|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 20, 2024 10:45:55 GMT
Here is a list of accepted means of restraint from THE COLLEGE OF POLICING (quote) "In recording the use of force, officers and staff should use the following categories" baton/ASP Taser incapacitant spray handcuffs open hand techniques prone restraint Interestingly, the Code Of Conduct stipulates that if any kind of injury has been sustained, the arresting officer(s) must consider removing the prisoner directly to hospital. The Regulations also state that when arriving at a Custody Suite, the arresting officers MUST inform the custody officers of the precise nature of any force used during the arrest. Now - I wonder if those officers informed the custody officers that they deemed it to be necessary to stamp on the mans head, and kick him in the head ... I bet they bloody well didn't. You idiot . How could the armed officer use prone restraint on a potential attacker who could try to take his weapon , was attempting to get up and with a potential attacker hanging over him . This wasn’t a scuffle outside a pub , it was a full on assault on airport police , with all the potential dangers that go with it . This could easily have been a diversion for a full on terrorist attack . The quickest and easiest way to control an attacker is to hit them first and control them straight after . Prone means - laid on the floor, face down The suspect WAS allready in a prone position when the police officer both kicked the suspect in the head, and then stamped on his head. The suspect made absolutelly no attempt what so ever to get back up, raise his head or lift his arms, and immediately prior to the officer assaulted him, he was totally subdued. The officer faced the suspect from his Left side, using his Left foot to assault the subdued suspect, the gun was attached to the officers right side, and would not have even been visible to the man laid on the floor. Been on the floor, surrounded by police officers, and with a Taser aimed at him, he was no longer a potential attacker. The police code of conduct clearly states "minimum use of force" and the word "proprotionate" is used over and over again. Watching the footage very carefully, and using pause, its clear that an onlooker could not believe what he had witnessed and got out his mobile phone to begin filming the officer. A female officer ( possibly realising the potential gravity of what the officer had done ), then pointed a Taser at the man who attempted to film the incident. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 20, 2024 11:51:45 GMT
You idiot . How could the armed officer use prone restraint on a potential attacker who could try to take his weapon , was attempting to get up and with a potential attacker hanging over him . This wasn’t a scuffle outside a pub , it was a full on assault on airport police , with all the potential dangers that go with it . This could easily have been a diversion for a full on terrorist attack . The quickest and easiest way to control an attacker is to hit them first and control them straight after . Prone means - laid on the floor, face down The suspect WAS allready in a prone position when the police officer both kicked the suspect in the head, and then stamped on his head. The suspect made absolutelly no attempt what so ever to get back up, raise his head or lift his arms, and immediately prior to the officer assaulted him, he was totally subdued. The officer faced the suspect from his Left side, using his Left foot to assault the subdued suspect, the gun was attached to the officers right side, and would not have even been visible to the man laid on the floor. Been on the floor, surrounded by police officers, and with a Taser aimed at him, he was no longer a potential attacker. The police code of conduct clearly states "minimum use of force" and the word "proprotionate" is used over and over again. Watching the footage very carefully, and using pause, it’clear that an onlooker could not believe what he had witnessed and got out his mobile phone to begin filming the officer. A female officer ( possibly realising the potential gravity of what the officer had done ), then pointed a Taser at the man who attempted to film the incident. You need glasses as well as a brain . He reared his torso up instead of staying down as instructed . The problem was compounded by the female who hung over him. Should potentially could have passed him a weapon . The force used was correct and proportional. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 20, 2024 11:57:28 GMT
He wasn't a "suspect", he was a violent criminal out of control who had broken the nose of a police lady and was violently attacking other police officers, he may have had a concealed weapon and so the police officer carried out an instant restraint to prevent further violence. For fucks sake. Do you think that the rioters who attacked the police should also be kicked in the head? Kicking someone in the head is a tactical option, where justified.
As is TASER, Baton Strike, restraint, open hand techniques and even shooting someone dead.
All perfectly legal where justified.
That's the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 20, 2024 12:00:04 GMT
Here is a list of accepted means of restraint from THE COLLEGE OF POLICING (quote) "In recording the use of force, officers and staff should use the following categories" baton/ASP Taser incapacitant spray handcuffs open hand techniques prone restraint Interestingly, the Code Of Conduct stipulates that if any kind of injury has been sustained, the arresting officer(s) must consider removing the prisoner directly to hospital. The Regulations also state that when arriving at a Custody Suite, the arresting officers MUST inform the custody officers of the precise nature of any force used during the arrest. Now - I wonder if those officers informed the custody officers that they deemed it to be necessary to stamp on the mans head, and kick him in the head ... I bet they bloody well didn't. The College of Policing recording criteria do not override the law.
As above: Kicking someone in the head is a tactical option, where justified.
As is TASER, Baton Strike, restraint, open hand techniques and even shooting someone dead.
All perfectly legal where justified.
That's the law.
(See Common Law, S3 Criminal Law Act 1967, S117 PACE etc).
|
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Aug 20, 2024 12:46:54 GMT
Prone means - laid on the floor, face down The suspect WAS allready in a prone position when the police officer both kicked the suspect in the head, and then stamped on his head. The suspect made absolutelly no attempt what so ever to get back up, raise his head or lift his arms, and immediately prior to the officer assaulted him, he was totally subdued. The officer faced the suspect from his Left side, using his Left foot to assault the subdued suspect, the gun was attached to the officers right side, and would not have even been visible to the man laid on the floor. Been on the floor, surrounded by police officers, and with a Taser aimed at him, he was no longer a potential attacker. The police code of conduct clearly states "minimum use of force" and the word "proprotionate" is used over and over again. Watching the footage very carefully, and using pause, it’clear that an onlooker could not believe what he had witnessed and got out his mobile phone to begin filming the officer. A female officer ( possibly realising the potential gravity of what the officer had done ), then pointed a Taser at the man who attempted to film the incident. You need glasses as well as a brain . He reared his torso up instead of staying down as instructed . The problem was compounded by the female who hung over him. Should potentially could have passed him a weapon . The force used was correct and proportional. The man made absolutely no attempt what so ever to get up, and the fact that he moved his body is not a reasonable reason to kick him in the head. You are obviously round the twist and agree with unreasonable and totally unecessary force using actions (kicking someone in the head) which are not acceptable. But here's the thing - I am very willing to fully accept the conclusion of an independent investigation, and I am sure that you will too ? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Aug 20, 2024 13:00:08 GMT
You need glasses as well as a brain . He reared his torso up instead of staying down as instructed . The problem was compounded by the female who hung over him. Should potentially could have passed him a weapon . The force used was correct and proportional. The man made absolutely no attempt what so ever to get up, and the fact that he moved his body is not a reasonable reason to kick him in the head. You are obviously round the twist and agree with unreasonable and totally unecessary force using actions (kicking someone in the head) which are not acceptable. But here's the thing - I am very willing to fully accept the conclusion of an independent investigation, and I am sure that you will too ? Idiot. You dint move from a prone position by levitating . He moved his torso which could have been the first movement to twist and kick or make a move toward the officer . As I keep pointing out to you and the other idiots , the woman could have handed him a weapon . Had the attacker did what he was told then he would not have had to be very quickly neutralised. The only problem I could see there was the woman was not hit or tazered . Any investigation will be biased towards the Muslims . Mainly because of cowards in the authorities that pander to ethnic minorities. I will be interested to see if the conclusion is independent and fair . |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 20, 2024 13:10:18 GMT
You need glasses as well as a brain . He reared his torso up instead of staying down as instructed . The problem was compounded by the female who hung over him. Should potentially could have passed him a weapon . The force used was correct and proportional. You are obviously round the twist and agree with unreasonable and totally unecessary force using actions (kicking someone in the head) which are not acceptable. But here's the thing - I am very willing to fully accept the conclusion of an independent investigation, and I am sure that you will too ? The use of force is for the officer to justify, in court if necessary.
The pontifications of internet ignorati such as yourself don't come into it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 20, 2024 13:26:03 GMT
You need glasses as well as a brain . He reared his torso up instead of staying down as instructed . The problem was compounded by the female who hung over him. Should potentially could have passed him a weapon . The force used was correct and proportional. The man made absolutely no attempt what so ever to get up, and the fact that he moved his body is not a reasonable reason to kick him in the head. You are obviously round the twist and agree with unreasonable and totally unecessary force using actions (kicking someone in the head) which are not acceptable. But here's the thing - I am very willing to fully accept the conclusion of an independent investigation, and I am sure that you will too ? Go back and look at the video, he made a move to rise and then he was kicked. We have learned the lesson over recent years that there is no such thing as Independent. One can look at the Dos Santos/Williams affair and see how evenhandedness was not part of the process and is unlikely to be in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Aug 20, 2024 14:13:08 GMT
The man made absolutely no attempt what so ever to get up, and the fact that he moved his body is not a reasonable reason to kick him in the head. You are obviously round the twist and agree with unreasonable and totally unecessary force using actions (kicking someone in the head) which are not acceptable. But here's the thing - I am very willing to fully accept the conclusion of an independent investigation, and I am sure that you will too ? Go back and look at the video, he made a move to rise and then he was kicked. We have learned the lesson over recent years that there is no such thing as Independent. One can look at the Dos Santos/Williams affair and see how evenhandedness was not part of the process and is unlikely to be in this case. Indeed.
The officers actions in this case could be quite easily justifiable. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the officers will be thrown under the bus.
Such is this two-tier regime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 20, 2024 14:21:48 GMT
Go back and look at the video, he made a move to rise and then he was kicked. We have learned the lesson over recent years that there is no such thing as Independent. One can look at the Dos Santos/Williams affair and see how evenhandedness was not part of the process and is unlikely to be in this case. Indeed.
The officers actions in this case could be quite easily justifiable. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the officers will be thrown under the bus.
Such is this two-tier regime.
Anything to appease the woke brigade, if they'd been white family attacking police they'd be looking at THE FULL FORCE OF THE LAW coming down on them. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Aug 20, 2024 14:30:35 GMT
14:32 BST 9 August Statement from Jaswant Narwal, Chief Crown Prosecutor for CPS London North: “The Crown Prosecution Service has authorised the Metropolitan Police to charge Ricky Jones, 57, with one count of encouraging violent disorder.
“Jones was filmed addressing a crowd in Walthamstow on Wednesday 7 August during which he appeared to make remarks and a gesture to encourage others to act violently towards far-right protestors.
“He has been arrested and charged within 48 hours, and will now appear at Westminster Magistrates’ Court this afternoon, 9 August 2024."
Narwal adds that criminal proceedings are active and that there should be no reporting, commentary, or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice them. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 20, 2024 14:30:42 GMT
Has anyone got the image of that idiot rioter who got whacked on the head with a brick then turned round and got one in the bollocks LOL .... Served him right 😁😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Aug 20, 2024 14:38:48 GMT
Has anyone got the image of that idiot rioter who got whacked on the head with a brick then turned round and got one in the bollocks LOL .... Served him right 😁😁 LOL .......  |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Aug 20, 2024 14:49:16 GMT
You idiot . How could the armed officer use prone restraint on a potential attacker who could try to take his weapon , was attempting to get up and with a potential attacker hanging over him . This wasn’t a scuffle outside a pub , it was a full on assault on airport police , with all the potential dangers that go with it . This could easily have been a diversion for a full on terrorist attack . The quickest and easiest way to control an attacker is to hit them first and control them straight after . Prone means - laid on the floor, face down The suspect WAS allready in a prone position when the police officer both kicked the suspect in the head, and then stamped on his head. The suspect made absolutelly no attempt what so ever to get back up, raise his head or lift his arms, and immediately prior to the officer assaulted him, he was totally subdued. The officer faced the suspect from his Left side, using his Left foot to assault the subdued suspect, the gun was attached to the officers right side, and would not have even been visible to the man laid on the floor. Been on the floor, surrounded by police officers, and with a Taser aimed at him, he was no longer a potential attacker. The police code of conduct clearly states "minimum use of force" and the word "proprotionate" is used over and over again. Watching the footage very carefully, and using pause, it’s how you could find every excuse to excuse because poor old mum clear that an onlooker could not believe what he had witnessed and got out his mobile phone to begin filming the officer. A female officer ( possibly realising the potential gravity of what the officer had done ), then pointed a Taser at the man who attempted to film the incident. Amazing how you could find every excuse for the men by saying poor old mum had been verbally abused and they were very angry and who wouldn’t be. You then say the alleged abuser wasn’t questioned and left and the police weren’t doing their job but you have little sympathy for the police viciously attacked by this pair and went on seeking every avenue that they weren’t at fault but the police are. Much as the same you thought nothing happened in Rochdale and the mob did nothing. You will no doubt be ecstatic if the cop is thrown under the bus but if he is I expect a good few of the armed units will return their arms in and if you are ever unfortunate enough to travel from Manchester airport and a terrorist incident occurs you’ll be complaining again where are the police and why weren’t they proactive. And you still ignore that in almost any other country had they behaved in that way they’d have been shot all and gone over your head as uncomfortable truths generally do (with you) |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Aug 20, 2024 15:05:37 GMT
And you still ignore that in almost any other country had they behaved in that way they’d have been shot all and gone over your head as uncomfortable truths generally do (with you) Isn't the point that most people take pride in the fact that this is the UK and believe it is better than almost any other country?
Must admit, while I'm not squeamish about vicious louts getting a slap or two, I am waiting to read the outcomes of any inquiries...
|
|
