Also In The News - part 3

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

Having seen the video of the attack on the police officers prior to the kick to the head, I can safely say that I regret my initial response and shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. The man who was kicked had just viciously attacked the police officers and was not yet in handcuffs; he had been temporarily incapacitated by a taser and could very well have got up and continued the assault. The officer had to do whatever was necessary to neutralise the threat. I honestly think the men who attacked the officers should consider themselves extremely lucky not to have been shot to death. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, FoxyPV said:

Jfc

 

This is a disgusting response. 

 

The police are not above the law.

 

There is no excuse for police brutality 

I think most people would agree with your stance on police brutality, but the point is that not everybody agrees that this belongs in the category of police brutality. The police are clearly allowed to use force to prevent injury to others or effect a lawful arrest, so the question is whether the use and type of force was justified. The man being kicked was in the middle of attacking several police officers, interrupted only by a taser which had rendered him temporarily unable to continue. The police officer does not know how long the man will lay prone on the floor and any sign that he might get up and carry on has to be met with decisive force. Given the fact that there were multiple attackers, it might have been impractical to try and handcuff him at that point. 

[Dr The Singh]

13 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Having seen the video of the attack on the police officers prior to the kick to the head, I can safely say that I regret my initial response and shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. The man who was kicked had just viciously attacked the police officers and was not yet in handcuffs; he had been temporarily incapacitated by a taser and could very well have got up and continued the assault. The officer had to do whatever was necessary to neutralise the threat. I honestly think the men who attacked the officers should consider themselves extremely lucky not to have been shot to death. 

Wow

[SpacedX]

1 hour ago, Kisnorbo fox said:

Everyone’s entitled to there opinion. Just because it differs from your one that doesn’t mean it’s wrong. 
 

And therein lies so much that is wrong with the internet and opinion based populism. Simply because every bar stool philosopher and village idiot now has a worldwide platform to share them where previously they would have been ignored, that doesn't mean that they are right. 

 

The police are not irreproachable. Such police brutality is indefensible. The use of force must be reasonable and warranted - and this was not. 

[Kisnorbo fox]

5 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

And therein lies so much that is wrong with the internet and opinion based populism. Simply because every bar stool philosopher and village idiot now has a worldwide platform to share them where previously they would have been ignored, that doesn't mean that they are right. 

 

The police are not irreproachable. Such police brutality is indefensible. The use of force must be reasonable and warranted - and this was not. 

Yet here you are spouting your opinion on the internet ? What do you identify as ? A village idiot or a bar stool philosopher?

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

5 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

And therein lies so much that is wrong with the internet and opinion based populism. Simply because every bar stool philosopher and village idiot now has a worldwide platform to share them where previously they would have been ignored, that doesn't mean that they are right. 

 

The police are not irreproachable. Such police brutality is indefensible. The use of force must be reasonable and warranted - and this was not. 

How do you personally manage to opine on such topics without falling into either of the "bar stool philosopher [or] village idiot" categories?

[Mickyblueeyes]

3 hours ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Interesting. Hypothetically, if it were somehow guaranteed that a kick to the head against a person attending a rally organised by Tommy Robinson would not result in the slippery-slope effect and that nobody other than those particular attendees would be kicked in the head, would it still be wrong?

I don’t really understand the question to be honest. Is it whether I want to see people get kicked in the head if there isn’t any repercussions? Well no because that would be weird. Do I think at times a police offer may need to go above and beyond what is (subjectively) deemed reasonably acceptable - of course. Like I said, I don’t get the question. 

[SpacedX]

2 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

How do you personally manage to opine on such topics without falling into either of the "bar stool philosopher [or] village idiot" categories?

I don't. I simply observed that the violence was unnecessary, meanwhile, facts have a voice of their own. 

 

7 minutes ago, Kisnorbo fox said:

Yet here you are spouting your opinion on the internet ? What do you identify as ? A village idiot or a bar stool philosopher?

I didn't state an "opinion". The officer concerned has been suspended for the use of "excessive force" and will be summarily disciplined, whilst I think you'll agree with me that the internet is unfortunately replete with both. We live in a world that increasingly values opinions over fact. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

5 minutes ago, Mickyblueeyes said:

I don’t really understand the question to be honest. Is it whether I want to see people get kicked in the head if there isn’t any repercussions? Well no because that would be weird. Do I think at times a police offer may need to go above and beyond what is (subjectively) deemed reasonably acceptable - of course. Like I said, I don’t get the question. 

For clarity I will include your original quote which I responded to:

 

Quote

Well they probably would. I mean, I’d crack a smile at the video  but we don’t live in a society where kicks to the head are acceptable in any circumstances. Especially not from one in a position of authority. Because then we go down a very dangerous slippery slope.  That’s the fundamental point here.

Forgive me if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but this seemed to imply to me that the reason why you believe it's wrong to kick those rally attendees in the head is not because kicking people in the head is wrong per se, but because it might lead to people who don't deserve to be kicked in the head to receive the same treatment. In other words, it appeared that you were saying that, while those attendees do actually deserve to be kicked in the head, doing so would be a strategical mistake rather than an ethical one. My apologies if this is not what you meant.

[Kisnorbo fox]

1 minute ago, SpacedX said:

I don't. I simply observed that the violence was unnecessary, meanwhile, facts have a voice of their own. 

 

I didn't state an "opinion". The officer concerned has been suspended for the use of "excessive force" and will be summarily disciplined, whilst I think you'll agree with me that the internet is unfortunately replete with both. We live in a world that increasingly values opinions over fact. 

Unfortunately I don’t think you quite understand the definition of the word “opinion”. Your earlier comment states, “There in lies so much that is wrong with the internet and opinion based populism”. That statement in itself is an opinion. Therefore you simply did state an opinion. Come on SpacedX… think about it. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

5 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

I don't. I simply observed that the violence was unnecessary, meanwhile, facts have a voice of their own. 

 

I didn't state an "opinion". The officer concerned has been suspended for the use of "excessive force" and will be summarily disciplined, whilst I think you'll agree with me that the internet is unfortunately replete with both. We live in a world that increasingly values opinions over fact. 

I see. So the facts speak for themselves, and you are merely a conduit for those facts, so  when you say something on a given topic you are not giving an opinion but simply stating the facts? Am I understanding you correctly? 

[SpacedX]

13 minutes ago, Kisnorbo fox said:

Unfortunately I don’t think you quite understand the definition of the word “opinion”. Your earlier comment states, “There in lies so much that is wrong with the internet and opinion based populism”. That statement in itself is an opinion. Therefore you simply did state an opinion. Come on SpacedX… think about it. 

That is an observation backed by fact. 

 

9 minutes ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I see. So the facts speak for themselves, and you are merely a conduit for those facts, so  when you say something on a given topic you are not giving an opinion but simply stating the facts? Am I understanding you correctly? 

No.

[Kisnorbo fox]

19 minutes ago, SpacedX said:

 

33 minutes ago, Kisnorbo fox said:

Unfortunately I don’t think you quite understand the definition of the word “opinion”. Your earlier comment states, “There in lies so much that is wrong with the internet and opinion based populism”. That statement in itself is an opinion. Therefore you simply did state an opinion. Come on SpacedX… think about it. 

Expand  

That is an observation backed by fact. 

 

Oh the ignorance is strong in this one 😂

Edited 28 July by Kisnorbo fox

[Raj]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

Having seen the video of the attack on the police officers prior to the kick to the head, I can safely say that I regret my initial response and shouldn't have jumped to conclusions. The man who was kicked had just viciously attacked the police officers and was not yet in handcuffs; he had been temporarily incapacitated by a taser and could very well have got up and continued the assault. The officer had to do whatever was necessary to neutralise the threat. I honestly think the men who attacked the officers should consider themselves extremely lucky not to have been shot to death. 

Wonder now if the rest of the Rochdale mob and the dodgy brummie 2 bit lawyer  will wind their necks in.

Waiting for the families response to this about their Angelic boys....

[SpacedX]

4 minutes ago, Kisnorbo fox said:

Oh the ignorance is strong in this one 😂

What a strange and frankly unoriginal response. Oh well. 

[FoxyPV]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

I think most people would agree with your stance on police brutality, but the point is that not everybody agrees that this belongs in the category of police brutality. The police are clearly allowed to use force to prevent injury to others or effect a lawful arrest, so the question is whether the use and type of force was justified. The man being kicked was in the middle of attacking several police officers, interrupted only by a taser which had rendered him temporarily unable to continue. The police officer does not know how long the man will lay prone on the floor and any sign that he might get up and carry on has to be met with decisive force. Given the fact that there were multiple attackers, it might have been impractical to try and handcuff him at that point. 

F

U

C

K

I

N

G

H

E

L

L

 

It's amazing how many people think that the cops can do whatever they want if they are attacked.

 

The man was lying on the ground.

 

A kick and a stand on the head is excessive force 

 

The cops have their own standards and procedures none of which state kicking a defenceless man on the ground is ok

[Wymsey]

Shut down the thread and start again..

[Dr The Singh]

2 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

Shut down the thread and start again..

Why

[Dr The Singh]

21 minutes ago, Raj said:

Wonder now if the rest of the Rochdale mob and the dodgy brummie 2 bit lawyer  will wind their necks in.

Waiting for the families response to this about their Angelic boys....

Thats what i said earlier.  The behaviour has been embarrassing and it takes away the justice element and they lose all empathy.  

[bovril]

21 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Why

Because too many people are using the word 'cops' 

[Dr The Singh]

10 minutes ago, bovril said:

Because too many people are using the word 'cops' 

Kill them

[DennisNedry]

37 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

F

U

C

K

I

N

G

H

E

L

L

 

It's amazing how many people think that the cops can do whatever they want if they are attacked.

 

The man was lying on the ground.

 

A kick and a stand on the head is excessive force 

 

The cops have their own standards and procedures none of which state kicking a defenceless man on the ground is ok

At the end of the day it is just opinion though on where you draw the line.

 

If they'd cuffed him, dragged him down to the Station, and then an officer had kicked him a couple of hours later, I'd agree with you. But I personally would deem it reasonable seconds after the bloke viciously assaulted multiple officers. 

 

The rules on Police conduct are not set in stone or based on objective fact. My personal view is that if this officer's conduct is deemed a sackable offence, the rules on permissable conduct need changing.

 

I feel sorry for the Police, they are constantly criticised by the public, media and politicians. Certain public figures couldn't wait to jump on them over this. It's a tough and thankless job at times and the backlash in the media was as depressing as it was predictable.

 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

20 minutes ago, FoxyPV said:

F

U

C

K

I

N

G

H

E

L

L

 

It's amazing how many people think that the cops can do whatever they want if they are attacked.

 

The man was lying on the ground.

 

A kick and a stand on the head is excessive force 

 

The cops have their own standards and procedures none of which state kicking a defenceless man on the ground is ok

I don't think anybody is advancing the argument that "...the cops can do whatever they want if they are attacked". You are oversimplifying in my opinion. Here is what the law says:

 

Criminal Law Act 1967, on "Use of force in making arrest, etc":

 

Quote

"A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large."

 

and later in the same Act:

 

Quote

 

...the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.

 

 

Criminal Justice & Immigration Act 2008:

 

Quote

 

"The question whether the degree of force used by D [the person charged with the offence] was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be...

if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it ... whether or not—

(i) it was mistaken, or

(ii) (if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made."

 

So the key question is whether or not the police officer believed that the use and extent of force was reasonable in the circumstances. It does not matter if he was mistaken, only that the officer genuinely believed it. This defence becomes unavailable if the force is deemed to be disproportionate in the circumstances.

 

So the outcome of a criminal case against the officer would depend on whether or not it can be demonstrated either that he did not believe it was reasonable to use such force, or that the force was disproportionate. The obvious defence would be that the officer believed that he and his colleagues were in imminent physical danger and that a kick to the head, ostensibly not the most lethal weapon available to him, was proportionate to the threat and reasonable under the circumstances.

[Mickyblueeyes]

1 hour ago, MarshallForEngland said:

For clarity I will include your original quote which I responded to:

 

Forgive me if I misinterpreted what you were saying, but this seemed to imply to me that the reason why you believe it's wrong to kick those rally attendees in the head is not because kicking people in the head is wrong per se, but because it might lead to people who don't deserve to be kicked in the head to receive the same treatment. In other words, it appeared that you were saying that, while those attendees do actually deserve to be kicked in the head, doing so would be a strategical mistake rather than an ethical one. My apologies if this is not what you meant.

No. 

[Guest MarshallForEngland]

1 hour ago, SpacedX said:

That is an observation backed by fact. 

 

No.

Then I am afraid I don't quite understand the fact/opinion distinction you were trying to advance, nor the criteria on which you classify some people as "bar stool philosophers and village idiots".