The key thing for me is that this wasn't a case of officers turning up after an alleged assault on police and dishing out some extra judicial revenge. The stamp and kick were very much part of an officer who was still in the mindset of defending himself from multiple attackers. Sky blue wasn't lying 'complying' on the floor, he had been felled by a taser just seconds earlier after putting all three officers on the floor with punches. I think it's reasonable for the officer to have believed that if he got up he would have continued the attack.
Blue shorts and grey? are certainly handy enough. But the police went in hard to begin with. Certainly didnt seem to be any can you explain this sir, or can you come over here sir, policeman just grabbed him and tried to force him too the floor, and it all erupts from there.
But as before, the officer kicked him clearly out of frustration from losing the battle. Tasering should have ended it, and I think we've seen that happen often enough to know the standard is they back away and get the individual to comply, or they get another charge. not step forward and kick then stamp on his head.
Plus all officers know what happens when they use the taser on someone, and how stunned they are. So that was no check he's down and was more an angry kick cos he lost the fight and got a fair old thumping.
Anger+Adrenalin.
.
Im sure though others might interpretate that differently.
The Police must have had a reason for approaching that as they did. They were obviously then getting battered by a couple of very handy guys and reacted. Even in my youth many, many years ago when I was quite good at martial arts I would have thought of using it on the police. But we really dont know the back story to this
But as before, the officer kicked him clearly out of frustration from losing the battle.
I'm not sure about that. Lots of documentation of Tasering not working, or only working for a while, so the police officer really didnt want him getting up again.
Those guys chose to kick off, but we dont know why the Police chose to intervene initially so strongly.
Also I thought firearms officers weren't supposed to get involved in close stuff so there is something really odd about this. Lack of resourses?
But the police went in hard to begin with. Certainly didnt seem to be any can you explain this sir, or can you come over here sir, policeman just grabbed him and tried to force him too the floor, and it all erupts from there.
Are we not learning anything from making assumptions. Have you seen what happened directly before this or have any idea why the police ‘Went in hard’ again, why don’t we wait for the full story before making sweeping statements.
Lot of armchair critics here.
Best wait for the full story - we already know that what we do know is not the full story..,
mrlebowski
Free MemberBest wait for the full story – we already know that what we do know is not the full story...
There's no "full story" that makes it OK to kick the guy in the head, is the thing. Like has been said up the page, it can explain, it can't excuse.
Any word from their ‘lawyer’?
With my son being a noobie cop that's just really unpleasant to watch.
It’s never ok to kick someone in the head. It’s never ok to punch a woman in the face either, which Sky blue had done seconds earlier.
If I saw a female friend or colleague of mine punched in the face by a bloke I might well kick his head a few seconds later, to prevent him doing it again if nothing else.
There is no acceptable level of violence. If you kick off at someone don’t moan about the consequences.
But the police went in hard to begin with. Certainly didnt seem to be any can you explain this sir, or can you come over here sir, policeman just grabbed him and tried to force him too the floor, and it all erupts from there.
It's funny how people see things differently. And it shows how eyewitness accounts can be so contradictory
I see coppers approaching a guy paying for his airport parking at a machine, he is unaware that they are there until they grab him with presumably the intention of putting handcuffs on him, apparently they have been told that he is a violent suspect.
He initially doesn't seem to resist, possibly because he has been taken by surprise. Then the one in grey intervenes and it all kicks off.
I have no idea where you get the "can you explain this sir, or can you come over here sir". Why on earth do you think that is the way to arrest a potentially violent person?
I think most of the arrests I have witnessed have distinctly lacked the "excuse me but would Sir like to come this way please". Most of the arrestees are lucky to remain in an upright position
There’s no “full story” that makes it OK to kick the guy in the head
Would it have been okay to hit him in the head with a truncheon?
If so why?
Edit: Actually on reflection that's not really an appropriate question as the amount of force used is the issue imo. I think a light blow might be justified in certain circumstances where a full force definitely would not. Same probably goes to kicking someone in the face - a light kick to the face could do less damage than a punch. I guess that I was trying to gauge whether it was the fact that it was a boot rather than a truncheon that was the problem, although both could be, depending on circumstances, be unacceptable
I think he had a warrant for arrest on him? Wasn't that reported quite early?
If you kick off at someone don’t moan about the consequences.
Thats pretty much where I am with it, having seen the somewhat inevitable prequel to the kick in the head. It’s no different from your average provincial town centre on a Saturday night outside a kebab house at 3am. Same rules apply.
If go in, fists flailing, punching everyone in sight in the face, especially including women (what kind of bloke punches a woman full on in the face FFS?!) , then you immediately forfeit your right to complain about any subsequent shoeing you end up on the receiving end of.
Those lads didn’t exactly look like they were newbies to the kick off, did they?
It’s no different from your average provincial town centre on a Saturday night outside a kebab house at 3am. Same rules apply
Yep. Been on both sides of that particular coin.
Also, the Swiss police were pretty nasty when street fights got going.
Why on earth do you think that is the way to arrest a potentially violent person?
Everybody is a potentially violent person Ernie, but do we ask our law to arrest people, or to go hammer and tongs into someone before any facts have been established.
.
Why in heavens name would you think that is an acceptable way for a policeman to act Ernie ?, when at that point he is facing no threat.
Thats the kind of reasoning we read in the Daily Mail comments section.
I don't know what you saw dyna in that video but I saw the police do nothing more than grab someone to slap some handcuffs on them. Someone which they had allegedly been told had been involved in a physical altercation with other members of the public - of course he posed a threat to them. And the threat turned into reality - he became violent because presumably he didn't want to be arrested.
And as well as being violent he is clearly an idiot. No sensible person believes that they can fight off armed officers at a major airport and then just go home and all will be forgotten.
What do you think you saw?
Great reference to the Daily Mail btw.
I’m not sure about that. Lots of documentation of Tasering not working, or only working for a while, so the police officer really didnt want him getting up again.
I believe that typically they incapacitate for 5 seconds before people quickly recover and are back to normal
I don’t know what you saw dyna in that video but I saw the police do nothing more than grab someone to slap some handcuffs on them. Someone which they had allegedly been told had been involved in a physical altercation with other members of the public
Again this is just a report. It hasnt been established as fact, so the police actions should be one of first investigate. Not grab someone in a choke hold and try to wrestle them to the ground.
.
Now im just trying to describe what Im seeing Ernie. Im not looking for justification for the police to go on the offensive from the off, because according to that train of thought, you could report any crime and the police attend, then violently arrest them, without proof.
.
Sure the police have the right to arrest, to then carry out an investigation. But I would say the police went in heavy handed and the accused to exception to being manhandled in such a manner and fought back. I would say thats something we've all seen on a weekend, but i have never seen the police boot someone in the face/head, then stamp on their head. And im sure if they did that to somebody surrounded by a load of people coming out the pub, a lot of people would intervene.
The police have the right to arrest us, they dont have the power to violently assault us, especially if you are lying prone on the ground
The officer should have after tasering him, moved to handcuff him. but he didnt. he firstly and foremost booted him in the head and then went to cuff him
.
Straight off we know the public objected to that action from the shouting by members of the public, appalled by such actions.
I was appalled. the public were appalled, members of parliament were appalled, former officers were appalled.
Some here believe not and think it justified.
Yes he deserved to be arrested for assaulting to police, but no way was there any justification to seriously assaulting a prone man who at that point was no danger to anyone.
.
Another thing I find interesting Ernie is how you've described the 'accused'
First it was this - "allegedly been told had been involved in a physical altercation"
Then you went to this - "apparently they have been told that he is a violent suspect"
Followed by "And as well as being violent"
I would like a source for this "apparently been told etc etc", cos no offence, but it sounds like you've embellished it
You could play Chinese whispers all by yourself lol
.
I believe the police went in harder than they should have from the off and picked on the last 2 guys you want to do that with. They clearly bit off far more than they could chew and with hindsight, stepping back and engaging in talk would have been the better option. Because again, only an allegation has been made, no more than that.
.
But it goes beyond whatever those two were involved in. The police then sprayed pepper spray right into the face of someone who was not involved in that altercation, and then, went for the exact same grab in a choke hold and try to throw to the ground. There was zero attempt there to arrest.
.
The police's job is to prevent breach of the peace and not to escalate a situation. I think there they failed and in doing so have caused Greater Manchester police a huge headache and some really bad PR.
The thing I don't get is, that kicking officer, when surrounded by witnesses if you want to hurt someone, he could have simply dropped his knee into the back of of the guy on the floor as he cuffed him, then "pushed him down the stairs" once he was "in the back of the van".
I believe the police went in harder than they should have from the off and picked on the last 2 guys you want to do that with. They clearly bit off far more than they could chew and with hindsight, stepping back and engaging in talk would have been the better option
I would love to live in your world. Have you ever tried talking to someone who is prone to violence and kicks off quickly? Stepping back and engaging in talk isn’t always a sensible thing with some people. Again, nobody on here has any clue as to what exactly happened. So why don’t we just wait for the full story to emerge.
Ah well, luckily i left the door open to change my mind!
Having seen that, the whole thing is a sh*t show that they've had to try and control, the male officer wasn't the one deploying the taser either, and from that angle the 'kick' isn't a full body 'soccer kick' that it looked like from the other angle, they're also trying to stop being overrun fast, with the two female officers having received some full blooded hits, and the male officer barely getting the grey shirted guy under control.
Guessing that the guys lawyer might lose public support now, so the hope of a big pay day might end up with jail time for his clients and no public outcry this time!
Who knows what the thought process was. Only the officer involved I'd suggest. Who's just been attacked / seen other members of his team attacked, tasered an individual and then for 'some reason' has decided that's not enough. Based on the video, even given the lead up to it, it looks disgraceful, I agree, but the key words are 'based on the video'
Who knows what other intelligence was applied here. What if they'd been told over the radio as they're being sent that CCTV has identified them and one of the individuals has history for whatever reason (just cos he's a policeman's relative doesn't make them automatically alright - I'm an upstanding citizen but one of my relatives is an absolute scrote) We just don't know and this is where the IPCC or whoever will take the evidence from everywhere and then find out.
Until then, no-one actually knows.
If it is indeed the case, thankfully the police federation have a very generous compensation plan in place which is between £12,990 and £28220 for a broken nose, as it is classed as a severe injury.
If theres a moderate case of PTSD from it, we can add another £10,000-£30,000 on top of that. Moderately severe it starts at 30k and goes up to 70k.
Please point me to a source for any of this. Admittedly retired, but I haven't heard of "a very generous compensation plan", never mind with those figures
Dyna-ti
I don’t think you live in the real world. It’s clear the men were very nasty violent men. Most normal people don’t decide to beat the crap out of the Police
I’ve seen people being detained at an airport and it was along the lines of ‘would one mind awfully coming this way sir?’ . On the telly I’ve watched plenty of stuff where if they have intelligence they ave also gone in super heavy to gain control because they know the people have no regard for authority (like here)
but no way was there any justification to seriously assaulting a prone man who at that point was no danger to anyone.
not right there. There was no justification for kicking in the head, but the man was still very dangerous. Even after being kicked in the head he was trying to get back up.
Again context is everything and we still haven’t seen and heard everything. The innocent by standers filming and shouting. How the hell do we know they are innocent. A lot of very naive people on here thought the men directly involved for seeet and innocent men.
How do you know they Police didn’t have intelligence that these men are all part of the same organised crime gang?
Even if they are not, they all stood there and watched the police get a good kicking and then continued to mount off at them. The Police didn’t know what they were going to do next , were asking them to stop doing something and they didn’t . They needed to get control of the situation
There was no justification for kicking in the head, but the man was still very dangerous. Even after being kicked in the head he was trying to get back up.
Genuine question, how would you have subdued him given he was still very dangerous? Maybe have a stern word?
Genuine question, how would you have subdued him given he was still very dangerous?
I don’t know I’m no expert , but I assume it was far off using a firearm as they certainly were not complying and a taser hadn’t worked
There must be someone on here that knows correct protocol. If someone is refusing to comply, and even a taser doesn’t work, at what point are you allowed to kick someone in the head or shoot them ?
Also I thought firearms officers weren’t supposed to get involved in close stuff so there is something really odd about this. Lack of resourses?
First and foremost, firearms officers are police officers. There's always a tension between talking to the public, routine traffic stops, etc, and their firearms role
In theory all police officers are to maintain a reactionary gap, but try doing that in a crowded, noisy, busy space and communicating effectively to hopefully avoid it all kicking off 🙂
Whatever you say mate.
Please point me to a source for any of this. Admittedly retired, but I haven’t heard of “a very generous compensation plan”, never mind with those figures
Years ago I came across a chart, possibly linked to police federation or such, i really cant remember.
So knowing such a thing existed, i did a basic search on google because i was interested to know what compo injured police receive. obviously like all workplace injuries there would be a scheme
Scroll down near the bottom of the page
https://www.accidentclaimsadvice.org.uk/police-officer-injury-claims/
Another thing that needs addressing here is that matey boys shifty lawyer was clearly trying to make this a race issue. The deliberate implication from day one was that there was a racist element to the police behaviour here, which there clearly wasn’t. You kick off like that with armed police in an airport and you’ll get the same treatment, regardless of what colour or religion you are.
Given recent tensions regarding a variety of issues in places like Rochdale, the last thing that’s needed is some dodgy ambulance-chaser stirring things to imply racism where none exists and deliberately create a false narrative.
Still no word from him then, I see? Given his love for the TV cameras when releasing his version of events, he doesn’t seem to have anything to say now the more complete footage has emerged?
I don’t know I’m no expert , but I assume it was far off using a firearm as they certainly were not complying and a taser hadn’t worked
Is that meant to say "not far off using a firearm"?
For those saying he should have handcuffed the guy on the ground, in an ideal world yes he would have, but the officer is probably dazed having just been on the end of a dozen hard punches in the head from grey man and blue man, he can see that both his colleagues have been put on the floor although they've got themselves back up. But the shorter of the other two was clearly not functioning fully (again, having both been attacked by the guy who got kicked), the other one is possibly the one with the broken nose so might have been a bloody sight, at this point he doesn't know how effective they are going to be in supporting him. If he kneels down to cuff blue guy then grey guy (and others) might suddenly pile in. I don't think a kick was a grossly disproportionate use of force given what had just happened and the situation they were in. There might have been other ways of dealing with it (more tasers? a foot on the back?) but I don't think the kick was the example of police brutality that it was first made out to be.
As for the police "going in hard to begin with", what a load of nonsense. They were trying to arrest him, not invite him to a group therapy session*, they tried to put his hands behind his back and his head down so they could quickly get cuffs on. The events of the next few seconds show why they were right to try to get him under control quickly. If the police had opened with a flying kick or a gun/taser shot with no warning then that would absolutely be wrong. But 2 coppers grabbing your arms and saying "you're nicked sunshine" isn't "going in hard".
*I'm saying this as a lefty who has been on numerous other threads criticising the police.
Genuine question, are armed police allowed you take their hands off their weapons in a situation like that?
Years ago I came across a chart, possibly linked to police federation or such, i really cant remember.
So knowing such a thing existed, i did a basic search on google because i was interested to know what compo injured police receive. obviously like all workplace injuries there would be a scheme
Scroll down near the bottom of the page
https://www.accidentclaimsadvice.org.uk/police-officer-injury-claims//blockquote >
So as I thought you just made up the numbers as you hate women police officers. From the link the suggested payout is based on serious lifelong injuries and the police force being negligent. It's possible to claim from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority like any one else for serious injuries and judges/magistrates sometimes award damages in court as part of the sentence paid by the perpetrator just as they would if you were assaulted.
Thanks dyna-ti, however, that's a generic No Win, No Fee, Claim the maximum compensation legal firm
Anyone can use similar schemes to get massive amounts of compensation if injured at work, except that many people won't have a reasonable chance of success and will be turned down at the free advice stage
This is what the Police Federation offer and it's the same as any other person can get, except that police officers have to show a higher level of exceptional risk than most other people to qualify. You get kicked in the nuts for real and you take another to pass the threshold for compensation https://www.polfed.org/lancashire/advice/injury-on-duty/
Not sure if it has been mentioned so far but not seen it.....Assuming (I know) that these are the sons who 'dealt with' the alleged racist passenger that had been pointed out to them by their mother - given their behaviour here you've got to assume (again) that interaction was quite spicy too. Which would account for the police going in straight to arrest them rather than have a nice chat.
No one is going to come out of this well.
And....if the police officer gets charged.....would they charge the 'victim' of his assault of assault? That feels all kinds of messy. Which I guess is a damn good reason if no other exists why police officers simply have to keep their heads.
Oh and damned good work whoever leaked that to the MEN - gives a bit more context and makes sure no one has the moral high ground to get too finger pointy. Should calm things down a bit.
however, that’s a generic No Win, No Fee, Claim the maximum compensation legal firm
Ahh I see.
Though I would have thought there would be some sort of scheme over and above standard CICA as I wouldnt have thought any injury, from falling off a chair in the office to being injured as in this incident, would be classed as risks of the job you(they) signed up for.
I got nearly 2k for an injured elbow, scarring from a robbery. They(CICA) had criteria if the injury leaving scarring was unsightly. Broken nose is more serious than that, as its central face.
But there you go. Cheers for at least clarifying things.
Oh and damned good work whoever leaked that to the MEN – gives a bit more context and makes sure no one has the moral high ground to get too finger pointy. Should calm things down a bit.
I’m guessing by his comments early on, that Andy Burnham had seen “all” of the footage .
I , like others thought what the copper had done was over the top and an “act of revenge “ after the incident.
Now I have seen the whole footage , and saw that it was part of the same sequence, then I can see he was trying the neutralise the situation the best way he could. With all that shit going on around him , you think he’s going to try putting cuffs on , by himself ??
Having seen the more complete videos, I've completely changed my view on this. Binners nails it: copper was doing what he needed to do in an extremely difficult situation. The "victims" have played dirty when releasing their videos and they have made it a racist event.
Trained armed police and you only get a kick in the head?
I'm sure if we watched this footage in any other part of the world they'd have been shot given the ferocity of the attack on the police.
Andy Burnham has made simply repeated his initial statement that there is a lot more evidence to come out yet so people shouldn't rush to judgement. Given what we've seen so far, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that might well involve earlier footage of another masssively violent assault by the same people which led to them being arrested in the first place.
Looking at their behavior in that video, they look like the type of people who quickly revert to violence at the slightest provocation. From the way thoes two were swinging punches, that doesn't exactly look like its an activity they're unfamilar with.
Its taken some bloody front from dodgy lawyer bloke to go out so aggressively to try and portay this event as some kind of unprovoked assault by racist police. I wonder how the people are feeling who went out protesting, on the strength of the selectively edited initial video, now they've seen what we've all now seen? No wonder the dodgy lawyer is now nowhere to be seen.
My BiL was a prison officer, and got headbutted and had broken nose and cheekbone with surgery to pull it out again (surgery but quite minor I think)
He got nothing (or very little), employer wasn't negligent, a risk of the job. Nothing like the 10's of k sorts of numbers above
He's no longer a prison officer.
Binners nails it: copper was doing what he needed to do in an extremely difficult situation. The “victims” have played dirty when releasing their videos and they have made it a racist event.
I'm working on a bike race today and speaking to some of the police working on this, they've obviously seen the footage. Their view is that the female officers were singled out for assault initially, other officers rush in to support and it all kicks off.
They weren't at all sure WTF was going on - there's never any issues at the airport other than lost kids etc so why the hell are armed officers being assaulted?! It's then been turned into a racist event, strategically selected pieces of video released without showing the initial escalation.
no shit. Kind of obvious when the video shows only exactly what supports their argument and nothing else. I’ll just bear this in mind when we have the next “advert” thread and the usual suspects declare themselves immune to advertising/manipulation 🙂The “victims” have played dirty when releasing their videos
I would like to see those two do that to Italian/French/Spanish police and see how it ended... Unfortunately the UK is full of scrotes that think nothing of now attacking emergency workers, shop workers and threatening people working on the transport networks.
