UK Policeman Suspended After Kneeling on Kneck of Black Man

Watch
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 2 weeks ago
#21
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I dont agree. I dont think any officer or group of officers should approach an individual with the manner that you have stated in your post. It is the reason why I value community policing where individuals policing the area are from the said area. It would be hard for Officer Joe to slam Craig on the floor in public, in an attempt to arrest him, but then go about his business in the same community the next day. This is especially if they both come from the same community.

You also have to remember that in many cases there are no clear evidence of an offence or crime being committed, but more of suspicion through a tipoff or surveillance. In those instances, it is ridiculous to aggressively approach an individual based on suspicion. What happens, if the individual was indeed not carrying a knife? Would the officer just said “ah, sorry about your cracked ribs. We thought you had a knife on you.”?

Just to be clear, I am talking about individuals who are stopped on the street and not those involved in committing an active crime. I still state that officers should be able to use de-escalation techniques and seek to disarm an individual rather than aggravate or attack the individual. Some of the techniques by certain officers would have been called physical assaults, if they were done by one random person to another.

I watched a video on Instagram of an officer bodyslam an individual, who he was trying to arrest. The man ended up with a broken jaw and cracked ribs. In any other situation, that would have been physical assault.
Yes agreed. And "knee on the neck" restraining methods are not recommended by the Met Police as a legitimate method of restraint.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 2 weeks ago
#22
(Original post by 04MR17)
I'm not sure anyone is disputing that they should have been arrested. Unless I've missed something here? :confused:
Correct, Wired_1800. Summarised the points quite well.
Methods for the arrest of people should involve
de-escalation, proper legal and recommended methods of restraint and legally applied of "suspicion" law/rules.
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#23
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#23
(Original post by Napp)
Seeing as you're conflating this with racism, might one ask you show me where restraining a criminal (in an admittedly dubious manner) has anything to do with it?

They may well do but from this article they dont seem to have done anything overly bad, bar having the situational awareness of roadkill.
Nowhere in my post did I mention race. The post title is a copy of the article. All I said was the UK police aren’t innocent. I didn’t even know the victim was black till I read an article. My post is focused on police power abuse and not race “the outrage I’d feel is still the same”. You are making it seem as though i conflated it with racism to fit your narrative but that’s not even what i said.
“Don’t seem to have done anything bad” i-
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#24
(Original post by Roidrage69)
The guy has been charged with having a knife I think, pinning him down by the neck for seconds is not bad.
That is not a justification for that. Restraining your hands would be more than sufficient. Can u stab someone with your teeth?
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#25
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#25
(Original post by Napp)
And what if they're resisting? It being somewhat unlikely a thug is going to politely get into the paddy wagon simply by being asked.
You do not perform an act which can kill someone simply for resisting arrest. If i did that to an off duty policeman who instigated violence against me I would probably be counting my court charges. Why do police have a right to perform lethal acts over simple acts that could be handled better. The police are thugs. Aggressive for no reason.
2
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#26
Report 2 weeks ago
#26
(Original post by mgi)
Yes agreed. And "knee on the neck" restraining methods are not recommended by the Met Police as a legitimate method of restraint.
It makes no sense to knee on someone’s neck. If it is illegal for others, it should be the same for police officers.
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#27
(Original post by Underscore__)
This was clearly not a good idea given recent events but to compare this to what happened to George Floyd is embarrassing and shows an obvious a ‘anti-police’ agenda.

This man was in possession of a deadly weapon, George Floyd wasn’t. This man appeared to be resisting arrest, George Floyd wasn’t. Derek Chauvin was pinning all of his wait, through his knee, on to George Floyd’s neck, this police officer wasn’t. I could go on listing differences but I’m sure any objective person can already understand.
Possessing a weapon does NOT mean you are allowed to kneel on their neck. There is more than one officer, they could easily restrain his hands and keep him on the ground and the weapon would be rendered unusable! There is no justification for this. They did NOT need to do this.
You people need to stop with your respectability politics. As if being a criminal reduces your humanity. So because he’s a criminal he doesn’t deserve fair treatment?

“Objective person”, whole load of codswallop
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#28
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I dont agree. I dont think any officer or group of officers should approach an individual with the manner that you have stated in your post. It is the reason why I value community policing where individuals policing the area are from the said area. It would be hard for Officer Joe to slam Craig on the floor in public, in an attempt to arrest him, but then go about his business in the same community the next day. This is especially if they both come from the same community.

You also have to remember that in many cases there are no clear evidence of an offence or crime being committed, but more of suspicion through a tipoff or surveillance. In those instances, it is ridiculous to aggressively approach an individual based on suspicion. What happens, if the individual was indeed not carrying a knife? Would the officer just said “ah, sorry about your cracked ribs. We thought you had a knife on you.”?

Just to be clear, I am talking about individuals who are stopped on the street and not those involved in committing an active crime. I still state that officers should be able to use de-escalation techniques and seek to disarm an individual rather than aggravate or attack the individual. Some of the techniques by certain officers would have been called physical assaults, if they were done by one random person to another.

I watched a video on Instagram of an officer bodyslam an individual, who he was trying to arrest. The man ended up with a broken jaw and cracked ribs. In any other situation, that would have been physical assault.
Exactly! Why are the police allowed to commit grievous bodily harm, assault and other crimes, slap the ‘reasonable force’ label and get away with it. They do it to innocent people of all races all the time. Simple stop and searches with no findings turn to violent gang onslaughts on the public and they just go “he was resisting arrest”. Why do u get to violate my humanity just because I do not agree with ur execution of the law?
This is why people foster negative attitudes towards the police. They can do this and continue as if nothing is happening.
0
reply
nathan_nacu
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#29
Report Thread starter 2 weeks ago
#29
(Original post by Napp)
Actually thats exactly what it means, especially if they're armed - like this one was.
The second point is true but its anything but universally applicable. The way of doing things being if the person resists to detain them appropriately.. from this (aside from poor optics) the officer doesn't seem to have done anything wrong. Him kneeling on the person for a few seconds, not throttling him or beating him to a pulp. Never mind the lunatics attributing this to "racism" despite no evidence to that effect.
There is not a single mention of racism here except in your own posts sir
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#30
Report 2 weeks ago
#30
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
Possessing a weapon does NOT mean you are allowed to kneel on their neck. There is more than one officer, they could easily restrain his hands and keep him on the ground and the weapon would be rendered unusable! There is no justification for this. They did NOT need to do this.
You people need to stop with your respectability politics. As if being a criminal reduces your humanity. So because he’s a criminal he doesn’t deserve fair treatment?

“Objective person”, whole load of codswallop
Exactly. Well said.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#31
Report 2 weeks ago
#31
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
Exactly! Why are the police allowed to commit grievous bodily harm, assault and other crimes, slap the ‘reasonable force’ label and get away with it. They do it to innocent people of all races all the time. Simple stop and searches with no findings turn to violent gang onslaughts on the public and they just go “he was resisting arrest”. Why do u get to violate my humanity just because I do not agree with ur execution of the law?
This is why people foster negative attitudes towards the police. They can do this and continue as if nothing is happening.
I think it is due to a lack of proper community policing. If the Government enforce community policing, I think these stories will reduce to tiny numbers.
0
reply
mgi
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#32
Report 2 weeks ago
#32
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I think it is due to a lack of proper community policing. If the Government enforce community policing, I think these stories will reduce to tiny numbers.
yes, especially if it is combined with racial diversity community training. One suspects that there are still too many racial stereotypes doing the rounds in policing of various communities.
0
reply
Roidrage69
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#33
Report 2 weeks ago
#33
(Original post by Wired_1800)
I still state that officers should be able to use de-escalation techniques and seek to disarm an individual rather than aggravate or attack the individual.
In many situations no amount of talking will calm people down and you cannot you disarm an individual without getting psychical unless they are willing to give it up, that just happens in Jackie Chan movies.

Multiple people piling on somebody who is violent or armed is absolutely necessary unless there is a huge size advantage of the arresting officer , you cannot control somebody safety if its 1 on 1.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#34
Report 2 weeks ago
#34
(Original post by Roidrage69)
In many situations no amount of talking will calm people down and you cannot you disarm an individual without getting psychical unless they are willing to give it up, that just happens in Jackie Chan movies.

Multiple people piling on somebody who is violent or armed is absolutely necessary unless there is a huge size advantage of the arresting officer , you cannot control somebody safety if its 1 on 1.
I disagree. I think police officers should have the training to be able to disarm or de-escalate a situation. It should be part of the training, if it isn't already present.

One or two police officers cannot control a situation then they either need more training or should not be on the force.
0
reply
Roidrage69
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#35
Report 2 weeks ago
#35
Only a very naive person who has never had to deal with violent or irrational people before, would believe those things.
1
reply
JOSH4598
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#36
Report 2 weeks ago
#36
(Original post by Wired_1800)
One or two police officers cannot control a situation then they either need more training or should not be on the force.
You've seen the borderline-riot "situations" in recent weeks, where attendees of unlicensed music event have violently turned on police when they tried to close them down.

Sky News reports 140 officers injured in recent weeks (https://news.sky.com/story/around-14...rties-12015186). Do you seriously think 'talking to' these crowds will immediately de-escalate them?!

People will attack police. It happens on a daily basis. You can't blame officers for using force to gain compliance when the risk of injury to them is very real. No level of social training will make 'talking' to crowds an effective solution. Sadly in all too many cases, force is the only way to stop disorder.
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#37
Report 2 weeks ago
#37
(Original post by JOSH4598)
You've seen the borderline-riot "situations" in recent weeks, where attendees of unlicensed music event have violently turned on police when they tried to close them down.

Sky News reports 140 officers injured in recent weeks (https://news.sky.com/story/around-14...rties-12015186). Do you seriously think 'talking to' these crowds will immediately de-escalate them?!

People will attack police. It happens on a daily basis. You can't blame officers for using force to gain compliance when the risk of injury to them is very real. No level of social training will make 'talking' to crowds an effective solution. Sadly in all too many cases, force is the only way to stop disorder.
Riot conditions are different to other situations. I reject the idea that police officers should be allowed to use any tactic to “gain” compliance. That is the excuse they take when they kill unarmed individuals.
0
reply
JOSH4598
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#38
Report 2 weeks ago
#38
(Original post by Wired_1800)
That is the excuse they take when they kill unarmed individuals.
Well how many unarmed individuals have been killed in the UK by police in the past year then? I think you'll find that the only people killed by police in the UK (minus some notable historic cases in the past such as Jean Charles de Menezes) have either been terrorists or have tried to attack police with weapons. I hate to compromise your narrative but "routine killing" is not part of British policing culture.

The individual in the case this thread is about has been charged with possession of a knife. I don't think the officers would be taking any chances by "talking" with him when they were in the (correct) belief he had a knife. I don't condone kneeling on his neck - but using force by taking him to the floor is completely justified.

The reason officers get injured it that they refrain from using force, as the likes of yourself will conduct 'trial by media' and plaster their faces across social media.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 2 weeks ago
#39
(Original post by nathan_nacu)
Possessing a weapon does NOT mean you are allowed to kneel on their neck. There is more than one officer, they could easily restrain his hands and keep him on the ground and the weapon would be rendered unusable! There is no justification for this. They did NOT need to do this.
You people need to stop with your respectability politics. As if being a criminal reduces your humanity. So because he’s a criminal he doesn’t deserve fair treatment?

“Objective person”, whole load of codswallop
So you skipped the part where I said this wasn’t a good idea? I didn’t say what they did was right, I said it’s not even in the same universe as what happened to George Floyd, this was far more defendable
0
reply
Wired_1800
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#40
Report 2 weeks ago
#40
(Original post by JOSH4598)
Well how many unarmed individuals have been killed in the UK by police in the past year then? I think you'll find that the only people killed by police in the UK (minus some notable historic cases in the past such as Jean Charles de Menezes) have either been terrorists or have tried to attack police with weapons. I hate to compromise your narrative but "routine killing" is not part of British policing culture.

The individual in the case this thread is about has been charged with possession of a knife. I don't think the officers would be taking any chances by "talking" with him when they were in the (correct) belief he had a knife. I don't condone kneeling on his neck - but using force by taking him to the floor is completely justified.

The reason officers get injured it that they refrain from using force, as the likes of yourself will conduct 'trial by media' and plaster their faces across social media.
I don't agree with you. I have written that police officers should learn how to disarm an individual or de-escalate the situation.

Yes, routine killing has not been part of British policing culture because we have been fortunate to not have armed police officers and have community policing in some areas. I disagree that officers should be allowed to use violence to resolve a situation.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

What are you most likely to do if you don't get the grades you were expecting?

Go through Clearing (35)
41.67%
Take autumn exams (30)
35.71%
Look for a job (2)
2.38%
Consider an apprenticeship (3)
3.57%
Take a year out (11)
13.1%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (3)
3.57%

Watched Threads

View All