UK Student Protests: Wheelchair-bound student dragged across the road by police officer, BBC defend

[MarsProbe]

Why do you trust police more then your average man? They're just your average man in a certain occupation. Believing a man is truthful or not on his proffession is incredibly typecast and naive.

This. It is, as you say, incredibly naive to assume someone is somehow more trustworthy and righteous just because of their profession. I'll base my trust of a person on how well I know them - not because of the uniform they wear or what they do for living. A cop/nurse/doctor - they can all just be as corrupt and unreasonable as any other person on the planet has the potential to be.

 

[spartan231490]

Prove it. It's a one minute video, you have no proof as to what happened that caused the cop to act this way. For all we know, the cripple deserved it. He is a cop, if you can't trust him not to abuse cripples, how can you trust him to uphold justice and the law? Interesting philisophical question right there. Why do we allways assume the cop is at fault when one of these show's up, and not the other way around? My bet is on projection. We identify more with the non-cop, therefore we project ourselves onto the non-cop and think "I wouldn't have done anything wrong so it must be the cop's fault" sub-consciously at least. That's my two cents, not that I have any reasonable credentials for that to be taken as fact, but it IS my opinion.

Sorry but there is NO reason to drag a person with a severe disability across the street - unless it is to save their life. And he's in a chair... with wheels - he can very easily be moved away, and with his condition he can't stop the officer from wheeling him away. Simple solution and causes no harm to him or the officer.

Yes, there isn't enough shown about what the guy did but it is evidently clear that he did not pose a physical threat - officers are only allowed to act with force if there is a deemed physical threat involved. And if said threat is present then they can act by any means necessary.

The kid is a strong speaker despite his disability, however do you really expect someone with a speech impediment like that to be able to speak loudly and clearly enough to incite riotous acts in an environment like that?

While I know the officers are just doing their job it is frequently obvious that officers controlling protests get increasingly impatient and stressed and the smallest offenses leads to them bringing people down. I recently saw a TV show from the riot police's perspective and he was cuffing and wheeling people off for swearing. They then justified it by saying it had been a long day and they'd had enough of dealing with people. Fair enough I can understand why - but that is still inexcusible.

Every occassion where officers get sent to deal with protests etc it is guaranteed that several officers will be charged with misconduct

I've already stated why this argument isn't really valid. I'm not going to do it again. Also, that isn't proof that he didn't deserve it, that's your patronizing opinion that he couldn't possibly deserve it.

He could easily have been an indirect physical threat. Words have convinced millions of people to go out and slaughter others all throughout history, just look at the crusades.

that is a difinitive statement based on unrelated evidence and has no bearing on the current incident. high school students have brought rifles to class and killed people who bullied them, that doesn't mean that every time a student is bullied he will go on a killing spree.

Source? Where does this 100% definitive statement come from? How often is the misconduct an action that would be perfectly acceptable in a civilian? this "statistic" if it even is that, is completely irrelavant without more supporting evidence.

 

[spartan231490]

Why do you trust police more then your average man? They're just your average man in a certain occupation. Believing a man is truthful or not on his proffession is incredibly typecast and naive.

This. It is, as you say, incredibly naive to assume someone is somehow more trustworthy and righteous just because of their profession. I'll base my trust of a person on how well I know them - not because of the uniform they wear or what they do for living. A cop/nurse/doctor - they can all just be as corrupt and unreasonable as any other person on the planet has the potential to be.

Yeah, anyone in any profession can be just as corrupt as anyone else. well, politicians may break this curve but that's irrelavant. Just because they have the potential to be just as corrupt, doesn't mean they will be corrupt as often. Many profesions are in fact based on the fact that thier practicioners are corrupt less often than others. That's why we trust our lives to cops, docters, emts, lifeguards, firemen, ect for no more reason than thier proffesion.

 

[ninja51]

Police, very good at keeping the people in power safe from the people who want it distributed, regardless of their physical state

 

[beniki]

Um... maybe the police just got him out of there for his own safety?

I mean, granted he may not be a risk, but he's certainly at risk. The inciting riot bit is just an excuse to get the idiot out of a potential mosh.

 

[Motiv_]

No, only idiots would consider it brutality for the police to do their job.

You'd be right, only idiots would consider it police brutality, however you have to remember that in a society such as this, the calm, rational people's side of the story almost never gets told, because the crazy, irrational morons always scream and ***** the loudest.

Take this site for example. I love this site, the authors of articles always put out great stuff. But compare the amount of articles about 40 something single moms who claim that games are the work of the devil, versus the amount of articles disproving this. Pretty big difference, huh.

My two cents, have a nice day.

 

[Lem0nade Inlay]

They might've even moved him because he was in danger. It would've been hard for him to get out of the way if something happened, i.e a stampede. He may have been refusing to leave anyway, and the officers were forced to do this because of his personal safety.

Or the officers may have been douchebags.

We can't really know enough.

 

[spartan231490]

Snip

The police say he gave them reason to think he was a threat. Do you always believe everything cops and the government say? I don't know how many cops you've met but a lot of them are just assholes with a superiority complex. All I'm saying is that it's just as naive to assume the cop had a legitimate reason to do that as it is to just assume the cop was completely in the wrong.

My personal belief, however, is that whatever cop it was should face some kind of repercussions. You don't drag a crippled person out of their wheelchair unless they're literally about to kill you or something like that. On top of that the cop was just a fucking moron for doing that in front of so many people; of course something like that is going to make a whole lot of people angry. If anything he should face charges of inciting violence.

I tend to believe most of what the police say, cuz otherwise our entire system of law and justice is not only priciply flawed, but crippleingly retarded. Let me say it one more time. There is not enough evidence in this video to support any conclusion. based on lack of evidence, my BENIFIT OF THE DOUBT goes to the cop. do any of you actually know what that means? it means that without any evidence, I trust a cop more than some random kid who's only provable cause for being more trustworthy is that he has cerebral palsy. Do we automatically assume that every speeding tickit was given by a cop who lied about how fast you were going? No. So why does this kid having cerebral palsy entitle him to being automatically the victim. That's discrimination, just so you know.

How should the cop face charges of inciting violence, you do realize that his actions not only didn't cause any kind of violent reaction in the video, but quite possibly, NOTE: POSSIBLY, could have averted violence.
So let me sum this up with two simple words:
PROVE IT. Until you can do that, any reaction against either party is baseless and more indicative of the person making it, than of the facts of what happened.

Why do you trust police more then your average man? They're just your average man in a certain occupation. Believing a man is truthful or not on his proffession is incredibly typecast and naive.

Yeah, it's totally niave to assume that people who undergo background checks and a certain level(no matter how minimal) of review are statistically better than the average man, many of whom are unable of meeting the standards of that profession.
Don't be such a twit. and unless you can show any evidence that shows the kid didn't do anything wrong, i don't care.

Your true colors are showing, just because someone does not agree with your opinions does not give you the right to immediately attack them because of it. "Statistically better then the average man." No, they are not statistically better then the average man, I want to see these "Statistics".

Immediately?
I was the first poster, and I've been "discussing" this with people for most of the day. and here's teh statistic: COMMON MOTHER FUCKING SENSE. if a felony convict can't get a job(police), and felony convicts exist(the do, last time i checked), and felony convicts are inferior to the average man(the assumption upon which many instutions are based upon, including the sex offendor registry, the prison system, ect.). The only conclusion that can be reached is that the peope who work a job that rejects felony convicts, and other individuals that police institutions reject because they are considered sub-par, the people who work this jub must be statistically better and more trustworth. Try again.

 

[HigherTomorrow]

Name a law that states that a police officer needs to discriminate against a disabled person and a non-disabled person when said person is causing a disturbance. I know of none. And how was the officer to be entirely sure that the person in question was actually disabled?

I agree with the first post of this thread.

 

[MarsProbe]

Immediately?
I was the first poster, and I've been "discussing" this with people for most of the day. and here's teh statistic: COMMON MOTHER FUCKING SENSE. if a felony convict can't get a job(police), and felony convicts exist(the do, last time i checked), and felony convicts are inferior to the average man(the assumption upon which many instutions are based upon, including the sex offendor registry, the prison system, ect.). The only conclusion that can be reached is that the peope who work a job that rejects felony convicts, and other individuals that police institutions reject because they are considered sub-par, the people who work this jub must be statistically better and more trustworth. Try again.

The man is swearing, and using his caps lock button. Listen to him, for he clearly knows what he is typing about.

But great, not only do you think cops are somehow immediately superior to mere mortals, people who commit felonies are also instantly inferior. That's a real piece of work you know that. Ever considered a career in a field like social work?

Though just to let you know, given that I can't get enough of your hilariously incoherent responses, I'm actually just doing this now to ruffle your feathers. That second-last sentences included.

 

[Worcester Sauce]

To non-Brits, please take our situation with a pinch of salt.
British police are famous for not being able to control riots/large groups of people and resort very quickly to violence, their favorite being baton hits to the head. The student situation is a real mess atm.

To all people who believe he could have been any threat at all, you're seriously "f"ed in the head. He can barely string a sentence without having to pause, how could he "incite" a riot?

One problem looming over everyones heads is that the students are claiming more and more power in the uk. In fact the only reason half of our government was elected was because one of the parties claimed they would protect students and instead, decided to hang them.

 

[Geekosaurus]

He clearly isn't doing it 'for no reason.' A story about a cop dragging a disabled boy across the road is much better than a story about a disabled boy being crushed in a confrontation. Maybe they should stop bitching about the education cuts and pay for their own bloody education. Well, that's my opinion on the subject.

 

[Railgun88]

snip

But what could he have possibly done, you can see he is just sitting there, what possible threat could this hadicaped person have done to warrant being draggeda across the road.

He could have been trying to incite a riot/violence or anything like that.

Still doesn't warrant getting pulled out of a wheelchair and dragged across the road.

 

[DC_Josh]

Immediately?
I was the first poster, and I've been "discussing" this with people for most of the day. and here's teh statistic: COMMON MOTHER FUCKING SENSE. if a felony convict can't get a job(police), and felony convicts exist(the do, last time i checked), and felony convicts are inferior to the average man(the assumption upon which many instutions are based upon, including the sex offendor registry, the prison system, ect.). The only conclusion that can be reached is that the peope who work a job that rejects felony convicts, and other individuals that police institutions reject because they are considered sub-par, the people who work this jub must be statistically better and more trustworth. Try again.

The man is swearing, and using his caps lock button. Listen to him, for he clearly knows what he is typing about.

But great, not only do you think cops are somehow immediately superior to mere mortals, people who commit felonies are also instantly inferior. That's a real piece of work you know that. Ever considered a career in a field like social work?

Though just to let you know, given that I can't get enough of your hilariously incoherent responses, I'm actually just doing this now to ruffle your feathers. That second-last sentences included.

Well said, well said Mars Probe, perhaps the OP would enjoy a return to the feudal system?

 

[Mcface]

Please... Look up Cerebral Palsy. HOW can he do anything from a wheelchair and loss of motor skills?

You do realize he still has the ability to talk and push buttons right. This could allow him to incite a riot through his words, not all that hard, or possibly to activate a bomb. I doubt he had a bomb or the probably would have just shot him or it would be on the new or something, but you should get the idea. Just cuz he has cerebral palsy, doesn't mean he cant be a threat. I mean, there's a reason tyrannical governments control what thier citizens are allowed to say. words can often be the most powerful weapons of all.

The man can barely speak, I highly doubt he would be able to incite anything in the condition he's in. The police are clearly in the wrong if they have to grab a permanently crippled man and pull him across the street after he begs them to stop.

I've had a teacher in highschool who had Cerebral Palsy. She could be down right nasty just like any other. The simple fact is, if you are breaking the law, or stick around defiantly when the police tell you to move, you will get in trouble. this this case, he was moved because he refused to. chances are he put the breaks on his chair and refused to disperse after the police told the crowd to.

But if you watched the video, you'd learn he couldn't actually operate his wheelchair.

it dosen't change the fact he probably wasn't where he was supposed to be.
you don't know what happened, and I don't.
why do they only show the event as it happened? why not the events leading up to it?

 

[LightspeedJack]

He clearly isn't doing it 'for no reason.' A story about a cop dragging a disabled boy across the road is much better than a story about a disabled boy being crushed in a confrontation. Maybe they should stop bitching about the education cuts and pay for their own bloody education. Well, that's my opinion on the subject.

He didn't have to humiliate the boy, he could have pushed the wheelchair out of the road.

 

[gamefreakbsp]

All these people just can't form opinions for themselves. They saw the first post and decided, "That sounds well worded and makes some small modicum of sense. I agree!" How is this for a counter argument to the first post? If he was inciting a riot, don't you think the police would have already mentioned that to excuse their actions?

 

[infinity_turtles]

I've already stated why this argument isn't really valid. I'm not going to do it again. Also, that isn't proof that he didn't deserve it, that's your patronizing opinion that he couldn't possibly deserve it.

He could easily have been an indirect physical threat. Words have convinced millions of people to go out and slaughter others all throughout history, just look at the crusades.

I'd like to point out this bit of what you quoted.

The kid is a strong speaker despite his disability, however do you really expect someone with a speech impediment like that to be able to speak loudly and clearly enough to incite riotous acts in an environment like that?

Anyway, this is a pretty messed up incident. I have to agree with whoever said the officer was probably stressed and angry from having to deal with the protest. That in no way justifies what he did though. I'm pretty cozy with a couple of officers in my area, and I've actually been flat out told that I should keep as far from the police as possible if I ever attend a protest. They're not properly trained for the situation or environment, which makes them uneasy. An unnerved, stressed, and potentially angry person, cop or not, should not be trusted. Simple as that.

*edit*fixed quote

 

[spartan231490]

Immediately?
I was the first poster, and I've been "discussing" this with people for most of the day. and here's teh statistic: COMMON MOTHER FUCKING SENSE. if a felony convict can't get a job(police), and felony convicts exist(the do, last time i checked), and felony convicts are inferior to the average man(the assumption upon which many instutions are based upon, including the sex offendor registry, the prison system, ect.). The only conclusion that can be reached is that the peope who work a job that rejects felony convicts, and other individuals that police institutions reject because they are considered sub-par, the people who work this jub must be statistically better and more trustworth. Try again.

The man is swearing, and using his caps lock button. Listen to him, for he clearly knows what he is typing about.

But great, not only do you think cops are somehow immediately superior to mere mortals, people who commit felonies are also instantly inferior. That's a real piece of work you know that. Ever considered a career in a field like social work?

Though just to let you know, given that I can't get enough of your hilariously incoherent responses, I'm actually just doing this now to ruffle your feathers. That second-last sentences included.

I don't even know why I bother, i argue using logic and common sense and all i get in return is frustration. When you feel like actually thinking, and addressing anything I said, then i'll be interested in what you have to say.

 

[Dastardly]

Here's how it should have been handled:

The govenrment shouldn't have put a 300% increase in university fees in the first place. The students have a valid grievance that is being ignored by the government in their ivory towers. THAT is the direct cause of these incidents. Any attempt to blame this on the students OR the police is completely missing the point.

Easy to say. Easy, but utterly meaningless.

To say, "These protests wouldn't be happening if the thing that they were protesting hadn't happened," is what's called a tautology. An empty statement of obvious, but inconsequential truth. "All dogs are dogs." Fine.

In this case, the thing did happen. No one is blaming the students for the rate increase, but they can certainly be blamed for their behavior afterward. Or do you think it's okay for a toddler to throw a tantrum, because their parents shouldn't have said, "No," in the first place? And yeah, I'm well aware that the government is not our parent. The idea is that you don't have to blame someone for a situation in order to hold them responsible for their reaction to it.

This phrase "direct cause," I'm not sure you understand what it means. A direct cause would be something like "I push you, you fall over." Indirectly, this may cause you to push me back. Or you may just call the cops. Or you may ignore it. Raising the fee has one direct effect--the fee is higher. These protests are a reaction.

And at the bottom of it: Do you know why they raised the fee? Have you looked into that at all? Have any of the protesters? Probably a few, but most? I highly doubt it. As educators, we do not like raising the price of education. For one, we'll never see that money in the form of pay increases, but even then we don't like them. If it's done, it's done for a reason. How good or bad that reason is, well, that's up for debate.

But to instantly treat it as though there is no reason betrays the kind of immaturity and unwillingness to communicate that one might expect from a tantrum-prone population that is not worth inviting to the table for discussion.

(Now, back on topic

Let's get some more information about the situation. Hell, for all we know from the video, it's a guy in a cop suit dragging his buddy around for some bad press.