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

[AzrealMaximillion]

It also smells like a setup to me, all these people claiming that the cops are out there trying to bait people to riot doesn't make sense to me. Why would police try to get people to riot so that their lives can be in further danger?

This summer in Toronto the G20 protests started after the police set fire to two dummy police cars. That just fueled the riot mentality. Cops have baited people to riot a number of times.

Funny, the video of a protester setting the cars on fire was all over the news.

My mistake on the police setting the cars ablaze themselves, but they did leave the cars their as bait. Why else would there be 3 empty police cars in the middle of the roads leading up to the G20 summit? It's always steel vans with officers in riots suits right? There would be no need for regular police vehicles.

This link here details how the peaceful protestors spotted out the bait car before the anarchist Black Bloc faction set them ablaze:
http://backofthebook.ca/2010/06/28/the-g20-were-the-burning-police-cars-bait-cars/3413/

These links here also shows that Toronto's Cheif of police lied about a law that allowed police to arrest anyone within 5 metres of the fence outside the summit:
http://blogs.canoe.ca/parker/general/bill-blair-you-slippery-devil-you/

<youtube=f480OF3Zbi4>

 

[Jonesy911]

The police are all good until the government becomes the enemy, that's when they stop being our friendly guardians and become Parliment's personal army

 

[Jonesy911]

"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?"

...What the fuuu...?
How could a man physically bound to a wheelchair possibly deserve that? If you can come up with a logical reason why the policeman in that situation is in the right, I will upload a video onto youtube of me eating an iPod.

 

[Antari]

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.

He had been at the protests for a while. Peacefully protesting, by placing himself infront of vehicles and such. The anger was sparked by the fact that while he was protesting peacefully, the police did not deal with him in anything approaching a peaceful manner. Which in his specific case, was totally unnessisary. They could have simply disengaged the battery on his chair and pushed him out of the way. Instead they choose to drag him out of the chair and arrest him L.A. style. There are a couple of videos of him before his arrest where the cops wouldn't go within 10 feet of him for fear of getting in trouble. Someone gave the order to put the guy in the wheel chair down the next day.

 

[spartan231490]

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.

I was basing my arguments soley based on the video posted by the OP, which showed nothing before the incident ocurred, and was 58 seconds long. All my arguments are based on that single video, and the reaction could not have been sympathy or anger at injustice to a fellow human because the video didn't show the cause, so we couldn't have known that it was insufficient cause.

 

[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.

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.
But I feel nothing for the students out in Britain, what they are doing is that they're raising the fee's to the standards which foreign students are paying (then I mean not a English citizen).

Ways a person with severe palsy could do harm. Preach the evils of christianity and give out block of c4 to anyone who promises to destroy them. drive and rc car with c4 on it. Load up his chair with c4. Incite a riot which would result in property damage and possibly death.
I'm not saying that he did any of these things, but these are ways that a person with palsey could pose a threat.
Freedom of speach does not allow you to say whatever you damn well please. If you yell fire in a movie theatre, and there's no fire, and someone get's trampled, you will be charged for their death. Free speach allows you to say what you want, it doesn't absolve you of responsibility if your words result in property damage, injury or death.
If you doubt the power of words, look at how many people have been killed over words in the bible, or any other religious document.
Words can have more power than an assault rifle.
I never argued that what the police did was right, I merely pointed out the fact that there was not enough evidence in the OP to prove that what he did was wrong. I then argued that without said evidence, the police officer should receive the benifit of the doubt.

 

[Faulty Turmoil]

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.

In my opinion he might have done something, as the video is not that clear a the start and it doesn't show the before hand, but if he actually did something, it shouldn't warrant taking him from his means of transportation and dragging him across the floor.

I'm confused as to what you mean. If the kid did something that could have incited a riot, which would have resulted in property damage, and possibly even death, he doesn't deserve to dragged across the road? If he was a threat, there are much less reasonable ways they could have acted to stop him, like shooting him. I'm going to put my benifit of the doubt with the police on this one, they'd have to be pretty stupid to drag a cripple across the street at a riot full of college students with cell phones, if they didn't have a damn good reason.

Your not English, are you?
Let me tell you how competent the police are. In an earlier riot they managed to find, and kill, the only person in the street who wasn't rioting.

Yes, our police suck.

Also, I'm not having a go at you so please don't see this as agressive. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

Well, the police were excessively violent during protests. I did actually go to some of the Bristol protests, and they seemed a little baton happy. And kettled people in for a day in sub zero temperatures.

I'm not usually one for the 'POLICE R EVVVILLZ!' thing, but they can't handle protests properly at all.

It's not like the protesters are noble citizens either (I know you didn't say they were) I mean the police may handle the situation badly but it is often to counter stubborn and often inane protesters who aren't even open to new ideas on the thing they're protesting about.

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.

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.

Why must he have done something? Perhaps the cop was a dick, perhaps the cop was having a bad day. There is a good chance the person did do something to piss off the cops, but there is also a good chance he was in the wrong place at the wrong time while a cop was annoyed. I do agree with your last statement though, there is now enough information in the video.

Also I'm not quite sure what the big deal is with this video, the kid didn't seem to be in a hell of a lot of pain, it was just the Police pulling him out of his wheel chair to move him, perhaps he was in the middle of the road stubbornly not moving. It seems like if two people got into a fight on the street and one of them punched the other guy onto the ground and walked away it wouldn't be all over the news, but now it is because it is Police officers, well just remember the Police are still normal people.

 

[MetalGenocide]

Spartan, I'm starting to think somebody is paying you to write all this complete insanity.

 

[Dimensional Vortex]

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.

In my opinion he might have done something, as the video is not that clear a the start and it doesn't show the before hand, but if he actually did something, it shouldn't warrant taking him from his means of transportation and dragging him across the floor.

I'm confused as to what you mean. If the kid did something that could have incited a riot, which would have resulted in property damage, and possibly even death, he doesn't deserve to dragged across the road? If he was a threat, there are much less reasonable ways they could have acted to stop him, like shooting him. I'm going to put my benifit of the doubt with the police on this one, they'd have to be pretty stupid to drag a cripple across the street at a riot full of college students with cell phones, if they didn't have a damn good reason.

Your not English, are you?
Let me tell you how competent the police are. In an earlier riot they managed to find, and kill, the only person in the street who wasn't rioting.

Yes, our police suck.

Also, I'm not having a go at you so please don't see this as agressive. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

Okay, if it's like that, how would your life be without the police, it would suck, don't try to deny it. You would probably be killed in a month or two if that, even if your police suck they still keep a hell of a lot of order across the country and if you seriously think the Police are that bad at their job why not go to a country in the middle east somewhere, where the police do shit all and a civilian can kill another civilian without ramifications? (please not I'm not trying to have a go at you, but don't say your police suck, they try at their jobs and you should probably have some respect and be a lot more appreciative.)

P.S. I know I'm gonna get the hell flamed out of me for my two posts xD BRING IT ON!

 

[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.

I was basing my arguments soley based on the video posted by the OP, which showed nothing before the incident ocurred, and was 58 seconds long. All my arguments are based on that single video, and the reaction could not have been sympathy or anger at injustice to a fellow human because the video didn't show the cause, so we couldn't have known that it was insufficient cause.

2 things.

1. Nice to see you ignored most of my post.

2. If you are basing your opinion solely on the video you can't know what if he did anything to deserve it, so how do can you support the cop over the protester?

Indeed, if you are basing your opinion on the video alone then you must side with the protester as the video shows a police officer running the street and hauling the protester out of his chair and across the street, no provoking action is shown by the protester.

 

[Faulty Turmoil]

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.

In my opinion he might have done something, as the video is not that clear a the start and it doesn't show the before hand, but if he actually did something, it shouldn't warrant taking him from his means of transportation and dragging him across the floor.

I'm confused as to what you mean. If the kid did something that could have incited a riot, which would have resulted in property damage, and possibly even death, he doesn't deserve to dragged across the road? If he was a threat, there are much less reasonable ways they could have acted to stop him, like shooting him. I'm going to put my benifit of the doubt with the police on this one, they'd have to be pretty stupid to drag a cripple across the street at a riot full of college students with cell phones, if they didn't have a damn good reason.

Your not English, are you?
Let me tell you how competent the police are. In an earlier riot they managed to find, and kill, the only person in the street who wasn't rioting.

Yes, our police suck.

Also, I'm not having a go at you so please don't see this as agressive. I'm sorry if it seemed that way.

Okay, if it's like that, how would your life be without the police, it would suck, don't try to deny it. You would probably be killed in a month or two if that, even if your police suck they still keep a hell of a lot of order across the country and if you seriously think the Police are that bad at their job why not go to a country in the middle east somewhere, where the police do shit all and a civilian can kill another civilian without ramifications? (please not I'm not trying to have a go at you, but don't say your police suck, they try at their jobs and you should probably have some respect and be a lot more appreciative.)

P.S. I know I'm gonna get the hell flamed out of me for my two posts xD BRING IT ON!

Ok, I'm sorry. I SHOULD have said some of our police suck. But most do their jobs well enough.

I'ts one of those topics that gets people all worked up and ready to rage. It seems that I have become a victim of said rage.

Also after seeing a few pictures of the 'victim' I am also starting to doubt the reliability of his claims.

P.S. I don't flame people so don't worry. I can't speak for everyone else though.

 

[Flying Dagger]

I'm torn here.

Firstly and foremostly the action was reprehensible.
there's no excusing it.

Except...
The kid doesn't seem to give straight answers. It seems this television interview and to be dragged out of his wheelchair are exactly what he wanted.

And then he claims it's not isolated occurances... well all the people I know that went on that march came home fine. There will always be one or two policemen who do things that are wrong. To me it sounds very like isolated circumstances.

EDIT:
http://www.mitchell-images.com/#/jody-mcintyre/4546538655 - would seem to explain why my feelings are conflicted. thought there was something a bit wrong in his story.
Weird how the term "police dragged" and "police moved" seem to give different reactions.

 

[Coidzor]

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."

I may not be understanding you properly, but that's still not grounds for killing someone. Especially as killing someone is generally pretty good at inciting people in a free society to take violent action.

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).

You're missing the point. The police have a duty to the public, they are held to a higher standard than others because they have to be in order to be trusted with their job. They're supposed to receive training so that they can navigate difficult situations without embarrassing themselves or their nation or behaving wrongly. That it happened at all means that something went wrong, and in the case of someone with cerebral palsy, it's a lot simpler to just believe that it was one more instance of someone who shouldn't be in the police force making a poor judgment call.

 

[cjbos81]

How about this. If you have a disability and are wheelchair bound, do not attend riots in the first place.

This man wants to be a martyr. He wants to be mishandled by the police. This wasn't someone on their way to the library. He was an agent provocateur and the police had to put a stop to it. These officers did the right thing to prevent further violence.


I hope the next time he gets tazed.

 

[Aphroditty]

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."

I may not be understanding you properly, but that's still not grounds for killing someone. Especially as killing someone is generally pretty good at inciting people in a free society to take violent action.

Oh my. No, you didn't misunderstand me, I made a ridiculous mistake. I meant to write "dealt with" as opposed to "death." Obviously death is not the correct way to deal with incitement, my apologies for confusion, and that post has been edited.

I must have been subconsciously thinking about my self-defense analogy.

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

Far too vague, the 'blame the cops' mentality is kind of lame when you don't have the full story guys. I'm going with neutral on this one, I don't know enough about the scenario to comment on it.

I agree. While it's a bad idea to assume that polic action is always justified, too many people immediately act as if the misjudgement of a single police officer is enough to condemn the entire organisation. Especially since everyone here is uncertain on the details.

 

[dex-dex]

cops have been known to use extreme force that was not nessisary. The G20 summit in Toronto this past june had questions if the police had used extreme force and if human rights were violated in the process.

The clip is only a minute long so you are missing what sparked the force.

 

[ohellynot]

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.

Thanks for saying this. I wanted to say this, but I couldn't be bothered to word it properly and then defend my position.

So, ditto.

likewise. Also he said that the police were tring to rile up the protesters. More likely he was trying to rile up the police to get that response to justify that. After all he stayed around after the first "incident" where he was pysically injured.