I’ve been arguing for years that anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer should receive an immediate custodial sentence with the minimum being 12 months. Sadly the judicial system does not protect those who seek to protect us.
Random Irritations
- Thread starter Blue in Munich
- Start date
I’ve been arguing for years that anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer should receive an immediate custodial sentence with the minimum being 12 months. Sadly the judicial system does not protect those who seek to protect us.
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
My neighbour was CID & he’s talked about the frustrations he constantly came up against.
No. Because once you start taking that route any criminal justice system you have is broken. You CANNOT have a situation where your police act as judge and jury, deciding on guilt and meting out their own justice.
See above. It absolutely is not the job of the police to do the work of a judge and jury. That’s not “old school”. With respect, it’s rubbish.
No, it won’t.
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
Glad the mods were quick to delete that one 
Worst I’ve seen on the forum.
Worst I’ve seen on the forum.
4LEX
Well-known member
Glad the mods were quick to delete that one
Worst I’ve seen on the forum.
What was it?!
Speculative, but it’s a possible rationale.
It’s not to be repeated. It has, after all, been deleted.
Pin-seeker
Well-known member
Agreed
4LEX
Well-known member
Nonsense Billy, nonsense lad.
The Police have to make decisions in the heat of the moment, you're basically calling for them to do nothing and wait and see what happens in court! That officer was attacked, saw his fellow officers attacked and had to make a decision to stop a violent suspect. It might look bad on video but he did the right thing. You're confusing it with the legal process. I know you worked as an officer for many years (much respect), are you telling me you never used your own initiative to make a decision and referred everything to a higher power?
Interestingly enough a Met Officer kicked a man when he was on the ground numerous times during the protests in London last November and nothing was said about. I wonder why that was?
We'll see what happens on the outcome of the charges involved, I would be happy to be proved wrong.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
I find it quite staggering that there isn’t a minimum sentence for someone assaulting anyone in the police , ambulance or Fire service whilst they are in the act of their duties
Slime
Tour Winner
Now, there's a thought!
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
As I said when this first was brought onto here, its all about context and only then once everything has been looked at can a descision be made on the correct course of actions.
Sadly too many want to be the first to bring something into the public domain, or re-show something. That doesn't help the situation of those involoved in it, no matter how proud the reposter/poster is.
Whatever the final outcome, I will still give my support to the Police for doing something that rarely gives them anything but abuse amd pain, and something most don't want to do.
Sadly too many want to be the first to bring something into the public domain, or re-show something. That doesn't help the situation of those involoved in it, no matter how proud the reposter/poster is.
Whatever the final outcome, I will still give my support to the Police for doing something that rarely gives them anything but abuse amd pain, and something most don't want to do.
Oh, please. I’m strangely well aware of what the police are supposed to do, and pretty well acquainted with making decisions under duress, and in very similar situations to that seen at Manchester Airport.
At what point have I even come remotely close to suggesting that the police stand by and do nothing? What the police are supposed to do is deal with a situation, resolve that situation using the tools at their disposal, controlling, restraining and arresting if the circumstances require it. And at Manchester Airport all of those elements were required. But they still have to do all that whilst acting within the law. And the application of reasonable force is a legal principle. It’s not for any of us as individuals to make the rules up as we go along, and effectively say “he deserved it”. That’s not how it works, and to suggest otherwise is breathtakingly naive.
A key point you make, and it is in fact central to this whole issue, is when you say the officer had to make a decision to stop a violent suspect. Surely you can see the issue here - IF that man had been tasered, and IF he no longer posed an immediate threat, then it is going to be staggeringly difficult, on that basis alone, to argue that the level of force used had been reasonable.
There are still huge gaps in what is known, which is why I will continue to defer from making a final judgement. As I have said now more than once, the officer’s mindset is absolutely key to the decision making process. But I will say all day long that it is not the job of the police to act as judge and jury. It simply can’t be like that.
Of course, I am speaking from a police perspective. And I find it rather patronising to be asked “are you telling me you never used your own initiative to make a decision and referred everything to a higher power?”. I made decisions all day, every day, for nearly thirty years. It’s what police officers do. Especially those who, like me, worked in supervisory ranks.
The job is all about decisions. And the best piece of advice I was given was this; there’s no such thing as a wrong decision, only a poorly rationalised one. EDIT: If the officer can rationalise his decision to act as he did, he might be okay. If he can’t, he’s in a spot of bother.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
14 sqn having to change its name
Neilds
Assistant Pro
I was in the RAF for over 30 years and never heard them referred to as the name that has been ‘banned’. Think it was only used by those on the Sqn
3offTheTee
Tour Rookie
I know there are a few videos doing the rounds about The Manchester Airport Incident but what led to the incident starting please?
When was the first time the police were called and how long after the incident started?
Thank you
When was the first time the police were called and how long after the incident started?
Thank you
Slime
Tour Winner
It doesn't have to change it's name, though, it has decided to because someone thinks the name 'Crusaders' is offensive!
A) That doesn't meean it is offensive, it merely means it's offensive to them ............... their problem.
B) What if someone from 14 squadron views removing the name as offensive? Does it get reinstated?
The world has gone mad if it means constantly giving in to an easily triggered and very loud minority.
bobmac
Major Champion
When I was in the RAF, we were taught to use minimum force.
Made perfect sense.
Restraining a man who has just beaten up 3 of your fellow officers will look different to an old lady who hasn't paid her TV license.
The powers that be have to allow the police to decide what that minimum force is but if anyone is deemed to have stepped over the line, they should be investigated. No-one is above the law.
I'm not saying what the policeman did was right but just trying to understand why he did what he did.
If he has previous history of this behaviour then he's a bully and should be thrown out.
Maybe, on the other hand he was just frustrated at seeing so many criminals getting let off with fines or community service that he decided that this guy had crossed the line and was going to get some instant karma.
You don't have to look much further than that WPC who was beaten and scarred for life, and the guy was fined and given community service.
Neilds
Assistant Pro
Bob, not sure what relevance your post has to mine - apart from being in the RAF
PaulMdj
Well-known member
It’s only changing its knickname after someone in the Squadron complained, it will still be 14 Sqn.
