I wonder, did they draw straws or play "rock, paper, scissors" to figure out who's car the guy rode in?
The careers of four US cops could be flushed down the pan after they tipped over a portable toilet while a man was inside it. Four officers from the Memphis Police Department have been suspended after pushing over the portable potty. Inside was 31-year-old Joseph Hampton, whom the cops suspected of criminal trespass and …
As I understand it that's standard practice to prevent the officers being investigated from interfering with any investigation (police having a better idea how to go about doing that than the average joe). It's pretty reasonable since not everyone who is investigated will have actually committed an offense, even if it does look bad when it's something as blatantly obvious as this. What matters is what comes out of the investigation, and it looks a pretty clear cut case (especially since I suspect the victim will be looking at legal action against the police for what happened, could get a pretty nice pay out for this)
".....not everyone who is investigated will have actually committed an offense, even if it does look bad when it's something as blatantly obvious as this....." And that is the crux of the matter - please do tell what crime you think the cops in question have committed. The suspect has evaded arrest, is obviously resisting further arrest, and could have been armed. Please don't try and insist this is 'Rodney King 2.0' or any other bullshit, the 'violence' involved seems extremely minor and completely in line with subduing a suspect resisting arrest. What injury had the suspect suffered in resisting arrest, a few bruises and being left as stinking as he probably usually is? Seriously, please do supply a reasoned legal argument, stating any applicable laws or statutes, that leads you to think the policemen involved are committing a criminal act or even using excessive force, or just admit you are spouting a load of manure.
"What injury had the suspect suffered in resisting arrest, a few bruises and being left as stinking as he probably usually is? "
What injury had Ian Tomlinson suffered when he was hit by police officer Simon Harwood? The injuries that led to his death, the injuries that bent/incompetent pathologist Freddy Patel tried to ignore...
"a load of manure."
".....What injury had Ian Tomlinson suffered when he was hit by police officer Simon Harwood?...." Oh, look, the cop-haters are wheeling out the completely unrelated and highly unusual case of Ian Tomlinson again! What a surprise - not. Tomlinson died from his cirrhosis-riddled liver (from a lifetime of alcoholism) rupturing, most likely from a fall. The problem is it cannot be proven that Tomlinson died from the hit and push from Harwood or from any of the numerous falls he suffered daily as a drunk. Hardwood was a violent idiot and unfit to be a copper, but your use of Tomlinson's death as anti-copper propaganda is just as idiotic.
" it cannot be proven that Tomlinson died from the hit and push from Harwood"
It is already proven that police at various levels from street to senior HQ united to weave a web of lies (or simply remain silent) to protect Harwood, until previously suppressed (by the police) evidence of Harwood's role made it out into the public domain.
"Hardwood was a violent idiot and unfit to be a copper"
Yet he was protected, not just by those close to him in the police, but by those at the top of the Met. There are lots of Harwoods in the police.
Taking a more active approach to getting rid of the Harwoods is one of the many things the police could do to improve their standing with the public.
Since you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist, perhaps its time to stop mollycoddling the police and rein in the power they are abusing.
Given that one is 17,600 times more likely to die from heart disease than terrorists, perhaps we should ban McBurgerWhiteDonaldCastleKing too...
Yeeeees, the reporter did that one already.
To save further embarrassment: The text of an article often extends below your screen's display area. One must use the "scroll bar" or some other "scrolling" method to pull up the text and see what lies under your taskbar or perchance your phone keyboard.
Once one has properly read all the text one my post a smart-arse one-liner safe in the knowledge one isn't unwittingly doing the echo song instead of breaking clever.
"Oh poor them, they must feel like they getting the worst punishment in the world." Well, consider what they were doing - potentially, their lives were at risk as they did not know if the suspect was armed, and how he would react if armed should they even knock on the door. In short, as with many cops on a daily basis, their lives were on the line whilst they were doing their duty in arresting a suspected criminal. So, taking that into consideration, would you have preferred it if the cops had (a) opened the doors and risked getting into an exchange of fire with the suspect, potentially leaving the suspect and possibly a passer bye or one or more cops dead; (b) just shot through the door and killed the suspect; (c) walked away and left a suspect to continue his career of crime; or (d) gave the suspect a nasty surprise and knocked the fight out of him, thereby ensuring he is a lot less likely to resist arrest and endanger himself or the cops or any passers bye, by pushing the toilet over. It would be nice if some of the haters that post here actually thought about an issue before they posted their mindless and reflexive anti-police drivel. At worst, the suspect got a shock, got a few bruises, and ended up smelling - big deal, not. TBH, even suspending the cops strikes me as just someone being overly PC.
potentially, their lives were at risk
Actaully looked into that old claim a while back, and found that cops don't even make the top ten in terms of dangerous jobs.
They do though have much better PR departments than most construction workers.
Beyond that, there's actually one way they could have got the guy out: STAND THERE AND WAIT.
Seriously, how long would the guy sit in a toilet before coming out, hands up?
"Actaully looked into that old claim a while back, and found that cops don't even make the top ten in terms of dangerous jobs....." A nice bit of statistical diversion which does not remove the fact the cops could not know if the guy hiding in the portaloo was armed and how violently he intended evading and resisting arrest, and therefore faced potentially life-threatening danger in just opening the door or waiting for the suspect to come put when and how he wished. On average 154 cops are killed each year in the US whilst enforcing the law and protecting the public, so please bitch less and show a lot more appreciation.
Police + adrenalin + fear = bad combination, True. There's also the fact you may use aggression to invoke fight or flight responses, being very aggressive can kick in the flight reaction in an opponent to give you control over them.
However the thing is there should also be control, its like the difference between being in a fight and stopping when the other person is down, or carrying on kicking them in. If they can't exercise that restraint when the threat stops then they may not be suitable to be police officers.
Talking about the kit they are now receiving (a lot apparently ex mil kit the DOD is giving away free (about 5 billion dollars worth apparently) I have to wonder if the militarisation of the cops is not helping things actually. There was a interesting shot from the Ferguson riots taken at daytime which showed a bunch of cops looking more like a bunch of soldiers on a patrol in downtown Basra.
I wonder if this may sometimes be instilling an incorrect mindset/ set of perceptions in the police, i.e if you are dressing for a war-zone then going into a high stress situation might you not start seeing it as a war zone?
Likewise some county's seem to be a little SWAT happy for various things (like arresting Tibetan monks for being illegal immigrants)
It might be that with the increase of potential danger they should be looking at training their officers to know themselves more and understanding how they react to situations where adrenalin is high (because when it is, then part of you is back at paleolithic human level).
It also might be that they need to cool down on making there officers acting in such a military style matter for things that don't require such a full on approach, and instill a little bit of common sense and calmness into the mix from the top down.
".....I have to wonder if the militarisation of the cops is not helping things...." Which is completely beside the point. Please do point out which kit you think is 'military' in the video. As for the Michael Brown incident, the police issued riot gear and took out the APCs in response to the actions of the massive crowds, egged on by out-of-town agitators, that were violently looting, burning down stores, and had gone way beyond just threatening not only the police but local members of the public (especially the local store owners).
".....There was a interesting shot from the Ferguson riots taken at daytime which showed a bunch of cops looking more like a bunch of soldiers on a patrol in downtown Basra...." You mean a carefully cropped and staged photo meant to make the cops look bad. And Al Jazeera - that's your source!?! No wonder you are confused if you consider that a real news site.
Okay, I'm tired of reading all these anti-gun rants with no basis in reality. I work in law enforcement and know a lot of cops. The cops are NOT afraid of criminals with guns because of laws allowing concealed carry. Know why? Because the people who have concealed carry permits are generally the most law-abiding people around. They wanted to carry a gun for personal defense and went TO THE POLICE and asked for a permit and (in just about all states allowing concealed carry) took a class about when you can (your life is threatened and/or a major crime is in progress) and can not (you're angry at somebody) use a firearm. (And you also have to demonstrate proficiency with the firearm -- that you're able to hit the target you're shooting at.) When these people have police contact (even a traffic stop), the first thing they do is inform the police that they are armed. The officer will then generally secure the firearm and verify the person's carry permit and conclude whatever business is going on (such as writing a traffic ticket) and then return the firearm if the permit is in order and the person is being released. These people don't make cops nervous at all. The ones the cops are nervous about are the career criminals for whom it is and has been for over 50 years, a federal felony to possess a firearm -- but, you see, they're criminals and simply don't give a crap what the law says, so they have guns anyhow. THOSE are the ones the cops (and law-abiding citizens with a carry permit) worry about. There are a few crimes of passion involving firearms, and they get a lot of play in the press, so that problem looks much worse than it is. (Of course, there are at least 50 ways to kill your lover that don't involve firearms -- and those are used all over the world -- guns aren't the cause of that type of evil, even if they are occasionally used to facilitate it.)
The VAST majority of shootings that happen in this country involve criminals killing each other over robberies (revenge, such as a drug dealer that got robbed) or other criminal gang-related activity ("drug deal gone wrong"). It's also illegal for gang members to possess firearms, but, remember, criminals don't CARE what gun (or other) laws exist. That's kind of what makes them criminals. Those are the guys the cops are concerned about. Laws permitting concealed carry are NOT a problem since those laws specifically deny criminals the right to carry or even possess a firearm. The problem is the fact that criminals are criminals.
By the way, I personally do not have a carry permit (and I don't carry a gun around), although I have friends who do. They're all involved with law enforcement, too.
You're points are true, I doubt the average concealed carry owner would be a law breaker as well for the reasons you state.
I would be interested on your take on the video.
I'd also say I don't think all of the police are out of control, in fact I think what we often get is a skewed perception of the police, knowing some police officers over here in the UK, and paramedics as well there is some really crazy people out there, its not an easy job and generally the average copper is being a copper because they are doing useful things, the typical law abiding citizens doesn't get to meet these police often because well why should they? They aren't doing any wrong and so they aren't bothered by those cops. Perception gets skewed because more often its the smaller dickhead element of the police pushing there power around that makes more news and causes people to have unpleasant unjustifiable encounters.
@ma1010: Agreed on CCW permits in states where permit-holders are required to take a safety class and show proficiency. However, at least Arizona (and possibly other states) now has greatly reduced the requirements for a CCW permit -- no safety class or proficiency test required, IIRC. Does not sound like a step in the right direction, but, as has been pointed out, the batshit criminal element wouldn't bother with no steenkin' permit either way.
".....Those police were mostly recruited before the insanity of open and concealed carry really took off....." Bullshit. I am currently in Georgia, USA, a state I have visited often. It has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the whole USA, and it also has low incidents of gun crime. I am much more likely to be shot in Chicago, New York or even London, where stricter gun laws are in place. As has been proven many, many times, criminals don't care about the law, they carry guns regardless. Restrictive gun laws only take the guns away from law-abiding citizens, they do not deter criminals in the slightest. The antigun crowd insisted that banning handguns in the UK would stop criminals carrying handguns and there was an increase in handgun use by criminals. You would have to be a complete sheep, oblivious to the realities of crime figures both in the US and UK, to still be pretending the concealed carry law has anything to do with the levels of gun use by criminals in the US. Complete fail.
That kick was going to the side of someone going down it looks to me, and even if not the bloke was going down, he did not not have to be forced at that point, so it becomes unreasonable force.
In the video I don't see any. In things like the Ferguson riots, yes there was plenty.
(the photo btw was on many news sites, I just took the first link from a quick google search), would love to see the uncropped actually as I know a photo can be made to look one way or another.
I was responding to a post that has since been removed about the police know receiving ex military equipment such as APCs.
The point I was trying to make was that there could be a problem in putting an incorrect mindset in police officers, who are going into stressful situations.
Also staged or not that's still a lot of police wandering round with a few pepper ball guns and a lot m16 (possibly assault rifles) there were also many shots from the riots of police carrying them during the riots and getting a bit pointy with them on people who weren't rioting (I am quite willing to accept there was a lot of things going down in that situation which made it tough for the police and sometimes they are in a no win situation, but there were definitely imo issues with how the police handled it as well), my point is that's a lot of firepower, and a lot of things can go wrong. What happens if you take a shot at someone in a crowd with a round like that?
My point was combining with that and maybe getting distracted from the real discussion, was also a response to a post that said stressed officers may be acting aggressively out of going into situations where the first thing they are expecting is a shooting incident, and it still stands as well that you may be instilling an incorrect mindset by sending a bunch of guys into a high stress situation and possibly not giving them adequate training to know how they may react in those situations.
".....and even if not the bloke was going down, he did not not have to be forced at that point, so it becomes unreasonable force....." Legally not so. In the US, a suspect resisting arrest is not considered subdued until he is prone and in cuffs. Until the suspect is prone and cuffed the cops can use reasonable force, including forcing the suspect to the ground and pinning them there. Whilst there are some rules against actions such as choke holds, pushing or kicking the suspect prone with the foot or otherwise is not one of them. You would have to prove in court that the 'kick' was uneccessary which - seeing as the suspect was evading and resisting arrest and was not legally subdued - is pretty clearly not the case. To give an example that may surprise many, the notorious Rodney King beating involved King being Tasered and beaten with batons until he acquiesced to commands to get prone. After he was prone and not showing further resistance, King was then kicked and received additional baton blows - it was these actions after he had been subdued which were legally judged in court as 'beyond reasonable force' and criminal.
"......instigating out of proportion violence." So where is the unreasonable violence? Seriously, please do provide a reasoned argument with the exact laws and statutes you think the officers involved have breached. Sorry to pop your trendy, PC, faux-rage, but this is not 'Rodney King 2.0'.
"Not sure if any of that justifies the kick given to someone getting down on the ground though." Until the suspect is restrained, known to be unarmed or disarmed and in cuffs, the police officers can use reasonable force to push him onto the ground as part of subduing the suspect. The officer is not kicking the guy in the side or stomach (as the article misrepresents the action) as you would then see his body moving to one side or up. Instead, the officer is clearly kicking down or stamping down on the suspect to ensure he goes flat and can be cuffed. Seeing as the officers do not know if he is armed at that point, it can be argued as reasonable force intended to subdue the suspect and not an unreasonable action. You will see similar or worse on any number of TV reality shows showing police having to subdue those resisting arrest.
Arnaut the Ignorant, For the last couple of hundred years something like 46 states here in the USA have had concealed carry of handguns and other weapons. It isn't "recent". My boss just got his permit the other day.
Funny thing about armed citizens, the criminals quickly go elsewhere looking for their easy pickings. There are few if any issues with gun permit holders, ONLY THOSE WHOSE GUNS ARE ILLEGAL (Criminals) are the issue.
The beheading of a coworker in Oklahoma by a recently fired domestic Islamic terrorist would have been far worse if not for the company CEO who had his concealed carry permit and shot and wounded the attacker before he could continue his rampage. That attacker is alive and awaiting trial.
The police are not in the business of overreacting, the NEWS MEDIA is!
Too many times, like in Ferguson Missouri the media rushes to judgement in an effort to get better ratings. 80% of the protesters YOU saw were bussed into town, not locals. Even worse, certain poloitical and media pundits even threw gasoline on the fire by making groundless acqusations before the courts could even judge the situation.
Michael Brown was shot by Officer David Wilson when Brown allegedly tried to grab Wilson's gun during a stop. Brown was photgraphed stealing from a convenience store and punching the manager the day before the shooting. Various pictures show him displaying gang signs. None of that made it to the Eurpopean news, only the preconcieved notion of "police brutality".
What makes you ignorant, is the reliance on obviously skewed, far left news outlets for any opinion you might have. Looks like too many of you can't form your own opinion from facts, you wait for the news and other people to do it for you.
Your comments are incindiary, you make an unfair and incorrect comparison and have no place in reality. STFU and stop spreading bullshit.
"Michael Brown was shot by Officer David Wilson when Brown allegedly tried to grab Wilson's gun during a stop."
So if the officer wasn't carrying a gun and brandishing it around, then it wouldn't have been grab-able and nobody would have been shot?
... because it makes total sense you, a MODEL CITIZEN, try to grab a police officer's gun, be him brandishing it around or not, for any reason whatsoever?
"Oh shiny! Must have gun!"
In another news, rapists were found to be the primary cause for rape.
Not the girls sporting cameltoes, short skirts, or being buck naked for that matter.
Facepalm right back at you, sir.
As Trigger Fish has pointed out European media DID cover those aspects. Maybe you should do some research before trailing out the "Leftist Media is Biased" diatribe.
Also, please explain to me how photographs of Michael Brown stealing from a convenience store the day before are in anyway connected to his shooting the following day?
"Your comments are incindiary, you make an unfair and incorrect comparison and have no place in reality. STFU and stop spreading bullshit." - Pot.... Kettle....
"ONLY THOSE WHOSE GUNS ARE ILLEGAL (Criminals) are the issue."
Ok, so we imagined all those legitimate firearm owners murdering people, then?
"The beheading of a coworker in Oklahoma by a recently fired domestic Islamic terrorist"
Citation required on him being a domestic terrorist prior to his act of violence.
"far left news outlets"
And what - to your mind - constitutes a far left news outlet. Let's have a few names to laugh at.
"Ok, so we imagined all those legitimate firearm owners murdering people, then?...." But you seem able to forget that there are zero legal public handgun owners in the UK yet handgun crime increased in the UK post-ban. How convenient!
".....Citation required on him being a domestic terrorist prior to his act of violence....." Citations that it is required that a terrorist has to have a history of prior terror to be labelled a terrorist (which would be impossible as you could never call a terrorist a terrorist as each time he committed an act of terror you would be unable to class his previous actions as terror - duh!). An act of terror is an act of terror and Alton Nolen, an Islamist, attacked non-Mulsims in a traditional Islamist terror method intended to instill fear in those he perceived as 'infidels' and unworthy because they had refused his insistence they convert to Islam, and probably due to his own perceptions of victimhood. Prior to the event he was engaged in extremist Islamist social activity and voiced support for Islamist terror. What, does your blinkered state of PCness require him to pen a confession of Islamic terror intent before the act for you to be able to accept him as a terrorist? Alton Nolen is an Islamic extremist and terrorist and I challenge you to provide proof or even a reasoned argument to the opposite.
But you seem able to forget that there are zero legal public handgun owners in the UK yet handgun crime increased in the UK post-ban. How convenient!
There are plenty of legal handgun owners in the UK, who are private citizens. Ownership of handguns is not illegal in the UK, it just comes with a lot of requirements that can be hard to meet. For example you are no longer allowed to store your handgun at home, it must be kept at a gun club or otherwise pre-authorized weapons storage. Please stop presenting the UK as a country so afraid of firearms that they are 100% illegal, that is clearly not the case if you look carefully at the laws & reality, which you like to tell others to do mr Bryant
Alton Nolen is an Islamic extremist and terrorist
No, he is a criminal who has commited a crime & who will be dealt with via the judical system in a manner the society he is living in has determined. Calling him a terrorist is simply giving him & by extension IS/ISIL/ISIS/etc ad-infinitum, far more credence than they deserve and elevating them to the status they wish to be elevated to.
"But you seem able to forget that there are zero legal public handgun owners in the UK yet handgun crime increased in the UK post-ban. How convenient!"
Don't be preposterous, Matt. The fact that illegal handguns are used in UK crime in no way supports the myth that legal firearms owners in the US don't murder people.
"Prior to the event he was engaged in extremist Islamist social activity" - So, not a terrorist; merely an unpleasant extremist. He was not a terrorist until he committed a terror offence, yet the sentence "The beheading of a coworker in Oklahoma by a recently fired domestic Islamic terrorist" infers heavily that he was a 'recently fired terrorist' and hence a terrorist prior to the event.
I don't support extremist or terrorists, but I would not refer to someone as a terrorist for extremism.
"....Don't be preposterous, Matt. The fact that illegal handguns are used in UK crime in no way supports the myth that legal firearms owners in the US don't murder people....." I never said it did, it just explodes the myth that removing firearms from legal owners will reduce guncrime, as claimed at the time of the ban, because criminals by definition do not respect the law. But it was a nice try by you of trying to forge that unsubstantiated and unrelated connection when you'd lost the original argument.
".....So, not a terrorist; merely an unpleasant extremist....." His acts prior to the crime show why he committed the crime and his intent, which was clearly to terrorize, ergo he is a terrorist. I'll try and make it easy for you to get over that PC bottleneck - I do not claim all Muslims are terrorists, but he was clearly a terrorist and 'extreme' Islam was both his cause and the driver for his actions, otherwise why did he go to the physically inefficient method of beheading? Seriously, you want to claim it was all due to his being a stamp collector? Major PC fail!
" And again Matt: Throwing the insults around. If you can't involve yourself in a conversation without name-calling, then kindly don't bother. You add a deeply unpleasant tone to every discussion which you are a party to." LOL, and right before you make the usual suggestions that watching Fox News or reading the Daily Mail makes you a fascist!
"If you've been following the US news, you will see police in some parts of the US are now totally out of control...." Seriously, y and u want to justify that mindless and reflexive police-bashing? If they were 'out of control' they would have just shot all the toilets in turn until they were sure the suspect was dead. Indeed, if they were so 'out of control', why would they even be risking their lives enforcing the law and arresting a suspect in the first place?
".....The more bonkers States have introduced laws allowing the general public to carry concealed handguns...." Which has nothing to do with the matter. If you hadn't noticed, criminals don't follow the law, they break it, including gun laws. The perfect example is the UK, where banning handguns simply took them away from law-abiding citizens, whilst handgun crime went up as the criminals simply ignored the new law. Chicago, a town in one of those 'progressive' States has much stricter gun laws than Memphis and much worse gun crime. It might have helped you to do a bit of research before mouthing off a load of unsubstantiated anti-gun propaganda and anti-police hate. You could start by actually watching that news you mentioned.
I have withdrawn my posts since they seem to result in so much mouth-frothing, but I would draw your attention to the simple fact that I am able to make my points (even if I am wrong) without insulting you, whereas you and several other posters cannot respond without insulting me.
I leave others to draw their own conclusions as to the mental stability and suitability to carry arms of people who cannot even respond to an internet post without frothing at the mouth and throwing out insults.
I was locked in a porta-loo in the garden of a pub once - the bouncers sent a girl to unlock the door (after I had mostly kicked my way out) because they thought I'd be much less likely to slap whoever released me if it was a girl - they were probably right...
Now imagine that situation with a potentially armed suspect and you can understand why they may have acted in that fashion.
PS I didn't slap anyone, but it was amusing to see the bouncers cowering in the background after sending the slip of a lass to unlock the door.
" the bouncers sent a girl " - See; that's a clever and diplomatic solution gauged to decreased levels of hostility. Just the kind of thing that the police SHOULD be doing, instead of resorting to covering the suspect in turd and kicking him when he gives himself up.
"Now imagine that situation with a potentially armed suspect and you can understand why they may have acted in that fashion."
No. Not with you, I'm afraid. Kicking a disorientated suspect who did not incite violence isn't excusable based on the fact that there is a chance that he's armed. You can't escalate violence based on a narrow probability.
god knows that the UK police aren’t perfect, although in my personal experience they’ve always been very good, but Thank Fuck I don’t live in America. Seriously, that’s one messed up country. I remember seeing police cars driving down the road in formation in New York, pissing around with their sirens. What a bunch of children. What a bunch of morons.
Please do go visit an area like Salford in Manchester on any night of the week - the police travel through the area in convoys for their own protection, wear bodyarmour, and always have an armed response unit and a helicopter on standbye. I have travelled to many parts of the World and I feel much safer on the streets of Atlanta or Dallas (both in 'pro-gun' Southern States) at any time than I would in many European cities in daylight, let alone at night.
I feel much safer on the streets of Atlanta or Dallas (both in 'pro-gun' Southern States) at any time than I would in many European cities in daylight, let alone at night.
Then there is something wrong in your perception of personal danger & perhaps a hint of paranoia about yourself if you are really that concerned. I put it you that you need to consider looking into taking some classes to mentally toughen up to the idea of danger and some self-defence classes so you are aware/trained & ready for any danger that might come your way
"Then there is something wrong in your perception of personal danger...." It must be because I don't wear a tinfoil hat like you probably do. That and that I can read and understand crime statistics which seem beyond your comprehension. Indeed, have you ever even tried researching the topic?
"....I put it you that you need to consider looking into taking some classes to mentally toughen up....." Thanks for your faux concern, I assume it is due to you having no counter to the facts I presented that you prefer such whimsy? To ease your 'worry', I have travelled widely and to many Third World areas which were on the Foreign Office 'black' list, including areas which actually do have some of the real dangers to life, privacy and liberty that you and your 'libertarian' chums no doubt like to pretend occur in your sedate lives. Indeed, as part of that travel I often had to meet several specific insurance requirements, including courses on how to spot dangerous situations and devices. I feel pretty confident in guessing the most dangerous situation you have ever faced was carrying scissors.
".....and some self-defence classes so you are aware/trained & ready for any danger that might come your way...." I am and have been for several decades a licensed martial artist. That means I also have quite specific knowledge of what constitutes reasonable force, especially in the UK where I have instructed and competed. I have twice had the fun of attempted muggings in London and once in Paris, and in all three instances had to defend my actions to the police. I also used to shoot handguns legally in the UK pre-ban and still shoot rifles and shotguns - and strangely enough, despite meeting hundreds of other sports shooters in the UK, I've never met one that shot anyone with any of their legal weapons! I would suggest I am far better trained and experienced in both judging danger and dealing with it than you could ever hope to be, thanks.
Instead of 'worrying' about me, why don't you try real hard and make a post regarding the subject of the thread and not your bitter assumptions? At the least it might provide comedy value.
"Or were you let out on the 'net unsupervised again?"
With the greatest respect... if he was posting on an unmoderated newsgroup, he'd be unsupervised.
He's not on a newsgroup, he's posting where there is an opportunity for supervision. E.g. there's plenty of supervision on an Orlowski article. There are probably even rules somewhere that we agreed to when we signed up for our El Reg accounts (though I can't remember where they were or where they might be now).
So, posts on here are not necessarily unsupervised.
"learn something about the law, the police and the job they do."
You mean the job the idealised police and the theoretical job they are supposed to do, or the real police and the job that too many of them actually end up doing (y'know, the reality you and many others inside and outside the police want us to pretend isn't happening).
Who here is a police hater? Not me. But I don't like criminals, not outside the police and very definitely not inside. And the record of the police in general is becoming increasingly clear, embarrassingly criminal, both in terms of old crimes emerging and new ones being reported.
Or have you slept through the last few years? The recent Hillsborough reports, of forged evidence and more? And of dodgy dealings between the Met and Fleet Street? Undercover (illegal?) investigation of peaceful protest organisation?
This is the classic nutter in box problem. The box is opaque but thin walled. They can't see him, he can't see them but anyone approaching the box is vulnerable. The door opens outwards even if he isn't armed he could still batter someone attempting to open the door or throw shit or what ever. If he is armed he could shoot out at random at any time there is no protection in the area for police or civilians.
What should they do if he doesn't want to come out? It's either a siege or a shoot out. OR some novel approach like this. I think they did OK: the kicking was a bit OTT but no-one ending up in hospital or the morgue.
"he could still batter someone attempting to open the door or throw shit or what ever."
In that case the police have to suck it up, because instigating violence on a trespassing call on the off-chance of having to go to the dry cleaners or getting a thin plastic door in the face is not acceptable behavior from the police. Neither is going to result in any serious injury.
"If he is armed he could shoot out at random at any time there is no protection in the area for police or civilians."
By the same measure, would it be ok for the police to smash your car window and drag you out through it if you get pulled over for speeding?
"What should they do if he doesn't want to come out? It's either a siege..."
Stop at that one: That doesn't need to be considered a worse solution than violence. It's a far better one. The police sit twenty yards away outside and the guy is locked in a hot sh!tbox until he comes out. An hour or two of wasted police time is a better alternative to beating up an unarmed guy.
If the guy *had* have been armed, then the police's action would have provoked violence, not mitigated it. the only way that it was a 'win' was because the guy was unarmed. If he had been, their actions would have been perhaps fatally inappropriate.
"....In that case the police have to suck it up..." Wrong. Not only do the police have the right to self-defence, they are also legally bound not to endanger the other cops in attendance, the members of the public in the area, and the suspect himself. Just opening the door and 'sucking it up' risked criminal injury to the cops, the public and the suspect. You fail due to what appears to be your unreasoning hatred for the police, maybe you should talk to someone about that.
Otherwise - as stated - Police would routinely drag people unprovoked from cars for speeding offences.
"your unreasoning hatred for the police"
"maybe you should talk to someone about that."
I think that's your map of the world, Matt.
".....Otherwise - as stated - Police would routinely drag people unprovoked from cars for speeding offences....." The reason the police don't routinely drag people unprovoked from cars for speeding is (a) most speeding offenses are not arrestable offenses, therefore there is no need to subdue and cuff anyone anyway, and (b) most stops for speeding offenses do not involve any form of resistance or provocation from the speeder. If you are polite, calm and courteous then the police will be so too, but if you are an aggressive asshole then you will be treated as such. And if you watched some of the cops reality show you'd see some of the lengths the cops will go to should someone refuse to stop, including ramming the speeder's vehicle and using force to extract them from the vehicle. I have actually seen footage of an UK policeman using his baton to break a side window and physically pull a dangerous driver out of his car because the driver was refusing to stop, was resisting arrest, and his driving presented a threat to the public.
From where I sit tipping over the bog was OK. On TV a missed pistol shot usually does no harm. In the real world we pick up the bodies of children killed by such stuff every month, and who's to know what the guy in the lavvy is up to or how much artillery he's carrying.
Kicking the suspect is where the suspension kicks in. Ahahaha.
I'm sorry, but if the turd suspect/victim was fleeing and evading, then he pretty much got what he deserved. I'm not defending the officers, but there was obviously a lot more that happened prior to the point where the camera man started filming. Call me crazy, but most officers I know don't randomly go looking for porta-jon's to tip over, especially while occupied.
I do kind of feel sorry for the officer who had to transport and then do the paperwork... It had to be a shitty job, the kind that just keeps piling up.
"I'm sorry, but if the turd suspect/victim was fleeing and evading, then he pretty much got what he deserved. I'm not defending the officers, but there was obviously a lot more that happened prior to the point where the camera man started filming. "
Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't. For all we know, the guy could have broke in the site specifically for the purpose of taking a dump and had been sat in there for five minutes. Given that's not on film, I'm going to have to sympathise with the non-violent trespasser. I guess their disciplinary hearing will decide, and have more evidence on hand. Shamefully though, the public have lost faith in such hearings due to the number of times clearly wrong-doing officers have historically skated off.
"Call me crazy, but most officers I know don't randomly go looking for porta-jon's to tip over, especially while occupied."
And I totally agree. Most officers would not have acted in that manner. Most officers aren't inclined to. However, some would/do, and those are the ones who need weeding out, because they are not the kind of people who should be doing the job. If we can weed out the minority who DO feel the need to perpetrate acts of malign violence and escalate minor situations, then the police force will be better, the public will have more faith in it, and it will make life for the decent police officers a lot better.
"I do kind of feel sorry for the officer who had to transport "
I don't, because it'll be someone on minimum wage with a State pension who has to actually clear it up: The officer just made the mess and had to smell it for 5 minutes.
Would you feel sorry for me if I gleefully stamped in a turd and then traipsed it into my own home? No: Because it was a mess caused by my own impulsive behavior and lack of forethought.
"Indeed, I don't downvote him...." Aw, isn't cute how all you guys love getting into a circle, holding hands and crying more together! You all seem very hot on moaning posts which have nothing to do with the thread, not so hot on actually posting replies with related and factual arguments. Could that be because even you know you can't?
".....That gives you an approval rating of 19.04%....." Dissenting thoughts are not welcome amongst the sheep. You should welcome them or you'd still be thinking the Earth is flat or the center of the universe. You do realise that the Earth is not flat, right....?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019