tintin40":rz6s3497 said:
Chopper1192":rz6s3497 said:
not a newspaper seller - he was an unemployed, rough sleeping alcoholic man who spent his days sat at the kerb alongside a newspaper seller he had befriended. He did not have a job of any kind himelf. Try not to believe everything the media blindly regurgitate.
Does that make it OK to push him over & hit with a baton? Oh and set the dog on him. Lucky it was on video or the plod could have walked away from it.
Are you asking me, or telling me?
Im wavering on that one - textbook double palm heel strike, low strike with is peg. Both precisely by the book, as I've been taught them.
Against a make who was persistently decking to comply with reasonable and lawful requests? I'm not so sure on the one. The gent was not walking home as he simply didn't have one. He was in almost continuous contact with police lines for 40 minutes without a lawful or reasonable excuse.
On the other, the bloke was not an immediate threat to my mind, and with the benefit of hindsight was probably suffering with auditory exclusion due to impending sudden onset of a serious medical condition.
Then in the middle the bobby has done, to my mind, a terrible job justifying his actions relying too much on stock phrases instead of detailing profiled offender behaviour, impact factors and determining a reasonable and lawful response. S117 PACE, S3 Criminal Law Act, S2 ECHR and Common Law all make the use of force - even deadly force - legal if it is necessary and propotionate, two words this bobby has banded about a lot but with little to support it.
I'm an expert in UDT and I really, genuinely odon't know. Whatever happens, and with the piss poor defence material the bobby has offered I can see him being found guilty, I think we may well see either new law, or some heavyweight clarification or guidance of the current law on use of force.
As a total aside I'm qualified to teach UDT for bicycle patrol officers.
PS- sorry for the iPhone itis.