NationStates Jolt Archive

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6428865.stm)

CCTV footage has been released which shows a police officer repeatedly punching a young woman outside a nightclub in Sheffield.
The footage also shows Toni Comer, 20, being dragged into a police van.
Ms Comer, from Sheffield, was being arrested last July for damaging a car - an offence she has since admitted.
Police said they would investigate a complaint by Ms Comer but they were "happy" with the officer's conduct. He said he had been trying to subdue her.
The footage has prompted calls for an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation, with one race relations manager saying there may have been a racist element to the incident.
South Yorkshire police said they were "outraged" by that claim.
Writhing
The footage, obtained by the Guardian newspaper and shown on BBC Two's Newsnight, shows Ms Comer and a police officer falling down a flight of stairs outside Sheffield's Niche nightclub.

Toni Comer has admitted an offence of criminal damage
At the bottom, she is restrained by a group of officers, with the officer she fell with punching her five times - although it is not clear on what part of her body.
The footage then shows Ms Comer writhing around on the ground, which she says was due to an epileptic fit. Police say she was trying to resist arrest.
She is later dragged to a police van with her trousers round her knees.
On Wednesday, at Sheffield Magistrates' Court, Ms Comer admitted criminal damage to a car, which she said happened after she was ejected from the nightclub, where she had been drinking brandy and had become aggressive.
She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £250 to the vehicle's owner.
Ms Comer says she is now preparing a civil case against the police in relation to her arrest, during which she claims to have suffered cuts and bruises.

I struck her as hard as I was physically able with my right fist in an attempt to subdue her

Pc Mulhall
"I couldn't believe it to be honest, I couldn't believe they could do something like that at all," she said.
In a statement broadcast by Newsnight, the police officer who punched her, named only as Pc Mulhall, said Ms Comer had become violent.
"As her hands became free she tried to grab handfuls of my genitals and knee and kick me in the same place.
"At this point, I struck her as hard as I was physically able with my right fist in an attempt to subdue her. There was no apparent effect so I did this twice more."
He said she continued to resist handcuffs.
"I now struck her as hard as I was physically able in an attempt to deaden her arm...in the end I had to use brute force," he said.
'Stomach-turning'
Newsnight showed the footage to former Flying Squad commander John O'Connor.
He said: "The fact that these blows were in pursuance of trying to subdue her to get handcuffs on seems to me to be quite reasonable."
But local race relations manager Ruggie Johnson, who first obtained the tape, said: "It is absolutely shocking indeed to think that images like these could be coming out of South Yorkshire.
"This is not the deep south, this is South Yorkshire."
Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei, of the National Black Police Association, called for an investigation by the IPCC, saying that it was "absolutely" a concern that race may have been an issue.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, also demanded an urgent investigation into the officer's actions.
"These images turn the stomach," she said.
South Yorkshire Police said: "The force is outraged at the nature of the report itself, and the possible suggestion that this may be linked to any kind of racist incident.
"We are satisfied with the way this incident was handled and happy with the conduct of the officer but we will investigate the circumstances of the complaint as we would with any complaint.
"It is worth noting that as a result of the original incident the individual was convicted of a criminal offence."

Remember kids, if something's done to a non-white person, it's probably racist. Unless it's hiring them based on their skin color, that's called progress.

You don't think a man punching a woman half his size repeatedly in order to subdue her is a little excessive?

Oh, now he can't use force because she's a woman? :rolleyes: She was resisting arrest.

Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6428865.stm)



Remember kids, if something's done to a non-white person, it's probably racist. Unless it's hiring them based on their skin color, that's called progress.

You don't think a man punching a woman half his size repeatedly in order to subdue her is a little excessive?

So. He punched her AFTER she was already held by other officers. It was not necessary in any way.

A man. Punching a woman half his size. Who is restrained.

Oh, the brave police officer that selflessly...

Actually:

The fucking scumbag is worse then the 'criminal' he was 'protecting society' from.

You don't think a man punching a woman half his size repeatedly in order to subdue her is a little excessive?

:(
At least he didn't use a tazer.


Chief Superintendent Ali Dizaei, of the National Black Police Association, called for an investigation by the IPCC, saying that it was "absolutely" a concern that race may have been an issue.
I find the use of the words "absolutely" and "may have been" in the same sentence somewhat hilarious.

Maybe she could have quitted resisting arrest if she didn't want to get hurt.

:(
At least he didn't use a tazer.

That's like saying "At least he didn't shoot her in the leg to prevent her from running away."

When a male police officer punches a female half his size FIVE TIMES, and admits he did it as strong as he could, I might well assume some racial motivation.

When she's continuing to resist despite the additional police officers and going after the family jewels, I'd expect them to do what's necessary to protect themselves and restrain her.

QFT.

When a male police officer punches a female half his size FIVE TIMES, and admits he did it as strong as he could, I might well assume some racial motivation.

There doesn't need to be racial motivation. She could be white and it would still be fucking absurd. I hope this guy loses his badge and everything he owns in a civil trial over this.

You don't think a man punching a woman half his size repeatedly in order to subdue her is a little excessive?

When she's continuing to resist despite the additional police officers and going after the family jewels, I'd expect them to do what's necessary to protect themselves and restrain her.

When she's continuing to resist despite the additional police officers and going after the family jewels, I'd expect them to do what's necessary to protect themselves and restrain her.

what is necessary? Yes.

What is gratuitous and nothing more than venting their aggrevation? No.

They should be fired.

So. He punched her AFTER she was already held by other officers. It was not necessary in any way.

A man. Punching a woman half his size. Who is restrained.

Oh, the brave police officer that selflessly...

Actually:

The fucking scumbag is worse then the 'criminal' he was 'protecting society' from.

From what I read, he said she was kneeing and grabbing at the guy's nuts before he was even doing anything to her, and he punched her in an attempt to get her to stop and discontinue resisting arrest. When she kept doing it, he did it twice more to her arm so she would stop.

Self defense, with a dash of required force, if you ask me.

what is necessary? Yes.

What is gratuitous and nothing more than venting their aggrevation? No.

They should be fired.

But how is it gratuitious? She simply would not stop.

That's like saying "At least he didn't shoot her in the leg to prevent her from running away."

Yep. Usually things like that happen in our very civilised countries.

But how is it gratuitious? She simply would not stop.

Don't mind these people. Their lot just hates police, no matter what. I'd like to see some of them trapped in a world without police. That'd be an eye-opener for 'em. Hell, just put some of 'em in a big city, and they'd be thankful there are police around. I sure as hell was when I lived in Baltimore. *nods*

As someone with some actual experience of trying to get a prisoner into cuffs, the bobby did nothing wrong.
The blows into a large muscle mass were designed to give our poor 'victim' a dead arm. If she was so concerned about her 'assault' why didnt she complain before someone pointed out to the pond life that she could sue?
No long ago I was with a female officer trying to arrest a 14 year old girl, this girl was about half my weight and it took both of us to try to get her restrained, the PC was so concerned that she'd called for assistance.
This kid wasnt on drugs or huge, she just didnt want to come with us. When you've been in the siuation you can make an informed opinion until then stop talking crap.

yeh it's excessive. no-one needed to punch me when i was resisting arrest - they just got me in a bear hug an then sat on me. took two of them though.

So. He punched her AFTER she was already held by other officers. It was not necessary in any way.

A man. Punching a woman half his size. Who is restrained.

Oh, the brave police officer that selflessly...

Actually:

The fucking scumbag is worse then the 'criminal' he was 'protecting society' from.Apparently it is common practice, if someone is resisting arrest, to punch them in the arm with full force in an attempt to give them a dead arm and stop them flailing their arms about so that handcuffs can be put on.

And to be fair the situation was very aggressive and the two had tumbled down some stairs because of her resisting arrest.

Don't mind these people. Their lot just hates police, no matter what. I'd like to see some of them trapped in a world without police. That'd be an eye-opener for 'em. Hell, put some of 'em in a big city, and they'd be thankful there are police around. I sure as hell was when I lived in Baltimore. *nods*



Well if there were no police, I'd start the first riot by throwing a giant spam can through a window....

But how is it gratuitious? She simply would not stop.

she was outnumbered and outsized, I find it hard to believe she couldn't simply be pinned down and cuffed.

When a male police officer punches a female half his size FIVE TIMES, and admits he did it as strong as he could, I might well assume some racial motivation.

Why? Do you think he would have been meeker if she had green eyes, fair hair and white skin? I doubt - I've seen many times policemen beating young, white, female students with batons at protest marches. Beating them on the head and making them bleed, I mean.

she was outnumbered and outsized, I find it hard to believe she couldn't simply be pinned down and cuffed.

You've obviously never seen how rabid people can get when they're being arrested.

When a male police officer punches a female half his size FIVE TIMES, and admits he did it as strong as he could, I might well assume some racial motivation.

I think you're going on a very kneejerk reaction here.

You keep saying "half his size" like size matters when the target is a man's genitals. A toddler could cripple a man if they hit it right. It doesn't matter how big they are.

Aside from that, she's obviously tougher than her size lets on - she took a full-force hit with no problem and kept attacking the officer, and it took a few more before she would stop!

If anything it seems like SHE'S racially motivated against white police officers, with the amount of will she was mustering just to inflict pain upon this guy just doing his job.

yes yes, because those of us who insist that police actually, you know, do their jobs, and arrest people without excessive force obviously must hate them.

Or here's a thought, maybe we actually DO have respect for the police force. Maybe we DO respect the rule of law. And it is because of that respect we insist that the police abide by it, and should they be incapable of doing so, not continue to hold a badge.

It is your kind that let's the police get away with anything that shows the fundamental disrespect for their office by repeatedly disregarding everything that the job stands for.

You keep missing the two important words: resisting arrest.

If she was so concerned about her 'assault' why didnt she complain before someone pointed out to the pond life that she could sue?Are you attempting to claim that everyone is fully aware of their rights under the law? That is the most laughable assumption ever.

Could you, off the cuff, tell me what to do in a situation where a landlord is refusing to accept a tenant's rent?

Don't mind these people. Their lot just hates police, no matter what. I'd like to see some of them trapped in a world without police. That'd be an eye-opener for 'em. Hell, just put some of 'em in a big city, and they'd be thankful there are police around. I sure as hell was when I lived in Baltimore. *nods*

yes yes, because those of us who insist that police actually, you know, do their jobs, and arrest people without excessive force obviously must hate them.

Or here's a thought, maybe we actually DO have respect for the police force. Maybe we DO respect the rule of law. And it is because of that respect we insist that the police abide by it, and should they be incapable of doing so, not continue to hold a badge.

It is your kind that let's the police get away with anything that shows the fundamental disrespect for their office by repeatedly disregarding everything that the job stands for.

she was outnumbered and outsized, I find it hard to believe she couldn't simply be pinned down and cuffed.

You'd be surprised. I'd just appreciate it if you didn't automatically jump to the conclusion that they used excessive force when a viscious woman is clawing and attacking the most sensitive and painful part of the officer's body.

If she'd gotten a good grip on the guy down there, she could have had the upper hand and the cops would've lost control of the situation. She would literally have his nuts hostage. They took what measures they needed to to make keep control of the situation, subdue the criminal, and protect the officer.

You keep saying "half his size" like size matters when the target is a man's genitals. A toddler could cripple a man if they hit it right. It doesn't matter how big they are.

Surely then if a toddler can take down a man in one shot, multiple police officers should have had no problem subduing this woman without multiple hits?

You'd be surprised. I'd just appreciate it if you didn't automatically jump to the conclusion that they used excessive force when a viscious woman is clawing and attacking the most sensitive and painful part of the officer's body.

If she'd gotten a good grip on the guy down there, she could have had the upper hand and the cops would've lost control of the situation. She would literally have his nuts hostage. They took what measures they needed to to make keep control of the situation, subdue the criminal, and protect the officer.

I disagree. I think they went above and beyond the effort they "needed" to. They are cops. They don't get to use the "well she hit me first" defense. They don't get to use the "she got me mad" argument.

They are cops. They are agents of the public trust. That trust demands that they proport themselves to the rule of law, which means using the most bare amount of force necessary.

Are you attempting to claim that everyone is fully aware of their rights under the law? That is the most laughable assumption ever.

Could you, off the cuff, tell me what to do in a situation where a landlord is refusing to accept a tenant's rent?

If they signed a contract stating the tenant would stay for such and such amount of time provided they paid rent in the amount of such and such per month, then the landlord has to abide by that contract and allow the tenant to pay their rent.

Are you attempting to claim that everyone is fully aware of their rights under the law? That is the most laughable assumption ever.

Could you, off the cuff, tell me what to do in a situation where a landlord is refusing to accept a tenant's rent?

Thats a tort not a criminal matter. And the obvious point I'm making is this poor stupid girl (your assumption not mine) who was informed of her rights and will have had the oppertunity to see the duty solicitor (when sober) and been offered a copy of the code of practice while in custody never realised she'd been assaulted until some bleeding heart said so?
That this girl is so thick that she:
1. Never realised that she'd been hit?
2. Didnt realise what going to court and pleading guilty meant that you'd admitted it?
3. Needed someone to tell her she could sue nearly a year after it happened?
4. Oh and has some weird form of epilepsy that causes you to assault police officers?

You'd be surprised. I'd just appreciate it if you didn't automatically jump to the conclusion that they used excessive force when a viscious woman is clawing and attacking the most sensitive and painful part of the officer's body.

If she'd gotten a good grip on the guy down there, she could have had the upper hand and the cops would've lost control of the situation. She would literally have his nuts hostage. They took what measures they needed to to make keep control of the situation, subdue the criminal, and protect the officer.

I disagree. I think they went above and beyond the effort they "needed" to. They are cops. They don't get to use the "well she hit me first" defense. They don't get to use the "she got me mad" argument.

They are cops. They are agents of the public trust. That trust demands that they proport themselves to the rule of law, which means using the most bare amount of force necessary.

And on that matter of public trust, speaking of how you would "appreciate" if I didn't suspect the cops first, as agents of the public trust they place themselves in positions of higher scrutinty. They chose the job, they chose to put themselves in that position. They chose to enter a job where by the very necessity of their duty they shall be placed under the microscope and have every action examined, ever situation questioned to determine of a breech of that trust has been violated.

They willingly put themselves in that spot, so I feel little sympathy.

i seriously wonder why people think resisting arrest is so shocking. resistance is the natural reaction to arrest as far as i'm concerned.

You'd be surprised. I'd just appreciate it if you didn't automatically jump to the conclusion that they used excessive force when a viscious woman is clawing and attacking the most sensitive and painful part of the officer's body.

If she'd gotten a good grip on the guy down there, she could have had the upper hand and the cops would've lost control of the situation. She would literally have his nuts hostage. They took what measures they needed to to make keep control of the situation, subdue the criminal, and protect the officer.

There should definitely be an investigation. The facts presented in the OP article are not enough to make a valid judgement. I can see how your interpretation quoted above could logically follow from the article, but my interpretation can be logically derived from the article too: the cop was pissed that he fell down a flight a stairs with the woman, so he waits until the other five cops are holding her, then he beats her. The cops involved decide to claim that she was resisting arrest.

Both interpretations are valid considering the facts we have:
They both fell down a flight of stairs.
The police officer hit the woman repeatedly while she was restrained by the other officers.
She had some sort of writhing fit that she claims was epileptic.
She was dragged into the van with her pants around her knees.

We have also what the police officer and the woman have admitted to:
She admits to having had alcohol in her system.
She admits damaging a car.
She admits that she was kicked out of the bar because she was acting aggresive.
He admits to hitting her repeatedly, with full force.

And now we come to what they claim, but is not proven:
He says she was resisting arrest.
He claims she was trying to attack his genitals.
She claims he was motivated by racism.

Since these are the exact things he would claim if he was trying to avoid being charged for police brutality, I am not surprised he is claiming this. He may even be telling the truth. Or she might. I do not know. An investigation would clear this up. I am glad that the police force will be investigating it.

You don't think a man punching a woman half his size repeatedly in order to subdue her is a little excessive?

Quite right, shoulda shot the bitch.

Surely then if a toddler can take down a man in one shot, multiple police officers should have had no problem subduing this woman without multiple hits?

You don't get it - she's a woman. She doesn't have a weakspot like a man does. And if she did, they would be forbidden to use it to restrain her like she's trying to do to them.

You don't get it - she's a woman. She doesn't have a weakspot like a man does. And if she did, they would be forbidden to use it to restrain her like she's trying to do to them.

I can think of at least 7 "weak spots" on a woman's body. But now you're shifting the point. SO they're forbidden to use a single hit to a single point to disable her, but punching her 5 times is ok.

I wonder if you realise how much a person who is inebriated and is high on adrenalin doesn't feel. I have had to arrest people in the past who through, drink/drugs and the 'thrill' of the fight who have felt nothing at the time. The next morning when their sober they'll realise but it is quite within the bounds of possibility that the blows on her had little or no effect

Thats a tort not a criminal matter. And the obvious point I'm making is this poor stupid girl (your assumption not mine) who was informed of her rights and will have had the oppertunity to see the duty solicitor (when sober) and been offered a copy of the code of practice while in custody never realised she'd been assaulted until some bleeding heart said so?
That this girl is so thick that she:
1. Never realised that she'd been hit?
2. Didnt realise what going to court and pleading guilty meant that you'd admitted it?
3. Needed someone to tell her she could sue nearly a year after it happened?
4. Oh and has some weird form of epilepsy that causes you to assault police officers?

when i got arrested no-one gave me access to a solicitor and i was too drunk to understand anyone reading me my rights and no-one gave me anything that looked like a code of practice and to be quite honest they could have beaten the hell out of me and i wouldn't have known it without seeing CCTV footage. i also wouldn't know i could sue, or at least i wouldn't have the first clue how to go about it. and an epileptic fit is often more of danger to the people trying to restrain than the person having the fit - so it's not a weird form of epilepsy, it's just epilepsy. of course, i'd reserve judgement of whether she actually has epilepsy til i see some sort of medical report on it. sounds like she was just blind drunk and in a vicious mood. if these police couldn't restrain a flailing drunkard then they need some serious retraining.

And on that matter of public trust, speaking of how you would "appreciate" if I didn't suspect the cops first, as agents of the public trust they place themselves in positions of higher scrutinty. They chose the job, they chose to put themselves in that position. They chose to enter a job where by the very necessity of their duty they shall be placed under the microscope and have every action examined, ever situation questioned to determine of a breech of that trust has been violated.

They willingly put themselves in that spot, so I feel little sympathy.

QFT. not questioning the police is just asking for trouble. they do not operate above the law and should be subject to far greater scrutiny of their behaviour in their professional capacity than any other citizen.

I wonder if you realise how much a person who is inebriated and is high on adrenalin doesn't feel. I have had to arrest people in the past who through, drink/drugs and the 'thrill' of the fight who have felt nothing at the time. The next morning when their sober they'll realise but it is quite within the bounds of possibility that the blows on her had little or no effect


Hell, I've been in barroom brawls and had the same thing happen. No pain at all at the time, but when you wake up the next morning? Holy fucking shit!

So, to review: kicking in the nuts results in blinding pain, possible unconsciousness, and a lasting ache for long long afterward. Deadening the arm with multiple punches results in a numb arm and a slight ache.

I was in the hospital for surgery when I was a youngster and shared a room with a kid who'd been kicked in the nuts. A week after the incident, he was still unable to walk.

There should definitely be an investigation. The facts presented in the OP article are not enough to make a valid judgement. I can see how your interpretation quoted above could logically follow from the article, but my interpretation can be logically derived from the article too: the cop was pissed that he fell down a flight a stairs with the woman, so he waits until the other five cops are holding her, then he beats her. The cops involved decide to claim that she was resisting arrest.

Both interpretations are valid considering the facts we have:
They both fell down a flight of stairs.
The police officer hit the woman repeatedly while she was restrained by the other officers.
She had some sort of writhing fit that she claims was epileptic.
She was dragged into the van with her pants around her knees.

We have also what the police officer and the woman have admitted to:
She admits to having had alcohol in her system.
She admits damaging a car.
She admits that she was kicked out of the bar because she was acting aggresive.
He admits to hitting her repeatedly, with full force.

And now we come to what they claim, but is not proven:
He says she was resisting arrest.
He claims she was trying to attack his genitals.
She claims he was motivated by racism.

Since these are the exact things he would claim if he was trying to avoid being charged for police brutality, I am not surprised he is claiming this. He may even be telling the truth. Or she might. I do not know. An investigation would clear this up. I am glad that the police force will be investigating it.

I don't see how an investigation could do anything. It's all he-said she-said.

I'm all for an attempt to find out what really happened, but Arthais is going on what we can't prove (that she was resisting arrest and attacking his genitals) and still defending her.

I can think of at least 7 "weak spots" on a woman's body. But now you're shifting the point. SO they're forbidden to use a single hit to a single point to disable her, but punching her 5 times is ok.

They have no such weak spots like a man's body does. Unless you're a man, and have experienced pain from having your testicles tapped in the wrong way that lasts for ten minutes, you don't know.

The woman may have been physically weaker, overall, but the man had the weak spot.

As far as I know, if a female officer is arresting a male suspect, she cannot kick him in the nuts to subdue him unless she's in danger - and even then there will be equivalents of you saying she used excessive force.

So, to review: kicking in the nuts results in blinding pain, possible unconsciousness, and a lasting ache for long long afterward. Deadening the arm with multiple punches results in a numb arm and a slight ache.

Even though it sounds more violent to punch someone in the arm five times, it's NOTHING compared to kicking or hitting someone in the testicles even once.

I'm all for an attempt to find out what really happened, but Arthais is going on what we can't prove (that she was resisting arrest and attacking his genitals) and still defending her.

I defend her because I do not believe such a force would be warrented in that type of situation. I could be wrong, but as I said, my presumption is typically against the police.

They have no such weak spots like a man's body does. Unless you're a man, and have experienced pain from having your testicles tapped in the wrong way that lasts for ten minutes, you don't know.

Bullshit, absolute bullshit. I've done martial arts for...oh...17 years now or so. As I said, I can think of at least 7 places on a woman's body that if hit correctly would produce very comparable pain. At least two spots on the neck, solar plexus, under the arm, just to name a few.

The woman may have been physically weaker, overall, but the man had the weak spot.

Again, nonsense. A "weak spot" is just a bundle of nerves highly concentrated. True men have one in one particular spot, but a woman's body has several as well.

As far as I know, if a female officer is arresting a male suspect, she cannot kick him in the nuts to subdue him unless she's in danger - and even then there will be equivalents of you saying she used excessive force.

Yes, I would. So would use of those 7 or so spots I mentioned.

So, to review: kicking in the nuts results in blinding pain, possible unconsciousness, and a lasting ache for long long afterward. Deadening the arm with multiple punches results in a numb arm and a slight ache.

Even though it sounds more violent to punch someone in the arm five times, it's NOTHING compared to kicking or hitting someone in the testicles even once.

And yet, there are still ways to subdue a person that uses even LESS force than punching someone in the arm 5 times. I know several. I would suspect the police should as well. If they don't, that's a problem.

QFT. not questioning the police is just asking for trouble. they do not operate above the law and should be subject to far greater scrutiny of their behaviour in their professional capacity than any other citizen.

Correct, but don't automatically assume they're always in the wrong - ask for an actual investigation that finds out the truth before you go flaming the cops for doing what they thought to be necessary at the time.

And yet, there are still ways to subdue a person that uses even LESS force than punching someone in the arm 5 times. I know several. I would suspect the police should as well. If they don't, that's a problem.


Considering two of them couldn't keep her from inflicting potential permanent harm on the third one. I'm guessing they haven't had a decade of martial arts training.

1. From what I saw (AND from what was reported), the young woman was ALREADY pinned to the floor by NUMEROUS cops BEFORE the "officer" punched her five times. That's excessive force in almost anyone's book.

2. South Yorkshire Police Chief claims he WELCOMES an IPCC investigation. So whatever happened, if the girl wants and IPCC investigation and the police force involved welcome such an investigation, there's no reason for their not to be an investigation or for anyone to have a problem with an IPCC investigation

Correct, but don't automatically assume they're always in the wrong - ask for an actual investigation that finds out the truth before you go flaming the cops for doing what they thought to be necessary at the time.
no, the whole point is you have to assume that they might be potentially wrong so that an investigation can start. i'd say blindly defending the police on the basis of a report in a newspaper is far more dangerous and irresponsible than making sure the police are subject to scrutiny and made accountable for any wrong-doing they may otherwise get away with.

QFT. not questioning the police is just asking for trouble. they do not operate above the law and should be subject to far greater scrutiny of their behaviour in their professional capacity than any other citizen.

that's exactly the point. Law enforcement should be held to a far higher standard. They are given the public trust, they are given the authority to do their job. They are given permission to do acts above and beyond that of ordinary citizens. They are given the authority to disobey traffic laws, detain someone with force, enter private property without permission, carry a weapon, and even kill.

They are granted authority far beyond that of a civilian. With that authority comes responsibilities, and the understanding that your actions will be constantly questioned to ensure that you comply with those responsibilities and do not abuse that authority.

Considering they couldn't keep her from inflicting harm on the third one, I am guessing their training is woefully inadequate for their job.

So hitting her to get her to stop was justified then. We agree completely.

Correct, but don't automatically assume they're always in the wrong - ask for an actual investigation that finds out the truth before you go flaming the cops for doing what they thought to be necessary at the time.

I am not in any official capacity, I can assume whatever the hell I want to. And as someone who has had martial arts training, my assumption is that when you have numerous people as the police did, their level of force was excessive.

They will have their actual investigation, but I am still free to hold whatever opinion I wish.

Bullshit, absolute bullshit. I've done martial arts for...oh...17 years now or so. As I said, I can think of at least 7 places on a woman's body that if hit correctly would produce very comparable pain. At least two spots on the neck, solar plexus, under the arm, just to name a few.

Are you male or female? Regardless, you're lying if you say a woman's solar plexus can give off blinding pain if grazed in the wrong direction like testicles do.

Again, nonsense. A "weak spot" is just a bundle of nerves highly concentrated. True men have one in one particular spot, but a woman's body has several as well.

Spots which I would consider nowhere near as painful as the man's.

And yet, there are still ways to subdue a person that uses even LESS force than punching someone in the arm 5 times. I know several. I would suspect the police should as well. If they don't, that's a problem.

*shrugs* In the heat of the moment, after falling down stairs, having a crazy woman claw at your nuts, your mind races as to what to do - he chose the simplest and quickest to think of solution, to disarm her and make it impossible for her to attack.

I really don't blame him for doing so. You can disagree and say the cops should be perfect crime fighting machines with extensive knowledge of martial arts, pressure points, and gone through rigorous training to ensure they never lose their cool in any situation at all, but I see them as humans providing a public service as best they can - no more, no less. We just disagree.

.

Considering two of them couldn't keep her from inflicting potential permanent harm on the third one. I'm guessing they haven't had a decade of martial arts training.


Considering they couldn't keep her from inflicting harm on the third one, I am guessing their training is woefully inadequate for their job.

that's exactly the point. Law enforcement should be held to a far higher standard. They are given the public trust, they are given the authority to do their job. They are given permission to do acts above and beyond that of ordinary citizens. They are given the authority to disobey traffic laws, detain someone with force, enter private property without permission, carry a weapon, and even kill.

They are granted authority far beyond that of a civilian. With that authority comes responsibilities, and the understanding that your actions will be constantly questioned to ensure that you comply with those responsibilities and do not abuse that authority.

Sorry. Just because you consider them to have more authority and responsibility doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, they're still regular people.

I am not in any official capacity, I can assume whatever the hell I want to. And as someone who has had martial arts training, my assumption is that when you have numerous people as the police did, their level of force was excessive.

They will have their actual investigation, but I am still free to hold whatever opinion I wish.

Indeed, you can hold whatever opinion you want, but that doesn't make you right.

Again, cops aren't martial arts experts. Don't expect them to know this stuff. They might take a few self-defense courses, basic maneuvers to disable opponents, but past that it's all brawling.

Are you male or female? Regardless, you're lying if you say a woman's solar plexus can give off blinding pain if grazed in the wrong direction like testicles do.

Male, testicles don't cause blinding pain if "grazed". And I can hit you with one knuckle in the solar plexus if done properly and completely disable you.

Spots which I would consider nowhere near as painful as the man's.

You don't consider it because you've never been hit in them by someone attempting to cause you pain.


*shrugs* In the heat of the moment, after falling down stairs, having a crazy woman claw at your nuts, your mind races as to what to do - he chose the simplest and quickest to think of solution, to disarm her and make it impossible for her to attack.

If cops lose their cool in the "heat of the moment" and "their mind racing" they shouldn't be cops. Heat of the moment defines their job. That is the situation they deal with. If they can't handle the pressure of their job, they shouldn't be allowed to continue it.

I really don't blame him for doing so. You can disagree and say the cops should be perfect crime fighting machines with extensive knowledge of martial arts, pressure points, and gone through rigorous training to ensure they never lose their cool in any situation at all, but I see them as humans providing a public service as best they can - no more, no less. We just disagree.

Yes, we do disagree. I expect better than this from the police. Why? Because they are the police. They SHOULD be the best, they SHOULD be able to keep cool under pressure. They SHOULD be able to rationally deal with a situation in the heat of the moment. That's their JOB.

And in the real world, when you can't do your job, you don't keep your job.

Sorry. Just because you consider them to have more authority and responsibility doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, they're still regular people.

their job requires them to have more responsibility. If they as individuals can not handle that responsibility then they can not handle their job description.

As such, like anyone who is incapable of doing their job, they should be fired.

Sorry. Just because you consider them to have more authority and responsibility doesn't change the fact that, at the end of the day, they're still regular people.

just because they are regular people doesn't mean their petty mood swings and acts of revenge should be indulged. they are ordinary people in extraordinary jobs. if they can't cope with those extraordinary circumstances they shouldn't be trusted with them.

So hitting her to get her to stop was justified then. We agree completely.

I'm wondering what kind of reading comprehension you have. No, I do not believe it was justified. I believe there are methods to subdue someone WITHOUT resorting to the level of force they did.

They did not utilize those methods, which means either they did not attempt to, or were not trained to. Either way is unacceptable.

just because they are regular people doesn't mean their petty mood swings and acts of revenge should be indulged. they are ordinary people in extraordinary jobs. if they can't cope with those extraordinary circumstances they shouldn't be trusted with them.

Bolded for emphasis on the important part. If they can't handle the requirements of their job they shouldn't have it.

I don't see how an investigation could do anything. It's all he-said she-said.

I'm all for an attempt to find out what really happened, but Arthais is going on what we can't prove (that she was resisting arrest and attacking his genitals) and still defending her.

Actually, it is not simply he-said she-said. There were also other witnesses, and a security camera. I assume the investigation will avail itself of both of these resources, and probably more. Or maybe not: the police involved may feel that protecting a fellow police officer is more important than doing a thorough investigation.

So, to review: kicking in the nuts results in blinding pain, possible unconsciousness, and a lasting ache for long long afterward. Deadening the arm with multiple punches results in a numb arm and a slight ache.

Even though it sounds more violent to punch someone in the arm five times, it's NOTHING compared to kicking or hitting someone in the testicles even once.

And here you are going on what we can't prove (that she was resisting arrest and attacking his genitals) and still defending him.

I'm wondering what kind of reading comprehension you have. No, I do not believe it was justified. I believe there are methods to subdue someone WITHOUT resorting to the level of force they did.

They did not utilize those methods, which means either they did not attempt to, or were not trained to. Either way is unacceptable.


So sorry that all police aren't ninjas like you are. :rolleyes:

Indeed, you can hold whatever opinion you want, but that doesn't make you right.

Doesn't make you right either. We both received the same facts and made assumptions based on those facts. Your opinion that they are without error is no more, and no less valid than my opinion that they were. It is the height of arrogance to assume your opinion is somehow "better".

Again, cops aren't martial arts experts. Don't expect them to know this stuff. They might take a few self-defense courses, basic maneuvers to disable opponents, but past that it's all brawling.

They are put in situations where force is required. Damned right I expect them to know this stuff. It's part of their damned job.

I for one heartily commend the police for their initiative. Before, when I wanted a mob of goons to beat the crap out of my girlfriend, I called on mobsters. Now I know better. It's so comforting to know I can get this kind of thing done without breaking the law.

I'm wondering what kind of reading comprehension you have. No, I do not believe it was justified. I believe there are methods to subdue someone WITHOUT resorting to the level of force they did.

They did not utilize those methods, which means either they did not attempt to, or were not trained to. Either way is unacceptable.

1) Do you agree that if they had been trained to do it without hitting her they would likely have? If so they were justified.


Since culturally men are taught not to hit women, I'm inclined to believe they had no other way to subdue her. Thus, justified. Honestly it seems every time there's a thread about police you're expecting them to be superhumanly aware of every aspect of human anatomy and have perfect powers of observation.

Hell I'll bet the cops were trained to hit the arm in a certain way to deaden it. I wouldn't of thought of that, I'd of given her a right cross to the jaw and put an end to it.

When a male police officer punches a female half his size FIVE TIMES, and admits he did it as strong as he could, I might well assume some racial motivation.Or misogyny. Or just a cop high on his own power deciding to lay some smack down.

Reminds me of this case (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=79116ec3-60af-4ada-896f-020bb8dba00a&k=93902).

There doesn't need to be racial motivation. She could be white and it would still be fucking absurd. I hope this guy loses his badge and everything he owns in a civil trial over this.

I agree. Nonetheless, if there is racial motivation, that does need to be addressed.

So sorry that all police aren't ninjas like you are. :rolleyes:

Those who deal with violent people as part of their job should likewise know how, as part of their job, to subdue that person with a minimum amount of force.

These police either didn't know how to, or chose not to. Either is unacceptable.

I saw the CCTV footage of this on Newsnight last night, and it was completely disgusting, whether it be racist or not. Behaviour like this by those who are supposed to be the guardians of the law should not be acceptable. From what I saw, the worst she could be doing to resist arrest would be to resist handcuffing, not, as was claimed and yet to be proven, attacking the policeman in question, who has now been 'withdrawn (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6429569.stm)'.

And this ignores the, from what I saw quite likely, possibility that the woman, who is epileptic, was having a fit at the time.

I cannot cast any judgement on racism, but black or white, this is wrong.

Oh, now he can't use force because she's a woman? :rolleyes: She was resisting arrest.

That's why the Taser is better. I'm sure she would rather ride the lightning than get punched a lot. It also looks better on camera - the person just flops to the ground with little or no fuss.

Those who deal with violent people as part of their job should likewise know how, as part of their job, to subdue that person with a minimum amount of force.

These police either didn't know how to, or chose not to. Either is unacceptable.

Okay, so your idea of what police should be then:

http://www.halloweenexpress.com/images/f/FW5887.jpg

:rolleyes:

Don't mind these people. Their lot just hates police, no matter what. I'd like to see some of them trapped in a world without police. That'd be an eye-opener for 'em. Hell, just put some of 'em in a big city, and they'd be thankful there are police around. I sure as hell was when I lived in Baltimore. *nods*

We hold police to an extremely high standard, for a reason. We have given over to them the authority to use force, and to use that authority for the purposes of law enforcement. Recognising that abuse of power is not only a possibility, but a virtual certainty, we attempt to create checks and balances both to deter such abuse, and to deal with it. One of those checks is opening officers up to civil suits when excessive force has been used. I would think you would support that.

Police officers are given much more leeway than the average citizen BECAUSE of the situations they face, and the responsibilities they have. That is a way of balancing the need for law enforcement with the need to respect individual rights. When the conduct of a police officer seems to be an egregious breach of individual rights, goddamn right they need to be held accountable, and investigated. Anything less would bring the administration of law enforcement into disrepute.

http://www.taser.com/self_defense/images/x26c02.jpg

Okay, so your idea of what police should be then:

My idea of what police should be is people trained to incapacitate the people they deal with on a normal basis with minimum amount of force.

I am not asking the extraordinary. I don't want to trequire police to know how to disable a nuclear device, or repair a service vehicle, or fight off a gang of violent terrorists with their bare hands.

I am asking that the police be trained to deal with the kind of people they deal with EVERY SINGLE DAY. This was not an extraordinary situation. This was not an extreme scenario. It was one drunk woman, the kind the police encounter every single day. This was about as basic an encounter as you can get, and they botched it.

It is not too much to expect that police know how to handle a situation that they are routinely confronted with.

There is also the added question of why her pants were partially removed. I would like an explanation why a group of male police officers felt it was necessary to partially disrobe her after she was subdued.

I can not think of any explanation that does not make the cops look like misogynist assholes, but I hope someone can provide one.

Male, testicles don't cause blinding pain if "grazed". And I can hit you with one knuckle in the solar plexus if done properly and completely disable you.

A: Yes they do. You must be a woman. Sure you can disable me by wanting to hit me in a specific place, but I can be disabled ACCIDENTALLY if someone taps me there without realizing it.

You don't consider it because you've never been hit in them by someone attempting to cause you pain.

And apparently you've never had testicles.


If cops lose their cool in the "heat of the moment" and "their mind racing" they shouldn't be cops. Heat of the moment defines their job. That is the situation they deal with. If they can't handle the pressure of their job, they shouldn't be allowed to continue it.

Okay, so 90% of the police force in the country is fired because they're not supercops. Where does that leave us? In the shithole, that's where.

Yes, we do disagree. I expect better than this from the police. Why? Because they are the police. They SHOULD be the best, they SHOULD be able to keep cool under pressure. They SHOULD be able to rationally deal with a situation in the heat of the moment. That's their JOB.

And in the real world, when you can't do your job, you don't keep your job.

Most people are cops because they don't have the education or training for a higher-paying or more prestigious job, not because they're incredible atheletes that want to protect the city. Even that small amount of people that do have that capability, they move up in the ranks very quickly, so they're not beat cops for very long, and are replaced by the lesser officers to do the dirty work. You have a misunderstanding of the nature of the policeman's job. They work the beat so they can eventually get promoted out of it.

.

yeh, that doesn't really work though does it? or are you denying the existence of domestic violence and rape?

So you're implying this guy is a rapist now?

So you're implying this guy is a rapist now?

*bursts out laughing*

You can't possibly be that dense!

1) Do you agree that if they had been trained to do it without hitting her they would likely have? If so they were justified.

Absolutly I do NOT agree to that, what so ever. I have NO reason to suspect that these police officers did the barest minimum of force that they were aware of.

What kind of bullshit niativity is that?


Since culturally men are taught not to hit women, I'm inclined to believe they had no other way to subdue her.

I am also inclined to believe that a good deal of people who enter the police force do so because they enjoy the power trip of having authority over people. As such I'm not willing to give them the SLIGHTEST benefit of the doubt.

Thus, justified. Honestly it seems every time there's a thread about police you're expecting them to be superhumanly aware of every aspect of human anatomy and have perfect powers of observation.

No. I expect them to be trained to adequately handle the situations they ENCOUNTER EVERY SINGLE DAY. This was not an extraordinary situation. This was one unruly drunk. How in HELL should it be forgiven that the police do not know how to properly restrain one single drunk woman?

How is this a bizaare situation? How is this something that they wouldn't have been properly trained for? It's an unruly drunk. This is something they should deal with ALL THE TIME.

http://www.taser.com/self_defense/images/x26c02.jpg

http://screamerscostumes.net/store2/images/police%20club.jpg

Since culturally men are taught not to hit women,

yeh, that doesn't really work though does it? or are you denying the existence of domestic violence and rape?

yeh, that doesn't really work though does it? or are you denying the existence of domestic violence and rape?

Domestic violence goes both ways. Men just don't report it as often, for fear of crushing their precious masculinity. Nice try, though.

Absolutly I do NOT agree to that, what so ever. I have NO reason to suspect that these police officers did the barest minimum of force that they were aware of.

What kind of bullshit niativity is that?




I am also inclined to believe that a good deal of people who enter the police force do so because they enjoy the power trip of having authority over people. As such I'm not willing to give them the SLIGHTEST benefit of the doubt.



No. I expect them to be trained to adequately handle the situations they ENCOUNTER EVERY SINGLE DAY. This was not an extraordinary situation. This was one unruly drunk. How in HELL should it be forgiven that the police do not know how to properly restrain one single drunk woman?

How is this a bizaare situation? How is this something that they wouldn't have been properly trained for? It's an unruly drunk. This is something they should deal with ALL THE TIME.


You've never met a cop have you? I mean, ever.

-snip-

I would suggest that if your testicles are in the condition that a slight graze can have you doubling over in blinding pain that this is perhaps a medical condition and you should seek attention.

Personally I'm quite capable of handling the typical bustle and bumps of a normal day without crippling pain or extreme protection.

Or perhaps we exaggerate just slightly, hmm?

1. From what I saw (AND from what was reported), the young woman was ALREADY pinned to the floor by NUMEROUS cops BEFORE the "officer" punched her five times. That's excessive force in almost anyone's book.

2. South Yorkshire Police Chief claims he WELCOMES an IPCC investigation. So whatever happened, if the girl wants and IPCC investigation and the police force involved welcome such an investigation, there's no reason for their not to be an investigation or for anyone to have a problem with an IPCC investigation
I'm a little scared. I have to completely agree with you on this.

I am also inclined to believe that a good deal of people who enter the police force do so because they enjoy the power trip of having authority over people. As such I'm not willing to give them the SLIGHTEST benefit of the doubt.

So a preconceived notion about someone based on one's profession. We call that prejudice, don't we?

You've never met a cop have you? I mean, ever.

I'm a lawyer. I have encountered several. Many of them qualified, some of them not. None of them that would consider an arrest of an unarmed unruly drunk an extraordinary circumstance.

So a preconceived notion about someone based on one's profession. We call that prejudice, don't we?

Yes, yes we do. And in the case of individuals granted great authority and placed in the public trust, a presumption against them is absolutly warrented.

Domestic violence goes both ways. Men just don't report it as often, for fear of crushing their precious masculinity. Nice try, though.

which...does....absolutly nothing to disprove his point that despite "men being culturally taught to abuse women" that women are, in fact, abused by men.

So...what exactly was your point? That women abuse men occassionally? Yes, yes they do...what does that have to do with anything?

You've never met a cop have you? I mean, ever.

It would seem not, eh?

I would suggest that if your testicles are in the condition that a slight graze can have you doubling over in blinding pain that this is perhaps a medical condition and you should seek attention.

Personally I'm quite capable of handling the typical bustle and bumps of a normal day without crippling pain or extreme protection.

Or perhaps we exaggerate just slightly, hmm?

A slight graze, huh? Try a grab and maybe a good yank or twist. Somehow I don't think your "normal day" involves that, unless it's at your own hands, which I don't necessarily rule out, of course.

Domestic violence goes both ways. Men just don't report it as often, for fear of crushing their precious masculinity. Nice try, though.

Nice try is the total lack of relevance that has to the original post. Khadgar was claiming that men are socialised to not hit women. True. However, that does not mean that men do not hit women. Domestic violence and rape are examples of how that socialisation doesn't always work.


Since culturally men are taught not to hit women, I'm inclined to believe they had no other way to subdue her. Thus, justified.
Women hitting men has nothing to do with the fact that men being socialised to not hit women doesn't mean MEN DON'T HIT WOMEN EVER.

All clear?

I find it interesting that many, but not all, of the people here who support the police officer's actions have reduced themselves to posting pictures rather than responding to posts.

I don't. When one's position is untenable, one resorts to buffoonery.

[images that apparently argue for more police brutality]

I find it interesting that many, but not all, of the people here who support the police officer's actions have reduced themselves to posting pictures rather than responding to posts.

I find it interesting that many, but not all, of the people here who support the police officer's actions have reduced themselves to posting pictures rather than responding to posts.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A slight graze, huh? Try a grab and maybe a good yank or twist.

you're lying if you say a woman's solar plexus can give off blinding pain if grazed in the wrong direction like testicles do.

Do try to keep up with the conversation ok?

You see, the reason I was talking about a graze is because szanth said that a grazing of ones testicals causes blinding pain.

I know it's really hard what with people's insistance to actually use words rather than just post pictures, but if you want to jump into the middle of a conversation, it's really good if you know what people are talking about. It's this little thing we call "context".

I'm a lawyer.

Yes, yes we do. And in the case of individuals granted great authority and placed in the public trust, a presumption against them is absolutly warrented.

One would think that a lawyer would know how to spell "warranted."

So prejudice is good in some cases. Interesting. You must really enjoy all the lawyer jokes out there.

So you're implying this guy is a rapist now?

no, are you implying you're a retard?

One of the ways the police have been trained to subdue people is to hit them very hard with a metal pole (baton - ASP) on the upper arm or upper leg, perhaps there was no room to use this so a punch to the same area was a possible substitute

A picture is worth a thousand words.

A thousand words you don't have to back up your position? No, not really worth that.

Do try to keep up with the conversation ok?

You see, the reason I was talking about a graze is because szanth said that a grazing of ones testicals causes blinding pain.

I know it's really hard what with people's insistance to actually use words rather than just post pictures, but if you want to jump into the middle of a conversation, it's really good if you know what people are talking about. It's this little thing we call "context".

The graze was the attempt at doing more, obviously. No one takes a swing at someone else, hoping for a graze. Do try to keep up.

One would think that a lawyer would know how to spell "warranted."

Not at all, you see, this is why I have a secretary.

A lawyer I believe should also know that someone is innocent until proven guilty, the poor police officer is already tried, convicted and hanged, but there again I know very few lawyers with a conscience

One would think that a lawyer would know how to spell "warranted." A lawyer is not an editor. Still practicing I see? Maybe you can get a job at a law firm, being the lawyers' editor bitch :D

In any case...do you have any further submissions? Or are you just joining in the circle jerk that those supporting this officer seem to be engaged in?

Domestic violence goes both ways. Men just don't report it as often, for fear of crushing their precious masculinity. Nice try, though.

that's beside the point.

The graze was the attempt at doing more, obviously. No one takes a swing at someone else, hoping for a graze. Do try to keep up.

You don't actually even bother do you? Here's a hint I wasn't the one that said a "graze in the wrong direction" can cause blinding pain.

Read the damned quote I supplied to you.

Domestic violence goes both ways. Men just don't report it as often, for fear of crushing their precious masculinity. Nice try, though.
Your point has nothing to do with Infinite Revolution's. Khadgar argued that since men are culturally taught that it is wrong to hit women, every instance of violence by men towards women is justified. Infinite Revolution pointed out, correctly, that if this were so, then domestic abuse of women and rape would be nonexistent.

Since these things exist, we can observe that violence towards women by men is often not justified, regardless of cultural attitudes towards hitting women. This case may be one of those moments.

The direction of domestic violence has no bearing whatsoever on Infinite Revolution's point. You could be entirely correct and Infinite Revolution would still be right. Nice try, though.

A lawyer I believe should also know that someone is innocent until proven guilty, the poor police officer is already tried, convicted and hanged, but there again I know very few lawyers with a conscience

I am unaware that this is a trial.

Oh wait, it's not. It's an internet forum where the rules of evidence do not apply and my opinion is simply my opinion.

Shit, I thought this was a new jury system.

A thousand words you don't have to back up your position? No, not really worth that.

If someone resists arrest, it's perfectly acceptable to Taser them. Much less damaging than beating the shit out of them.

I would suggest that if your testicles are in the condition that a slight graze can have you doubling over in blinding pain that this is perhaps a medical condition and you should seek attention.

Personally I'm quite capable of handling the typical bustle and bumps of a normal day without crippling pain or extreme protection.

Or perhaps we exaggerate just slightly, hmm?

Nope, no exaggeration. It's quite random, though. Depending on what kind of pants I'm wearing, what direction the knock came from, how hard it was, etc.

It's a male thing, not a medical thing. The sack is very sensitive to pain because the sperm is in there - evolution has tought us that it needs to be protected at all costs so that the species can propogate, therefore it causes extreme pain when fucked with in the slightest. It's the body's way of saying "Hey stop that, we need to keep the shit in here safe".

Not at all, you see, this is why I have a secretary.

How very...ignorant of you.

A lawyer I believe should also know that someone is innocent until proven guilty, the poor police officer is already tried, convicted and hanged, but there again I know very few lawyers with a conscience


Gee, ya think? But then this particular "lawyer" (yeah, I've gotta wonder if that's even true) here doesn't grasp that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

So prejudice is good in some cases. Interesting.

Good is debatable. Justified however, yes.

You must really enjoy all the lawyer jokes out there.

I can't be made to care what people who typically make less than me have to say about my profession. I really just can't.

"Hey stop that, we need to keep the shit in here safe".



If that's what you keep in there, you have a problem

Women hitting men has nothing to do with the fact that men being socialised to not hit women doesn't mean MEN DON'T HIT WOMEN EVER.

All clear?

Really didn't say that. Point of fact you quoted me not saying that. You're confusing.


The point wasn't that men don't hit women, but that they're less inclined to. It's simple English.

If someone resists arrest, it's perfectly acceptable to Taser them. Much less damaging than beating the shit out of them.There! Wasn't so hard! I'll actually read that, whereas I wouldn't bother to look at the picture.

Interesting topic that...taser versus brute force. I think that could take up another thread actually, because I've seen a lot of opposition to the use of Tasers. Wonder what kind of stats are out there...

Gee, ya think? But then this particular "lawyer" (yeah, I've gotta wonder if that's even true) here doesn't grasp that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.

This particular poster doesn't seem to grasp that this internet forum is not a court room, this thread is not a trial, we are not a jury, and my opinion does not carry the weight of law.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

yes, it says a lot about you. actually i'm surprised you didn't post a picture of a gun.

yes, it says a lot about you. actually i'm surprised you didn't post a picture of a gun.

No, just because someone resists arrest, you don't have the legal right to shoot them (unless they present a lethal threat).

Tasers are perfectly fine, and much less damaging that beating the shit out of someone.

The point wasn't that men don't hit women, but that they're less inclined to. It's simple English.

And this somehow says that THESE PARTICULAR officers were less inclined to?

no, are you implying you're a retard?

You're the one who equated a police officer doing his job to a rapist.

Nope, no exaggeration. It's quite random, though. Depending on what kind of pants I'm wearing, what direction the knock came from, how hard it was, etc.

It's a male thing, not a medical thing. The sack is very sensitive to pain because the sperm is in there - evolution has tought us that it needs to be protected at all costs so that the species can propogate, therefore it causes extreme pain when fucked with in the slightest. It's the body's way of saying "Hey stop that, we need to keep the shit in here safe".

The skull houses your brain, yet a slight tap on your forehead does not render you comatose.

Yes, it's a sensitive area. However sensitive to the point that a graze will cause, in YOUR words, "blinding pain" is not typical.

There is still no proof whatsoever that she was attacking his genitals. We have only his claim that it was so.

And we have only her claim of police brutality.

If that's what you keep in there, you have a problem

http://209.85.48.8/9854/48/emo/roflma.gif

There! Wasn't so hard! I'll actually read that, whereas I wouldn't bother to look at the picture.

Interesting topic that...taser versus brute force. I think that could take up another thread actually, because I've seen a lot of opposition to the use of Tasers. Wonder what kind of stats are out there...

There's a tendency not to use the taser for fear of causing a heart attack, especially when you don't know what someone may be on. A taser hit on someone hopped up on coke or meth, for instance, can be fatal.

And this somehow says that THESE PARTICULAR officers were less inclined to?

These, indicates more than one was hitting her, why not sack the whole force because they wear the same uniform

You're the one who equated a police officer doing his job to a rapist.

no, I believe he stated that a situation that ends up with a woman without her pants off when there is no readily apparent, and innocent reason why her pants would be off is highly suspicious.

Different thing, but I don't expect you to understand subtle distinctions like that.

There! Wasn't so hard! I'll actually read that, whereas I wouldn't bother to look at the picture.

Interesting topic that...taser versus brute force. I think that could take up another thread actually, because I've seen a lot of opposition to the use of Tasers. Wonder what kind of stats are out there...

Look at it this way. If you shot her with a Taser, there's a 95% chance she goes down and stays there until cuffed.

This guy evidently had to hit her repeatedly. If he had used a stick, he has a better chance of accidentally killing her than a Taser.

The legal concerns usually raised regarding the TASER conducted energy weapon generally fall into two categories: 1. What are the legal restrictions on the use of a TASER conducted energy weapon; and 2. What is the impact of a TASER conducted energy weapon on legal liability in a use of force incident. The purpose of this Memorandum of Law is to address these issues in the context of U.S. Federal and State regulations and case law.

Legal Restrictions on Use of TASER Conducted Energy Weapons

A TASER conducted energy weapon is not classified as firearm by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives since it uses compressed nitrogen gas as the propellant. Therefore, firearms-related regulations do not apply to the sale and distribution of the TASER conducted energy weapon within the United States. A distinction needs to be made with the old Tasertron conducted energy weapon that used black powder for the propellant and was classified as a firearm under U.S. Federal and state regulations. The Tasertron unit is no longer being manufactured.

Some states have enacted regulations restricting the sale and use of inexpensive, hand-held shock devices and these regulations also apply to TASER conducted energy weapons. In many cases, the law enforcement and corrections market is subject to different regulations than the consumer market.

Impact of a TASER Conducted Energy Weapon on Legal Liability

The body of case law concerning legal liability issues for use of a TASER conducted energy weapon generally involve liability claims brought by suspects or prisoners under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C.S. §1983) claiming excessive use of force. The use of excessive force by police officers gives rise to a Section 1983 action. The courts have routinely held that the use of a TASER conducted energy weapon is not a violation of clearly established Constitutional law governing excessive force. Following are summaries of the relevant case law:

Russo v. Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036 (6th Cir. 1992)
The court held that the defendant police officers were entitled to qualified immunity as to the claim that they used unreasonable force in firing multiple times with a non-lethal Taser gun upon a mentally disturbed suspect wielding two knives. The court concluded that the use of the non-lethal Taser to subdue a potentially homicidal individual did not constitute excessive force and did not transgress clearly established law. The court emphasized that the defendant police officer "deployed the Taser in an effort to obviate the need for lethal force."



Ewolski v. City of Brunswick, 287 F.3d 492 (6th Cir. 2003)
The court affirmed the decision in Russo v. Concinnati, cited above, and held that the defendant police officer’s use of Taser non-lethal force to subdue a potentially homicidal individual did not transgress clearly established law. The court further held that the use of Taser non-lethal force against an armed and volatile suspect does not constitute excessive force and concluded that the defendant police officers are entitled to qualified immunity on the Plaintiff’s excessive use of force claim.

The court further held that in cases in which officers must choose among alternative use of force options, a plaintiff must show that the police "knowingly and unreasonably" opted for a course of conduct that entailed a substantially greater total risk than the available alternatives. Accordingly, the use of force option with the lowest risk of injury is the best alternative with the least likelihood of liability. Statistics from law enforcement agencies that have deployed TASER conducted energy weapons have established the TASER conducted energy weapon as having the lowest risk of injury of any alternative less-lethal weapon.

This case is also very significant in that the court noted that a state official's decision to initiate a rescue with sub-optimal equipment “sounds in negligence”. The implication of this dicta is that municipalities must provide their police officers with optimal equipment to avoid a charge of negligence and potential liability. The TASER is being recognized by law enforcement agencies as the optimal equipment for many rescue situations due to its high rate of effectiveness and safety record, and the failure of a municipality to provide TASER conducted energy weapons may well be negligent. See also New England Coal & Coke Co. v. Northern Barge Corporation (S.D. New York, 1931) where the court found tug boat & barge companies liable for not equipping them with readily available and widely used radio technology.

Thomas v. Roach, 165 F.3d 137 (2nd Cir. 1999)
In this case the plaintiff argued in his reply brief that the City of Bridgeport could also be liable because it failed to issue "widely accepted and non-lethal means [by] which to apprehend Thomas," such as "Tasers" to the officers. The court took note of this argument, but could not consider it due to a legal technicality since it was raised for the first time in plaintiff’s reply brief. However, as noted in the Ewolski v. City of Brunswick decision cited above, courts are beginning to find liability for failure to provide “optimal equipment” to its police officers.

Lifton v. City of Vacaville, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16286 (9th Cir. 2003)
The appellate court held that the officers' decisions to surround the individual, shout at him, and use a Taser to disable him were not violations of clearly established Fourth Amendment law governing excessive force.

Michenfelder v. Sumner, 860 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1988)
The appellate court held that the use of Taser guns was not cruel and unusual punishment and a policy of allowing use of Taser guns on an inmate who refuses to submit to a strip search does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. The court noted that Nevada's Department of Prison authorities believe the Taser is the preferred method for controlling prisoners because it is the "least confrontational" when compared to the use of physical restraint, billy clubs, mace, or stun guns. By disabling the inmate, it prevents further violence. The court held that the Taser gun is not per se unconstitutional

Jolivet v. Cook, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 3950 (10th Cir. 1995)
The appellate court upheld the holding of the district court which concluded that the correctional officers used taser weapons in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline after the inmate refused orders to be handcuffed before being moved from his cell.

Walker v. Sumner, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 26517 (9th Cir 1993)
The court affirmed Michenfelder v. Sumner, cited above, where the court held that the threatened use of a taser to enforce compliance with a search had a reasonable security purpose and was not unconstitutional.

Caldwell v. Moore, 968 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1992)
The court affirmed the lower court's judgment and held that defendant correction officers’ use of a taser did not violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity, because the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline, and not maliciously and sadistically to cause harm. The lack of a policy regulating the use of stun guns did not render stun guns use per se unconstitutional; and as the use of a taser was held permissible, it was not unreasonable for defendants to have concluded that the use of the stun gun was necessary to avoid using even greater force. Further there was no deliberate indifference as plaintiff did not suffer a serious deprivation because his injuries were not serious enough to require immediate medical attention, and he produced no evidence that defendants acted with a culpable state of mind.

Hernandez v. Terhume, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18080 (ND Cal. 2000)
The district court held that taser guns may be reasonably used to quell disorders and to compel obedience, but they cannot be used to punish a prisoner.

Hinton v. City of Elwood (‘93, KS)
The appellate court held that the use of a stun gun to subdue man who was resisting arrest by kicking and biting was an appropriate use of force.

Drummer v. Luttrell, 75 F. Supp. 2d 796 (WD Tenn. 1999)
The court held that prison officials are entitled to use physical force, including devices such as tasers, to compel obedience by inmates.

Bennett v. Cambra, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1584 (N.D. Cal 1997)
The court held that it is not unreasonable for the jail officials to conclude that the use of a stun gun is less dangerous for all involved than a hand to hand confrontation. See also Dennis v. Thurman, 959 F. Supp. 1253 (C.D. Cal. 1997); Munoz v. California Dep't of Corrections, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17759 (C.D. Cal 1996); Jackson v. Carl, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11617 (N.D. Cal. 1991); and Caldwell v. Moore, 968 F. 2nd 595 (6th Cif. 1992)

Alford v. Osei-Kwasi, 203 Ga. App. 716, 721, 418 S.E.2d 79 (1992), cert. denied, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 494 (June 10, 1992).
The court held that a sheriff's deputy was acting within his discretionary authority when he used a Taser stun-gun on an unruly prison inmate. The deputy stated he used the TASER to minimize possible injuries to all concerned, including Alford and her unborn child.

Nicholson v. Kent County Sheriff's Dep't, 839 F. Supp. 508 (W.D Mich. 1993)
The court affirmed the Russo v. Cincinnati decisions cited above which held that the taser, which was deployed in an effort to obviate the need for lethal force, did not violate clearly established law.

Parker v. Asher, 701 F. Supp. 192 (Nev. 1988)
The court affirmed Michenfelder v. Sumner, cited above, where the Ninth Circuit held that Taser guns are not per se unconstitutional as long as they are "used to enforce compliance with [an order] that had a reasonable security purpose. The legitimate intended result of a shooting is incapacitation of a dangerous person, not the infliction of pain.

Nope, no exaggeration. It's quite random, though. Depending on what kind of pants I'm wearing, what direction the knock came from, how hard it was, etc.

It's a male thing, not a medical thing. The sack is very sensitive to pain because the sperm is in there - evolution has tought us that it needs to be protected at all costs so that the species can propogate, therefore it causes extreme pain when fucked with in the slightest. It's the body's way of saying "Hey stop that, we need to keep the shit in here safe".

There is still no proof whatsoever that she was attacking his genitals. We have only his claim that it was so.

These, indicates more than one was hitting her, why not sack the whole force because they wear the same uniform

At the bottom, she is restrained by a group of officers

Quite right, only one hit her, my mistake. The others just held her down while he beat her.

Which of course is not nearly comparable at all :rolleyes:

And here's a pic, showing the difference between beating the shit out of people, and using a Taser:

http://www.taser.com/images/lepercentage.gif

Really didn't say that. Point of fact you quoted me not saying that. You're confusing. I'm sorry you can't keep up...you'll just have to try harder. Cluichistan brought up women hitting men as he ran to your defence. I was supplying him with the original context of your quote.


The point wasn't that men don't hit women, but that they're less inclined to. It's simple English. Less likely is meaningless in this situation as there is no way to determine which man is socialised to not hit, and which has bucked that socialisation.

If it helps, police officers traditionally engage in extremely high levels of domestic abuse compared to people in other professions.

Should I pause now, so you can catch up?

This particular poster doesn't seem to grasp that this internet forum is not a court room, this thread is not a trial, we are not a jury, and my opinion does not carry the weight of law.

I recognise the difference. I hope you do when you enter court room (if you, in fact, actually do, which I have to seriously doubt).

The skull houses your brain, yet a slight tap on your forehead does not render you comatose.

Yes, it's a sensitive area. However sensitive to the point that a graze will cause, in YOUR words, "blinding pain" is not typical.

Um...anatomy lesson. There's no bone shield around the testicles, genius.

Really didn't say that. Point of fact you quoted me not saying that. You're confusing.


The point wasn't that men don't hit women, but that they're less inclined to. It's simple English.

but the point is simply not true. maybe you are not inclined to, that doesn't me that this police man is less inclined to hit women.

it's at this point that i feel the need to mention that every single person i know who has joined the police did so for the express purpose of being able to beat people. that amounts to about 10 people in the various places i have lived. actually i lie, my cousin didn't want to beat people, but she left cuz she didn't like the misogynist and violent attitudes of her colleagues.

You're the one who equated a police officer doing his job to a rapist.

Wow. You really CAN'T keep up. I thought you were joking, but apparently someone can really be that dense.

Or you could comment in an official capacity. I wonder if Cluich et al would provide their addresses to send the bill to?

My official capacity? Fine.

In the event of any criminal charges or civil claims, before any guilt or liability may be assessed, the defendants must first have their guilt determined either beyond reasonable doubt in the situation of a criminal charge, or guilt more likely than not in the case of a civil claim (assuming the burden of proof is the same in England). As for any internal police investigations, that should comport to any internal policies that the police department has set forth.

That will be $150.

Or you could comment in an official capacity. I wonder if Cluich et al would provide their addresses to send the bill to?

The expression "et al." requires the period at the end of the abbreviation for "alius."

/editor

;)

This particular poster doesn't seem to grasp that this internet forum is not a court room, this thread is not a trial, we are not a jury, and my opinion does not carry the weight of law.

Or you could comment in an official capacity. I wonder if Cluich et al would provide their addresses to send the bill to?

Right, but again, that's the assumption we're basing the argument on. If she wasn't attacking his genitals, then of course he was in the wrong, but that's where the argument comes in - if she WAS, then... get it?

If she was...then they are still wrong because there are less violent methods of restraining someone and as police they don't get to use the "she hit me first" excuse.

but the point is simply not true. maybe you are not inclined to, that doesn't me that this police man is less inclined to hit women.

So you automatically assume he get his jollies smacking around women? What the hell?

There is still no proof whatsoever that she was attacking his genitals. We have only his claim that it was so.

Right, but again, that's the assumption we're basing the argument on. If she wasn't attacking his genitals, then of course he was in the wrong, but that's where the argument comes in - if she WAS, then... get it?

And we have only her claim of police brutality.


No, we have video footage of her being restrained by a group of police officers while another hits her repeatedly.

Um...anatomy lesson. There's no bone shield around the testicles, genius.

There is apparently a very VERY thick one around your brain, however.

Pretty.

Also lacking a source.

But actually, this is kind of hijacking...seriously, another thread would be a great place to discuss this.

Considering the picture is hosted by taser.com. I'm guessing the source is Taser.com:headbang:

*snip* DK, you should really provide your source for that, as I highly doubt you just whipped it up in the space of a few minutes.

So you automatically assume he get his jollies smacking around women? What the hell?

As a police officer the presumption is automatically against him, yes.

Burden of proof in civil cases in UK, when I left there 5 years ago was on the 'balance of probabilities'

Considering the picture is hosted by taser.com. I'm guessing the source is Taser.com:headbang:

At least one person on this thread has a brain...

Pretty.

Also lacking a source.

But actually, this is kind of hijacking...seriously, another thread would be a great place to discuss this.

The source, if you right-click and hit "Properties" is taser.com (http://www.taser.com/images/lepercentage.gif), but I wouldn't count that as a reputable source, given that it's the company's website.

Burden of proof in civil cases in UK, when I left there 5 years ago was on the 'balance of probabilities'

which is functionally the same as "guilt more likely than not", the same standard in American civil actions.

No, we have video footage of her being restrained by a group of police officers while another hits her repeatedly.

So this video clearly shows the officer hitting her and her not doing anything? Are does it show her attacking him?

Anyone else find it odd she rolled down a flight of stairs with a cop and all the injuries she reported are some scratches and bruises? Sturdy chick.

And here's a pic, showing the difference between beating the shit out of people, and using a Taser:

http://www.taser.com/images/lepercentage.gif

Pretty.

Also lacking a source.

But actually, this is kind of hijacking...seriously, another thread would be a great place to discuss this.

And we have only her claim of police brutality.

her claim...and the videotape of officers restraining her while one punched her repeatedly.

Which is actually substantially more than just her claim.

Oh, now he can't use force because she's a woman? :rolleyes: She was resisting arrest.



Looking at the footage it seems that she had already been subjued and was being held still by at least two other police men, and the the punching started.

I have no doubt that she was resiting arrest as I have no doubt that the policemans action where more about revenge than subjugation.

When two burly police man are holding down a petiete woman, and another one starts to punch her, that is indeed not right.

As to force, if I a fully grown adult, decided to punch the youths that have been running rampant outside my house I would quickly find myself up on an assult charge.

The police are still human, and I well know that some of the actions they take are out of malice.

which is functionally the same as "guilt more likely than not", the same standard in American civil actions.

Yes but the British understand longer words

So this video clearly shows the officer hitting her and her not doing anything? Are does it show her attacking him?

Anyone else find it odd she rolled down a flight of stairs with a cop and all the injuries she reported are some scratches and bruises? Sturdy chick.

We dont know, haven't seen the footage. We do know the article in question said that there was a recording of the assault by the police, but mentions only what the officer said in regards to her actions.

Which makes me believe that there is videotape of their attack on her, but none of her attack on them.

Yes but the British understand longer words

fine, we can use "preponderance of the evidence" if you'd like.

There is apparently a very VERY thick one around your brain, however.

Ah, yes, resorting to that sort of thing. Not surprising really. You must really do well in trials (but then your claim of being a lawyer is suspect at best). :rolleyes:

So you automatically assume he get his jollies smacking around women? What the hell?

You automatically assumed that because he's a man in a society where it is finally unacceptable to beat on women, that he DOESN'T get his jollies in this way. You have know way of knowing this, just as we have no way of knowing whether he beats his wife/mother/sister/random-woman-in-the-course-of-duty for shits and giggles.

You don't think a man punching a woman half his size repeatedly in order to subdue her is a little excessive?

Not if as stated in the article she was grabbing and trying to knee the guy in the bollocks. I would punch any woman that tried to do that to me as it shows clear intent to do some serious harm.

The expression "et al." requires the period at the end of the abbreviation for "alius."

/editor

;)

Hahahahhaa, I noticed after the fact, but I've said it before...if I cleaned up all my posts, you'd have nothing to keep your teeth sharp on, hmmm?

Next time I start an aboriginal rights thread, I expect you to reciprocate and allow me to gnaw on you in return.

fine, we can use "preponderance of the evidence" if you'd like.

deuce

Hahahahhaa, I noticed after the fact, but I've said it before...if I cleaned up all my posts, you'd have nothing to keep your teeth sharp on, hmmm?

Next time I start an aboriginal rights thread, I expect you to reciprocate and allow me to gnaw on you in return.

You've got a deal. I'll let you gnaw away, Sin. :)

Not if as stated in the article she was grabbing and trying to knee the guy in the bollocks. I would punch any woman that tried to do that to me as it shows clear intent to do some serious harm.

you are not a cop. Police have an obligation to use the minimum amount of force necessary.

The source, if you right-click and hit "Properties" is taser.com (http://www.taser.com/images/lepercentage.gif), but I wouldn't count that as a reputable source, given that it's the company's website.

Took me about 5 seconds to find where he pulled that from. They do have some independent studies listed there:

http://www.taser.com/savinglives/

Considering the picture is hosted by taser.com. I'm guessing the source is Taser.com:headbang:

Cease the headbanging...you seriously can't handle any more brain damage.

Right, but again, that's the assumption we're basing the argument on. If she wasn't attacking his genitals, then of course he was in the wrong, but that's where the argument comes in - if she WAS, then... get it?

No, that is merely one of many 'ifs'.

If she was attacking his genitals, then it was not excessive use of force, but it may still have been racist.

Nor does it answer why her pants were around her ankles when she was dragged into the van.

Nor does it answer the question as to why it took six men to incapacitate her.

Originally Posted by Arthais101 View Post
no, I believe he stated that a situation that ends up with a woman without her pants off when there is no readily apparent, and innocent reason why her pants would be off is highly suspicious.

Different thing, but I don't expect you to understand subtle distinctions like that.

They do that when they search you and it helps to imoberlize you at the same time.

no, I believe he stated that a situation that ends up with a woman without her pants off when there is no readily apparent, and innocent reason why her pants would be off is highly suspicious.

Different thing, but I don't expect you to understand subtle distinctions like that.

actually that was gift-of-god but i do agree, it was weird that her pants were off. although it brings to mind a similar situation in the nightclub i used to work at where a guy who was in the process of being kicked out pulled his own trousers down and yelled that if anyone touched him he'd get them charged with sexual assault. he was eventually persuaded to pull them back up and was walked out of the builidng by a group of bouncers.

C: She was drunk, angry, and very unruly - if someone is really dead-set on not being held down and/or cuffed, they can make it REAL hard for someone to accomplish that task, especially if said person doesn't feel much pain because they're so drunk.

For someone maybe. For six someones?

You automatically assumed that because he's a man in a society where it is finally unacceptable to beat on women, that he DOESN'T get his jollies in this way. You have know way of knowing this, just as we have no way of knowing whether he beats his wife/mother/sister/random-woman-in-the-course-of-duty for shits and giggles.

No, I said it was less likely. Try to keep up, or atleast stop responding to your betters, you're annoying.

They do that when they search you and it helps to imoberlize you at the same time.

I admit, I'm not overly familiar with British police, but in the states, removing the pants of a suspect to search them is certainly not standard operating police procedure. Nor is it, in fact, legal.

You get sued for that.

Ah, yes, resorting to that sort of thing. Not surprising really. You must really do well in trials (but then your claim of being a lawyer is suspect at best). :rolleyes:

Ah, NOW you're back...I've been wondering if you were ill, because lately, you've actually been engaging other posters in threads rather than just interjecting with random sniping.

But I forgot how much of a hard-on you have for Arthais...I'm sure he's flattered, but I have to be honest here. It's creeping the rest of us out. Can't you just send him love letters via TG?

For someone maybe. For six someones?

Yes it's possible, I've seen six officers struggle to control a drunken violent female before

So you automatically assume he get his jollies smacking around women? What the hell?

no i'm just not dismissing it as a possibility just because you and i were socialised against that sort of behaviour.

No, that is merely one of many 'ifs'.

If she was attacking his genitals, then it was not excessive use of force, but it may still have been racist.

Nor does it answer why her pants were around her ankles when she was dragged into the van.

Nor does it answer the question as to why it took six men to incapacitate her.

A: It could've been racist, but unless we get a psychiatrist inside the officer's head to find out, we won't know.

B: Pants could've slid down somehow. I dunno, I'm not going to assume anything.

C: She was drunk, angry, and very unruly - if someone is really dead-set on not being held down and/or cuffed, they can make it REAL hard for someone to accomplish that task, especially if said person doesn't feel much pain because they're so drunk.

Took me about 5 seconds to find where he pulled that from. They do have some independent studies listed there:

http://www.taser.com/savinglives/

Wicked.

Now put it in the 'Taser' thread you're about to start.

Thanks.

Kinda funny, I came into this thread prepared to side with the 'victim', simply because it's against my morals to hit a woman. However, those siding with the police seem to know more about what they're talking about, and I'm more convinced by their arguement.

Given, I still think there may have been a better solution than hitting her, but that's just me honouring my morals.

No, I said it was less likely.

Less likely...than what? What's your comparison? Men are frequently more abusive than women. Less likely than...a dog? A cat? Males are less likely to be abusive than...what?

And if your claim is that it's more likely they weren't abusing than were abusing do you have a source to back up any of that?

Try to keep up, or atleast stop responding to your betters, you're annoying.

You? Someone's "better?" Kid, I took a shit a few hours ago that was, by any reasonable measure, your better.

you are not a cop. Police have an obligation to use the minimum amount of force necessary.

Police also have an obligation to defend themselves and are also human. A good swift kick to the nuts can do massive harm to a man.

I also enjoy it when people state that people have to use the minimum force appropriate, because i assure you from experience, to hold some one (who really does not want to be held down) requires 4 people, one each limb as a minimum. ( in my case it was a an 18 year old kid)

I'll stand by the police man on this occasion.

no i'm just not dismissing it as a possibility just because you and i were socialised against that sort of behaviour.

Oh it's certainly possible, but that's all we have here, a whole hell of a lot of possibles. Well, that and a whole host of people real quick to condemn without evidence.

I'm inclined to support the cop, probably because I know several and violent ones don't last long around here. Perhaps optimistic to think they don't most places, but hey why not.

But I forgot how much of a hard-on you have for Arthais...I'm sure he's flattered, but I have to be honest here. It's creeping the rest of us out. Can't you just send him love letters via TG?

you assume he already hasn't.

Really it's quite disturbing and the mental image of him and what he says he wants to do with the peanut butter is rather distressing.

Ah, NOW you're back...I've been wondering if you were ill, because lately, you've actually been engaging other posters in threads rather than just interjecting with random sniping.

But I forgot how much of a hard-on you have for Arthais...I'm sure he's flattered, but I have to be honest here. It's creeping the rest of us out. Can't you just send him love letters via TG?

I'm back as long as I can stay sober. :p

And yeah, Arthais gives me some serious wood. Love letters ain't my thing, but I might have to do some wanking before I take my afternoon nap. :rolleyes:

Police also have an obligation to defend themselves and are also human. A good swift kick to the nuts can do massive harm to a man.

I also enjoy it when people state that people have to use the minimum force appropriate, because i assure you from experience, to hold some one (who really does not want to be held down) requires 4 people, one each limb as a minimum. ( in my case it was a an 18 year old kid)

I'll stand by the police man on this occasion.

It requires at least 5, one to hold the head too, sometimes you'll need 2 on the legs

No, I said it was less likely. Try to keep up, or atleast stop responding to your betters, you're annoying.
I know, I know...it is very annoying to have people point out how flawed your arguments are, and how great your lack of understanding is.

you assume he already hasn't.

Really it's quite disturbing and the mental image of him and what he says he wants to do with the peanut butter is rather distressing.

Peanut butter? :eek:

Oh it's certainly possible, but that's all we have here, a whole hell of a lot of possibles. Well, that and a whole host of people real quick to condemn without evidence.

And we have a host of people ready to defend without evidence. As I said, personally, my presumption is against the cop

I'm inclined to support the cop,

I'm inclined not to.

probably because I know several

So do I. That's part of my inclination.

Perhaps optimistic to think they don't most places, but hey why not.

niave is more like it.

you assume he already hasn't.

Really it's quite disturbing and the mental image of him and what he says he wants to do with the peanut butter is rather distressing.

*vomits*

niave is more like it.

"Niave"? Wow...

Peanut butter? :eek:

the crunchy kind, if I recall correctly. Something about how you like to feel the pieces running between your...well...less said the better.

*vomits*

*licks it up* Damn, that's hot. :D

"Niave"? Wow...

yes yes yes. Here, let me disarm this.

I absolutly suck at spelling. Always have. Always will. A skill I utterly lack.

There, I admit it. Now considering you don't have an attack left and are incapable of arguing substantively, I assume you're done?

the crunchy kind, if I recall correctly. Something about how you like to feel the pieces running between your...well...less said the better.

But the more said, the grosser. :cool:

"Niave"? Wow...
Serious wood?

Maybe it's the spelling errors?

*resolves to use spellcheck from now on to prevent Cluich from getting too excited*

*licks it up* Damn, that's hot. :D

I'm confused. You're like this when you're sober? Then I think I like you better drunk.

yes yes yes. Here, let me disarm this.

I absolutly suck at spelling. Always have. Always will. A skill I utterly lack.

There, I admit it. Now considering you don't have an attack left and are incapable of arguing substantively, I assume you're done?


I'm not attacking, merely debating. I'm going to guess that litigation isn't your strong suit, is it? :p

I'm sorry... are you actually going to discuss this issue, or are you all just going to flame each other untill your hard-drives catch on fire? Seriously, can you all be just a little more mature?

I'm not attacking, merely debating. I'm going to guess that litigation isn't your strong suit, is it? :p

so sorry, I'm used to people who actually...make arguments.

I'm not quite accustomed to this method of debating that actually doesn't argue anything at all. You'll have to forgive me, typically the debates I am involved in involve the other party actually debating something

I'm sorry... are you actually going to discuss this issue, or are you all just going to flame each other untill your hard-drives catch on fire? Seriously, can you all be just a little more mature?

and.....you are?

I'll save pointing out the irony of this post for a later date.

I'm confused. You're like this when you're sober? Then I think I like you better drunk.

Most people prefer me at the mildly intoxicated point, if they prefer me at all. ;)

Tell you what, I'll get good and hammered and head to Canada with a jar of Jif. :D

so sorry, I'm used to people who actually...make arguments.

I'm not quite accustomed to this method of debating that actually doesn't argue anything at all. You'll have to forgive me, typically the debates I am involved in involve the other party actually debating something

My points have been made. You chose to swat them aside with arrogant ignorance. Or is that ignorant arrogance? Hmmm...quite the poser...

and.....you are?

I'll save pointing out the irony of this post for a later date.

Recent addition to this so-called 'debate'. I put my opinion on in an earlier post, and so-far it was ignored while you were debating about how some person has a fetish for peanut butter.

I ask you, what does this have to do with a police officer using brute-force to restrain a woman? Did he try to coat his fists in peanut butter or something?

I'm not attacking, merely debating. I'm going to guess that litigation isn't your strong suit, is it? :p

Debating? Spelling errors? Debate?

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Perhaps you could recap your central argument and summarise those points which you feel support this argument. I would appreciate it.

Ditto. All I got was, 'w00t! Police 1, Drunk Bitch 0!'

My points have been made. You chose to swat them aside with arrogant ignorance. Or is that ignorant arrogance? Hmmm...quite the poser...

you haven't made a point. Your "point" as it were is that the police are in the right because...you say so apparently, and anyone who disagrees hates the police, and by extention, the law.

And thus we must hate freedom.

Or something.

but that's the whole point. why? because they must be held accountable and their actions must be scrutinised when accusations such as this are levelled. to simply presume that the policeman is a good homourable fellow who was just defending his bollocks is ridiculously naive. you know some good cops, good for you. i know some bad cops. there's more indication that this one was a bad cop than a good cop.


Now there's the point of debate, we don't have enough information, you're inclined to think it was a bad cop. I think he showed considerable restraint and probably acted as trained.

Choosey moms do choose Jif...

http://209.85.48.8/9854/48/emo/roflma.gif

Perhaps you could recap your central argument and summarise those points which you feel support this argument. I would appreciate it.


Perhaps you could read the freakin' thread instead.

Most people prefer me at the mildly intoxicated point, if they prefer me at all. ;)

Tell you what, I'll get good and hammered and head to Canada with a jar of Jif. :D

Choosey moms do choose Jif...

Oh it's certainly possible, but that's all we have here, a whole hell of a lot of possibles. Well, that and a whole host of people real quick to condemn without evidence.

I'm inclined to support the cop, probably because I know several and violent ones don't last long around here. Perhaps optimistic to think they don't most places, but hey why not.
but that's the whole point. why? because they must be held accountable and their actions must be scrutinised when accusations such as this are levelled. to simply presume that the policeman is a good homourable fellow who was just defending his bollocks is ridiculously naive. you know some good cops, good for you. i know some bad cops. there's more indication that this one was a bad cop than a good cop.

[QUOTE=The Infinite Dunes;12405837]Are you attempting to claim that everyone is fully aware of their rights under the law? That is the most laughable assumption ever.

I'm fairly positive that everyone is not aware of their rights under the law.

I'm not positive how it works in the UK,but here in the states ignorance of the law doesn't excuse one. I know this as several judges have told me so.


Every time I see one of these reports I wonder how many white folks are roughed up by black cops and why this isn't news worthy. I live in Detroit(predominantly black) and I'm sure it happens.

Theoretically, that would've weakened the blow slightly because the PB would absorb some of the force.

Then again if it was chunky, the peanuts may cause more pain.Cute, very cute...

But what if the cop had his hand stuck in a jar of peanut butter? What if, prior to restraining the woman, he was trying to get it free before he rushed off to duty?

My points have been made. You chose to swat them aside with arrogant ignorance. Or is that ignorant arrogance? Hmmm...quite the poser...

Perhaps you could recap your central argument and summarise those points which you feel support this argument. I would appreciate it.

Recent addition to this so-called 'debate'. I put my opinion on in an earlier post, and so-far it was ignored while you were debating about how some person has a fetish for peanut butter.

I ask you, what does this have to do with a police officer using brute-force to restrain a woman? Did he try to coat his fists in peanut butter or something?

Theoretically, that would've weakened the blow slightly because the PB would absorb some of the force.

Then again if it was chunky, the peanuts may cause more pain.

Recent addition to this so-called 'debate'. I put my opinion on in an earlier post,

Yeah, you put your opinion in but I really didn't see anything substantive added so...what was I supposed to say back? You formed an opinion, good for you?

Then again if it was chunky, the peanuts may cause more pain.

Ouch!

Oh, and to continue with my spelling /grammar nazi theme, it should be "if it were chunky." The subjunctive case is your friend. ;)

Now there's the point of debate, we don't have enough information, you're inclined to think it was a bad cop. I think he showed considerable restraint and probably acted as trained.

yes, both our positions are based on incomplete information, that we evaluate from our own perspective.

And from my own perspective, given what I understand of the situation, restraining her, THEN punching her, was an abuse of authority.

That is not considerable restraint. That doesn't come CLOSE to considerable restraint.

Perhaps you could read the freakin' thread instead.

Why should he? It's really fairly obvious that you don't bother to read anything that disagrees with your warped version of reality. You haven't even bothered to read over posts directed right at you.

yes, both our positions are based on incomplete information, that we evaluate from our own prejudice.

And from my own prejudice, given what I understand of the situation, restraining her, THEN punching her, was an abuse of authority.

That is not considerable restraint. That doesn't come CLOSE to considerable restraint.

Fixed for accuracy.

Yeah, you put your opinion in but I really didn't see anything substantive added so...what was I supposed to say back? You formed an opinion, good for you? Well how do you get a debate unless you engage the person's opinion? Rather simple logic, don't you think. A simple question of why I side with the cop is a good way to start.

Despite the woman being under the influence, she was attacking the cop's genetals. Any guy who has been hit in the nuts would know that's no pleasant experience (unless you're a massochist), so it was probably panic and reflex reaction to try and stop her from damaging his jewels. Mind you, that is assumption.

Why should he? It's really fairly obvious that you don't bother to read anything that disagrees with your warped version of reality. You haven't even bothered to read over posts directed right at you.

Yes, more ad hominem attacks. Well done. :rolleyes:

Now there's the point of debate, we don't have enough information, you're inclined to think it was a bad cop. I think he showed considerable restraint and probably acted as trained.

did you see the footage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6429569.stm)? it barely looks like she struggled at all once she was floored.

[QUOTE=The Infinite Dunes;12405837]Are you attempting to claim that everyone is fully aware of their rights under the law? That is the most laughable assumption ever.

I'm fairly positive that everyone is not aware of their rights under the law.

I'm not positive how it works in the UK,but here in the states ignorance of the law doesn't excuse one. I know this as several judges have told me so.


Every time I see one of these reports I wonder how many white folks are roughed up by black cops and why this isn't news worthy. I live in Detroit(predominantly black) and I'm sure it happens.


Because blacks cannot be racist. Only the ebil white people!:eek:

They do that when they search you and it helps to imoberlize you at the same time.

Do you have some sort of link to back this up? My google-fu is turning up nothing.

Recent addition to this so-called 'debate'. I put my opinion on in an earlier post, and so-far it was ignored while you were debating about how some person has a fetish for peanut butter.

I ask you, what does this have to do with a police officer using brute-force to restrain a woman? Did he try to coat his fists in peanut butter or something?

you didn't add anything to the debate, all you did was state who's side you were on. therefore you were ignored.

Well how do you get a debate unless you engage the person's opinion? Rather simple logic, don't you think. A simple question of why I side with the cop is a good way to start.

It's not my job to coax it out of you. If you want to present your opinion for debate, present it. If you do not, don't. Tell it to me, tell me your reasons, and if I feel like I wish to debate them, I shall.

I don't need to "engage your opinion". The thread is here, you are engaged, state it and I will respond, or I will not. But if you don't say anything, you give me nothing to respond to.

Despite the woman being under the influence, she was attacking the cop's genetals. Any guy who has been hit in the nuts would know that's no pleasant experience (unless you're a massochist), so it was probably panic and reflex reaction to try and stop her from damaging his jewels. Mind you, that is assumption.

1) we don't know what she did. We know what the cop said she did. Very different things. We KNOW he hit her, we have it on tape.

2) If a cop panics and has a reflex reaction because an unarmed woman was grabbing for his junk, he's a shitty cop. Yeah it hurts, yeah it sucks, but she was one woman, unarmed. I'm not going to excuse a cop for "panicing" because an unarmed woman grabbed for his genitalia. What the hell is he going to do next time it's someone he thinks is holding a knife? "Panic" and shoot him 10 times in the head?

If a cop paniced over that to the point that he lost his situational awareness and became abusive he is a bad cop. Police officers routinely face situations far more dangerous, and far more life threatening than one unarmed woman grabbing for his balls. If he paniced over THIS, what the hell is he going to do when lives are literally on the line?

yes, both our positions are based on incomplete information, that we evaluate from our own perspective.

And from my own perspective, given what I understand of the situation, restraining her, THEN punching her, was an abuse of authority.

That is not considerable restraint. That doesn't come CLOSE to considerable restraint.

And I'll say again.

I have just wathched the footage and it appears to me that the woman had already been retrained, when the punching started.

I too know cops, both bad, and not so bad(I have never met a good one) And from my POV what I say was a man taking revenge on a drunk woman who had been giving him grief.

Gentalmanly behaviour , certianly not, par for the course cop behaviour, I would say so.

did you see the footage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6429569.stm)? it barely looks like she struggled at all once she was floored.

Can't watch video here at work. Going by other's descriptions at this point.

Do you have some sort of link to back this up? My google-fu is turning up nothing.

Heh personal experiance man!

Fixed for accuracy.
Seriously...is that all you've got? I hate to break it to you...editing is not debating. Sorry. Really, I am.

you didn't add anything to the debate, all you did was state who's side you were on. therefore you were ignored.

The fact I was ignored aside, I realize that flaw and apologize for it. Now, could we work towards fixing this mistake?

I'm not entirely sure on how police procedures work, or what they are or are not aloud to do, but I do think the racial prejudice claim is a bit misinformed. If the police officer was trying to restrain her, then he had a reason to which I'm certain didn't involve race. I haven't seen the footage yet (kinda hard to, no media player available to me at the moment), but I'm pretty sure from what I've dug out of posts that the officer was acting on duty and not racial prejudice.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

you can't expect a fast paced debate to stop to ask you what you precise opinion of the matter is. instead of just coming in 2/3 way through the thread and saying whose side you were on try responding to a current post with an argument.

My response to your response to one of my responses just above this one (Head spinning yet?) would be my second statement of a point. Can you stop pointing out a flaw I've already acknowledged?

The fact I was ignored aside, I realize that flaw and apologize for it. Now, could we work towards fixing this mistake?

I'm not entirely sure on how police procedures work, or what they are or are not aloud to do, but I do think the racial prejudice claim is a bit misinformed. If the police officer was trying to restrain her, then he had a reason to which I'm certain didn't involve race. I haven't seen the footage yet (kinda hard to, no media player available to me at the moment), but I'm pretty sure from what I've dug out of posts that the officer was acting on duty and not racial prejudice.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

That's hard to determine at this point, hence the debate. I doubt it was racial at all. May of been rage driven from being rolled down the stairs and kicked in the dangly bits a few times, but I doubt it was racial.

Well how do you get a debate unless you engage the person's opinion? Rather simple logic, don't you think. A simple question of why I side with the cop is a good way to start.

Despite the woman being under the influence, she was attacking the cop's genetals. Any guy who has been hit in the nuts would know that's no pleasant experience (unless you're a massochist), so it was probably panic and reflex reaction to try and stop her from damaging his jewels. Mind you, that is assumption.

you can't expect a fast paced debate to stop to ask you what you precise opinion of the matter is. instead of just coming in 2/3 way through the thread and saying whose side you were on try responding to a current post with an argument.

Seriously...is that all you've got? I hate to break it to you...editing is not debating. Sorry. Really, I am.

Editing to make a point. He (Arthais is a guy, right?) has already stated he has an inherent distrust of police. His position is founded, then, on his prejudice against police. How would you like it, Sin, if I posted that you can't possibly have any idea of the intarwebs, because you're too busy playing with flint tools? Prejudice is prejudice, whether it's directed at a race (e.g., all blacks are stupid), an ethnicity (e.g., all Irish are drunks), a religion (e.g., all Muslims are terrorists), or even a profession (e.g., all lawyers are rats).

That's hard to determine at this point, hence the debate. I doubt it was racial at all. May of been rage driven from being rolled down the stairs and kicked in the dangly bits a few times, but I doubt it was racial.
So those claiming racial prejudice are saying so because it was a white officer hitting somebody of colour? Isn't that racial-stereotyping white people as racists? Or am I over-reacting?

Can't watch video here at work. Going by other's descriptions at this point.

well what i got from the footage, which was not mentioned in the article, was that instead of them both falling down the stairs at the start, the woman was in fact propelled down the stairs closely followed by the police officer who then obviously overbalanced and fell on her. the next thing that is shown is three policemen crouching around an immobile figure lying on the floor while one of them punches the figure very hard.

In last nights Newsnight they showed an interview with the girl. She claims she suffers from epilepsy. That might well account for the spitting the arresting officer mentioned. It also explains the kicking and punching.

did you see the footage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/6429569.stm)? it barely looks like she struggled at all once she was floored.

I just now saw it when you linked it.

It looks like he hit the woman while she was defenseless, but really we can't see the woman at all. We can barely see the cops. The quality is terrible, and it's from such a distance we can't see what's going on.

So I have no idea what happened, even after seeing the footage.

Even if it wasn't racially motivated, that does not rule out the great possibility that the force was excessive.

In any case, an investigation is certainly warranted.

It's interesting how lately, with the prevalence of personal recording devices, police brutality is becoming more and more questioned. Good stuff, in my books.
Well there are better methods than using force to restrain somebody, right? It'd be much better if police could restrain and handle situations without brutality. If it becomes question, then a solution to it should arise at some point.

Heh personal experiance man!

While I am sure you have a very amusing anecdote, I have to add that I have never had my pants removed when I was arrested.

And I have yet to see proof that this is the standard protocol.

While I am sure you have a very amusing anecdote, I have to add that I have never had my pants removed when I was arrested.

And I have yet to see proof that this is the standard protocol.

Shit man I never claimed that it was, just 'they do that when searching you'

That's hard to determine at this point, hence the debate. I doubt it was racial at all. May of been rage driven from being rolled down the stairs and kicked in the dangly bits a few times, but I doubt it was racial.Even if it wasn't racially motivated, that does not rule out the great possibility that the force was excessive.

In any case, an investigation is certainly warranted.

It's interesting how lately, with the prevalence of personal recording devices, police brutality is becoming more and more questioned. Good stuff, in my books.

Can't watch video here at work. Going by other's descriptions at this point.

Oy tiny video, but putting it to full screen shows her kicking him in the crotch atleast once, maybe more than that once she was on the ground as you can see her wiggling around under him.

Don't care for the edit job they did, took out several seconds of video which would be useful in figuring out what happened.

The fact I was ignored aside, I realize that flaw and apologize for it. Now, could we work towards fixing this mistake?

I'm not entirely sure on how police procedures work, or what they are or are not aloud to do, but I do think the racial prejudice claim is a bit misinformed. If the police officer was trying to restrain her, then he had a reason to which I'm certain didn't involve race. I haven't seen the footage yet (kinda hard to, no media player available to me at the moment), but I'm pretty sure from what I've dug out of posts that the officer was acting on duty and not racial prejudice.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

i've not argued for a racial prejudice case here. i believe the actions of the policeman were excessive. if they were motivated by race then that is bad. his actions would have been excessive if the woman was white too. i think they would have been excessive if the woman was a man as well. beating a subdued person (as she appears to be in the footage) is wrong and an abuse of power.

Editing to make a point. He (Arthais is a guy, right?) has already stated he has an inherent distrust of police. His position is founded, then, on his prejudice against police. How would you like it, Sin, if I posted that you can't possibly have any idea of the intarwebs, because you're too busy playing with flint tools? Prejudice is prejudice, whether it's directed at a race, an ethnicity, a religion, or even a profession.

You, on the flip side, have stated that you essentially are prejudiced in favour of the police, and thus support their actions.

That your prejudice is 'positive' towards the profession does not negate the prejudice itself. In essence, you are no less biased than the rest of us.

We are all working from certain assumptions. That's natural...in society, there is a constant juggling act as we attempt to balance different interests. In this case, the interest in the right to infringe upon individual rights in the furtherance of law enforcement, with the right to not have those individual rights unduly infringed upon.

Hence the need for an investigation. Can you at least agree on that point?

So those claiming racial prejudice are saying so because it was a white officer hitting somebody of colour? Isn't that racial-stereotyping white people as racists? Or am I over-reacting?

If you get a second to look at the video, she's not very black. Hell she's nearly as white as I am. I wasn't expecting some micheal jackson looking little thing.

My response to your response to one of my responses just above this one (Head spinning yet?) would be my second statement of a point. Can you stop pointing out a flaw I've already acknowledged?

yeh, the servers are pretty squiffy, it gets confusing at times.

i've not argued for a racial prejudice case here. i believe the actions of the policeman were excessive. if they were motivated by race then that is bad. his actions would have been excessive if the woman was white too. i think they would have been excessive if the woman was a man as well. beating a subdued person (as she appears to be in the footage) is wrong and an abuse of power.True, though I haven't seen the footage, I've read that the officer punched her in the arm to give her a dead arm. Unfortunately, that's about the most I got, so could you explain to me what the officer did just to paint me a better picture?

Even if it wasn't racially motivated, that does not rule out the great possibility that the force was excessive.

In any case, an investigation is certainly warranted.

It's interesting how lately, with the prevalence of personal recording devices, police brutality is becoming more and more questioned. Good stuff, in my books.

I was thinking about that at the last protest I was at. Everybody now has some sort of pocket sized image recording device on hand. I think it makes it harder for the cops to claim whatever they want. Sure wish that had been the case when I was a teenager.

yeh, the servers are pretty squiffy, it gets confusing at times.

Indeed. I was kinda wondering how my post showed up above the one I was quoting

I was thinking about that at the last protest I was at. Everybody now has some sort of pocket sized image recording device on hand. I think it makes it harder for the cops to claim whatever they want. Sure wish that had been the case when I was a teenager.

No shit, considering the courts tend to take the word of the officers over anyone else's version sans some sort of recorded evidence to the contrary.

We are constantly filmed at protests/actions...so we have a crew of people filming back. Boy does it ever piss the cops off.

If you get a second to look at the video, she's not very black. Hell she's nearly as white as I am. I wasn't expecting some micheal jackson looking little thing. So then there's a lot of over-reacting involved in that claim, you would say?

On that note, did the woman herself claim prejudice?

Don't want to get beaten down?

Don't break the fu**ing law.

Simple.

As for the restrainment thing, people can gain a seemingly demonic level of strength when this kind of thing happens. Even a stickbean can be hard to control.