03-08-2017, 05:43 PM
It's a cast iron 100% certainty that irl Bert regularly uses phrases like 'I'm going to play devil's advocate' and 'just asking the question'.
03-08-2017, 05:43 PM
It's a cast iron 100% certainty that irl Bert regularly uses phrases like 'I'm going to play devil's advocate' and 'just asking the question'.
03-08-2017, 05:54 PM
You're suck a fucking knob; no wonder you took up mma, coz I bet your mouth got you battered a lot. Certainly comes across like that.
03-08-2017, 06:48 PM
(03-08-2017, 03:22 PM)Gregory Wrote: If Bert wants to label "acting high while being high on drugs" as this 'excited delirium' condition, then go ahead. I'm absolutely fine with labelling it as being off your nut on drugs. I've always said throughout this thread that the police have a duty of care to anyone they are arresting. I'm also quite happy to say if you've got someone who needs to be arrested that's "off their nut on drugs", showing increased strength and aggressiveness and insensitivity to pain, then arresting that person is going to require a much higher level of restraint. If that person continues to struggle and resist then more force and restraint needs to be used. If that person's heart is hammering away and they're burning up because they're "off their nut" then the potential for something tragic to happen is clearly a possibility. I agree with Rog that if someone dies in Police custody it's obviously the fault of the police. I also agree that if the person is off their nut and resisting throughout and after they're restrained then they're not entirely blameless. That's not playing devil's advocate, it's just my opinion. It would be nice to live in Mak's fairy tale world when everyone is happy to be arrested and stops doing bad things when the police tell them to. Or to imagine the police just have wands they can wave when someone doesn't calm down once they're in handcuffs and leg restraints. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
03-08-2017, 07:43 PM
(Edited 03-08-2017, 07:44 PM by Shuto Makino.)
(03-08-2017, 06:48 PM)Bert Le French Cunt Wrote: It would be nice to live in Mak's fairy tale world when everyone is happy to be arrested and stops doing bad things when the police tell them to. Or to imagine the police just have wands they can wave when someone doesn't calm down once they're in handcuffs and leg restraints. Yes, mate. That's totally what I said. Loads of people resist arrest every week. Police officers are trained to arrest people who don't want to be arrested. That is their job. It is their responsibility to use reasonable levels of restraint. In cases where someone is injured or dies during an arrest, there are four possibilities:
In the first three cases, the officers should be subject to varying levels of punishment. My suspicion in this case is that it's one of the first two - but until evidence emerges to properly prove the second, it should be treated as the first. That's what the inquiry is there to do. None of the above is changed by whether or not the individual in question resisted arrest, because resisting arrest is very common. It's exactly in these circumstances that reasonable levels of restraint need to be used - because if the arrestee isn't resisting, no force needs to be used at all. Because they aren't resisting. Not sure how much more simple I can make this already simple as fuck point.
03-08-2017, 08:53 PM
Where's the bullet point where the suspect is unable to be restrained through regular methods due to them being too strong for the arresting officers?
Is there a legal term "restraint" that I'm unaware of? A compliant suspect can be "restrained" with a simple hand on the shoulder. It's only when they're resisting, and strong, that someone would have to resort to something as unorthodox as sitting on top of them to restrain them. Sure there's plenty of cases of resistance where the suspect was handled swiftly no matter how difficult they were being, without having to sit on them. This wasn't one of those cases. Should the arresting officers have let him go if they couldn't guarantee they could subdue him without causing him any physical harm?
03-08-2017, 09:15 PM
(03-08-2017, 08:53 PM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: Where's the bullet point where the suspect is unable to be restrained through regular methods due to them being too strong for the arresting officers? That would fall under the first bullet point - unless his superhuman strength justified killing him, using improvised methods that led to his death would be a tragic mistake. Quote:Should the arresting officers have let him go if they couldn't guarantee they could subdue him without causing him any physical harm? No. Bit of a difference between 'any physical harm' and death by suffocation, wouldn't you say? I think it's worth pointing out here that the idea that his superhuman strength was too much for eight police officers is laughable, and that given how many times the police story has changed so far any accounts of his crazed resistance should be treated sceptically.
03-08-2017, 09:49 PM
Whatever the truth, there is no doubt the police handled the aftermath appallingly. For a start the officers involved were allowed to meet and potentially confer and didn't have to give interviews straightaway as standard.
Also, the copper who claimed she had "significant injuries" (she didn't) http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scotti...es-7872156 I'm sure she has since been done for an unrelated crime.
03-09-2017, 12:34 AM
(03-08-2017, 08:53 PM)Roger H. Sterling Wrote: Where's the bullet point where the suspect is unable to be restrained through regular methods due to them being too strong for the arresting officers? I don't really want to contribute to this discussion (like usual amirite) because there's too much speculation and logical jumps based (I assume) on what's been in the press. That said, on the above, this is English guidance, but I expect the principles in Scotland are the same: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-co...-searches/ There are also schools of restraint like CALM (http://www.calmtraining.co.uk/ ) that are used by civilian staff in (e.g.) secure homes for children. There are prescribed techniques in order to restrain someone safely, and the training is pretty rigorous.
03-09-2017, 12:50 AM
Seems regardless of any other detail, one of the arresting officers should have been checking the prisoners vitals at all times.
03-09-2017, 12:06 PM
(Edited 03-09-2017, 12:07 PM by Jeff Resnick.)
(03-09-2017, 12:34 AM)Acey Wrote: There are also schools of restraint like CALM (http://www.calmtraining.co.uk/ ) that are used by civilian staff in (e.g.) secure homes for children. There are prescribed techniques in order to restrain someone safely, and the training is pretty rigorous. I'm trained in CALM as thats who I work with (not just in secure but "open" units as well). There's some variant thinking on its effectiveness (for example, works with some children but not others) and indeed its 'rigorous' training (re-accreditation can be very patchy) . Many staff are also taught that sometimes its ok not to use these techniques, if you feel your overall safety requires it.
03-09-2017, 12:40 PM
(03-09-2017, 12:06 PM)Jeff Resnick Wrote: I'm trained in CALM as thats who I work with (not just in secure but "open" units as well). Interesting post. I had a case involving excessive restraint quite recently, and my star witness was a CALM trainer. He made it sound like re-accreditation was a really stringent process.
03-09-2017, 12:54 PM
(Edited 03-09-2017, 12:56 PM by Jeff Resnick.)
(03-09-2017, 12:40 PM)Acey Wrote: Interesting post. I had a case involving excessive restraint quite recently, and my star witness was a CALM trainer. He made it sound like re-accreditation was a really stringent process. It'll likely depend on who you work for and how they approach training. For FT workers, I suspect its a bit more stringent than for someone like me, who's a locum worker. Even then, I've been involved in restraints with long time workers and I've had to guide them through it all. Those that present CALM, and their trainers, generally represent it as some kind of panacea to reducing risk and violence, when staff and other young people are threatened. Thats not really what happens when you're faced with a young person who's attacking you tbh. CALM only works under certain conditions (eg young person isnt overly resistant, young people who are a certain height or weight). When such conditions arent there, you do absolutely anything you can, if possible, to restrain safely, but sometimes that cant happen due to environment or situation. Its not the first time staff have had to let go of a young person because CALM isnt keeping everyone safe. Furthermore, CALM isnt always suitable for people with certain medical conditions (eg asthma) or if they are pregnant, and its borderline suitable for young people that have trauma associated with being abused.
03-09-2017, 01:09 PM
|
|