Best in the World

[enderby fox]

not that i really give a flying josephine but i'm sure i've heard before that the police are allowed to use any force they feel neccesary. or am i wrong?

perhaps this is what the fuzz did

 

[Willlow]

I suggest a trip to Specsavers. Were you looking away when the baton was hitting the back of the dead man's legs?

He hit him when he was dead?

 

[Steven]

He hit him when he was dead?

He might have done as he was happy to hit the man when he was alive.

 

[Real Sharapova]

He hasn't executed the bloke, he has pushed the bloke in the direction he i supposed to go and he fell over. :icon_lol::icon_lol:

He was already walking in that direction. Why assault him?

 

[Willlow]

He was already walking in that direction. Why assault him?

FFS :icon_roll

He wasnt walking in that direction he was trying to get past them. Rightly or wrongly they didnt let him. He was told to go the other way and he should have gone the other way. It has been mentioned in the papers that he might have been "assaulted" three or four times before the video clip, which probably means he had been pushed in the right direction three or four times, yet he still continued to try and get past the police.

 

[Willlow]

He might have done as he was happy to hit the man when he was alive.

I doubt it they were too busy moving him because of the missiles being thrown. Have you watched the video yet?

 

[Steven]

FFS :icon_roll

He wasnt walking in that direction he was trying to get past them. Rightly or wrongly they didnt let him. He was told to go the other way and he should have gone the other way. It has been mentioned in the papers that he might have been "assaulted" three or four times before the video clip, which probably means he had been pushed in the right direction three or four times, yet he still continued to try and get past the police.

FFS :icon_roll

Please outline in what way "he was trying to get past them"? You do realise your attitude is just the sort of thinking that the Police need to get away with thuggery. :icon_wink

 

[highland fox]

I think he didn't know which way he was going but he certainly wasn't trying to force his way past them,some people must be looking at a different clip than me if they think he was acting aggresively

 

[Lako42]

FFS :icon_roll

Please outline in what way "he was trying to get past them"? You do realise your attitude is just the sort of thinking that the Police need to get away with thuggery. :icon_wink

His attitude on this particular issue is appaling really.

 

[bocadillo]

FFS :icon_roll

He wasnt walking in that direction he was trying to get past them. Rightly or wrongly they didnt let him. He was told to go the other way and he should have gone the other way. It has been mentioned in the papers that he might have been "assaulted" three or four times before the video clip, which probably means he had been pushed in the right direction three or four times, yet he still continued to try and get past the police.

If he wasn't walking away from his assailant, how is it that he was pushed from behind?

 

[bocadillo]

not that i really give a flying josephine but i'm sure i've heard before that the police are allowed to use any force they feel neccesary. or am i wrong?

The police are allowed to use reasonable force, nothing more.

 

[Real Sharapova]

If he wasn't walking away from his assailant, how is it that he was pushed from behind?

The point I made exactly - Willlow doesn't appear to appreciate it. Why assault a man who is walking in the direction you want him to go. Even if he wasn't walking in the direction they wanted him to go that still doesn't make it all right to assault him.

 

[highland fox]

He looks like some bloke who used to punt in a shop I worked in in Liverpool..if it was him then he deserved everything he got

 

[camberwell fox]

If he wasn't walking away from his assailant, how is it that he was pushed from behind?

It has now transpired that it ''seems'' it was unprovoked.

In which case (as per my original post) he should be dealt with according to the law.

We are all saying the same thing, the only difference ''seems'' to be some people on here are giving the police the benefit of the doubt, some clearly have the police banged to rights based on very ''limited' footage, while the rest are giving the guy who died the benefit of the doubt!

 

[camberwell fox]

The police are allowed to use reasonable force, nothing more.

Who's interpratation of reasonable is best?

 

[highland fox]

It has now transpired that it ''seems'' it was unprovoked.

In which case (as per my original post) he should be dealt with according to the law.

We are all saying the same thing, the only difference ''seems'' to be some people on here are giving the police the benefit of the doubt, some clearly have the police banged to rights based on very ''limited' footage, while the rest are giving the guy who died the benefit of the doubt!

It doesn't take Columbo to see it was unprovoked though,or did he say some naughty words to the policeman ?

 

[bocadillo]

Who's interpratation of reasonable is best?

The judgement of that is down to the due process of the law. Having said that there are instances where it is plain for anybody to see whether or not reasonable force was used.

 

[lazzer]

Willlow are you trying to get most controversial poster award ? With yer betting on the opposition and supporting the police?
The fact of the matter is the copper is out of order regardless of the fact the bloke may be a complete cock or not. The isssue is ....do we fecking care

 

[camberwell fox]

It doesn't take Columbo to see it was unprovoked though,or did he say some naughty words to the policeman ?

In the ''snippit'' we saw, you are correct, when i made my posts we were not in posession of all the facts - we still aren't.

There is no audio evidence so far it seems...

 

[bocadillo]

It has now transpired that it ''seems'' it was unprovoked.

Who has said it was unprovoked? The officer involved has not been interviewed yet. Perhaps he will say he was provoked.

Perhaps you should stop making things up as you go along.

In which case (as per my original post) he should be dealt with according to the law.

I have now read your original post on the subject one hundred and thirty seven times. I can't find anywhere where you said that. Perhaps you can point it out for me. To make it easier for you, that post is at http://www.talkingballs.co.uk/showpost.php?p=810262&postcount=16