suggest you have the courage of your convictions and emigrate to some 3rd world hell-hole where Police Brutality is accepted - because it won't be accepted here. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 14:40:26 GMT
And, as i said days ago, that's for the officer to justify to a court. And what you're willing to bet is totally irrelevant. Well, as you've already admitted that you won't accept the verdict of a court unless you get the verdict you want why would you care about what can be justified to the court? You have no regard for Law and Order. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Jul 31, 2024 14:41:26 GMT
In any other Airport in the world apart from the UK he would have been shot in the head, not kicked. Right. So? We are not in any other part of the world. We are in the UK. UK Law applies here - like it or not. If you don't like then I suggest you have the courage of your convictions and emigrate to some 3rd world hell-hole where Police Brutality is accepted - because it won't be accepted here. All The Best So you think the likes of America, Canada, France, Germany are third world countries, let me tell you something now Pal, anyone of these non-third world countries would have shot this thug in the head, the only reason he's living and breathing is because he did in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Jul 31, 2024 14:50:24 GMT
What I want to know
WHY would members of what has been described as a respectable and hard working family, which includes serving police officers, suddenly decide to attack armed police officers inside the airport building. ?
What led to this action, and why ?
Does anyone know ?
Are police officers ALWAYS in the right, and are police officers NEVER guilty of either missconduct, brutality, corruption or racism. ?
No need to answer the above question - We all know what the answer is
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 31, 2024 14:58:49 GMT
And, as i said days ago, that's for the officer to justify to a court. And what you're willing to bet is totally irrelevant. Well, as you've already admitted that you won't accept the verdict of a court unless you get the verdict you want why would you care about what can be justified to the court? You have no regard for Law and Order. All The Best I'm applying left wing standards of hypocrisy. I mean, fair's fair. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 31, 2024 15:09:02 GMT
What I want to know WHY would members of what has been described as a respectable and hard working family... By whom, exactly? They look like common or garden scumbags to me. ...suddenly decide to attack armed police officers inside the airport building. ? What led to this action, and why ? Does anyone know ? Are police officers ALWAYS in the right, and are police officers NEVER guilty of either missconduct, brutality, or racism.... Are you seriously suggesting that the police attacked innocent members of the public for absolutely no reason? No need to answer the above question - We all know what the answer is Yes. You're trolling. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 31, 2024 15:14:56 GMT
Right. So? We are not in any other part of the world. We are in the UK. UK Law applies here - like it or not. If you don't like then I suggest you have the courage of your convictions and emigrate to some 3rd world hell-hole where Police Brutality is accepted - because it won't be accepted here. All The Best So you think the likes of America, Canada, France, Germany are third world countries, let me tell you something now Pal, anyone of these non-third world countries would have shot this thug in the head, the only reason he's living and breathing is because he did in the UK. Good job we are in the UK then, were extra-judicial execution is not condoned. That is why the UK is one of the most civilised nations on earth. Are you going to move to a country where you can summarily shot dead in the street for a single criminal action? All The Best |
|
