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

[Aphroditty]

Then I ask you.
How in the bloody hell can a person who has severe palsy do any harm?
TELL ME!
Okay! Now if you make up with the arguement that he was inciting the crowd then it's a thing called the freedom of speech.
Because what they did here was wrong and if you try to justify the means of violence against the weak, then the police is doing the complete opposite thing.
To uphold justice and protect the weak.
It would be like having a slug against a rhino. Of course the rhino is going to win, no matter what.

While I agree it's unlikely that this student did enough to warrant such a reaction from the police officer (unlikely does not mean impossibility, however--that would be a failure of imagination), the part of your comment that I highlighted in bold is simply false.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you have complete license to say anything you desire. It is the case in the USA, and I assume that it is not very different in the UK, that if you are in a crowded theater and scream "Fire!" where there is no fire, with the intent to cause a panic, then your free speech in that instance is not protected. Where certain types of free speech are likely to cause harm directly, they may be silenced. This is regardless of the person's physical abilities. In the same way, each individual has a right to life--but it is not unrestricted. If you assault a person with deadly intent then you may expect that they will defend themselves, and if they kill you then they are not responsible for violating your rights. Your right to life was excepted in that specific instance.

So it is entirely possible that this student was inciting people to violence, and thus had to be dealt with. Possible, but not likely, not least due to the understandably subjective nature of "incitement to violence."

 

[The Stonker]

Then I ask you.
How in the bloody hell can a person who has severe palsy do any harm?
TELL ME!
Okay! Now if you make up with the arguement that he was inciting the crowd then it's a thing called the freedom of speech.
Because what they did here was wrong and if you try to justify the means of violence against the weak, then the police is doing the complete opposite thing.
To uphold justice and protect the weak.
It would be like having a slug against a rhino. Of course the rhino is going to win, no matter what.

While I agree it's unlikely that this student did enough to warrant such a reaction from the police officer (unlikely does not mean impossibility, however--that would be a failure of imagination), the part of your comment that I highlighted in bold is simply false.

Freedom of speech does not mean that you have complete license to say anything you desire. It is the case in the USA, and I assume that it is not very different in the UK, that if you are in a crowded theater and scream "Fire!" where there is no fire, with the intent to cause a panic, then your free speech in that instance is not protected. Where certain types of free speech are likely to cause harm directly, they may be silenced. This is regardless of the person's physical abilities. In the same way, each individual has a right to life--but it is not unrestricted. If you assault a person with deadly intent then you may expect that they will defend themselves, and if they kill you then they are not responsible for violating your rights. Your right to life was excepted in that specific instance.

So it is entirely possible that this student was inciting people to violence, and thus had to be death. Possible, but not likely, not least due to the understandably subjective nature of "incitement to violence."

Ah I said "Lets make up".
The thing is that we all saw that his vocals are paralyzed as well.
Do you think he can shout? I doubt it.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

'The Kid could of started a riot'
HOW CAN A PERSON IN A WHEELCHAIR WITH CEREBRAL PALSY BE A DANGER TO POLICE HOW!!!
look at the interview he can barley talk properly an stay in one place.
I don't understand why people always give police benefit of the doubt.The police are always Brutes and people just think that the people their bashing deserve it.
The guys in a wheel chair you can move him out of the way Instead of dragging him onto the road and leaving him there.

 

[Aphroditty]

Ah I said "Lets make up".

I'm assuming by that you mean "let's pretend". In your original post it was far from clear that was how you intended it--I interpreted it as you saying "if you attempt to make up for the fact that he had palsy by bringing incitement into the picture..."

An honest miscommunication then, I'm glad we were able to resolve it and apologize for my part in it.

Nevertheless, it is troublesome that you assume that this person is innocent, and describe possible justifications as "made-up" or imaginary rather than rational hypotheses that can be proven or disproved.

The thing is that we all saw that his vocals are paralyzed as well.
Do you think he can shout? I doubt it.

It doesn't matter if he can shout or not--he could whisper, and if it was likely to directly incite serious harm it would still qualify as an exception to the right to freedom of speech. However, if this student can only talk in a restricted fashion then that is relevant. If he could only whisper, for example, that would seriously impact his ability to incite harm--although I wonder whether it's the ability of an action to lead to harm, or the intent behind the action even if it is unlikely to lead to harm that justifies punishment. For the sake of this argument, I will utilize the former. Even so, that only leads to the conclusion that this police action was most likely not justified--we still require more knowledge to reach a truly sound conclusion. I might even say that the specific police action taken was almost certainly not justifiable. It's possible that some police action might have been necessary, but it seems likely to me that this action was an overstepping of bounds, and thus unjustifiable. Nevertheless, I remain open to new lines of evidence.

 

[the clockmaker]

This reminds me of a mate of mine, from back in the day.

Every day, Paulie would come into work and complain that the coppers were going after him. They waited outside his house, they followed him home, they pulled him over when he was making deliveries. Every day. And every day, we would nod our heads, sages of the world and tell him how evil the coppers were and how he should take it to court.

Then one day, a copper came into the place and made his order. We got to chatting, because, to my mind, being mates with everyone is an important part of being Aussie. the subject of Paulie came up. Turns out he was being investigeted for selling illegal weapons, attempted murder, assault of a police officer and making threats against police.

Now this was a harmless guy, or so we thought, barely five foot, weak as piss and flinched if you spoke too loud. But he had done these things.

My point is, you really can't judge a situation like this until you have more information, and making a value judgement here, not only from the sidelines, but without a relaiable chain of events, you're just leaving yourself open to that same moment I had, where what seemed to be unprovoked was quite justified.

 

[Aphroditty]

EDIT: Double post, computer trouble, disregard.

 

[One of Many]

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.

most people with severe enough cerebral palsy to be in a wheel chair can barely talk and have little to no control over their limbs. I highly doubt the kid did anything to deserve it

[And we have the tread winning post as the first post.

Honestly, the guy must have done something to warrant the officer's attention and that rather poor video doesn't have enough information about the event.

lookin at you two

That would be "Lookin at you too" not "Lookin at you two" my good man.

 

[mooncalf]

If he refused to leave a cordoned area voluntarily and wouldn't let them move his wheelchair then I would accept the police officers bodily removing him. Does that allow for dragging?

Still the footage makes it look like a cop making a pig of himself and a news man failing to engage the issue any more than suggesting ways in which Mr McIntyre might have invited it.

Were you wearing a low-cut Che Guevara blouse and a short camo skirt, Jody? Cos that kinda makes you look like you want it...

 

[Bigsmith]

They should just announce that the tuition fee rise is final, and nothing can be done about it now. that would stop all these protests at least.

Aaaahahahaha
Hahaha
Hah
Haaaaaaah

So what color is the sky in your world?

It's happened... what? a week ago?

I do belive they are protesting against EMA cuts now....

OT: ah yes... so the police in britain are LAWFUL STUPID... and everyone roles with it.

 

[matt87_50]

look, the fact of the matter IS THIS!: it does NOT matter WHAT an offender says to an officer, there is NO WAY IN HELL it can justify physical retaliation like that! police officers are meant to be PROFESSIONALS! and part of their PROFESSION is being able to cope with verbal abuse. arrest them, by all means charge them, but DO NOT take physical action just because you're pissed off!!

how many times do we get told "one punch can kill!"

yet if a cop does it, they will go in front of a 'hearing' and at worst, be fired...

DO YOUR F***ING JOB PROPERLY!

I don't care about your sob stories about how hard it is and how little you get paid... if thats the case, DO SOMETHING ELSE!

unless they through talking, they reveal they have a weapon on them, I cannot see any reason why verbal abuse can reasonably be responded to with physical action.

 

[Stephanos132]

http://order-order.com/2010/12/14/wheels-come-off-protesters-complaint/

and

And he's the link that Defective_Detective was referring to again: http://www.mitchell-images.com/#/jody-mcintyre/4546538655

Looks like wheely boy ain't quite the saint people fancy he is.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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.

It's a difficult one even then. Meadows and Mansfield took blows that could have happened in their normal work. No-one's sure, yet, whether Alfie actually took a hit from a truncheon.

The Leicester EDL riots were almost as bad - and they got very little news coverage - apart from locally where it was "DOOOOMM!"

 

[Gearran]

look, the fact of the matter IS THIS!: it does NOT matter WHAT an offender says to an officer, there is NO WAY IN HELL it can justify physical retaliation like that! police officers are meant to be PROFESSIONALS! and part of their PROFESSION is being able to cope with verbal abuse. arrest them, by all means charge them, but DO NOT take physical action just because you're pissed off!!

how many times do we get told "one punch can kill!"

yet if a cop does it, they will go in front of a 'hearing' and at worst, be fired...

DO YOUR F***ING JOB PROPERLY!

I don't care about your sob stories about how hard it is and how little you get paid... if thats the case, DO SOMETHING ELSE!

unless they through talking, they reveal they have a weapon on them, I cannot see any reason why verbal abuse can reasonably be responded to with physical action.

Couple of things here. One, the "wheelchair-bound" individual is not only a radical pro-Palestine rabble-rouser, the guy can walk on his own. He doesn't deserve any sympathy. Two, I can't really see how moving an individual out of the way (particularly one who's trying to cause trouble) is "physical retaliation;" it's not like they beat him with their nightsticks, or something. Three, to paraphrase your own statement, they are doing their job properly. The individual is the source of the trouble, so they moved him out of the way. Maybe you should learn what their job actually is before you start spouting off at the metaphorical mouth like a villager shouting for the witch to be burnt. Or, better yet, find out more information about the situation than a crappy one minute video clip.

 

[lewism247]

For all we know, the cripple deserved it.

You do know how much of a douche that makes you sound?

The reason they did it was that on of the officers had done something similiar to him earlier and recognised him.

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?

I don't think we can, we expect a certain level of professionalism and conduct from our law enforcement.These officers has failed to do so, they should be reprimanded or sacked.

Why do we allways assume the cop is at fault when one of these show's up, and not the other way around?

We don't, or at least I've met very few people with this view. The people that feel this tend to have had a run in with the police. That doesn't change the fact that what these officers did was over zealous or even cruel.

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.

An interesting theory I must say, one thing though, what about sympathy or anger at injustice to a fellow human?

OP: I've said most of my opinion above, I think if these officers worked with my dad he'd be professionally embarrassed.

 

[matt87_50]

look, the fact of the matter IS THIS!: it does NOT matter WHAT an offender says to an officer, there is NO WAY IN HELL it can justify physical retaliation like that! police officers are meant to be PROFESSIONALS! and part of their PROFESSION is being able to cope with verbal abuse. arrest them, by all means charge them, but DO NOT take physical action just because you're pissed off!!

how many times do we get told "one punch can kill!"

yet if a cop does it, they will go in front of a 'hearing' and at worst, be fired...

DO YOUR F***ING JOB PROPERLY!

I don't care about your sob stories about how hard it is and how little you get paid... if thats the case, DO SOMETHING ELSE!

unless they through talking, they reveal they have a weapon on them, I cannot see any reason why verbal abuse can reasonably be responded to with physical action.

Couple of things here. One, the "wheelchair-bound" individual is not only a radical pro-Palestine rabble-rouser, the guy can walk on his own. He doesn't deserve any sympathy. Two, I can't really see how moving an individual out of the way (particularly one who's trying to cause trouble) is "physical retaliation;" it's not like they beat him with their nightsticks, or something. Three, to paraphrase your own statement, they are doing their job properly. The individual is the source of the trouble, so they moved him out of the way. Maybe you should learn what their job actually is before you start spouting off at the metaphorical mouth like a villager shouting for the witch to be burnt. Or, better yet, find out more information about the situation than a crappy one minute video clip.

can you please point out where I felt sorry for him for being in a wheelchair?

I'm not talking about that! I've seem similar videos, where someone can just be standing there, they say something to a cop, and next thing they are on the ground getting hit with a night stick. explain to me how dragging the guy across the ground is in any way necessary. I bet if I wanted someone to move, was in my right to have them moved, A cop wouldn't look to favorably on me pushing him to the ground and dragging him away. as I said, if they refuse to move along, arrest them, don't bash them. they 'moved him out the way' in the same was as someone might 'deliver you a pizza' by throwing it at you.

 

[Jroo wuz heer]

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.

most people with severe enough cerebral palsy to be in a wheel chair can barely talk and have little to no control over their limbs. I highly doubt the kid did anything to deserve it

[And we have the tread winning post as the first post.

Honestly, the guy must have done something to warrant the officer's attention and that rather poor video doesn't have enough information about the event.

lookin at you two

That would be "Lookin at you too" not "Lookin at you two" my good man.

oh,thats why that sentence didn't look right.

 

[Hydro14]

I don't have time to read 9 pages, just got a general idea of the kind of comments that are appearing here from the first two and I'd just like to point out that it's not necessary for people to have a vastly polar opinion on this. A large number of comments that have been quoted as 'supporting the police' are in fact simply statements that the video has no context.

It is my opinion that there is not enough information to give an accurate portrayal of the situation. What is clear from the interview however is that the widely perceived victim of the scenario continually hedges around the questions he is asked, usually responding to questions he doesn't like with accusations. The reporter interrupts him only when his answers have gone greatly off-topic and have either implied misconduct on the part of the BBC or attempts to reference other unrelated incidents in an effort to incite an emotional response from the viewer. In the interest of maintaining impartiality the presenter could not allow McIntyre to use the interview as a communication platform for his own agenda. Take the allegation that it is the role of the police to incite violence from the participants at protests, for instance. Whilst I personally agree that violence at a protest gives the government an easy excuse to ignore the cause of that protest, McIntyre has no evidence to support his allegation and is stating it as fact rather than an opinion.

It is also worthy of note that while the Youtube poster states that the interference in the video is due to poor reception, the selection of links in the video description are anything but unbiased, suggesting that the poster has their own political agenda; the possibility that the footage has been doctored should not be overlooked.

Concerning the interview I have to stand with the BBC; the question about whether McIntyre did anything to provoke the police is asked several times because he avoids the question each time. If you think you can phrase such a question in a way that it can't be interpreted as an accusation without being forced into defending your own position (with statements such as 'I'm not accusing you of anything but...' which opponents absolutely thrive on) then you have a lucrative career in politics ahead of you if you should so choose.

On the topic of the incident shown in the first video I say again that there is not enough information available at this time from unbiased sources.

To those of you who support the police I would say that largely your arguments hinge on the assumption that they were acting rationally, which, given the atmosphere of a protest and the stresses they would be under, is probably an unreasonable assumption. It's easily possible some of them got pushed over the edge. But I agree with all the people who've called you out on blind faith in the system however those of you who are afflicted with it I doubt I can persuade you that it's a flawed perspective.

To those of you who condemn their actions, I would suggest that to say that the disabled student could have posed no threat to the police is a failure of imagination. I'm not sure how well versed some of you are with the legal system in the UK, but while citizens have the right to protest, incitement to riot and violent action is still a crime, and its classed as a violent crime which would warrant the treatment shown in the video. Police are instructed to use their batons against 'green zones' on the body: the thighs and upper arms, where there are no vital organs to be haemorrhaged and a thick layer of muscle covers the bone. Bruising can be expected but no lasting damage. This is a fact; whether the police involved in the incident followed this training is unknown, the video footage is obscured by people stepping in the way and the lighting is poor. Also, the point has already been raised that the police could not have been sure of the man's disability at a glance and to have acted otherwise would have placed them in danger had the man's disability been faked. I am impartial; the reason I have written more in answer to your viewpoint than the other is that as I see it your argument is more based on an emotive knee-jerk reaction and therefore has more logical flaws to point out.

On an unrelated note; for those of you highlighting incidents where people have been confronted by the police just for saying something: a lesser known fact of law in the UK. Your right to freedom of speech does not extend to swearing loudly in public.

S'cuse the wall of text and apologies if I've just paraphrased a lot of stuff that other people have said.

 

[Geekosaurus]

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

I'm currently in my first year of university.

The majority of the people at the protests probably don't really know why they are there. They see the figure £9000, assume that's terrible and go and cause criminal damage. Yes, people will have to pay more to go to university, but that doesn't mean the repayment scheme has been forgotten - it's been tweaked in accordance with the raise in fees to make it as effective as possible in letting anybody who wants to go to university, despite their financial background, the ability to go.

Here is a good website explaining what the government plan to do with university fees. Funnily enough, it doesn't just say 'zomg! £9000!!1'

http://www.factsonfees.com/

I actually think the raise in fees will cut down on the people going to university for an 'experience.' I'm here to get a first class degree, but I can't say that for the majority of people at my university.

 

[Delusibeta]

My problem with this thread can be as illustrated by reversing the consensus: Look at this. [http://behindblueeyes.co.uk/2010/12/10/cunts/] What kind of blithering muppets would assault someone who's unconscious and rip apart his clothing? Students, that's who.

Fair to grossly generalise? No. But that's what most people in this thread are doing. We don't know the context. For all we know, he could have been politely asked to move several times to make way for police horses and he refused and put his wheelchair's brakes on. (note: previous sentence was entirely speculation and I have no proof if it actually happened).

[Edit] Ninja'd by someone who's basically [/thread]'d. A round of applause to Hydro14.

 

[Kukakkau]

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.

So it's patronising to not want to drag and leave someone who can't stand themself on the floor and seperate them from the chair then need?

I addressed the indirect threat part in my first post - they can demand he leaves but they can't physical throw him around

And this is in the UK - I can't even name a gun in class incident

And as for sources just look up protest misconduct cases surrounding any protest thats been covered. And there is a lot of charges related to these protests in particular, and a lot of discharges from the police as a result.