bobmac
Major Champion
It used to be called minimum force.
All dependent on the situation and the people involved
Random Irritations
- Thread starter Blue in Munich
- Start date
All dependent on the situation and the people involved
It’s reasonable force, Bob, and the level of force can be from mere officer presence to lethal, depending on circumstances.
Have a look at the vid again but in slo-mo. Yes, without a shadow of doubt the PC kicks him in the head, potentially causing serious damage…
Have a look at how the PC’s foot bends back at impact. My own original view was it was excessive force, and prosecute - I said as much in the thread at first viewing.
I think the PC could have took the guy’s head off but I now think that kick was calculated to stun the guy. It actually appears restrained. Equally, that’s just my opinion but I think the PC acted appropriately.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I thought that it is called necessary force and justifiable force.
I was quite surprised at the length of time of the officers' refraining from use of force while the two thugs threw punches etc.
The threat of a tazer, pointing not firing, nearly stopped them but no, one of them continued with several blows.
By this point they could have had a right beating with truncheons to all parts of the body and head, but still no, every effort was made to see if they could be handcuffed without any violence to them.
I remained quite unconcerned about the police action in this case.
Went out early doors to get the food in for next week, including lots of frozen stuff for a club fun day on Boxing Day. Got home and offloaded the food. Mrs H loaded the freezer whilst I sorted the cupboards and then the car prior to going back out for nibbles and fun on the terrace of one of our favourite bars.
Just back in…. Someone left the freezer open.
Just back in…. Someone left the freezer open.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
The guy was laying prone on the floor when he was kicked
Would be interesting to know what the policeman’s justification was for thinking a kick to his head was an appropriate course of action at that time
Did he think he might be hiding a concealed weapon under him
Did he say something to the policeman
Was a bit of retribution to what happened to his colleague
Would be interesting to know what the policeman’s justification was for thinking a kick to his head was an appropriate course of action at that time
Did he think he might be hiding a concealed weapon under him
Did he say something to the policeman
Was a bit of retribution to what happened to his colleague
bobmac
Major Champion
It may have changed its name now, but we were taught minimum force when I was in the RAF. That's why I said ''it used to be called...''
And I don't need to be told what it means ta.
I beg your pardon? I was engaging in discussion. Is there really any need to be quite so rude?
PaulMdj
Well-known member
Slime
Tour Winner
If the police officer had been unable to rationalise his use of force, he would have been charged.
The bottom line, Phil, is that you cannot justify that level of force by saying it’s retribution, or a result of provocation. The decision maker will have gone over it with a fine tooth comb, and then gone over it again. The officer has clearly been able to justify his use of force as reasonable. And we will probably never know what that justification was.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Someone not being charged means that the CPS didn’t think there is enough evidence to find a conviction
And let’s be honest here - CPS are far from perfect
Maybe we should know what his justification was for kicking or stamping on someone’s head who was prone on the floor
The incident overall is very unsavoury in many aspects
Many don’t trust the police already - this doesn’t help matters
What does justify kicking someone in the head when they are laying down on the ground - there was no weapon on him , was threat was he causing lying on the ground
Edit sorry he stamped on his head
PaulMdj
Well-known member
You say many don’t trust the Police, CPS far from perfect! Well going on this forum (a tiny example) there only seems to be a tiny minority not in support of the decision not to charge the Policeman.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
Sorry im not sure the point
Only 40% of people in England trust their police force, research reveals
Metropolitan police scores lowest in public confidence, with women trusting London officers even less than men
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Mike is a bit of a unit........Exactly how wide is a Mike?
We never covered this at school.
Pathetic Shark
Tour Rookie
This forum going downhill again thanks to the usual suspects.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
The fact you’re asking the questions clearly shows you don’t know. The guy at the sharp end, with far more experience, made a judgement. The body of experts, the CPS, viewed the evidence, and because of the high profile it won’t have been an inexperienced person reviewing it, and you won’t get any better unbiased evidence than vid footage, decided there isn’t a case to answer. You can twist it every which way you want, throw in whatever stat you want… 40% against means 60% for… the 60% trumps 40%.
A rhetorical question for you. If you were caught up in of an incident like that would you accept that PC or not? It a binary question with a yes or no answer.
PaulMdj
Well-known member
You are the minority.Sorry im not sure the point
Only 40% of people in England trust their police force, research reveals
Metropolitan police scores lowest in public confidence, with women trusting London officers even less than menamp.theguardian.com
You and others are part of the problem.
You perhaps don’t understand how the CPS operate, Phil.
Yes, there has to be a realistic prospect of a conviction. But I can tell you for free, with this case being as high profile as it is, it is almost a racing certainty that this officer would have been charged if there was any scope to have done so, because the CPS would not want to be seen to have been bailing out. They did it with the fatal shooting in the Metropolitan Police area, when the world and his wife could see that officer should never have been charged. This case is not that different.
So I’ll defer to the lawyers on this one. Not the GM kangaroo court which once again seems to be in session.
