Police brutality?

[cee-dee]

We've seen in the news how people have suffered some sort of injury (or death) at the hands of the cops?

Sometimes it seems to be over something pretty trivial. Don't you think those people could have saved themselves any bother if they'd just been compliant? All you have to do is literally do as you're told, keep a foul mouth to yourself and don't gob off, listen to what's said to you and just answer civilly?

Also, people just don't seem to understand the difference between being detained and being arrested?

So, apart from just having a dislike of the cops, what's your view?

[astrologica]

CeeDee...I absolutely agree. The recent cases in the US which have caused so much civil disturbance, could have been avoided if only the suspects had complied. Non compliance usually means something to hide. The same could be said for the tragic case of PC Harper in this country. If those animals..for they are disgusting creatures, had put up their hands and complied, PC Harper would not have suffered that horrific death.  I applaud his widow for her campaign to get more severe sentencing for crimes like this. I have always had the utmost respect for the police, and support them 100%. But it did make me cringe when I saw them 'taking the knee' at demos earlier in the year. I do feel that the George Floyd case, and the latest US case , are part of a wider plan to destabilise countries, and demonise the police. Strange times...who knows where it will lead?

[theelench]

I agree with you that in most cases they probably would have saved themselves injury or death by doing what they were told.  I also agree that the police have every right to be very cautious when carrying guns or knives seems so prevelant.

But when a person is face-down on the ground, has been 'cuffed (willingly or not) and has other officers restraining their legs, why is it then ever necessary to restrain their head?  What can they do except shout abuse, if they are so inclined.

The death that started the current mayhem was of a person in that position and who then had the full weight of an officer on his head for nearly ten minutes.  Surely anyone, especially having been trained in restraint, should have known that is far from safe and as he was restrained, un-necessary.

If by "the latest case" Astro means the one I saw yesterday (which happened months ago, but has only now been publicised), the same disregard for safety is evident and another person died because of pressure on their head.

In that case he is completely off his head.  Surrounded by three officers, guns drawn and the event watched by a sergeant with body-cam turned on and filming.

The offender does as he is told.  Kneels on the ground, allows himself to be cuffed and a spit-hood put over his head.  He is then told to lay face-down and has an officer sitting on his legs.  Despite being immobilised, naked, hooded and covered by several officers with drawn guns, another officer decides that yet more restraint is required.

He then takes a position as though he is doing press-ups on his head.  Where is the need?  Where is the sergeant?  Standing-by watching.

That is what causes the outrage, that these deaths are not an accident, in the heat of a fast-moving situation.  But are caused by officers who are already in full control of the situation and the offender but then make a decision to go above and beyond what is needed, either for public safety or there own.

[astrologica]

Elench...I don't know anything about the latest case that you refer to. I was referring to George Floyd and Jacob Blake? Both of them had rap sheets as long as your arm, and were resisting arrest. I do think that the Police in the US are trigger happy, but it does make me wonder if these people would still be alive if they had complied. Both had drug problems and convictions for violence. People who lead that type of fifestyle don't deserve much in the way of sympathy imho. The police in this country are more deserving of our respect. But that's not to say that there aren't some brutish officers who have no place in the Police. I just think that if you live by the gun or the knife, then if you die the same way, be it the police or another member of the public, then your family have absolutely no cause for complaint.

[cee-dee]

Dealing firstly with the general details of that case, what is a spit hood used for? = To stop/contain someone spitting!

Spitting at someone is a dirty, filthy, disgusting thing and cops do have to face that with some regularity. They have absolutely no idea what diseases the person may or may not have. What are they supposed to do? Allow such a filthy person to spit in their eyes or their mouth?

What sort of person were the cops dealing with? = It seems it was someone who was off their head on something, be that alcohol or some drug or other. Now what are some people like when they're "off their head"? = Often they have almost unbelievable and unpredictable strength and are very, very unpredictable and volatile = They're fine one second and are lashing out the next.

Those dealing with such people have absolutely no idea what's going to happen next. In restraining such a person, the cops don't set out to deliberately kill them. They also don't pounce on someone who doesn't appear to pose any threat to them.

The fact that there's a number of cops restraining someone isn't done for nothing. You'd realise that if you'd seen someone who was a violent, powerful, fighting drunk having to be restrained by six cops as they tried to get them in to the back of the police van.

In the end it comes down to not getting "off your head" on anything and learning in any event to be compliant and polite when faced with any cops for any reason.

[theelench]

In the Jacob Blake case he ignored orders to get on the ground and partly hidden behind his car door, reached into the car.  I've already agreed with you that in such a case he could have diffused the situation by doing what he was told and that in such a situation the police have every right to act with extreme caution.

I'm not offering any opinion on the actions of that officer.  He may have been justified, he may have made a mistake in the heat of the moment.  That is for investigators to decide after looking at all the circumstances involved in a fast moving situation.

The cases of George Floyd and Daniel Prude are significantly different.

[theelench]

Again I agree with most of what you say.  What I'm saying is that when a person is hand-cuffed, with their legs immobilised and in both cases another officer applying pressure to their backs, further restraint of their head is wholly unnecessary.  In that position, the range of movement of their head cannot pose any threat to anyone.

That is what caused the initial outrage, that the practice of kneeling on someone's head or neck is un-necessary and does nothing to further restrain them.  It can only ever be a threat to life while not an effective method of restraint.  The outrage is further fueled because this is still common practice, has been used for decades and deaths are a regular occurrence.  As is shown again in the Daniel Prude case.

He complied with every instruction and was sitting on the ground, cuffed, head covered and compliant.  When he became abusive, he was put face down with legs and back immobilised.  Again in a position that cannot be a threat, yet full body weight is then put on his head and he dies.

It's been going on for decades in the US unchallenged, now it is being.

I also have greater respect for the UK police than their American counterparts.  In the UK this sort of death is incredibly rare  because here this sort of restraint is not allowed or condoned.  Being ordered to lay on the ground is used until cuffs are in place.  Once restrained the person is commonly put in the back of a police vehicle where restrained and confined, they are no danger to themselves or others.  

[cee-dee]

I think you should try walking round and watching the cops trying to deal with people that are "off their head" and see what they have to put up with. Quite apart from the abuse and spit... like I said, they seem to possess superhuman strength. When they're in the back of the van, it's not over, they DO pose a threat to themselves by banging their head against the door, sides and inner bars and if anyone ventures in to try to stop them doing that, they face being attacked with feet and head and being spat at if they don't have a spit hood in place.

In spite of everything, people just will not do as they're told. In one instance, a car was stopped where it was suspected a gun was on board, the occupants were told to keep still and show their hands but one bloke made a "sudden movement". One of the cops thought he was going for a gun and shot him..... dead. Then there was an outcry about "shooting an unarmed man". No, there wasn't a gun in the car... there were three guns!!!

That cop was eventually charged with murder but was acquitted.

As with the bloke who was being restrained and eventually died, in the heat of the moment and based on past experiences, the cops just do no know what someone who is "off their head" is going to do next because in the past they will all have experienced a seemingly subdued person suddeny erupt with violence.

People just do not understand the difference between being "detained" and being "arrested". Many times people will have been simply detained for whatever reason. Instead of being compliant, oh no, they have to erupt.

Now why might someone be subjected to a "stop and search"? It's not becuse they're black or of a certain age, it could well be that the cops observed "a furtive action". The cops might suspect that was a drugs deal so detain the person for a search. Now why do they "detain" them in handcuffs? It's because they've experienced people dropping either knives, drugs or keys to stolen cars and kicking them under a parked car and also, without handcuffs, they've experienced seemingly "quiet" people suddenly running off. If a detained person has nothing he shouldn't have, simply complying will see them on their way quickly but oh no, they just have to kick off then wonder why the cops are rough with them.

[theelench]

It's no use trying to be patronising, it doesn't distract from a weak argument.   I've lived most of my sixty+ years in "quiet" seaside towns and most of the rest in central London.  I've seen more than enough of the results when a day-trip to the seaside turns into a day in the pubs + whatever drugs are available and what goes on when football "fans" or political protests turn into rampages. 

I've never seen or even heard of British police finding it necessary to kneel on someones neck or press their face into the tarmac for prolonged periods time.  Once they are cuffed they are confined and immobilised safely. 

Neither does replying with a post full of irrelevant details that have nothing to do with my posts.  I mentioned that British police quickly put a restrained person in the back of a vehicle (usually a patrol car), only to show one reason why in this country we do not have an ever growing list of dead who have been restrained by pressure to head and neck while laying in the road.

Some of the current protests may have been hijacked, or turned violent but the vast majority of them have not done either (and there have been thousands all over the US). 

Their question is valid.  Why is an ineffective method of restraint, that contributes to so many deaths, over so long a period, still employed at all.

The suspicion that it is still tolerated precisely to provide a smoke-screen for deliberate killings, that can then be explained as accidents, will not go away when there are better, safer ways of restraining and detaining people that are available but not used. 

[theelench]

AND.

The families of the dead always have the right to complain and demand answers.  No matter that the deceased had a long list of convictions or was drunk, drugged, mentally ill or just a trouble-maker.  The police should be trained well enough to deal with all of those and deliver the culprit into the hands of the judicial system. 

If they fail to do that, the incident needs to be investigated as to why they failed.

To suggest that their past record or current incapacity allows the police to lower that standard is starting to go down a very dangerous slope. 

[leglass]

Kudos for trying to bring reality here.It won't make any impression on the regular Borista,Trumpists on this forum but congratulations for trying.

[cee-dee]

Quite honestly I find that post offensive.

Where did I say I condoned kneeling on someone's neck? In my posts subsequent to my opening, what is irrelevant to the subject in that post?

Drunk, "off their head" and violent people when cuffed are NOT confined and immobilised safely at all. They're still violent, abusive and completely unpredictable. They still kick, head-butt, bite and spit. Often they're just too violent to be put in the back of a cop-car and have to wait for a van to arrive and during the wait, have to be restrained by a number of cops.

Perhaps you can enlighten the cops by teaching them a method of restraining such people?

[astrologica]

Well, Leglass..if you don't like it here, why are you here? Maybe you would be happier on another forum, where everyone follows a different agenda...one that you approve of.

[leglass]

My first comment in 19 years watching but quite happy to leave you to your clique.Bye.

[theelench]

Oh dear, oh dear.

You're happy enough to make patronising personal comments when it suits you but get offended when I say the issue isn't as clear as you seem to think.  None of my comments have been aimed at you personally.

I'll leave you to chat with your supporter so you won't suffer any more hurt feelings.

[0125arwen]

We are Not Borg and we only have to comply with laws, not demands that have no basis in law.

We also have a right to privacy, wanting your rights respected does not give those in authority the right to smash your face into the tarmac and then scrape your head to and fro ripping the skin off at the same time as they pause the attack when traffic/witnesses approach.

We need the police more than ever, good police, that we can support and that support resperct the law themselves.

[fallen-archie]

May I ask what chance the police have against an enlightened social media savvy public! Wherever they go they are followed by those with smartphones held aloft to capture their every move, whilst those seeking to sow discontent come across as victims? I remember my late father telling me a story about him as a child witnessing some lads waiting for the beat copper to appear from a vantage point behind a wall and using a stick to push off his helmet! All were caught and marched home to their parents who almost died of embarrassment and agreed without prompting to have stern words with their offspring! Then there was a time in the fifties when my elder brother was fined 10s for riding his bike on the pavement. Both of these actions were relatively harmless and yet we’re dealt with, by an underlying respect for the law, these days it is different and unless you have faced the prospect of being attacked physically you Cannot possibly understand why the police react the way they do! Indeed without respect for the law how can society function? Our police face intimidation and personal threats everyday of their lives and they deserve our full support, not trial by smartphone which seldom tells the true story to the uninitiated.

[cee-dee]

Your point there about the phones was most relevant because they never capture the actual beginning of an event. They're attracted by the later commotion not the initial confrontation.

So many simple initial requests are met with immediate hostility, lies or evasion. Why oh why can't people just answer whatever is asked of them? If you've really "done nothing", what's the problem?

Drunk people often just will not stop talking or shouting, they don't listen to what the cops are saying, they won't do as they're told and react with more talk. You just cannot get any sense either out of them or in to them.

When it gets the the stage of being compliant, no chance! The point of no return is long past and as soon as a hand is laid on them to restrain them, that's when "the action" starts and the bystanders phones come out.

If anyone doesn't think the above is accurate, just show it to a copper and ask them.......

[0125arwen]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Your point there about the phones was most relevant because they never capture the actual beginning of an event. They're attracted by the later commotion not the initial confrontation.

So many simple initial requests are met with immediate hostility, lies or evasion. Why oh why can't people just answer whatever is asked of them? If you've really "done nothing", what's the problem?

Drunk people often just will not stop talking or shouting, they don't listen to what the cops are saying, they won't do as they're told and react with more talk. You just cannot get any sense either out of them or in to them.

When it gets the the stage of being compliant, no chance! The point of no return is long past and as soon as a hand is laid on them to restrain them, that's when "the action" starts and the bystanders phones come out.

If anyone doesn't think the above is accurate, just show it to a copper and ask them.......

---

That is all sooooo naive.

Unsurprisingly so.

[fallen-archie]

What on earth is so naive about expecting people to comply with the legitimate requests of a law enforcement officer? Whether you are fired up by booze, drugs or simple hate, unless you use the appropriate means of defence rather than kicking out and trying to terrify an officer what choice do you have?
Are you prepared to suggest a better way of policing society or are you simply being provocative?