Can the (Met) police ever change?

[Deleted member 28]

Persistence is futile....

A bit like your diet or attempts at humour but you keep going.....

 

[newfhouse]

At f**ing last !

I can't recall you saying you would prefer to see her handcuffed (unless I missed it) all I remember was you bleating on about weirdness?

What, in your opinion, do you think he was doing then (for the umpteenth time).

FFS. The answers you seek are all contained in the words I have already committed to the thread. If you can’t be arsed to read them I’m not sure why you respond at all.

 

[Deleted member 28]

FFS. The answers you seek are all contained in the words I have already committed to the thread. If you can’t be arsed to read them I’m not sure why you respond at all.

Show me where you said " they should have handcuffed her rather than just holding her wrist" and once again what is 'weird ' about it?

What do you think his motive was?

 

[newfhouse]

One last try.

I tried and failed.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I tried and failed.

You have, better luck next time.

 

[icowden]

Who said she was trying to run away?

Nobody. What I said is that if she were a run risk then handcuffs would be appropriate. If she were not then there is no need to hold her wrist.

YOU tell me what YOU think the copper was doing then, trying to steal her watch maybe, sexually assault her (if you listen to @mudsticks) read her palm?

We don't know what was happening. What we do know is that to hold on to someone's wrist for the length of time shown in the clip seems a bit weird and we have suggested that either she should be cuffed or released. For all we know, they have detained so many protestors that they have run out of cuffs.

It doesn't stop it looking and feeling odd. Clips of this lady from social media along with her demeanour suggest that she has a lot of presence of mind, is interested in speaking to the press once detained rather than punching the copper in the face or pouring custard down their trousers.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Let me help out Shep. When the Police want to stop someone running away they usually use handcuffs. I think that's why they have them.

No, when the Police want to stop you running away, they put you on the floor. Handcuffs do not stop people from running, which is generally a movement you make with legs and not hands. Handcuffs are for stopping you fighting and for safely moving a detained person.

He was holding her to stop her from running, for which handcuffs would have been un-needed.

 

[icowden]

No, when the Police want to stop you running away, they put you on the floor.

Whenever I have seen that happen, they then seem to deploy handcuffs?

Handcuffs are for stopping you fighting and for safely moving a detained person.

She was a detained person - so why not cuff her in order to safely move her?

Of if cuffs are not needed:-

In deciding to use handcuffs, the met has outlined more than 40 questions officers should ask themselves.
These include "do I need to take action immediately?" and "how probable is the risk of harm?".
What must be taken into account when deciding to use handcuffs?
The use of handcuffs constitutes a use of force, and any intentional application of force on another person is an assault.
Therefore, it must be justified through establishing a legal basis and that it is reasonable, necessary and proportionate.

then they have decided there is no risk of harm and no action is needed thus no cuffs. If she does not require cuffs, why does she require someone to hold on to her wrist for an extended period of time?

 

[Craig the cyclist]

If she does not require cuffs, why does she require someone to hold on to her wrist for an extended period of time?

So if she runs for it, they have a way of momentarily pausing her to allow them to react more robustly.

Would you rather they cuffed her from the get go? I guess it would have made a better video. Or should she have no physical interventions at all because she is a woman?

All of these things are a matter of assessment, likelihood of attack, likelihood of running away, likelihood of grabbing a weapon, seriousness of the crime being prevented or already undertaken etc. They clearly thought that she is unlikely to be violent, and was there for the publicity, but had committed an offence by being there. Therefore they used the least intrusive method of detaining her, but kept control of her should things change.

You have a different view of things, which is fair enough. Neither of us were there, I see it as a calm bit of policing using the least amount of restraint at the moment, you see it as evidence that the police are all potential abusers of women, and a bit weird.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Well clearly you're not 'listening' -
- no surprise there.

Where did I say he was sexually assaulting her ?

Let me remind you

but the prevalence of misogyny, abuse and sexism within the ranks is well documented.

you imply it not for the first time while at has nothing to do with it at this point.

You make my point for me. This woman presents no physical risk to the multitude of officers surrounding her.

Yet further in this topic you claim they need to put handcuffs on, seem a bit of a overreaction if there is no physical risk( right?

Really?

View: https://twitter.com/marieannuk/status/1589925038668795904?s=61&t=PRw_F2j7inH1w3-ZgBO6iw


For the hard of thinking, I am responding here to your point about US law enforcement and do not say that the two incidents are equivalent.

34 seconds, no links the the aftermath, not the full footage.. sums up what is wrong with today's soceity, judging by little more then 30 second of footage.
The police office in question meanwhile has suspended two officers and put the other one on ''administrative leave'' with out body cam the case would be closed without investigation. (source to an more indept article from the leftish cnn https://edition.cnn.com/2022/08/21/us/arkansas-officer-punching-video-suspensions/index.html )
So it shows why camera's work insted of the opposite, despite that sure part of the us police force has a violence problem. not the first video to prove that sadly also won't be the last.

 

[newfhouse]

Yet further in this topic you claim they need to put handcuffs on, seem a bit of a overreaction if there is no physical risk( right?

Let’s be clear. The reason handcuffs should be used after arrest is that it complies with police policy in a way that weird pre-arrest touching doesn’t. I’m not a fan of the policy but while it exists they should be bound by and judged against it.

34 seconds, no links the the aftermath, not the full footage.. sums up what is wrong with today's soceity, judging by little more then 30 second of footage.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

 

[The Crofted Crest]

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

The pump don't work cos JustStop OIl glued themselves to the handle.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Have any of you got the balls to actually tell us what you think the officer's motive was in your expert opinions?

Those of us who think it was a lesser form of restraint than handcuffs have given our opinion yet for a group of people who apparently welcome an alternative viewpoint you're pretty slow on coming forward?

So come on then let's here your theories, we've had enough of 'a bit weird ' so a genuine, heartfelt reason why you all think he held her by the arm instead of getting her hands behind her back and slapping the old bracelets on.

 

[newfhouse]

Have any of you got the balls to actually tell us what you think the officer's motive was in your expert opinions?

Those of us who think it was a lesser form of restraint than handcuffs have given our opinion yet for a group of people who apparently welcome an alternative viewpoint you're pretty slow on coming forward?

So come on then let's here your theories, we've had enough of 'a bit weird ' so a genuine, heartfelt reason why you all think he held her by the arm instead of getting her hands behind her back and slapping the old bracelets on.

I've already said what I think about the general vibe of the encounter. Unless more information is published neither of us can be sure about motivations during this one incident, hence the careful and measured language.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Let’s be clear. The reason handcuffs should be used after arrest is that it complies with police policy in a way that weird pre-arrest touching doesn’t. I’m not a fan of the policy but while it exists they should be bound by and judged against it.

Where does it say handcuffs 'should ' be used and which policy is it?
All I've read is that the Police can use 'reasonable force ' to prevent you from doing something including the use of handcuffs, can't find anything that says it's 'obligatory' as for 'weird prevent arrest touching ' goes, he's holding her wrist!