It changes nothing. Cops shouldnt punch people in the head.
What the feck? How do you even get in a position to defend this?
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
It changes nothing. Cops shouldnt punch people in the head.
What the feck? How do you even get in a position to defend this?
Cops can use force as necessary, especially if someone is combative and resisting arrest. It looked brutal but apparently she kicked one officer between the legs and spat at the officer on the ground. There is a fine line between reasonable force and excessive force. Not saying this was justifiable but when you have the context of the entire incident it moots the narrative assumed in the original posts online.
Lets see what happens when all the facts are assessed and the police complete their investigation.
Pathetic.
“Protect and serve”
It's not neccessary. The video shows that. I dont care many speeding tickets or littering fines you can dig up. Its not neccessary to punch someone in the head like that. Trying to justify it is pathetic.
I dont care if she kidnapped the Lindbergh baby. There are 3 cops with guns on one side and a drunk girl on the other. If they cant handle the situation without multiple punches in the head they shouldn't be cops.
At least they didn’t shoot her
My point wasn’t that she deserved to be punched because of prior incidents. I was saying she had a reason to not want to give her name, and not because she “passed a breathalyzer” like was first mentioned.
Aside from this video let's just clear up a few things..
If a membe of the public was kicked and spat on would I expect them to stand and take it? No. I'd expect them to defend themselves, and if that meant punching someone in the face so be it.
Can a police officer punch someone in the face? Yeah. They can pretty much do whatever they want providing the use of force is reasonable, proportionate and necessary. That also includes the use of pre-emptive strikes.
I really wish people would stop generalising with comments like 'they can't do that' and 'they can't do this' when to make such a statement you have to know the FULL circumstances. It's rather silly and naive.
If a membe of the public was kicked and spat on would I expect them to stand and take it? No. I'd expect them to defend themselves, and if that meant punching someone in the face so be it.
Can a police officer punch someone in the face? Yeah. They can pretty much do whatever they want providing the use of force is reasonable, proportionate and necessary. That also includes the use of pre-emptive strikes.
I really wish people would stop generalising with comments like 'they can't do that' and 'they can't do this' when to make such a statement you have to know the FULL circumstances. It's rather silly and naive.
A punch to the face can be lethal. It is especially dangerous if the person being punched is already 'struggling' with another officer, hence not prepared for the punch. Getting spit on isn't a valid excuse for punching someone in the face, just like stabbing or shooting them isn't a proportionate response.
It may be legal in some countries (as is whipping prisoners in some) but that doesn't change the fact of it being morally abhorrent.
Think the issue here is 2 grown men had a woman pinned down and somehow still thought it was appropriate to punch her twice in the face, don't see how in this case it is a justified action.
Well you called it.
Wow people actually trying to justify a police officer punching someone in the head.... yikes
Exactly...
Given the context, I wouldn't be arguing it that's for sure. It's pretty far from clear cut....
I kinda get why the POs do it although that's half the problem tbh, keep justifying it it'll keep happening, freely criticise it (among peers too) then you'll likely see it decrease. People with no skin in the game (other than being American) are the ones that get me... Wonder how they would feel on the end of some of it? They'll claim they would feel exactly the same as they do now but that's BS.
So if I punch a woman in the face and she falls back, hits her head and dies, it's ok because she spat on me?
Is striking someone who is spitting in your face you suspect may have a disease or something contagious acceptable then? Or are you expected to stand there and take that because you wear a uniform?
If you're using that line then anything can be lethal. You could push someone away and they trip and bang their head or you might pin someone down and they suffer a heart attack. It doesn't necessarily mean that initial use of force was unlawful providing it was deemed reasonable under the circumstances.
There is no carte blanche 'you can't do this and you can't do that' with use of force legislation.
Punching someone in the head is the way to stop them spitting at you?
I wonder is a nurse working in A&E is allowed to do the same
Yeah
Unless she's been possessed by Pazuzu another method might be to have two guys hold her on her stomach so that her head points away from you...
Of course it might of. There's plenty of other things we can all suggest in hindsight and that's the point. Someone will look at that, and the wider situation, and establish if they deem the actions lawful, proportionate and necessary. Based on a small clip of film no one can 100% say either way.
For those mentioning the size of the woman size is not always a fair reflection of strength and risk. Some smaller people are very strong, wirey and difficult to deal with. Same can be said for those under the influence of drugs or suffering from mental heath episodes.
This is not a suggestion made in hindsight, this is an accurate depiction of what happened prior to the officer hitting her in the head.
And the kicking? Not sure if you can see that.
Yup, she's flailing her legs about alright, that's why the first officer waits for the other one to grab her before using the opportunity to punch her in the head.
So she's not just passive then. See things are not always as meet the eye.
I don't get if this is a WUM or people are genuinely trying to defend that disgusting behaviour. I get that each situation is different and has to be handled as such but in this particular case where we had two trained cops vs an unarmed, albeit agitated young woman, there was absolutely no need for that kind of reprehensible use of force. Totally uncalled for.
It's only really police and Mike. Everyone else appears to see it for what it looks like and nothing more. 2 unnecessary hits while restraining... Haven't noticed anyone else.
But seriously, what's new? 49 pages of examples of fcukeries...
Meh. No need to punch her in the head to make the arrest, clearly excessive force, but it appears she's a right little cow, and I find it hard to find any sympathy for her.
A police officer sees it fit to hammerfist a girl in the head when it's clearly no necessary. A young woman thinks it acceptable to spit and kick someone trying to do their job. American is so fecked.
A police officer sees it fit to hammerfist a girl in the head when it's clearly no necessary. A young woman thinks it acceptable to spit and kick someone trying to do their job. American is so fecked.
Well obviously not, this was why they were holding her to the floor and holding her to the floor was why punching her wasn't required. There are quite clearly degrees of force; this isn't some binary question where the two options should always be "be passive or I punch you repeatedly". From the video it seems immediately apparent that the three officers involved were in the process of subduing someone and that the level of resistance on display could easily have been overcome without resorting to punching them in the jaw and the back of the head.
No one is defending anyone. Without sounding arrogant there's clearly a total lack of understanding by the average person regarding use of force legislation and I'm simply trying to educate some of the more ill informed posters.
You can quote the entire Police Acadamy curriculum, but if you don't see that hammer fisting an unarmed 70 pound girl whilst restraining her with two other grown men is unnecessary, excessive and in no way a benefit to the future image and effectiveness of the police. You should not join the force.
The only relevant metric in this situation is the fact that she's unarmed. Unless she was packing a concealed Iron Man suit in her bag, I'm sure those 3 big armed men could've restrained her in a more cautious way.
thing is, cops are people and people suck.
With regards to the woman in this clip, reports indicate she's more than probably a bit of a cnut. Still changes nothing. For the hypothetical of what would you do when she spits in tour face? Well I would not hold her down and punch her in the face. I'd probably ask what the feck is wrong with her and criticize her decision to procreate.
Not when there are less brutal ways of stopping it. Don't get me wrong, even if she hadn't done anything beforehand spitting at an officer certainly justifies arresting her. The officer should have left the punishment for it to a judge instead though.
good point. we should have judges punch girls in the face.
As a former police officer I can honestly say that the job attracts alot of people who just want the job for the sake of power instead of the belief they can make a better society. Was like that here anyways.
The principle of necessity has three components:10
– Qualitative: Is force necessary at all or is it possible to achieve the legitimate objective without resorting to force?
– Quantitative: How much force is needed to achieve the objective? The level of force used should be the minimum that can still be considered effective.
– Temporary: The use of force must stop once the objective has been achieved or is no longer achievable.
(Amnesty internation guide lines for the use of force of law enforcement professionals)
Just restraining her would've been enough to arrest the woman. Case closed.
– Qualitative: Is force necessary at all or is it possible to achieve the legitimate objective without resorting to force?
– Quantitative: How much force is needed to achieve the objective? The level of force used should be the minimum that can still be considered effective.
– Temporary: The use of force must stop once the objective has been achieved or is no longer achievable.
(Amnesty internation guide lines for the use of force of law enforcement professionals)
Just restraining her would've been enough to arrest the woman. Case closed.
we understand we're just saying that the police consistently performs state sanctioned violence and state sanctioned violence is a bad thing
Isnt that what you are trying to do in this thread?
you must be one of those ill informed persons who doesn't understand why it's okay to punch someone in the face after they've been restrained
"no one is defending anyone"
"without sounding arrogant"
"ill informed posters"
Seriously, how ironic of a statement can you get.
"without sounding arrogant"
"ill informed posters"
Seriously, how ironic of a statement can you get.