monkeysfeet

Subscriber

Not at all. Cops are quite often prosecuted.

Have you seen this VIDEO

Big copper head butts small shouty passenger; apparently he used reasonable force so all OK. He could of course used his handcuffs to arrest him before he headbutted him .. but

Big copper head butts small shouty passenger; apparently he used reasonable force so all OK. He could of course used his handcuffs to arrest him before he headbutted him .. but

You mean a passenger who had threatened to stab people?

Also, the headbutt was hilarious – should have been given a pay rise for that.

@thegreatape – thanks mate, I didn’t hear that update. Some common sense prevails…

He could of course used his handcuffs to arrest him before he headbutted him .. but

…he doesn’t carry them when he’s off duty? Do I win a prize?

EDIT – I’m not sure I do, he’s got cuffs on at the end. Bit odd if he’s off duty. Unless the female is also a cop? She’s taking things off his neck, that’s a policey thing to do.

Its quite right that we hold cops to a high standard of behaviour but its also quite right they get a lot of leeway in the use of force

I’m not sure that head but appears to be correct amount of force. Never seen anyone restrained by being head butted to the floor. What do I know though. Met didn’t find anything wrong with it so must have been correct policing.

Confined space. Concern and belief there’s a threat to himself and other members of the public. Nut away.

Where is the head but in that video, or has the video changed ?

Use of force by police officers is often criticised by people who have never been in a scuffle, let alone a real fight. What critics often forget is that the threat of serious injury or death is very, very real, and there are no hard and fast rules of engagement. It’s about being able to justify the level of force used. Police self defence training used to be all based on archaic principles. I remember all sorts of complicated nonsense taught in classes based on Jiu Jitsu, mostly because it was “Home Office Approved” and a few gentle wrist-locks are good for witness perception. Trust me, all of that training goes out of the window when the chips are down. Nowadays Officer Safety Training is about neutralising the threat by whatever means necessary (and justified) so in a confined space, with the threat of a knife, a strike with the head, elbow, forearm, knee, even a well-aimed size ten is perfectly justifiable.

Scapegoat, as a former soldier who has been in the odd position where death is an actual threat, to me and the people I was responsible for, not pretend threat of death to save my job. I have to disagree with you.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that in my opinion based on years of military training focused on dealing with genuine life or death situations, the actions in that video do not portray a trained officer dealing with a threat to the life of the passengers (stood next to him watching it so no evacuating nearby people).
I would be absolutely amazed if the police are taught to use head strikes against an armed knife wielding attacker. Training should never be about doing what is justified, it has to be about using the most appropriate technique for a given situation. Where the life of fellow passengers was a genuine concern, surely the first technique is to remove them from the threat.

So police officer has grabbed both hands of someone he believes to be a violent erratic threat and as struggling continues used headbutt to get upper hand and neutralise the threat – be that of a knife or the bloke just going off with his fists. Seems proportionate, lot of stw not been in a proper scuffle, punter is not going to stick their arms out and let you cuff them, it’s bloody hard work.
Scapegoat we had the old nearest target nearest weapon training, butts, gouges, biting the face etc, when required now we have moved to a more reflective training.

raybanwomble

Member

You mean a passenger who had threatened to stab people?

Also, the headbutt was hilarious – should have been given a pay rise for that.

Now if the policeman had seen an actual knife I doubt very much he would be standing close in front of him for some time listening to his ranting.
Anybody who has had to work with mentally unwell people will know – a head butt to the face is not a restraint technique they typically teach. I am very confident that if a nurse had used that technique they would be facing a substantial, and deserved, prison sentence … buy its the police so its all good.
Better video

 I am very confident that if a nurse had used that technique they would be facing a substantial, and deserved, prison sentence … buy its the police so its all good.

Pretty sure nurses don’t have to arrest people on crowded tubes where there could be a risk to the general public. But if it was felt a headbut was the best, safest way to restrain a patient why would they deserve a prison sentence ?

I am very confident that if a nurse had used that technique they would be facing a substantial, and deserved, prison sentence …

I’m very confident if the nurse could demonstrate reasonable force then they wouldn’t.

There are two words that apply to both situations being discussed in this thread. Two words that must be applied in the contexts of the situations in question. ‘Reasonable’ and ‘proportionate’.

Were the actions reasonable and proportionate to the perceived threat to the officer and the public in the immediate vicinity? Could the threat be neutralised by less forceful means? Was the force used reduced proportionally to the reduction in perceived threat.

In relation to the head butt; I would suggest that despite it not being particularly pretty, the officers actions passed these tests. Wouldn’t be surprised if his sergeant didn’t have done words of advice for him at some point afterwards, though.

taxi25

Member

Pretty sure nurses don’t have to arrest people on crowded tubes where there could be a risk to the general public. But if it was felt a headbut was the best, safest way to restrain a patient why would they deserve a prison sentence ?

Thats right; they got to restrain people in busy A&E wards, busy communal areas, lots of places where vulnerable people are.
To say that butting that person was reasonable force is plain daft. That big copper could have easily grabbed that little fella to restrain him … at no stage in the clips shown was the little fella being anything other than a gobby nuisance; so a head butt to the face was definetly not the safest way to retrain him – it was excessive, so definitely deserving of reprimand.

Have you ever been on a packed underground train? You cannot clear the area to restrain someone and there is no room to move. On a psych ward you can usually clear the others out the way.

at no stage in the clips shown was the little fella being anything other than a gobby nuisance

Threatening to stab someone isn’t considered a gobby nuisance in London, a friend of mine got verbally threatened with being stabbed and they sent firearms officers in response. Threatening lethal force isn’t a joke, it’s a threat to kill. Just because some of you on here are used to having high explosives thrown at you before you decide something is a serious threat, doesn’t mean that coppers will or should react the same way.

Now if the policeman had seen an actual knife I doubt very much he would be standing close in front of him for some time listening to his ranting.

I’m sorry but where are you meant to move on a busy underground train if someone actually pulled a knife? Why would the copper move away and potentially instigate a stampede by panicking? Why do you think that you have to see a knife for the threat to be real? Most people who use knives pull them out an instant before they attack their target – they don’t wave them around. Why should the copper risk his life grappling with the dudes hands in confined quarters whilst the general public stand around not bothering to help?

Police use of force

Woodster, headbutts are acceptable,closest weapon, closest target. Trust me it’s taught. We train in PST and SPEAR, an American self defence system. Google it.
To the MOP our officers actions can look harsh especially given something such as a pre-emptive strike, but as long as you can justify your actions, and I have many many times, it’s fine.

Quite surprising to have such right wing thuggery on open display here at STW

People behaving like Mr Atkinson did are routinely restrained on a very regular basis by the Police, nurses etc.

Very rarely do they die because of it.

Which leads me to conclude that there is more to this than we are being told.

Let’s not jump to conclusions without hearing the evidence, eh?

There are way too many unknowns in the Dalian Atkinson case. What is notable is that the IOPC investigation was concluded Oct 2018 & its took this long for a charging decision.

From close experience the IOPC have a great deal of influence over CPS decision making, far more influence than the Police have when seeking a charging decision. There is a real desire to make examples of the Police as it has great political value. It’s rare that politicians or the press express any sympathy towards the Police or the job they do in an ever more challenging world, and both actively seek to make villains of them. With that in mind it’s not surprising they had “two bites of the cherry” with the headline seeking charge of Murder and the more rational charge of manslaughter. It is highly unlikely, if not unthinkable that the cop attended this incident with the intention of killing or seriously injuring Dalian Atkinson.

Quite surprising to have such right wing thuggery on open display here at STW

Trolling getting a bit obvious now

Threatening to stab someone isn’t considered a gobby nuisance in London, a friend of mine got verbally threatened with being stabbed and they sent firearms officers in response

Or it was because armed response were available. That or it was considered credible and a arv was the closest bunch with tasers.
Round here you will see armed response a reasonable amount of the time for traffic collisions for example since they have the advanced driving training and with the cuts they run out of normal cops.

Most people who use knives pull them out an instant before they attack their target – they don’t wave them around.

Speaking from experience?

I am a fully paid up bleeding heart snowflake lefty but I know that is right that the police get a lot more leeway than the general public over the use of force. Yes it needs to be reasonable and proportionate but given the situations they are often in and that unlike me the really should not run away the threshold for charging them should be high

For this to even be charged with manslaughter let alone murder surely means something went way beyond what is reasonable given that they guy who shot Mendez ( who was innocent and lying on the floor being restrained as he was shot) was not prosecuted at all then this is a very exceptional case

I have worked alongside the police and have seen just a little bit of what they have to deal with.

For this to even be charged with manslaughter let alone murder surely means something went way beyond what is reasonable given that they guy who shot Mendez ( who was innocent and lying on the floor being restrained as he was shot) was not prosecuted at all then this is a very exceptional case

There was a lot more to the Mendez story than the public have been made aware.

In the train incident.
The policeman had 20 minutes with the person prior to the head but.
My training was that in an event where I thought there was a perceived threat to the life of the people I was paid to protect, then I clear the area first. I don’t argue for 20 minutes with the person. I’ll accept the situation can escalate during a discussion, and training should be about defusing the situation before violence is required whilst doing as much as possible to remove civilians away from the scene. The people stood less than a metre away didn’t look to bothered about the knife threat nor did the people laughing in the background.
I get the tube every day, that wasn’t an overly packed carriage. 20 minutes gives the officer plenty of time to vacate the public. Also is there not a comms line from where the policeman is to the driver? Get to the nearest station, ensure he has full support, let civilians off first. 20 minutes is a long time to organise this.
Training isn’t just about violence, it’s about clarity of mind. Other people’s safety is paramount.
I appreciate all I’ve seen is the videos here and the newspaper reports. But I’m not convinced that this is the actions of a policeman who thought there was imminent threat to civilian life.

Speaking from experience?

Yup, a school friend of mine had a blade driven into his back – missing his spinal cord by 1cm during a Biology class. He then committed suicide a few years later.

In the train incident.
The policeman had 20 minutes with the person prior to the head but.
My training was that in an event where I thought there was a perceived threat to the life of the people I was paid to protect, then I clear the area first. I don’t argue for 20 minutes with the person. I’ll accept the situation can escalate during a discussion, and training should be about defusing the situation before violence is required whilst doing as much as possible to remove civilians away from the scene.

How do you do all of this on a crowded train (because it looks packed to me) where people are jammed up to the windows and you can’t walk between carriages? And why should he have to wrestle with the guys hands until he reaches the next station and put himself and others at increased risk of injury?

And the squaddies I know did **** horrendous shit to people who so much as dared to throw a stone at them in Afghanistan.

The people stood less than a metre away didn’t look to bothered about the knife threat nor did the people laughing in the background

That’s a symptom of not being used to violence and not being able to move away.

Seriously? … you are going to try to justify that response by comparing it to some stories of squaddies in Afghanistan😂
You clearly demonstrate a tangential thought process which identifies the pointlessness of trying to educate you on what’s reasonable force.

educate you on what’s reasonable force.

And therein lies the problem. You can’t ‘educate’ someone on what IS reasonable force in any given situation. You can only explain the concept, and then let people decide for themselves. So you’re both right, and as for the video, someone else (probably more qualified than us to decide) appears to have decided that it was reasonable, in the circumstances that we only have a partial understanding of.

Pretty shocking to me as I was friends years ago with his brother and met Dalian a few times when he was a successful footballer.

One thing I would like to see is as a general point is ” no fault” investigations for police mistakes in the way that airline pilots do. You can have an exception for extreme cases like this.

There have been too many shootings of unarmed folk that pose no risk over the years and the fear that the police have over being prosecuted inevitably means that they slant the evidence and are less than truthful. Its only human to do so

However if we want to prevent such things in future then we need to know the truth. the best way to get to the truth is to remove the incentives to slant the truth.

On the police shootings individual officers often feel at risk of prosecution when in reality its probably multiple failures from recruitment of people with the wrong sort of attitudes, failures in training, failures in briefing etc etc so they officer arrives on the scene in the wrong frame of mind with the wrong impressions of what is happening so makes the wrong decision in that split second

the aim should be to prevent future mistakes by proper analysis of the reasons why they happen and that can only happen if we know the truth rather than by a punitive approach to past mistakes which makes future mistakes more likely by obscuring the truth