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

[Wicky_42]

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.

See, that sort of talk misses the entire point of the protests. Us students have been betrayed by the government, half of which won much of its support because of it's pro-student agenda, which it has trampled into the dust. We followed the democratic system and it burned us. These fees and cuts are undemocratic, and all the generation going "bloody students, earn it yourself grumble grumble" are full on hypocrites who had COMPLETELY free education offered to them all the way up to the highest level (in fact, there were grants merely for going to uni - the gov handed you a grand or so to get you started!), and had a wide range of social benefits to support them during and after education.

All of that's been cut, and the next couple of generations of students are going to be royally screwed, coming out of uni with a mortgage before they've even thought of getting a house - one that they're going to be paying off for the rest of their lives.

The £9k bracket is comfortably the highest fees of any public education in the developed world, and there's just no way that that compares with the courses on offer in Europe. it's unjustified and unnecessary. If the government had the balls it would go after tax havens and get its military budget worked out and rationalised, but obviously it's easier to go after the more vulnerable and poor - and this is a Tory-led government after all - they practically specialise in that sort of thing.

 

[Khada]

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?.

The short answer. You cant. People are messed up, cop or no.

 

[CrystalShadow]

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.

It's a presumption, sure. But equally, you can't argue that because someone is a police officer that they can be trusted.

I mean, I had a discussion with a Police Community Support Officer who pointed out some police officers are genuinely unpleasant people.
And wearing a uniform is no guarantee of good behaviour, or even an understanding of all the laws they're supposed to deal with.

This video isn't conclusive evidence. But on the whole, it doesn't look particularly promising.

And really, if you're dealing with a person with a severe disability, who is in a wheelchair, what possible purpose can it serve to forcibly drag them out of the wheelchair, regardless of what they were doing?

Other reports of this story suggest the guy wasn't even strong enough to move the wheelchair by himself...

It just doesn't add up.

 

[spartan231490]

I was the first poster, and I've been "discussing" this with people for most of the day.

some might say (more accurately) 'trolling'

I'm not trolling, I'm frustrated that nobody gets it, no matter how clearly I spell it out.

and here's teh statistic: COMMON MOTHER FUCKING SENSE.

ah yes, of course - it's all so obvious now that you're basing your entire argument on what you think!

Congratulations, that's what a discussion is.

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.)
.

That's... not a complete sentence. You're saying that there are people with criminal records who have a harder time getting employment? And you take that as meaning that they are inferior? You mean from an employment perspective, or a moral one? Doesn't seem relevant, tbh, but maybe you clear it up in the next sentence...

It is a common assumption in society that felons are inferior to society at large, because of the crimes they have commited. this makes it harder to be employed, particularly at institions which cannot hire convicted felons, like police departments. This policy, among others which protect police departments from hiring substandard workers, is the logic that I based my statement that police officers are more likely to be trustworthy and, in that sense, are better than the general populace.

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.

Ok, so if your employer doesn't employ people with criminal records then he's 'statistically better and more trustworthy'? Are these your "COMMON MOTHER FUCKING SENSE" statistics? Basically, you're saying that "cops are good because they work in a job that doesn't employ criminals. Cops are good, therefore what they do is good. They hurt a cripple, and cops are good, so cripple is therefore bad." Is that seriously the extent of the argument that you've been waging this entire thread? Wow. That is a very... direct line of thinking.

No, my conclusion is that police officers are employed using methods meant to ensure that they are trustworthy, dependable individuals. This doesn't mean that all cops are trustworthy and dependable, but it does mean that one cop is more likely to be trustworthy and dependable than one random person. because that random person is "dragged down," so to speak, by the possibility that that person is a junkie, or a felon. It's like two people who have the same score on all of thier assignments for a class, except that one didn't turn in some assignments, while the other recieved a C on those assignments. the one with the 0s will have a lower average.

Just so I can be on record as saying this one more time, This does not mean that the police officer was in the right. It simply means that we should give the officer benifit of the doubt considering the lack of evidence as to what happened before the cop actually grabbed the kid.

 

[Khada]

Cant I just say.. That kid is smarter than most the non-retard's I've ever known. Kudos to him!

 

[Normalgamer]

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.

Your spelling is confusing me, and your caps show your annoyed you've been proved wrong.
Common sense varies from person to person, what you feel is common sense another person feels nesseccary, so please, show me actual statistical prove that policefolk are more trustworthy and why you feel you should believe them. You'll actually find that the police academy won't reject you for being sub-par.

 

[Normalgamer]

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?

Where was he supposed to be? The students have a point, the tuition changes are pathetic, but that's not the point, the point is the police ripped a cripple out of his chair even though he had no ability to move out of the way. How can he change where he can be? I'm not saying I know, I'm just saying judging from the footage some policemen handled the situation wrongly.

 

[MajorKris]

I have heard the riots have been getting a little out of hand...

Hope all of our UK Escapists out there are all right. :]

 

[infinity_turtles]

I was saying that police departments don't hire convicts, which are generally considered below average, raising the statistical mean of the police force over that of the general populace. Not that cops are superior because they choose convicts. Convicts choose themselves when they choose to break the law.

Second, there are much easier ways to get to beat on people, like being a bouncer, or a boxer, or doing martial arts.

For the last time, I don't beleive that all cops are better than all non-cops, I'm saying that the average cop is likely to be better than the average non-cop, because many "undesirables" cannot qualify to be police officers.

First, convicts don't necessarily choose themselves. I've been arrested and acquitted several times for felony offenses. All of them were false charges, but the potential for me to be convicted was there every time, and any one of those would lump me in with the group you're saying is inferior. On top of that, not all felonies are created equal. Someone having over an ounce of marijuana can be convicted of a felony, but I wouldn't necessarily say that they're inferior to the average joe.

Second, aside from a bouncer, neither of those provide a steady paycheck. And most places have more police officers than bouncers.

I get the logic behind your stance, it's just that you're only paying mind to one half of the issue. I'd say the things that restrict you from being a cop are less important than what motivates you to be a cop in this case. I'm friends with a couple of the cops who've arrested me, but there have been times when I've been arrested where I haven't resisted at all(never do) and still gotten the shit beat out of me.(not by the cops I'm friends with obviously)

 

[ZydrateDealer]

We were promised another genral election, we got Cameron's coalition, we were promised that fees wouldn't rise, they rose...we were promised that it wouldn't be like thatcher again...we were lied to.

 

[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.

Your spelling is confusing me, and your caps show your annoyed you've been proved wrong.
Common sense varies from person to person, what you feel is common sense another person feels nesseccary, so please, show me actual statistical prove that policefolk are more trustworthy and why you feel you should believe them. You'll actually find that the police academy won't reject you for being sub-par.

My caps show I'm annoyed specifically because I haven't been proven wrong, specifically because nobody is even thinking about what I'm saying.
I already discussed why police are often more trustworthy. It has to do with the fact that the police academy will refuse u if you are sub-par in some ways, like if you're a felon. If that logic doesn't add up for you, then I guess our opinions will differ.

 

[Normalgamer]

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.

Your spelling is confusing me, and your caps show your annoyed you've been proved wrong.
Common sense varies from person to person, what you feel is common sense another person feels nesseccary, so please, show me actual statistical prove that policefolk are more trustworthy and why you feel you should believe them. You'll actually find that the police academy won't reject you for being sub-par.

My caps show I'm annoyed specifically because I haven't been proven wrong, specifically because nobody is even thinking about what I'm saying.
I already discussed why police are often more trustworthy. It has to do with the fact that the police academy will refuse u if you are sub-par in some ways, like if you're a felon. If that logic doesn't add up for you, then I guess our opinions will differ.

Ignore the felony part, what counts as "Sub-par"? Not pyshically fit? Not mentally stable? Please explain what you consider "Sub-par", because frankly when I read that I visualize you looking at human beings and going "Mmmm, now that's a premium one right there, no fat to show".

 

[Gindil]

Regardless of what your opinions are, if you riot or fail to obey the commands of police you can expect to be dealt with harshly. Since the guy was a political blogger, you can bet that he intentionally tried to make the news knowing full well what would happen. As far as his excuse that "I WAS NOT A THREAT TO ANYONE!!" it was pretty lame. It doesn't matter if you're a threat or not, if the police give you a command and you disobey, you will be dealt with simple as that.

So they give him a command to stand up...

Yeah, that works quite well...

Hyperbole != valid argument.

Also, how do you know what his intentions were? The video clip was mostly him being taking in custody with a few seconds of what happened before being aired. Listen to the interview with him on BBC that the OP link as well. His reactions to some of the questions make me doubt his noble actions that you are claiming he has.

Let's see... The Founding Fathers were terrorists to the British Empire...

Gandhi lead a "peaceful" uprising through his protests.

While I did throw in a few names just for the sake of it, I think the point is pretty clear that it is rather dismissive to not like someone simply because of a label. If I suddenly say "he's conservative" a bias comes up automatically in your head. If I suddenly say "he's liberal", again, a bias comes to your head. My entire point is to view both points with an open mind and be wary of the label they tried to give him before anything else. Nothing more.

I sure as certain watched the video. I watched that the reporter did try to label him as a "cyber radical" to which I have no information to the accuracy of the statement. But I also see a guy that literally asked the reporter, "How am I a threat?" Seriously, the "peace" officer sure picked a great target to drag out to the street, especially with a number of people watching.

 

[Thedayrecker]

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.

I'm pretty sure the students are already rioting, and what one man in a wheelchair says won't exacerbate the situation any more.

 

[infinity_turtles]

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.

I'm pretty sure the students are already rioting, and what one man in a wheelchair says won't exacerbate the situation any more.

Clearly he's Professor X in disguise...

 

[Thedayrecker]

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.

I'm pretty sure the students are already rioting, and what one man in a wheelchair says won't exacerbate the situation any more.

Clearly he's Professor X in disguise...

*Speaking into sleeve*

He knows! Take him down!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

I have heard the riots have been getting a little out of hand...

Hope all of our UK Escapists out there are all right. :]

See this is where you have to understand our media. I think that 14 people have been injured in the entire riot.

This isn't a LA riot, this is a "You ruffians!" riot.

(It's still a bag of horse manure given how the Liberals have defected, but no-one has been severely injured yet)

 

[Defective_Detective]

I have heard the riots have been getting a little out of hand...

Hope all of our UK Escapists out there are all right. :]

See this is where you have to understand our media. I think that 14 people have been injured in the entire riot.

This isn't a LA riot, this is a "You ruffians!" riot.

(It's still a bag of horse manure given how the Liberals have defected, but no-one has been severely injured yet)

Well except for Alfie Meadows and PC Mansfield. The fact that so few have been injured considering the amount of violence is a credit to the Metropolitan force, and the other home county officers that have had to be drafted in to support.