This wasn't torture, not as defined under the law. If it were it would be illegal and the recipient of it free to seek legal redress.
It was warned about by the police acting under the law. The pain, which did no lasting damage, was easily avoided by ending an illegal form of protest.
I can't say I particularly liked it, but what is your alternative to the use of reasonable force?
This incident had absolutely nothing to do with religion.
As someone claiming to be a Christian, surely all things need to be viewed through that lens ??
Or are you only a part timer.?
Agents of the authorities deliberately inflicting physical trauma upon non violent protestors - a manoeuvre that it has been shown can also cause permanent injury - that passes through your 'christian' moral filter does it.?
Also I've also never quite understood how people who claim to appreciate 'God's Creation*' and largesse are really rather lassez faire when it comes to being concerned about its preservation for future generations.
It seems contradictory at the very least.
*I'm not religious, but I really appreciate the importance of a livable planet - I appreciate it's great beauty too.
Understanding and conserving our complex ecosystems and the environment upon which we all depend for our survival is the most vital task in front of us
It's imperative, both morally and practically - it's not 'ours' to destroy.
It doesn't require believing in a man made 'God' to see that as the right thing to do.
In fact I get the feeling that some religious people seem to think that God 'gave' us this planet and it's resources, to do with as we see fit - that belief is perhaps part of the problem.
I'm referring to an incident 4 months ago where no damage was done.
In the incident where wrists were broken I would be almost certain the victim could sue for compensation.
You think that a restraint technique that clearly can cause injury should be allowable,?
Deliberately inflicting pain on people can cause long term psychological trauma (a continuing pain)
'Compensation' after the fact is no substitute for not inflicting trauma in the first place.
Everything is not 'made better' by an ensuing legal action, even if that is successful.
The technique should not be used, it's state sanctioned violence - but here you are approving it.
