Discussion in 'Jollies Bar' started by ThreadpigeonsAlpha, Aug 26, 2019.
The chances of that Police officer being disciplined? Hopefully that guy sue's the hell out of him and the cops.
Zero chance at all mate.
Disciplined for what, exactly?
Just out of interest what was the arrested bloke protesting about? Before he began protesting about being arrested?
To be honest he should have been arrested for wearing his wife's skimpy blouse.
Assault, conduct unbecoming.
The man was walking away after a small verbal confrontation, which he made no threats and was behaving in a non threatening behaviour, with masked members of Antifa.
Antifa by definition is a terrorist organisation.
“Terrorism is an action or threat designed to influence the government or intimidate the public. Its purpose is to advance a political, religious or ideological cause. The current UK definition of terrorism is given in the TerrorismAct 2006.“
So the bloke concerned engaged in non threatening verbal dialogue with a group of several masked individuals who were part of a known group for causing violence and inciting violence.
He started to move on when the police officer pushed him from behind (assault) when the guy turned to see who and why he was being pushed and told the police officer to leave him alone and as he tried walked away, the police officer grabbed his arm, all of which was not reasonable force.
The irony of arresting the 1 white bloke who walked away, but allowing known masked Antifa members to continue to intimidate and have been known to incite violence.
The irony of masked people beating people and threatening them with violence for holding opinions different to their own, under the banner of “anti fascism” they had a group acting similarly in Germany in the 1930s only they wore brown shirts..
But it's not currently a proscribed organisation:
Antifa appears to be a very vague coalition of individuals with diverse grievances.
As this is the internet I'll make a totally uninformed speculation that the arrested bloke and his gobby missus might have been 'known' personalities. I'm no expert but that bloke had all the appearance of being a public disorder 'frequent flyer' who was well known to the local plod.
I know who antifa are and my opinion of them (not a good one) is irrelevant, same as the coppers opinion. The bloke was asked to move on, the chief inspector doing so is covered under several powers and using force to do so is lawful.
The guy has the started shouting and swearing at a police officer (unwise) before in turn assaulting him.
Not a comfortable situation for any cop but the bloke makes an *text deleted* of it and should of done what he was told. Who the people are that he is shouting at is irrelevant, the cop does what he believes is necessary to prevent escalation and attempts to move the bloke along, which is met with physical resistance that isn’t tolerated. End of story.
There are several bodies and groups who investigate and prosecute police officers trying to do their job and I’d wager good money that this would come back no case to answer for any sort of complaint.
Would I have locked him up myself? No. He would have been taken away from the crowd and told to do one. Every cop is different but that doesn’t mean this one acted unlawfully.
The police officer assaulted him, from behind. The bloke in question reacted in surprise. And quite rightly couldn’t understand the escalation of force.
The copper didn’t tell him to do anything, just escalated it to physical force without verbal warning or commands.
There are indeed several groups to investigate police officers, playing devils advocate could the blokes race have something to do with the fact they won’t investigate it?
So they remove the one bloke demonstrating his right to freedom of expression, rather than moving the protest of a group of masked people known to incite violence?
It’s not assault, as I said the police officer is covered under law and he can easily justify the use of force.
It’s also quite likely that the antifa demonstration had been organised and pre planned with local council and police knowledge/involvement, otherwise the public order teams would not be there to police it.
The application of discretion would probably have been the better option. Which is why I'm not a Police officer.
My last errm... brush with the law (many years back) resulted from my apparently "distracting a Police dog" by panting loudly, rolling on my back and barking whilst holding a handful of KFC. Fortunately for me the dog handler used his discretion and sent me on my way.
As I said, would I have done the same? No. Was it perfect? No.
My point was that it was not unlawful.
The guy was expressing his opinion in a public place. The cop had his hands constantly on him for 7 seconds before any swear word came out of that guys mouth. That is seven seconds of common assault before the guy expressed any type of the mildest self defence.
Is their explicit laws that allow Police to commit common assault on people who are not breaching the peace or committing a crime or about to likely commit a crime.
You’ll know when to press the go switch
The police officer is very very quick to whip out the "you've just assaulted me" considering the fact he was the one to walk up to the person from behind without announcing who he was and putting hands on him and pushing him away. Fairly sure if you walked up behind someone and did that, even if you were keeping them out of trouble, you'd be committing assault.
Police Officers are ment to deescalate, not escalate. He could have walked up to him, and asked him to just walk away and cool down. Baring in mind he was already starting to walk away and disengage with the protesters.
Instead, he puts his hands on him and starts to move him away, whilst not even talking to him. Of course, he is well natured here and just trying to stop things escalating but the way he did it does not seem appropriate from the video.
The Police Officer knew that individual was worked up, he wasn't calm and he wasn't thinking in a calm, logical way. He should have recognised that, walked alongside him and steered him away, and even when the guy did push his arms away, he didn't have to spring on him. Suddenly hes gone from the guy walking away, to him now kicking off because of that fact he was worked up, and suddenly hes being pushed away and victimised, and having to have a whole crowd of police officers handle the otherwise non-existant situation.
Either way it's difficult to second guess the decision of someone on the ground on the basis of filmed footage.
“Inflicting intentional or reckless harm towards another individual is the general definition of assault in the United Kingdom. Assaults are typically referred to as offences against the person. Harm encompasses both physical and psychological harm, which includes causing someone to fear for their own safety.“
Maybe battery is more suited to this situation:
“Battery is a criminal offence involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the act of creating apprehension of such contact.”
“If violence is used in a common assault, it is called a “battery” and the perpetrator would be charged with “assault by beating”. This does not however, mean that the victim was actually ‘beaten up’ or even hit or kicked – it could be that they were pushed, grabbed or spat at. The victim may not therefore have suffered any physical injury, and if any injury was caused, it would need to be quite minor to fall under common assault.”
He pushed him from behind, without verbal commands or warnings, he would be unaware who pushed him, and as Antifa are known for inciting violence he could well have thought he was being attacked.
There was no escalation of force. And as you said, the copper holds rank, he should know better.
I would tend to agree. And I would always be the one to Defend the actions of those on the pointy end.
However this is blatant abuse of power and handled completely wrong. Especially by a senior rank.
It could have been handled a lot better and it’s now being used by groups on the right to fuel their propaganda as it could be seen as bias.
Whilst you say they're covered under law and can justify the use of force; he has to ask himself 3 questions:
Would the use of force have a lawful objective (e.g., the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed
Are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
Having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm) what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?
Further, the use of force has to be:
absolutely necessary for a purpose permitted by law
the amount of force used must also be reasonable and proportionate
In my uninvolved, relaxed at home, subjective view (similar to how things are judged in court), whilst he did have a purpose for moving the guy along, to avoid a potential escalation and public order offence (a potentiality which did not show any signs of materialising), he had plenty of other options open to him and could quite clearly have seen the use of force would escalate the situation, stir up the protestors he was engaging with and potentially draw in more people into the situation.
Your point would be a possible line of defence for the bloke when questioned about the offence he was arrested for (if he wasn’t chucked out of custody after a couple hours to cool down). The responsibility is on him to prove that though. Again, the bobby acted within the law and enforcing he it he is entitled to use force that would normally be considered assault.
Whether what happened is right or wrong (as I said from the get go) was not my point.
Separate names with a comma.