JimboJenkins
Well-known member
And Mil-tec
Police Brutality
- Thread starter GibbosEmpire
- Start date
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants
Well-known member
Watch again and see if he actually stamps on his skull. His boot comes down and lands on the floor, going through the lads hair.
Winston Smith
Well-known member
He has his back to the wall which means he can’t stand in front of him to cuff him due to the fire arm risk.
We would need body-cam footage to confirm but I’m inclined to assume he was being told repeatedly to get on the floor with his hands behind his head.
The lad (victim 1 as laughing would say) was probably in shock/panic mode at this point and probably not hearing/understanding what was being asked - however the officer still has a job to do and needs a quick resolution.
Last edited:
MolteniArcore
Well-known member
This thread is a worry. Arguing over the finer details of an incident that we don’t know the full details of. And despite the arguments it won’t make a jot of difference to the outcome of the case for either the coppers or the lads involved.
What it does do is highlight our divisions and there is obviously an undercurrent of something running through it sadly.
24 pages and 464 posts to discuss how everyone is disgusted by the actions of the lads but despite their actions did an officer kick someone in the head.
What it does do is highlight our divisions and there is obviously an undercurrent of something running through it sadly.
24 pages and 464 posts to discuss how everyone is disgusted by the actions of the lads but despite their actions did an officer kick someone in the head.
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants
Well-known member
The under current probably stems from it being turned into a race attack by the police, organised vigils and protests, placards saying GMP were racist, their lawyer saying it was an assassination attempt with no clarity of his own clients actions which on viewing are disgraceful.
Bernieslavenschin
Well-known member
This whole incident has just highlighted how disconnected people really are.
Not at all surprised to see the extra context to this. (and BTW still not the full context)
I note the placards, the protest mob, the ex-met chief superintendent (embarrassing from him) are conspicuous by their absence.
Not at all surprised to see the extra context to this. (and BTW still not the full context)
I note the placards, the protest mob, the ex-met chief superintendent (embarrassing from him) are conspicuous by their absence.
Laughing
Well-known member
You can't point to any words where I defended their actions so your either an idiot or a liar. Not bothered which of you go.
Centralscrutinizer
Well-known member
Winston Smith
Well-known member
Mate, you’re completely transparent and doubling down isn’t fooling anyone.
The Police were also assaulted so why weren’t you referring to them as victims? Because it doesn’t suit your narrative. You defended the actions the moment you referred them as victims in the context you did. You’ve been pulled up on it and have tried to claim otherwise fearing how you now look. It is that simple.
Laughing
Well-known member
Pulled up, by you.
I don't think so.
My narrative is much simpler than yours. 2 men commit a crime and whilst being arrested are brutally assualted by a cop.
That's my narrative because that's what happened.
As far as I am aware being stamped on isn't in the sentencing guidelines for assault.
You think it's fine what the cop did. Your defending that. Great you are happy to be policed by thugs. That's your narrative and no amount of crap talking changes the fact that you are wrong and I am right.
The cop, at a minimum losses his job. The 2 lads do a couple of years for 2 counts of assaulting a police officer. There's my narrative again, in case you are still struggling to understand.
Winston Smith
Well-known member
“Two men commit a crime”
“Brutally assaulted by the cop”
You’re doing it again.
You wrap it around petty insults and attempts to belittle me (crack on with that mate
) but you’re so transparent it’s unbelievable. It’s obvious what you’re doing.
Centralscrutinizer
Well-known member
This could be the best session yet of the fmttm kangaroo court, got to admire the tenacity of all involved 
Laughing
Well-known member
Ah I see you are trying to drag me down to your level of stupid.“Two men commit a crime”
“Brutally assaulted by the cop”
You’re doing it again.
You wrap it around petty insults and attempts to belittle me (crack on with that mate
It’s obvious what you’re doing.
If I wanted to belittle you it wouldn't be difficult now, would it.
I don't mind talking to people I don't agree with I won't engage with someone dishonest though. Bye.
Winston Smith
Well-known member
Well you’ve tried in your last three posts and I’ve not bitten, so perhaps it’s not as easy as you claim.
No dishonestly with me, language is important and playing down one assault as “committing a crime” and referring to another as a “brutal assault” is trying to frame a narrative in a certain way. That is dishonest and misleading. The gutter press are renowned for it. It’s not as subtle as you clearly think it is.
That absolutely fine though , cheerio.
BoroMart
Well-known member
But he was complying with those instructions and that’s why I feel the cop has lost the plot. The lad realised he’d made a massive mistake attacking a cop, and sat down with his hands on his and complied. The cop was actually putting himself in danger approaching, if that’s the argument about protecting the weapons. Could have let the lad hit the deck on his own. But the cop wanted to get a couple of kicks/punches in. That’s the problem for me. I have no problem with doing whatever it takes to get them to comply. Once complying it’s over arrest and let the courts deal with it
BoroMart
Well-known member
My stance isn’t about finer details. It’s about the role of the police. If people comply they shouldn’t kick, stamp or punch them. Simple as that.
There’s actually a big alignment that certain people refuse to acknowledge. That the two lads are absolutely in the wrong and deserve to go to prison for it and to get sued by the female police officer with the broken nose.
The division is about the role of the police. Laughing and I want to stick to today’s law where police cannot stamp on the heads of people who are unarmed and prone. Some others are creating a justification of that. But ‘there by the grace of god’ as they say. If this is allowed unpunished then you will see more people attacked by police, it’s only a matter of time before an innocent footy fan gets beaten by police for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We are all footy fans, we’ve all experienced or witnessed bad cops. That’s what we will get more of if we allow them to stomp on heads unpunished
Last edited:
thewanderer
Well-known member
Having now seen the new cctv footage of the full incident I'd say the police showed remarkable restraint in not turning these thugs into vegetables.
Winston Smith
Well-known member
Those of us who abide by the law will probably be fine
Acklam_Lad
Well-known member
The lads were not in cuffs thus are not restrained. They have just commented multiple violent assaults on three officers
They can be as compliant as they want but they will be aggressively restrained until they are in cuffs.
The officer has to approach both to cuff them… at that point he appears to be in his own.
The training of a AFO is to “put them out” if they are ever in doubt… he followed his training
An AFO is trained in a manner that is different from a district Officer. Purely for the fact that they armed and cannot get into a scrap that would put the weapon security at risk. They are trained to not lose.
From a defence point of view all he has to say is he was in fear for his life and the others around him.
Saying that I am not happy with the way the three officers approached in the first instance… they actually put themselves at risk and it was against training. They didn’t control the arrest and went steaming in.
Their risk assessment didn’t meet the standard and they will be pulled up in this as it escalated the issue when de-escalation was required
They can be as compliant as they want but they will be aggressively restrained until they are in cuffs.
The officer has to approach both to cuff them… at that point he appears to be in his own.
The training of a AFO is to “put them out” if they are ever in doubt… he followed his training
An AFO is trained in a manner that is different from a district Officer. Purely for the fact that they armed and cannot get into a scrap that would put the weapon security at risk. They are trained to not lose.
From a defence point of view all he has to say is he was in fear for his life and the others around him.
Saying that I am not happy with the way the three officers approached in the first instance… they actually put themselves at risk and it was against training. They didn’t control the arrest and went steaming in.
Their risk assessment didn’t meet the standard and they will be pulled up in this as it escalated the issue when de-escalation was required
Millbrook
Well-known member
I'm sure the policemans lawyer will use this and the fact that he faced further possible assault from the unrestrained attackers. His colleagues had been injured and he did not know whether they could be of assistance - he thought he was alone and outnumbered.
He had to be sure the attackers could not commit further violence until it was safe for him to handcuff them.
All this whilst suffering from a severe assault, feeling groggy etc.