Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Takamii, Mar 25, 2010.
move along nothing to see!!!
holy crap, kick the guy in the teeth for doing what you said lol
i thought canada was cool errr lol
Not sure if a knee to the spine is a correct takedown procedure...
2000 odd views, that's a pretty fresh clip. I'm betting this no-neck won't have a job for long.
I don't feel sorry for them, those people that got kicked obviously knew the cops were attempting to cuff them, they resisted. Say what you want but that big guy got the job done.
Now if he kicked them AFTER they were cuffed different story.
I don't know what you saw. I saw no resistance at all, only an attempt to cover up from the kicks and punches.
Sorry but they seemed pretty bloody compliant to me, there is no excuse to just go in and stomp and kick someone on the ground.. it's assault plan and simple..
git will probably just get suspended with pay for a week or some crap at the worst. This is why police officers get a bum rap.
Seriously were you watching the same footage I was???
The second guy was told get on the ground. He obeyed the instruction without any resistance. He sat straight down, but the cop wanted him on his face, but instead of saying roll over and put your hands in the middle of your back he started the wrestling and kicking, then the Yob in Yellow really laid the boot in.
It is assault and abuse of power plain and simple
From here: http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/..._takedown_100323/20100323?hub=BritishColumbia
So what's the problem? Surely it would be up the alleged "victim" to say whether they had been treated fairly? They got off pretty lightly seeing as him & five mates had just knocked out a single man.
The video certainly did not look good at all, but without knowing the leadup to the 'arrest' as in what though were supposed to have done in the first place, it is hard to make a full judgement. Had they shown extreme violence prior to arrest then the level of force used to subdue them would increase accordingly. As I said it looked over the top from this viewing but being able to see the leadup events would be good.
I saw the same as you
Wow nice assault.
how does it even matter? two wrongs not make a right and the police are meant to be upholding the law as a beacon of light aren't they? not kicking the snot out of people who are complying. Let me get this right the police see some drunken yobbo's assault someone so you are saying it is then okay for these police to sink to the same levels and assault the yobbo's in turn?
firstly, even if they were resisting, Police are taught to use more subtle means to handcuff people. This involves using pressure point and the arrestees own strength, weight etc. This may be Canada but they will have similar training to our own police and as such there is never a reason to using impact violence like this.
Secondly what happened before the arrest has no impact on the Police action during the arrest. They simply cannot do that. This is not Hollywood.
the actions of this numb-nuts could have all sorts of implication to the future of this case. Playing that to a jury would garner sympathy regardless of guilt. It could even go so far as making anything found during a search after the arrest inadmissible and anything flowing on from that.
That cop is a thug and deserves to loose his job.
I agree whole heartedly with the police.
Think of it from this point of view. You round a corner and see 5 blokes belting the crap out of this guy. You run in to break up the fight to give that one bloke the best chance of survival, and also to arrest everyone. Now you are left there with 5 people that may turn and assault you, you do what is taught in pretty much every single self defence style I can think of and that is disable as many as quickly as possible. Disable means to make them unable to hurt you. In the police's eyes that is to handcuff them. Look at the video again, the first guy has 2-3 cops on him struggling to cuff him, the big bloke goes in to help them. The second guy gets asked to go on the ground, he is all compliant up until the officer tells him to put his hands behind his back, at this time if you look closely the guy tries to crawl away. So the copper does what is taught and that is disable him so he can focus his attention on the next potential threat. Only thing I dont agree with is the knee to the spine but in the heat of the moment it is very easy to misjudge a knee which is meant for the back fat rather then the spine.
It is amazing how half a story can look............
Where are you getting this from?
Where are these 5 people assaulting someone?
The first guy was under control of two other officers and the uniform come up and stomped on him.
The second guy was being a bit smart but nothing that justifies assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
And cops are not taught to disable threats. That may be the case in the army, but cops are taught that arrests must be clean and by the book.
Neither of these two guys were posing any threat to the police at the time they were assaulted by this officer.
This report says that there were 6 people belting this one bloke.
And when I said disable threats I meant along the lines of while they are waiting patiently for the nice guy to put his hands behind his back anyone of the other 6 (bar the ones already handcuffed) may come and hit him. So disabling threats is to get all involved unable to attack.
I'm not saying that it couldn't of been handled differently but in the heat of the moment even trained professionals have to make judgement calls on what is the appropriate level of attack you need for a good defence, and even then it is a very fine line. Easy to say behind a desk on a computer but imagine if it were you out every saturday night seeing how easily things can go wrong because you assume that people don't have a weapon or are just pretending to be compliant just so they can find their opportunity to do a runner. This is all speculation as we weren't there but it is also speculation to say that it was unecessary force.
Also have a look at the big bloke handcuffed to the pole towards the end of the video, he seems fine, maybe he was compliant when asked to put his hands behind his back, maybe not. *Shrugs shoulders*
There wasn’t even a command given for him to roll over and put his hands behind his back. It wasn’t like the guy didn’t comply, he wasn’t even instructed.
He had complied with the first instruction very quickly.
Granted, I will pay that, again not saying that it was handled the best way but, the officer then grapped him and rolled him on his front and said put your hands behind your back at which time he then decided to crawl away (which equals resisting to my understanding).
I have to say this was a very good argument as it was presented with logic and politely. I commend you.