The representative for the police said the CCTV was not shown 'in context' with the rest of the situation.
But .... how can they justify their actions with that statement? Surely we should be safe on the streets to know that we will not get repeatedly beaten by the police whatever we have done. The police are there to stop violence, not add to it ...... or have we suddenly taken rules from other countries and no-one told me???????!!
2007-03-09 06:38:34 · 20 answers · asked by Leah 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Jungleboy78 .... woooooaaah. Someone rattled your cage huh?!!
Yes policemen 'put their lives on the line' by noone forces them to be a policeman. They can't sign up and then expect to not come in contact with people breaking the law .... that's what I (the taxpayer) pay them for.
I understand that the woman in question was a nasty piece of work, but surely the police are trained to de-mobilise her. They obviously didn't do it quickly enough.
It's the same as soldiers - some sign up and then complain when they're sent to war!!!
They are not going into these professions with their eyes shut ... are they???
2007-03-09 08:16:48 · update #1
BAD SHOT
Yes I knew the 'facts' before I asked the question. I still think it's wrong.
That's why people are allowed to have opinion .... and IN MY OPINION the police were still out of order.
2007-03-09 20:48:44 · update #2
yes the police coulda used different methods to subdue the girl. they didnt need to viciously beat her skull in, thats whats called breaking the law. brutality. how are the general public supposed to have faith in the police when they see this sh**t. how? answer is they dont. hell they wont. this is the beggining of the end my friend. you know the fabric of society is crumbling when you see upholders of the law resorting to this barbarianism
2007-03-09 06:59:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
1. The female in question had commited a criminal offence and was resisting arrest. Now, I know it's great to shout down the police when you 'think' they've done something wrong, but how about if your car had been damaged by a white male yob, and the police had to use force on him to arrest him as he was kicking off in a disorderly, violent, aggressive, drunken stupor? I guess there would be far less people moaning - well lets have a sense of equality shall we? It is one rule for everyone - the police will use force where necessary.
2. It is a perfectly legitimate form of defence to throw a clenched fist towards someone and this is taught to trainee officers - it is actually called a bottom fist / hammer fist strike. The type of "Force" you see used by police in "The Bill" just isn't true to life and is not how officers are trained - I suggest you research and send any complaints about police training to the Home Office who approve the techniques used. The police officer who did so is not attempting to hide the fact in any way whatsoever. He is perfectly within his rights to use this level of force if he thinks it necessary. I imagine that those of you who are not police officers would be able to control all the people officers have to deal with nowadays with a few stern words and no force whatsoever? Dream on.
3. CCTV is misleading. That said, the officer has stated that yes, he did hit her. The force have stated that they are happy with the actions he took. It's funny how she only decides that she can make a complaint out of this after her solicitor gets hold of the cctv - she doesn't even remember what happened, apparently.
4. I sometimes wonder why any person would want to join the police. If you're not moaning at police driving standards when using blue lights, you're moaning about the level of force. We can't win. I just wish people would sometimes consider how exactly they would like the service run, because clearly nothing done by the police is ever good enough. Perhaps if we refuse to ever enter into any situation where conflict might arise, we leave the drunks to roam the streets until they're sober and sensible, we deal with those with guns/knives only once they have decided to put the gun/knife down, we attend every job at 30mph in rush hour traffic, we don't act on any terrorism intelligence in case we get it wrong (depsite the fact that 99% of the time it's right - you hear about the 1% that's not).... I could go on as the moans from the public are endless. Trust me - for the scrutiny and criticism we get, most officers would feel a whole lot safer if the examples above were true. In your day job, what's the worse that can happen if you mess up? Think about it - officers find themselves risking their life, freedom etc. every time they act.
Show some support, wait to hear the proper facts and stop jumping on the media band wagon - especially when you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
2007-03-09 10:09:16 · answer #2 · answered by Ben G 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've answered this question, lord knows how many times.
1.She was drunk, she's admitted to drinking at least 1/3 of a bottle of brandy.
2.She was physically ejected from a club for being violent and disorderly.
3.When she was outside she smashed car windows causing £3000 worth of damage.
4.When the police turned up she ran away, when she was grabbed she started punching and kicking the officer.
5.When he got her to the floor she spat on him, tried to bite him and tried to grab his genitals
6.As she was trying to grab him, he hit her arm 5 times on the nerve cluster on her shoulder. This is a GOVERNMENT APPROVED technique one that we're all taught in training.
7.She was finally detained and as she was carried she continued to be abusive.
Do you still think the officer was excessive, or now that you know the facts and the reasoning behind his actions, do you think he might actually have been quite restrained? Being hit on the arm isn't a life endangering event, especially when you consider that her actions would have meant he was perfectly justified in using far more force than he did, i'm very surprised he didn't strike her with his baton or use his CS gas on her.
This woman has already been exposed as a liar, she doesn't suffer from epilepsy at all, she was diagnosed as being healthy but "feels like she had it in her gut". A person suffering from a fit doesn't smash windows, they don't punch, they don't spit and they don't get up and run away.
She is unemployed, 20 years old and too bone idle to get a job, deciding instead to live on yours and my taxes.
In court she pleaded guilty to all the offences that were put to her, yet on TV she stated she could't remember what happened. A person with no memory of the event would surely try and plead innocence....?
Reggie Jackson, who has taken up her case saying it was racially motivated was convicted at court yesterday for racially aggravated section 5 of the public order act, so he's hardly unbiased.
As for being shown in context, the CCTV has quite clearly been altered. At one point there is the one officer on top of her, the next second another 4 have mysteriously appeared, so yes, it's been taken completely out of context. This parasite of a woman is dragging a good officer's name through the mud for the sake of a few quid, that you and me will end up giving her if she wins.
I personally think, that for a few weeks on a Friday night all police should go on strike, and leave you all to fend for yourselves. You'll very quickly realise that the only way we can effectively enforce the law is by using force, because I can tell you for nothing, drunken people DO NOT respond to reason or request.
2007-03-09 20:24:11 · answer #3 · answered by badshotcop 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It happens all the time,this time the policeman was caught on film,there will of course be the usual whitewash by the police authority in the area in which this happened,it has already started.Thank heavens that we have such hard men to look after us,if it had been a man they may have had to send for the army as reinforcements! Any faith that I once had in the police has long since gone,due to complete inefficiency and incidents such as this!
2007-03-09 07:17:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
~I've heard about this and "Jungleboy78" is telling the same story every time. He's obviously very bitter.
There is no excuse to be beating people, especially women. Here in the US, they get caught beating and killing the mentally ill regularly, on tape, but always get away with it.
The police want to play judge and jury.
Here are only a few words the Police use to describe the public...
Scum, trash, not feminine enough to be called a woman, drunks, idiots, drunken scum, ignorant, hypocrites, and thugs.
Need I say more?~
*Sorry "V" I clicked on thumbs down instead of thumbs up.
2007-03-09 10:05:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nice to see CCTV working the other way. Sheffield has form for doing away with CCTV recordings which may go against the police - Hillsborough one example, so it is good to see it happen, no matter what 'attitude' the beaten supposed to have.
2007-03-09 08:28:15 · answer #6 · answered by nativexile 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm going with the police on this one. She'd been ejected from a nightclub for being "aggressive".... had vandalised a car (not mine thank god... I might go out of control if I caught anyone deliberately damaging my car)....
The policeman who sought to restrain her claims she kneed then grabbed hard at his genitals. If so he urgently had a right to remove that vicous and vile attack. If she did not release after the first blow... most men would continue to hit any person, man or woman, if they were applying attacking force to that area. After a number of physical punches she subdued and the police officer was able to put her in handcuffs.
It seems to me the woman involved is a low life... and that the police acted within the law.
2007-03-09 06:48:58 · answer #7 · answered by Narky 5 · 2⤊ 3⤋
i am on the reciving end of drunks when the police arrest them i and i can tell you the some drunks are very violent and will fight any one and any thing thay have to be restrained and if it means punching them hard in the arms or legs to get controll of them it has to be done if you dont belive me then ask your local police station if you can work in custody on a friday and saturday night and your views will change
2007-03-09 07:23:54 · answer #8 · answered by mad keith 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It has been going on for years they just got caught this time - I am not saying that it is every police officer but there are a few
2007-03-09 06:42:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The way i heard it on BBC Radio 4 the woman had hold of the policeman's genitalea and he was punching her arm to release him. In that situation i think you will agree it is perfectly justifiable. The police aren't just there to try and protect us, they must also protect themselves.
2007-03-09 06:54:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋