[quote]bond james bond wrote:
If that was my son laying there in the doorway unconscious because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, swing for the fences officer. [/quote]
Unfortunately, some of the guys the officers were beating could have also been your son who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s why there are courts, to sort this stuff out.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
If that was my son laying there in the doorway unconscious because he was at the wrong place at the wrong time, swing for the fences officer. [/quote]
Unfortunately, some of the guys the officers were beating could have also been your son who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It’s why their are courts, to sort this stuff out. [/quote]
I was thinking the same thing when I read Bond’s post.
[quote]krayon wrote:
I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s a police officer applying force to someone who isn’t cooperating.[/quote]
Yep. This is exactly what they are trained to do. People that don’t know any better (like the OP) will be upset, but the cop won’t be punished.
[quote]grandin11 wrote:
[quote]Jastd wrote:
When the second individual complies with the officer’s orders to get on the ground (something he doesn’t have to do in the first place) and then is kicked by the second police officer in yellow (whose sole job seems to be kicking) he has been made a victim of police brutality.
Also the idea that violence of that nature is excusable because the police officers were “sick of dealing with their shit” is not an excuse in any rational way. What that video portrays is assault, likely aggravated assault from the sounds when the officer was kicking.[/quote]
First, I’m pretty sure in that situation if an officer asks you to get on the ground…you pretty much have to get on the ground, or else you’re resisting arrest. The police officer very clearly tells him to put his hands behind his back, to which no response is seen or heard. What is he supposed to do then, just let the man go because he won’t put his hands behind his back? Force was necessary to get the dude to comply. A kick in the ribs seems like a good way to do that, what else can the guy do? The other officer is already struggling to get the mans hands behind his back, and no one else to help. The suspect was subdued, and surely with little more than a bruised side.
These guys had just finished kicking an unconscious man multiple times, and you expect them to just politely ask them to cease and desist? Get real.
[/quote]
100% correct, just as Jastd was 100% wrong.
I was eh?
Sorry Mister Internet Boss.
I hope a cop kicks the living shit out of you one day for no reason at all.
And no-one listens to you because they all believe the ‘honorable’ officer.
Why am I so wrong genius?
[quote]Jastd wrote:
I was eh?
Sorry Mister Internet Boss.
I hope a cop kicks the living shit out of you one day for no reason at all.
And no-one listens to you because they all believe the ‘honorable’ officer.
Why am I so wrong genius?[/quote]
I have read the training manuals on use of force. That person would be considered to be passivly resisting. In this situation, police officers are allowed to use force as was shown.
That’s it. End of story. Ignorant people will complain, but in the end, the investigation will result in the officer receiving no disciplinary actions because he simply followed what he was trained to do.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Lordcliff wrote:
…Every argument will eventually have a cry of Nazi…[/quote]
Not true at all. I read a TBT/splits argument recently that only touched on Pol Pot’s atrocities.[/quote]
Give it a few days
[quote]polo77j wrote:
[quote]Rico Suave wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]ladieslove wrote:
i understand using force if someone isn’t co-operating, but that guy seemed like he was co-operating.
although… and i know i’ll probably catch some serious crap for this, but police DO have to put up with a lot of ish from people. like… f*ck the police but they better help me when i need them.
but in this particular situation, it definitely looks like they were letting out steam when they should have been holding themselves together. [/quote]
I agree, I’m normally willing to give police officers a “pass” if they put a minor beating on someone who just killed another officer or risked people’s lives (the high speed chase video from a couple years back comes to mind), but this time it seemed unwarranted. [/quote]
At least you’re giving the cops some benefit of the doubt… we as a whole don’t know the whole story or saw everything that happened. What if these guys ganged up and beat the shit out of people just like the cops did? Would you be for or against it? [/quote]
What if the guys were wearing a chicken costume and Peter Griffin jumped out of nowhere to fight him? It’s irrelevant to the facts. In the given video the kids appeared to be subdued with maybe minor resistance and posed no threat to either officer nor the citizens on the street, i.e. the cops had control of the situation. Regardless of prior infractions the suspects were already subdued, at what point is it necessary to boot the guy in the back?
Hell, the guy could’ve punched a baby in the face for all we know, but the situation was already under control when the suspect ceases to be a threat (ie face down hands behind back). Any use of force aside from slapping the handcuffs or restraints on him is unnecessary and is a dishonorable. Cops aren’t meant to “dole out justice” and that kick is not justice anyways.
We live in a society of laws and when those who are sworn to protect those laws disresepect those laws how are citizens supposed to respect them?[/quote]
Yeah, was kind of a sucker “punch” I admit that. I said earlier in this thread that I don’t necessarily condone the officer’s actions. However, we don’t know the whole situation. So it does make a difference IMO.
Its like saying (an extreme example) if someone murdered your family and you knew who it was…and then someone caught you on tape beating the shit out of them. Of course you should get charged, but what you did to them was totally warranted. That’s what I’m trying to get at.
Things must change then if that is how police officers are trained. If that is the training that they undergo, then those that transgress, like in the video shown, deserve to be compared to the Gestapo.
The purpose of police is to serve and protect, not punish, those duties, are for the courts to decide if the accused is guilty or not.
Citizens aren’t supposed to assault other citizens and the police MUST be held to that standard as well.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Things must change then if that is how police officers are trained. If that is the training that they undergo, then those that transgress, like in the video shown, deserve to be compared to the Gestapo.
The purpose of police is to serve and protect, not punish, those duties, are for the courts to decide if the accused is guilty or not.
Citizens aren’t supposed to assault other citizens and the police MUST be held to that standard as well.
[/quote]
They won’t change and they’ve always been that way.
People here have watched to much UFC. Everyone wants things to be fair. The reality is that “fair” gets police officers killed or injured. Thus they are trained to always one-up you. You resist passivly, they do what was shown the video. You resist actively (throw a punch, or a kick or something) and they are beating you with their batons and pepper spraying you. You use any kind of weapon (even something lame like a stick) and they are pulling their guns and shooting you (and they always aim for the center of the chest). You pull a gun and they call the ETF (SWAT).
This guy was passively resisting. The cops can’t afford to spend a lot of time pleading with him to put his hands behind his back. For all they know, he has a knife in his pants that he could be reaching for, or one of his buddies who was lost in the crowd is sneaking up behind them about to bust a beer bottle over the cop’s head, or another fight could break out while their wasting time subduing this guy. These aren’t likely scenarios, but shit has happend before… and smart cops don’t take changes.
This isn’t to say that all cops are good guys… that obviously isn’t true and abuse does occur. I just don’t see it here. This was an example of what they are trained to do. Now, if they beat that guy some more back at the station (assuming he doesn’t start to resist again) then there is an issue.
I never claimed to know the all the details about police training manuals.
I have however read several books worth of (Canadian) case-law in which the unnecessary level of force demonstrated in that video was ruled to be assault.
The officer’s training manual is not what decides which actions are illegal, in case you missed that little piece of information somewhere along the way.
Are you aware of the contradiction in the phrase passively resisting?
What country are you even in that the police training involves this level of over-reaction?
I can guarantee you it isn’t in Ontario as I have witnessed police officers being trained to use force here.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Things must change then if that is how police officers are trained. If that is the training that they undergo, then those that transgress, like in the video shown, deserve to be compared to the Gestapo.
The purpose of police is to serve and protect, not punish, those duties, are for the courts to decide if the accused is guilty or not.
Citizens aren’t supposed to assault other citizens and the police MUST be held to that standard as well.
[/quote]
They won’t change and they’ve always been that way.
People here have watched to much UFC. Everyone wants things to be fair. The reality is that “fair” gets police officers killed or injured. Thus they are trained to always one-up you. You resist passivly, they do what was shown the video. You resist actively (throw a punch, or a kick or something) and they are beating you with their batons and pepper spraying you. You use any kind of weapon (even something lame like a stick) and they are pulling their guns and shooting you (and they always aim for the center of the chest). You pull a gun and they call the ETF (SWAT).
This guy was passively resisting. The cops can’t afford to spend a lot of time pleading with him to put his hands behind his back. For all they know, he has a knife in his pants that he could be reaching for, or one of his buddies who was lost in the crowd is sneaking up behind them about to bust a beer bottle over the cop’s head, or another fight could break out while their wasting time subduing this guy. These aren’t likely scenarios, but shit has happend before… and smart cops don’t take changes.
This isn’t to say that all cops are good guys… that obviously isn’t true and abuse does occur. I just don’t see it here. This was an example of what they are trained to do. Now, if they beat that guy some more back at the station (assuming he doesn’t start to resist again) then there is an issue.
[/quote]
It’s hard to tell with the first guy he kicks, he appears to be pretty subdued to me. The second guy is complying up until he gets plowed into guy (the non-yellow guy). He ends up shoving him over to where the guy is on all fours. With the cop on his back and on all fours is when the officer demands for the guy to put his hands behind his back. Do me a favor and try that out. It’s going to be unnatural for a guy with that much weight on his back to pick up his hands and voluntarily face plant. Much less one that has been drinking and is being wrestled. It’s at this point the guy in yellow kicks him in the ribs. The knees in the back come while the has his arm pinned underneath him with several people ontop of him.
I mean take a look, even after the guy in black has him rolled over on his knees, the guy allows one hand to bet put behind his back. the cop then goes for his second hand, so the guy tries to sit up to his knees (because all his weight is now on that hand), the cop pushes him down. At this point the guy starts to fall forward and reaches forward with both hands to brake the fall. That is what he got kicked in the ribs for. I honestly see a guy who complied with every command he was given the opportunity to.
[quote]Jastd wrote:
I never claimed to know the all the details about police training manuals.
I have however read several books worth of (Canadian) case-law in which the unnecessary level of force demonstrated in that video was ruled to be assault.
The officer’s training manual is not what decides which actions are illegal, in case you missed that little piece of information somewhere along the way.
Are you aware of the contradiction in the phrase passively resisting?
What country are you even in that the police training involves this level of over-reaction?
I can guarantee you it isn’t in Ontario as I have witnessed police officers being trained to use force here.[/quote]
Actually I live in Toronto. The training manuals are for a Toronto Police Service officer who is a member of my family although all officers in Ontario recieve the same training when they go to Aylmer.
BC could be different, but I doubt it.
Having seen and been part of training OPP officers we can just agree to disagree on that part.
What the police officer training manual says has no effect on legality whatsoever.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Things must change then if that is how police officers are trained. If that is the training that they undergo, then those that transgress, like in the video shown, deserve to be compared to the Gestapo.
The purpose of police is to serve and protect, not punish, those duties, are for the courts to decide if the accused is guilty or not.
Citizens aren’t supposed to assault other citizens and the police MUST be held to that standard as well.
[/quote]
They won’t change and they’ve always been that way.
People here have watched to much UFC. Everyone wants things to be fair. The reality is that “fair” gets police officers killed or injured. Thus they are trained to always one-up you. You resist passivly, they do what was shown the video. You resist actively (throw a punch, or a kick or something) and they are beating you with their batons and pepper spraying you. You use any kind of weapon (even something lame like a stick) and they are pulling their guns and shooting you (and they always aim for the center of the chest). You pull a gun and they call the ETF (SWAT).
This guy was passively resisting. The cops can’t afford to spend a lot of time pleading with him to put his hands behind his back. For all they know, he has a knife in his pants that he could be reaching for, or one of his buddies who was lost in the crowd is sneaking up behind them about to bust a beer bottle over the cop’s head, or another fight could break out while their wasting time subduing this guy. These aren’t likely scenarios, but shit has happend before… and smart cops don’t take changes.
This isn’t to say that all cops are good guys… that obviously isn’t true and abuse does occur. I just don’t see it here. This was an example of what they are trained to do. Now, if they beat that guy some more back at the station (assuming he doesn’t start to resist again) then there is an issue.
[/quote]
It’s hard to tell with the first guy he kicks, he appears to be pretty subdued to me. The second guy is complying up until he gets plowed into guy (the non-yellow guy). He ends up shoving him over to where the guy is on all fours. With the cop on his back and on all fours is when the officer demands for the guy to put his hands behind his back. Do me a favor and try that out. It’s going to be unnatural for a guy with that much weight on his back to pick up his hands and voluntarily face plant. Much less one that has been drinking and is being wrestled. It’s at this point the guy in yellow kicks him in the ribs. The knees in the back come while the has his arm pinned underneath him with several people ontop of him.
I mean take a look, even after the guy in black has him rolled over on his knees, the guy allows one hand to bet put behind his back. the cop then goes for his second hand, so the guy tries to sit up to his knees (because all his weight is now on that hand), the cop pushes him down. At this point the guy starts to fall forward and reaches forward with both hands to brake the fall. That is what he got kicked in the ribs for. I honestly see a guy who complied with every command he was given the opportunity to.[/quote]
By your own words, the cop tells him to get down, but he tries to sit up to his knees = passive resistance and a beating.
The cop tells him put his hands behind his back, but at 37 and 47 seconds into the video you can clearly see him try to pull the one hand that is behind his back away = passive resistance and a beating.
He also crawls several feet indicating he isn’t just trying to get down and comply = passive resistance and a beating.
After he puts both hands behind his back as he was instructed, the beating stops exactly as it should.
My suggestion is that if a cop tells you to put your hands behind your back, that you do it - even if it means a face plant.
It is difficult to tell about the first guy.
Again, this cop will not get in any trouble because this is exactly what he is instructed to do. You may not like that, and may not agree but it is the reality.
The part you don’t seem to be understanding, because you acknowledge the beating, is that a beating of that nature is illegal.
Glad we got that cleared up for you.
[quote]Jastd wrote:
Having seen and been part of training OPP officers we can just agree to disagree on that part.
What the police officer training manual says has no effect on legality whatsoever.[/quote]
You haven’t been involved with training cops… at least not with respect to their use of force model. If you had been, you wouldn’t be making the ignorant comments you’ve made in this thread.
Have the UWO cops been punished? That certainly “looked” worse than this and I haven’t heard anything about them getting a reprimand.
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/Page129_fig2.pdf
Here is the Ontario use of force model from 1993. Note that “Passive Resistance” overlaps with the use of “Empty Hand Techniques” (i.e. no weapon).
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/issues/102004/PDFS/page132_fig3.pdf
Here is the national use of force model. Once again, “Passive Resistant” allows for use of force and intermediate weapons come in when the person is “Active Resistant”.
Note that other tactical considerations can cause officers to deviate from my overly simplistic set of guidelines.
http://policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=1397&issue_id=102004
Here is the article these were taken from.
Here is a quote:
“The National Use-of-Force framework was constructed in consideration of (federal) statute law and current case law.”
Again: This guy will be able to EASILY justify his actions as they are in accordance with what he is trained to do.
This will be my last response to you. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt when you claimed knowledge of the police training structure. The fact that you claim I am lying when you have no reasonable way of even guessing that to be true is unnecessary.
Several Points
I hope you one day understand the consequences of accepting the rule of a police state.