Exclusive video: Sussex Police launch investigation as man is kicked after being tasered

The Argus: Exclusive video: Sussex Police launch investigation as man is kicked after being tasered Exclusive video: Sussex Police launch investigation as man is kicked after being tasered

Police  have launched an investigation into the dramatic scenes of a man being tasered and kicked on Brighton seafront after The Argus passed the footage to Sussex Police.

In the video, the man, who was later arrested for shoplifting, appears to be kicked forcefully in the leg after receiving a shot from the Taser, which discharges 50,000 volts.

Incapacitated by the stun gun, he then falls flat on his face without being able to protect himself.

The officer is then heard shouting “put your hands up”, despite the man being unable to move.

After being alerted to the incident by The Argus, Sussex Police last night said it would be carrying out an internal investigation, adding it took all suggestions of misconduct seriously.

The incident took place on the seafront opposite the King’s Hotel in King’s Road, Brighton at about 6.30pm on Friday.

Police said they were called after reports a member of staff at Sainsbury’s in Western Road, Brighton, had been had been pushed to the ground by a suspected shoplifter.

Officers pursued the man they thought to be the offender and claimed it was necessary to Taser him in order to make a “safe arrest”.

A member of the public, who asked not to be named, saw the dramatic scene unfurl as he was walking to the shops after work.

He started filming just after the Taser had been fired at the suspected shoplifter.

The man, who is a respectable local businessman, said: “You could see that he clearly had some issues as he started taking his clothes off [when surrounded by officers].

“There was a lot of shouting and he was saying he had been tasered before.

“What concerned me was not the shouting but the kick that the police officer gave him.

“He was already going down but to be kicked like that while being tasered is quite concerning.”

Despite standing on a public highway, the witness said a police officer tried to stop him filming.

When he carried on, the officer then stood in his way to block the view.

Sussex Police said the tasered man was arrested on suspicion of theft and obstructing officers before receiving health and welfare checks to ensure that he was unharmed.

The Argus:

A force spokeswoman said he was later released on police bail until July 26 while enquiries continue.

A Sussex Police spokeswoman said: “The video has now been referred to our professional standards department who examine it thoroughly, along with the full facts surrounding the incident, including what occurred before the actions shown in the video.

“It is important that we establish a detailed account of events from all available sources, as well as this video clip, before deciding on any further action.

“All suggestions of police misconduct are taken seriously and are carefully assessed, and action is taken whenever appropriate.”

Sussex Police also used a Taser on Friday in Whitehawk Hill Road, Brighton, at about 1.35pm after reports a man looked in an “agitated state”.

 

Do you know who the victim is? Contact The Argus on 01273 544527.

See the latest crime figures in your area with our street-level crime map

 

Comments (117)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:27am Tue 9 Jul 13

BURIRAM says...

Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.
Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work. BURIRAM

8:53am Tue 9 Jul 13

hubby says...

Nothing changes.It is just covered up better.
Thugs in uniform.
This guy appears to have mental health issues.So instead of getting treatment in a hospital he is tasered and given a kicking.
A society is judged on how it treats its poor,old and sick.
What does that tell you about your society in Brighton and Hove?
Nothing changes.It is just covered up better. Thugs in uniform. This guy appears to have mental health issues.So instead of getting treatment in a hospital he is tasered and given a kicking. A society is judged on how it treats its poor,old and sick. What does that tell you about your society in Brighton and Hove? hubby

9:01am Tue 9 Jul 13

Cave Johnson says...

BURIRAM wrote:
Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.
Kicking the 'suspect' is not reasonable force, and the passer by had every right to film them.
[quote][p][bold]BURIRAM[/bold] wrote: Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.[/p][/quote]Kicking the 'suspect' is not reasonable force, and the passer by had every right to film them. Cave Johnson

9:33am Tue 9 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

BURIRAM wrote:
Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.
I disagree ... our police force should be open to scrutiny by the public when they are exercising their authority.

It works both ways. I remember once standing by while a single male officer was restraining a young girl. I stood to bear witness not so much to protect the girl, as the officer was dealing with her in a very restrained manner, but to protect the officer from the potential accusation of excessive force/sexual harassment.

And further, it does not take a tasering and a kicking to affect a reasonable arrest of one single semi-clad male by four, one assumes trained, police officers!
[quote][p][bold]BURIRAM[/bold] wrote: Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.[/p][/quote]I disagree ... our police force should be open to scrutiny by the public when they are exercising their authority. It works both ways. I remember once standing by while a single male officer was restraining a young girl. I stood to bear witness not so much to protect the girl, as the officer was dealing with her in a very restrained manner, but to protect the officer from the potential accusation of excessive force/sexual harassment. And further, it does not take a tasering and a kicking to affect a reasonable arrest of one single semi-clad male by four, one assumes trained, police officers! mimseycal

9:36am Tue 9 Jul 13

TwoBob says...

The Argus has sensationalized a storey with little concern about the facts. Does this warrant a full, front page spread on the paper? The video shows the suspect was apprehended in the quickest and best way possible for his safety as well as the police and public. It seems perfectly acceptable to me that when dealing with an unknown and unpredictable person who has already used violence against someone that the best position for them to be in to make the arrest is lying on the ground. One kick to the knee area clearly made this happen. There was no prolonged and unnecessary kicking while he was on the ground which would have warranted such a head line story.
Hubby and Cave should have watched more episodes of the Bill growing up to prepare them for such police brutality.
The Argus has sensationalized a storey with little concern about the facts. Does this warrant a full, front page spread on the paper? The video shows the suspect was apprehended in the quickest and best way possible for his safety as well as the police and public. It seems perfectly acceptable to me that when dealing with an unknown and unpredictable person who has already used violence against someone that the best position for them to be in to make the arrest is lying on the ground. One kick to the knee area clearly made this happen. There was no prolonged and unnecessary kicking while he was on the ground which would have warranted such a head line story. Hubby and Cave should have watched more episodes of the Bill growing up to prepare them for such police brutality. TwoBob

9:49am Tue 9 Jul 13

rufgruff says...

We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here.
How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ?

The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers !
We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers ! rufgruff

10:10am Tue 9 Jul 13

Surely not! says...

This doesn't look like the behaviour of professionals. I would imagine they are very embarrassed viewing their reaction to a relatively minor situation. I think the very least they need is some retraining.
This doesn't look like the behaviour of professionals. I would imagine they are very embarrassed viewing their reaction to a relatively minor situation. I think the very least they need is some retraining. Surely not!

10:16am Tue 9 Jul 13

holly1977 says...

rufgruff wrote:
We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here.
How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ?

The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers !
On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.
[quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers ![/p][/quote]On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre. holly1977

10:37am Tue 9 Jul 13

The Hobo says...

Does the 'local businessman' know what the arrested chap done before police arrived? Was he concealing a weapon?

There are a lot of other factors when someone is detained/arrested that a lot of police haters (including the press) don't realise.

The advert lasts longer than the video footage itself, but the police acted professionally, clearly giving him instructions. Some people comply, some don't. The cops should do what they need to do to gain compliance.

We're too soft in this country, but 'outraged' when police deal with things robustly. The police haters must be rubbing their hands with glee (or something else).
Does the 'local businessman' know what the arrested chap done before police arrived? Was he concealing a weapon? There are a lot of other factors when someone is detained/arrested that a lot of police haters (including the press) don't realise. The advert lasts longer than the video footage itself, but the police acted professionally, clearly giving him instructions. Some people comply, some don't. The cops should do what they need to do to gain compliance. We're too soft in this country, but 'outraged' when police deal with things robustly. The police haters must be rubbing their hands with glee (or something else). The Hobo

11:02am Tue 9 Jul 13

Frank28 says...

It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.
It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody. Frank28

11:04am Tue 9 Jul 13

yourenotfrombrighton says...

We don't have all the facts here. What happened to warrant a taser being drawn? What was the man doing or not doing to cause the officer to fire the taser? It's not like they're beating him round the head whilst he's lying on the floor - it looks like a single kick to the back of the right upper thigh as they are trying to get him on the ground.

Why does the footage stop so quickly? Surely if our 'respectable local businessman' was so upset by what he saw he would have kept filming? What happened next and why is there not footage of it on here?

Suggestions please from all the police-haters as to how they'd have dealt with this guy. Strong words and disapproving looks?

What about our 'respectable local businessman' - what wisdom can he offer on methods for safely detaining a non-compliant suspect?
We don't have all the facts here. What happened to warrant a taser being drawn? What was the man doing or not doing to cause the officer to fire the taser? It's not like they're beating him round the head whilst he's lying on the floor - it looks like a single kick to the back of the right upper thigh as they are trying to get him on the ground. Why does the footage stop so quickly? Surely if our 'respectable local businessman' was so upset by what he saw he would have kept filming? What happened next and why is there not footage of it on here? Suggestions please from all the police-haters as to how they'd have dealt with this guy. Strong words and disapproving looks? What about our 'respectable local businessman' - what wisdom can he offer on methods for safely detaining a non-compliant suspect? yourenotfrombrighton

11:05am Tue 9 Jul 13

yourenotfrombrighton says...

Frank28 wrote:
It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.
Examples please.
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.[/p][/quote]Examples please. yourenotfrombrighton

11:10am Tue 9 Jul 13

rufgruff says...

holly1977 wrote:
rufgruff wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers !
On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.
Holly I would love to see these police officers prosecuted in a court of law but I'm afraid that will not happen. This incident will be brushed under the carpet by the Professional standards department .The officers involved will be told to make sure that they are more careful when and where they electrocute someone in future........
[quote][p][bold]holly1977[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers ![/p][/quote]On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.[/p][/quote]Holly I would love to see these police officers prosecuted in a court of law but I'm afraid that will not happen. This incident will be brushed under the carpet by the Professional standards department .The officers involved will be told to make sure that they are more careful when and where they electrocute someone in future........ rufgruff

11:17am Tue 9 Jul 13

Isaac Rinkfern says...

Certain Sussex Police officers just love beating up disabled people and people who are unable to respond.

They are then investigated fully by their mates and found to be completely justified in metering out summary violent punishment under the guise of "reasonable force".

The other officers should also be punished for not stopping the actions of their colleague, after all, he was committing an offence too.
Certain Sussex Police officers just love beating up disabled people and people who are unable to respond. They are then investigated fully by their mates and found to be completely justified in metering out summary violent punishment under the guise of "reasonable force". The other officers should also be punished for not stopping the actions of their colleague, after all, he was committing an offence too. Isaac Rinkfern

11:32am Tue 9 Jul 13

hubby says...

In 1985 I was taken to Brighton police station in handcuffs,put in a cell and beaten up by uniformed and CID officers.
I was released with no charges,black eyes and bruised ribs.
Only a bully joins the police.
In 1985 I was taken to Brighton police station in handcuffs,put in a cell and beaten up by uniformed and CID officers. I was released with no charges,black eyes and bruised ribs. Only a bully joins the police. hubby

12:04pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Pebbles says...

See: http://www.liveleak.
com/view?i=e69_13629
84512 where the police were objecting to being filmed

And the following is taken from: http://photorights.o
rg/faq/is-it-legal-t
o-take-photos-of-peo
ple-without-asking

If you go to the site there is much more info on this.

Is it legal to take photos of people without asking?
In public places where there is no right to privacy, yes you can. The same applies in private places where you have the permission of the landowner or the landowner has stated no restrictions on photography. However photographing someone without asking their permission can cause a lot of trouble if not handled sensitively. If someone does not want to be photographed it is best to respect their wishes unless there is an overriding reason not to. Most people in most circumstances respond well to friendly explanation, especially if you show them the photo. Nevertheless some will object that you have violated their rights in some interesting way, and it's best to have the explanations ready.
'You can't take my photo without permission'. Oh yes you can, usually. Point to the CCTV cameras and wave, they never asked either. Of course it is perfectly understandable that individuals may feel singled out and perhaps intimidated, frightened or angry not to be in control, but it's not a legal point.

• 'You have violated my copyright'. This is in no sense true. There is no copyright in the human face or form, and copying would anyway mean cloning them, not creating an image. An image of a person is copyright of the photographer.

• 'You have violated my privacy'. Legally this is unlikely to be true. There is no right to privacy in public places as a rule. There is a right to privacy in private places and in public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg public toilets), but how extensive this is depends on circumstances.
In private places that are open to the public, permission of the landowner is usually sufficient to be able to photograph visitors and staff. However a recent court case upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there. If in doubt, this is probably the question to ask yourself.

• 'You have violated my human rights'. Police seem to sometimes object to being photographed on the grounds that their 'Human Rights' are being violated. This really means the same thing as 'privacy' and there is none in the street as the presence of CCTV and police photographers shows.
The Human Rights Act 1998 recognises a human right to expect privacy wherever privacy is normal, eg in the home. So photographs taken where privacy may be expected require permission of the subject. EG photographs taken from public places that depict someone within their home in a situation where they expect privacy, for instance through a window using a telephoto lens, will be actionable.

• 'You are harassing me'. Photography can indeed constitute harassment, but for an act to constitute harassment requires deliberate acts of harassment on at least 2 separate occasions. The complainant may then seek a restraining order from the court.
See: http://www.liveleak. com/view?i=e69_13629 84512 where the police were objecting to being filmed And the following is taken from: http://photorights.o rg/faq/is-it-legal-t o-take-photos-of-peo ple-without-asking If you go to the site there is much more info on this. Is it legal to take photos of people without asking? In public places where there is no right to privacy, yes you can. The same applies in private places where you have the permission of the landowner or the landowner has stated no restrictions on photography. However photographing someone without asking their permission can cause a lot of trouble if not handled sensitively. If someone does not want to be photographed it is best to respect their wishes unless there is an overriding reason not to. Most people in most circumstances respond well to friendly explanation, especially if you show them the photo. Nevertheless some will object that you have violated their rights in some interesting way, and it's best to have the explanations ready. 'You can't take my photo without permission'. Oh yes you can, usually. Point to the CCTV cameras and wave, they never asked either. Of course it is perfectly understandable that individuals may feel singled out and perhaps intimidated, frightened or angry not to be in control, but it's not a legal point. • 'You have violated my copyright'. This is in no sense true. There is no copyright in the human face or form, and copying would anyway mean cloning them, not creating an image. An image of a person is copyright of the photographer. • • 'You have violated my privacy'. Legally this is unlikely to be true. There is no right to privacy in public places as a rule. There is a right to privacy in private places and in public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg public toilets), but how extensive this is depends on circumstances. In private places that are open to the public, permission of the landowner is usually sufficient to be able to photograph visitors and staff. However a recent court case upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there. If in doubt, this is probably the question to ask yourself. • • 'You have violated my human rights'. Police seem to sometimes object to being photographed on the grounds that their 'Human Rights' are being violated. This really means the same thing as 'privacy' and there is none in the street as the presence of CCTV and police photographers shows. The Human Rights Act 1998 recognises a human right to expect privacy wherever privacy is normal, eg in the home. So photographs taken where privacy may be expected require permission of the subject. EG photographs taken from public places that depict someone within their home in a situation where they expect privacy, for instance through a window using a telephoto lens, will be actionable. • • 'You are harassing me'. Photography can indeed constitute harassment, but for an act to constitute harassment requires deliberate acts of harassment on at least 2 separate occasions. The complainant may then seek a restraining order from the court. Pebbles

12:16pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Poccypoc says...

We must back the police. At the time of this incident, I was at home, watching Andy Murray. Did the police beat ME up? No. Break the law, allegedly as this man has done, and suffer the consequences.
We must back the police. At the time of this incident, I was at home, watching Andy Murray. Did the police beat ME up? No. Break the law, allegedly as this man has done, and suffer the consequences. Poccypoc

12:22pm Tue 9 Jul 13

ronrostog says...

hubby wrote:
In 1985 I was taken to Brighton police station in handcuffs,put in a cell and beaten up by uniformed and CID officers.
I was released with no charges,black eyes and bruised ribs.
Only a bully joins the police.
In some cases I am sure you are correct but in one example from me, 30+ years ago I was dragged down some stairs by a police alsatian whilst a copper was booting me at the same time. I was then put on a chair, pushed to the wall so the chair wouldn't go over and then an older officer (sergeant if I remember correctly before I saw stars) thumped me in the head. I was then taken to the local nick, dumped in a cell awaiting my dad to come and get me out. When he arrived he didn't care what had happened to me to be honest. Why? He wasn't an uncaring father but he did believe in tough love and because he found out that his son (me) was not a pal's house but was actually **** up and lobbing chairs at coppers in a club, all sympathy for how the police had acted went out of the window. He was right as well, I deserved all I got and I'm sure many do.
[quote][p][bold]hubby[/bold] wrote: In 1985 I was taken to Brighton police station in handcuffs,put in a cell and beaten up by uniformed and CID officers. I was released with no charges,black eyes and bruised ribs. Only a bully joins the police.[/p][/quote]In some cases I am sure you are correct but in one example from me, 30+ years ago I was dragged down some stairs by a police alsatian whilst a copper was booting me at the same time. I was then put on a chair, pushed to the wall so the chair wouldn't go over and then an older officer (sergeant if I remember correctly before I saw stars) thumped me in the head. I was then taken to the local nick, dumped in a cell awaiting my dad to come and get me out. When he arrived he didn't care what had happened to me to be honest. Why? He wasn't an uncaring father but he did believe in tough love and because he found out that his son (me) was not a pal's house but was actually **** up and lobbing chairs at coppers in a club, all sympathy for how the police had acted went out of the window. He was right as well, I deserved all I got and I'm sure many do. ronrostog

12:57pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Clued-up says...

I cannot believe some people assume that the poor thief must have mental / medical problems or too little benefits or support or whatever to buy the booze and drugs he wants .... and instead express their shock at the fact that the police use a little force to arrest him for what he has done ..... if you walk around the city and observe the packs of feral idiots stumbling around with cans of booze n their hands all day and the way they behave perhaps you would recognise that some people simply don't know right from wrong .... well done sussex police ...
I cannot believe some people assume that the poor thief must have mental / medical problems or too little benefits or support or whatever to buy the booze and drugs he wants .... and instead express their shock at the fact that the police use a little force to arrest him for what he has done ..... if you walk around the city and observe the packs of feral idiots stumbling around with cans of booze n their hands all day and the way they behave perhaps you would recognise that some people simply don't know right from wrong .... well done sussex police ... Clued-up

1:03pm Tue 9 Jul 13

rufgruff says...

Clued-up wrote:
I cannot believe some people assume that the poor thief must have mental / medical problems or too little benefits or support or whatever to buy the booze and drugs he wants .... and instead express their shock at the fact that the police use a little force to arrest him for what he has done ..... if you walk around the city and observe the packs of feral idiots stumbling around with cans of booze n their hands all day and the way they behave perhaps you would recognise that some people simply don't know right from wrong .... well done sussex police ...
So Clued up its OK for the Police to use a little force is it wait till you're the victim of it you may change your mind then
[quote][p][bold]Clued-up[/bold] wrote: I cannot believe some people assume that the poor thief must have mental / medical problems or too little benefits or support or whatever to buy the booze and drugs he wants .... and instead express their shock at the fact that the police use a little force to arrest him for what he has done ..... if you walk around the city and observe the packs of feral idiots stumbling around with cans of booze n their hands all day and the way they behave perhaps you would recognise that some people simply don't know right from wrong .... well done sussex police ...[/p][/quote]So Clued up its OK for the Police to use a little force is it wait till you're the victim of it you may change your mind then rufgruff

1:17pm Tue 9 Jul 13

The Hobo says...

Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
Certain Sussex Police officers just love beating up disabled people and people who are unable to respond.

They are then investigated fully by their mates and found to be completely justified in metering out summary violent punishment under the guise of "reasonable force".

The other officers should also be punished for not stopping the actions of their colleague, after all, he was committing an offence too.
How do you know he is disabled?

That is the thing with internet keyboard warriors. They think they know everything about what/who the police deal with. These keyboard warriors are also the same people who blame the police for everything, when you should really look at yourselves first to see who is to blame.

All you have seen is a shoddy video that only lasts for a few seconds. There is nothing there to suggest he is mental/disabled/etc. Show aggression towards police and you get dealt with appropriately.
[quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: Certain Sussex Police officers just love beating up disabled people and people who are unable to respond. They are then investigated fully by their mates and found to be completely justified in metering out summary violent punishment under the guise of "reasonable force". The other officers should also be punished for not stopping the actions of their colleague, after all, he was committing an offence too.[/p][/quote]How do you know he is disabled? That is the thing with internet keyboard warriors. They think they know everything about what/who the police deal with. These keyboard warriors are also the same people who blame the police for everything, when you should really look at yourselves first to see who is to blame. All you have seen is a shoddy video that only lasts for a few seconds. There is nothing there to suggest he is mental/disabled/etc. Show aggression towards police and you get dealt with appropriately. The Hobo

1:49pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Isaac Rinkfern says...

The Hobo wrote:
Isaac Rinkfern wrote:
Certain Sussex Police officers just love beating up disabled people and people who are unable to respond.

They are then investigated fully by their mates and found to be completely justified in metering out summary violent punishment under the guise of "reasonable force".

The other officers should also be punished for not stopping the actions of their colleague, after all, he was committing an offence too.
How do you know he is disabled?

That is the thing with internet keyboard warriors. They think they know everything about what/who the police deal with. These keyboard warriors are also the same people who blame the police for everything, when you should really look at yourselves first to see who is to blame.

All you have seen is a shoddy video that only lasts for a few seconds. There is nothing there to suggest he is mental/disabled/etc. Show aggression towards police and you get dealt with appropriately.
If you read what I wrote you would note that I said "disabled people AND people who are unable to respond",

I think that being subjected to a large electric shock would put most people into the second category, and as for keyboard warriors, I think that would be you rather than myself, especially considering that I had my arm pulled out of it's socket by Sussex Police because of a neurological condition that caused involuntary movements, that the idiot, despite being told otherwise, insisted were resistance.

Some of these people are simply thugs, you find idiots in all large organisations, and any physical attack on any person unable to respond is unacceptable whatever hat they may be wearing at the time.
[quote][p][bold]The Hobo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Isaac Rinkfern[/bold] wrote: Certain Sussex Police officers just love beating up disabled people and people who are unable to respond. They are then investigated fully by their mates and found to be completely justified in metering out summary violent punishment under the guise of "reasonable force". The other officers should also be punished for not stopping the actions of their colleague, after all, he was committing an offence too.[/p][/quote]How do you know he is disabled? That is the thing with internet keyboard warriors. They think they know everything about what/who the police deal with. These keyboard warriors are also the same people who blame the police for everything, when you should really look at yourselves first to see who is to blame. All you have seen is a shoddy video that only lasts for a few seconds. There is nothing there to suggest he is mental/disabled/etc. Show aggression towards police and you get dealt with appropriately.[/p][/quote]If you read what I wrote you would note that I said "disabled people AND people who are unable to respond", I think that being subjected to a large electric shock would put most people into the second category, and as for keyboard warriors, I think that would be you rather than myself, especially considering that I had my arm pulled out of it's socket by Sussex Police because of a neurological condition that caused involuntary movements, that the idiot, despite being told otherwise, insisted were resistance. Some of these people are simply thugs, you find idiots in all large organisations, and any physical attack on any person unable to respond is unacceptable whatever hat they may be wearing at the time. Isaac Rinkfern

1:54pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Tallywhacker says...

Why has he mental health issues? Because he has taken his shirt off? It does state in the story he shouted out he has been tasered before so he was aware of what was happening. And as any experienced officer, prison guard or ex con will tell you one of the first things to do if you expect a scuffle with authority is to take off the shirt. It makes holding on and restraining you more difficult, if you can wet down even harder. So less likely disturbed as more likely a previous offender with experience resisting arrest.
Why has he mental health issues? Because he has taken his shirt off? It does state in the story he shouted out he has been tasered before so he was aware of what was happening. And as any experienced officer, prison guard or ex con will tell you one of the first things to do if you expect a scuffle with authority is to take off the shirt. It makes holding on and restraining you more difficult, if you can wet down even harder. So less likely disturbed as more likely a previous offender with experience resisting arrest. Tallywhacker

2:00pm Tue 9 Jul 13

John Steed says...

what ever your veiws, seeing a police officer, one of four in attendance kicking a tasered suspect (electrical discharge lines clearly visible) and seeing someone tasered and falling face first into the tarmac is disturbing, what cannot be seen is if handcuffs are in place, the film leads to the belief the culprit is already handcuffed. the scroat of a shop lifter concerned gets the last laugh as the police insurers will almost certainly pay out if a claim against them is made. what ever the circumstances of the arrest the disturbing issues are simple, the kick appears to be completely unnessacary whilst trying to stop a member of the public legitimately filming in public is a total discrace the odd bruise on a scroat is one thing, assault on our freedom is another.
what ever your veiws, seeing a police officer, one of four in attendance kicking a tasered suspect (electrical discharge lines clearly visible) and seeing someone tasered and falling face first into the tarmac is disturbing, what cannot be seen is if handcuffs are in place, the film leads to the belief the culprit is already handcuffed. the scroat of a shop lifter concerned gets the last laugh as the police insurers will almost certainly pay out if a claim against them is made. what ever the circumstances of the arrest the disturbing issues are simple, the kick appears to be completely unnessacary whilst trying to stop a member of the public legitimately filming in public is a total discrace the odd bruise on a scroat is one thing, assault on our freedom is another. John Steed

2:07pm Tue 9 Jul 13

pekkers says...

The use of Taser is down to the officer concerned to justify or to be held accountable. The armchair review of this footage doesn't show context, and from watching it, I can't see the bloke being kicked? It shows an officer running in, but its not clear enough to show what actually occurs. Let's await the review of all the footage rather than the account of an anonymous bystander, who appears to have gone to the Media rather than the IPCC........
The use of Taser is down to the officer concerned to justify or to be held accountable. The armchair review of this footage doesn't show context, and from watching it, I can't see the bloke being kicked? It shows an officer running in, but its not clear enough to show what actually occurs. Let's await the review of all the footage rather than the account of an anonymous bystander, who appears to have gone to the Media rather than the IPCC........ pekkers

2:46pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Master P says...

Shocking, just Shocking
Shocking, just Shocking Master P

2:59pm Tue 9 Jul 13

All 9 of me says...

yourenotfrombrighton wrote:
Frank28 wrote:
It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.
Examples please.
http://photographern
otaterrorist.org/
[quote][p][bold]yourenotfrombrighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.[/p][/quote]Examples please.[/p][/quote]http://photographern otaterrorist.org/ All 9 of me

3:18pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

Surely not! wrote:
This doesn't look like the behaviour of professionals. I would imagine they are very embarrassed viewing their reaction to a relatively minor situation. I think the very least they need is some retraining.
Indeed. They behaved like unlicenced nightclub bouncers. Well done to the public spirited citizen who filmed them, but I bet his card is marked now.

Police: Remember your citizens in uniform, not members of an occupying army.
[quote][p][bold]Surely not![/bold] wrote: This doesn't look like the behaviour of professionals. I would imagine they are very embarrassed viewing their reaction to a relatively minor situation. I think the very least they need is some retraining.[/p][/quote]Indeed. They behaved like unlicenced nightclub bouncers. Well done to the public spirited citizen who filmed them, but I bet his card is marked now. Police: Remember your citizens in uniform, not members of an occupying army. Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit

3:19pm Tue 9 Jul 13

getThisCoalitionOut says...

This is the police for you - disgusting treatment of someone they have just tasered. They only stopped because they realised they were being filmed - thank goodness the person did this, saved the arrested man from getting a lot worse.

The police have been doing this for decades - it goes on - if you don't know about it then shame on you and just hope it never happens to you, because you can become their victim very easily.
This is the police for you - disgusting treatment of someone they have just tasered. They only stopped because they realised they were being filmed - thank goodness the person did this, saved the arrested man from getting a lot worse. The police have been doing this for decades - it goes on - if you don't know about it then shame on you and just hope it never happens to you, because you can become their victim very easily. getThisCoalitionOut

3:21pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit says...

"you're citizens" not 'your citizens'. Blast, ruined it there!
"you're citizens" not 'your citizens'. Blast, ruined it there! Jimmy Stewart's Imaginary Rabbit

3:25pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Rocker says...

Hold your horses!

I was there. The video is not a fair portrayal of what happened.

The guy was threatening and very aggressive,he was taken down because he wanted to fight!

I will be contacting the police,this was a fair take down.
Hold your horses! I was there. The video is not a fair portrayal of what happened. The guy was threatening and very aggressive,he was taken down because he wanted to fight! I will be contacting the police,this was a fair take down. Rocker

3:33pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Monkey Edwards says...

Bring back Dirty Harry, get rid of some of the scum in this City!!
Bring back Dirty Harry, get rid of some of the scum in this City!! Monkey Edwards

3:42pm Tue 9 Jul 13

kopite_rob says...

A kick to the leg is a Home Office approved method for getting a non compliant person to the floor. It's been in the arrest techniques training for years. It was either that or a baton to the thigh, which can actually break a bone. It might look brutal, but I can't see that the officer did anything wrong.
A kick to the leg is a Home Office approved method for getting a non compliant person to the floor. It's been in the arrest techniques training for years. It was either that or a baton to the thigh, which can actually break a bone. It might look brutal, but I can't see that the officer did anything wrong. kopite_rob

3:54pm Tue 9 Jul 13

hubby says...

Picture one shows a fairly small guy being lifted onto his toes by a kick from behind.I would say he was cuffed by the position of his arms and hands at all times.
There were four officers and he didn't have a weapon.
Couldn't they have coped a little better.
He was only an "alleged" shoplifter.
Not a mass murderer.
Picture one shows a fairly small guy being lifted onto his toes by a kick from behind.I would say he was cuffed by the position of his arms and hands at all times. There were four officers and he didn't have a weapon. Couldn't they have coped a little better. He was only an "alleged" shoplifter. Not a mass murderer. hubby

4:12pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Master P says...

When you are being tazered Does your hair stand up in end. Just wondered
When you are being tazered Does your hair stand up in end. Just wondered Master P

4:12pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Master P says...

When you are being tazered Does your hair stand up in end. Just wondered
When you are being tazered Does your hair stand up in end. Just wondered Master P

4:26pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Brightonlad86 says...

What a very convienient clip for all those who hate the police!!

We have no proof of what happened before the incident so to judge it based on the video alone is a bit daft. Having watched the video I struggle to see any 'kick' (admittedly it was viewed on my phone with poor signal). What I believe I do see is an officer push the suspect to the ground with their foot. This could be for various reasons. If the suspect is being tazered and an officer touched him, they would also suffer the effects of the tazer. Using your foot is also far more effective and safer as they are further away from the suspect.

If this man has mental issues, as has been suggested, it makes him more unpredictable and possibly more dangerous as a result. He would need to be detained as quickly and effectively as possible.

Despite never committing a crime, I have often been stopped and searched, pulled over in my car etc... I have always co-operated and showed the officers respect. They have always thanked me for my co-operation and let me go on my way. There may be the 1 or 2 bad apples but I have never had any issues.

The police have a tough and often dangerous job to do without the public doing anything they can to discredit their hard work.
What a very convienient clip for all those who hate the police!! We have no proof of what happened before the incident so to judge it based on the video alone is a bit daft. Having watched the video I struggle to see any 'kick' (admittedly it was viewed on my phone with poor signal). What I believe I do see is an officer push the suspect to the ground with their foot. This could be for various reasons. If the suspect is being tazered and an officer touched him, they would also suffer the effects of the tazer. Using your foot is also far more effective and safer as they are further away from the suspect. If this man has mental issues, as has been suggested, it makes him more unpredictable and possibly more dangerous as a result. He would need to be detained as quickly and effectively as possible. Despite never committing a crime, I have often been stopped and searched, pulled over in my car etc... I have always co-operated and showed the officers respect. They have always thanked me for my co-operation and let me go on my way. There may be the 1 or 2 bad apples but I have never had any issues. The police have a tough and often dangerous job to do without the public doing anything they can to discredit their hard work. Brightonlad86

4:30pm Tue 9 Jul 13

worthingite says...

Hopefully the guy that took this has been paid accordingly and the paper and SWNS not kept all the booty.


http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
2358796/Shocking-mom
ent-unarmed-man-Tase
red-police-officers-
kicked-floor-shoplif
ting.html
Hopefully the guy that took this has been paid accordingly and the paper and SWNS not kept all the booty. http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 2358796/Shocking-mom ent-unarmed-man-Tase red-police-officers- kicked-floor-shoplif ting.html worthingite

4:33pm Tue 9 Jul 13

wales1973 says...

rufgruff wrote:
Clued-up wrote:
I cannot believe some people assume that the poor thief must have mental / medical problems or too little benefits or support or whatever to buy the booze and drugs he wants .... and instead express their shock at the fact that the police use a little force to arrest him for what he has done ..... if you walk around the city and observe the packs of feral idiots stumbling around with cans of booze n their hands all day and the way they behave perhaps you would recognise that some people simply don't know right from wrong .... well done sussex police ...
So Clued up its OK for the Police to use a little force is it wait till you're the victim of it you may change your mind then
Well said ruff gruff, different when your on the receiving end isn't' it ?.
[quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Clued-up[/bold] wrote: I cannot believe some people assume that the poor thief must have mental / medical problems or too little benefits or support or whatever to buy the booze and drugs he wants .... and instead express their shock at the fact that the police use a little force to arrest him for what he has done ..... if you walk around the city and observe the packs of feral idiots stumbling around with cans of booze n their hands all day and the way they behave perhaps you would recognise that some people simply don't know right from wrong .... well done sussex police ...[/p][/quote]So Clued up its OK for the Police to use a little force is it wait till you're the victim of it you may change your mind then[/p][/quote]Well said ruff gruff, different when your on the receiving end isn't' it ?. wales1973

4:34pm Tue 9 Jul 13

itsnotme says...

Having viewed the footage several times all you see is a single strike to the back of the leg, a recommended target for distraction strikes. The man falls to the ground as he is struck and tasered. No one runs in to put the boot in, no one spits on him or beats him up. He is detained with barely any fuss. I know the argus will do anything to try and get the police to look bad but this is weak as anything.
Having viewed the footage several times all you see is a single strike to the back of the leg, a recommended target for distraction strikes. The man falls to the ground as he is struck and tasered. No one runs in to put the boot in, no one spits on him or beats him up. He is detained with barely any fuss. I know the argus will do anything to try and get the police to look bad but this is weak as anything. itsnotme

4:38pm Tue 9 Jul 13

lorrie1 says...

hubby wrote:
In 1985 I was taken to Brighton police station in handcuffs,put in a cell and beaten up by uniformed and CID officers. I was released with no charges,black eyes and bruised ribs. Only a bully joins the police.
Agree, This also happened to me in the back of the van AND in the cell. Police said i was resiting arrest, thats a bit hard when your handcuffed from behind, with ten cops beating the sh*t out of ya!
Beter be careful, we will prob be in there investigation now?
[quote][p][bold]hubby[/bold] wrote: In 1985 I was taken to Brighton police station in handcuffs,put in a cell and beaten up by uniformed and CID officers. I was released with no charges,black eyes and bruised ribs. Only a bully joins the police.[/p][/quote]Agree, This also happened to me in the back of the van AND in the cell. Police said i was resiting arrest, thats a bit hard when your handcuffed from behind, with ten cops beating the sh*t out of ya! Beter be careful, we will prob be in there investigation now? lorrie1

4:54pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Rocker says...

I saw the man filming this on his iPhone....he knows the truth,like I do.

The film man has an agenda here,he knows the full story,but wants to make the police look bad by showing a tiny bit of what happened.

Why not show the man shouting,gesticulati
ng,challenging the police to fight him? Refusing to calm down.

The police were totally correct.

Our film man is deceiving people into thinking this was unwarranted police aggression. It wasn't,the police were absolutely spot on in taking down an intimidating man acting like a violent lout.
I saw the man filming this on his iPhone....he knows the truth,like I do. The film man has an agenda here,he knows the full story,but wants to make the police look bad by showing a tiny bit of what happened. Why not show the man shouting,gesticulati ng,challenging the police to fight him? Refusing to calm down. The police were totally correct. Our film man is deceiving people into thinking this was unwarranted police aggression. It wasn't,the police were absolutely spot on in taking down an intimidating man acting like a violent lout. Rocker

5:42pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Lumpyinplaces says...

Everywhere else in the world it's called a Mental Heath Issue ' In Brighton he's another drunk .
Is it really necessary to use such brutality ? Lets make a discussion circle and hum a tune for peace.
Everywhere else in the world it's called a Mental Heath Issue ' In Brighton he's another drunk . Is it really necessary to use such brutality ? Lets make a discussion circle and hum a tune for peace. Lumpyinplaces

6:14pm Tue 9 Jul 13

PorkBoat says...

The police don't like being filmed, do they? If they'e done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. Same rules apply.
The police don't like being filmed, do they? If they'e done nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. Same rules apply. PorkBoat

6:17pm Tue 9 Jul 13

ronrostog says...

south1919 wrote:
ronrostog wrote:
hubby wrote:
In 1985 I was taken to Brighton police station in handcuffs,put in a cell and beaten up by uniformed and CID officers.
I was released with no charges,black eyes and bruised ribs.
Only a bully joins the police.
In some cases I am sure you are correct but in one example from me, 30+ years ago I was dragged down some stairs by a police alsatian whilst a copper was booting me at the same time. I was then put on a chair, pushed to the wall so the chair wouldn't go over and then an older officer (sergeant if I remember correctly before I saw stars) thumped me in the head. I was then taken to the local nick, dumped in a cell awaiting my dad to come and get me out. When he arrived he didn't care what had happened to me to be honest. Why? He wasn't an uncaring father but he did believe in tough love and because he found out that his son (me) was not a pal's house but was actually **** up and lobbing chairs at coppers in a club, all sympathy for how the police had acted went out of the window. He was right as well, I deserved all I got and I'm sure many do.
Next your be saying your black
Not quite....
[quote][p][bold]south1919[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronrostog[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]hubby[/bold] wrote: In 1985 I was taken to Brighton police station in handcuffs,put in a cell and beaten up by uniformed and CID officers. I was released with no charges,black eyes and bruised ribs. Only a bully joins the police.[/p][/quote]In some cases I am sure you are correct but in one example from me, 30+ years ago I was dragged down some stairs by a police alsatian whilst a copper was booting me at the same time. I was then put on a chair, pushed to the wall so the chair wouldn't go over and then an older officer (sergeant if I remember correctly before I saw stars) thumped me in the head. I was then taken to the local nick, dumped in a cell awaiting my dad to come and get me out. When he arrived he didn't care what had happened to me to be honest. Why? He wasn't an uncaring father but he did believe in tough love and because he found out that his son (me) was not a pal's house but was actually **** up and lobbing chairs at coppers in a club, all sympathy for how the police had acted went out of the window. He was right as well, I deserved all I got and I'm sure many do.[/p][/quote]Next your be saying your black[/p][/quote]Not quite.... ronrostog

6:23pm Tue 9 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

Ballroom Blitz wrote:
Who cares? He's a thieving lowlife. Probably a druggie as well. Don't steal, and the police won't tazer you or kick you in the legs. Simple.
Now there will be an inquiry which will cost thousands of pounds.
What a waste of resources on this idiot.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is the rock on which English law stands and anything less is unacceptable in a society that claims it is democratic.
[quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: Who cares? He's a thieving lowlife. Probably a druggie as well. Don't steal, and the police won't tazer you or kick you in the legs. Simple. Now there will be an inquiry which will cost thousands of pounds. What a waste of resources on this idiot.[/p][/quote]Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is the rock on which English law stands and anything less is unacceptable in a society that claims it is democratic. mimseycal

6:27pm Tue 9 Jul 13

biker brighton says...

can not see why the fuss ,i first to report police for not doing there job right . but looks ok to me
can not see why the fuss ,i first to report police for not doing there job right . but looks ok to me biker brighton

6:39pm Tue 9 Jul 13

ARMANA says...

THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE... ARMANA

6:55pm Tue 9 Jul 13

m.c.hamster says...

This is not even a story, it is just the Police doing the job that all the critics on here could never do.
Try doing this job on a daily basis then you have the right to criticise.
Armchair experts running away and crying for Mummy.
How would all you critics have dealt with this situation?? Oh I know, call the Police!
This is not even a story, it is just the Police doing the job that all the critics on here could never do. Try doing this job on a daily basis then you have the right to criticise. Armchair experts running away and crying for Mummy. How would all you critics have dealt with this situation?? Oh I know, call the Police! m.c.hamster

6:57pm Tue 9 Jul 13

worthingite says...

If its on the a national newspaper website how can it be an exclusive story?
If its on the a national newspaper website how can it be an exclusive story? worthingite

7:00pm Tue 9 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

ARMANA wrote:
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...[/p][/quote]Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and . mimseycal

7:00pm Tue 9 Jul 13

remluf says...

He also shouted at him. Rude and not acceptable.
He also shouted at him. Rude and not acceptable. remluf

7:05pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Ballroom Blitz says...

mimseycal wrote:
Ballroom Blitz wrote:
Who cares? He's a thieving lowlife. Probably a druggie as well. Don't steal, and the police won't tazer you or kick you in the legs. Simple.
Now there will be an inquiry which will cost thousands of pounds.
What a waste of resources on this idiot.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is the rock on which English law stands and anything less is unacceptable in a society that claims it is democratic.
From all eye witness accounts he was very aggressive and resisting arrest. If you don't want to get tasered or manhandled, it's simple. Don't kick off, and go quietly when caught.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: Who cares? He's a thieving lowlife. Probably a druggie as well. Don't steal, and the police won't tazer you or kick you in the legs. Simple. Now there will be an inquiry which will cost thousands of pounds. What a waste of resources on this idiot.[/p][/quote]Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is the rock on which English law stands and anything less is unacceptable in a society that claims it is democratic.[/p][/quote]From all eye witness accounts he was very aggressive and resisting arrest. If you don't want to get tasered or manhandled, it's simple. Don't kick off, and go quietly when caught. Ballroom Blitz

7:12pm Tue 9 Jul 13

CivicMan says...

You don't this when Roy Grace is around....
You don't this when Roy Grace is around.... CivicMan

7:13pm Tue 9 Jul 13

CivicMan says...

You don't get this when Roy Grace is around ... ( there's an echo in here!).
You don't get this when Roy Grace is around ... ( there's an echo in here!). CivicMan

7:32pm Tue 9 Jul 13

rmp253 says...

It's a real shame to see the Argus use this to try to recreate some kind of Sussex version of the disgraceful Rodney King beatings.

We are only shown a split second of the entire event. But what this looks like, the officer strikes the suspect at the back of his knee, which is a tried and tested tactic to bring a suspect down to the floor.

The way this has been hyped by the Argus, I expected to see the officer laying in to some guy with boots and baton. But no, the suspect was simply taken down onto the floor.

I wonder if the Argus could show the entire build up to the arrest so we can see if the suspect was giving up all nice and peaceful or was he being violent making threats towards the Police or the public????
It's a real shame to see the Argus use this to try to recreate some kind of Sussex version of the disgraceful Rodney King beatings. We are only shown a split second of the entire event. But what this looks like, the officer strikes the suspect at the back of his knee, which is a tried and tested tactic to bring a suspect down to the floor. The way this has been hyped by the Argus, I expected to see the officer laying in to some guy with boots and baton. But no, the suspect was simply taken down onto the floor. I wonder if the Argus could show the entire build up to the arrest so we can see if the suspect was giving up all nice and peaceful or was he being violent making threats towards the Police or the public???? rmp253

7:36pm Tue 9 Jul 13

RickH says...

yourenotfrombrighton wrote:
Frank28 wrote: It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.
Examples please.
There were plenty of examples of the powers under the CTA 2008 were being misused by the police, to the point that this campaign was set up (http://photographer
notaterrorist.org/)
However, there were a number of court cases and the police scaled back their use of same provisions.
That said, there were, again, several reports of 'plastic police' using the same provisions in the vicinity of the Olympic Park last year.
[quote][p][bold]yourenotfrombrighton[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.[/p][/quote]Examples please.[/p][/quote]There were plenty of examples of the powers under the CTA 2008 were being misused by the police, to the point that this campaign was set up (http://photographer notaterrorist.org/) However, there were a number of court cases and the police scaled back their use of same provisions. That said, there were, again, several reports of 'plastic police' using the same provisions in the vicinity of the Olympic Park last year. RickH

7:45pm Tue 9 Jul 13

RickH says...

Pebbles wrote:
See: http://www.liveleak. com/view?i=e69_13629 84512 where the police were objecting to being filmed And the following is taken from: http://photorights.o rg/faq/is-it-legal-t o-take-photos-of-peo ple-without-asking If you go to the site there is much more info on this. Is it legal to take photos of people without asking? In public places where there is no right to privacy, yes you can. The same applies in private places where you have the permission of the landowner or the landowner has stated no restrictions on photography. However photographing someone without asking their permission can cause a lot of trouble if not handled sensitively. If someone does not want to be photographed it is best to respect their wishes unless there is an overriding reason not to. Most people in most circumstances respond well to friendly explanation, especially if you show them the photo. Nevertheless some will object that you have violated their rights in some interesting way, and it's best to have the explanations ready. 'You can't take my photo without permission'. Oh yes you can, usually. Point to the CCTV cameras and wave, they never asked either. Of course it is perfectly understandable that individuals may feel singled out and perhaps intimidated, frightened or angry not to be in control, but it's not a legal point. • 'You have violated my copyright'. This is in no sense true. There is no copyright in the human face or form, and copying would anyway mean cloning them, not creating an image. An image of a person is copyright of the photographer. • • 'You have violated my privacy'. Legally this is unlikely to be true. There is no right to privacy in public places as a rule. There is a right to privacy in private places and in public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg public toilets), but how extensive this is depends on circumstances. In private places that are open to the public, permission of the landowner is usually sufficient to be able to photograph visitors and staff. However a recent court case upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there. If in doubt, this is probably the question to ask yourself. • • 'You have violated my human rights'. Police seem to sometimes object to being photographed on the grounds that their 'Human Rights' are being violated. This really means the same thing as 'privacy' and there is none in the street as the presence of CCTV and police photographers shows. The Human Rights Act 1998 recognises a human right to expect privacy wherever privacy is normal, eg in the home. So photographs taken where privacy may be expected require permission of the subject. EG photographs taken from public places that depict someone within their home in a situation where they expect privacy, for instance through a window using a telephoto lens, will be actionable. • • 'You are harassing me'. Photography can indeed constitute harassment, but for an act to constitute harassment requires deliberate acts of harassment on at least 2 separate occasions. The complainant may then seek a restraining order from the court.
An excellent post! If I may add, the Human Rights Act is there to protect you from actions of the state or its agents, not individuals, companies etc - thats what criminal and civil law is for. So the 'Right to privacy' argument could be used against the police by an individual, not the other way round.
[quote][p][bold]Pebbles[/bold] wrote: See: http://www.liveleak. com/view?i=e69_13629 84512 where the police were objecting to being filmed And the following is taken from: http://photorights.o rg/faq/is-it-legal-t o-take-photos-of-peo ple-without-asking If you go to the site there is much more info on this. Is it legal to take photos of people without asking? In public places where there is no right to privacy, yes you can. The same applies in private places where you have the permission of the landowner or the landowner has stated no restrictions on photography. However photographing someone without asking their permission can cause a lot of trouble if not handled sensitively. If someone does not want to be photographed it is best to respect their wishes unless there is an overriding reason not to. Most people in most circumstances respond well to friendly explanation, especially if you show them the photo. Nevertheless some will object that you have violated their rights in some interesting way, and it's best to have the explanations ready. 'You can't take my photo without permission'. Oh yes you can, usually. Point to the CCTV cameras and wave, they never asked either. Of course it is perfectly understandable that individuals may feel singled out and perhaps intimidated, frightened or angry not to be in control, but it's not a legal point. • 'You have violated my copyright'. This is in no sense true. There is no copyright in the human face or form, and copying would anyway mean cloning them, not creating an image. An image of a person is copyright of the photographer. • • 'You have violated my privacy'. Legally this is unlikely to be true. There is no right to privacy in public places as a rule. There is a right to privacy in private places and in public places where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy (eg public toilets), but how extensive this is depends on circumstances. In private places that are open to the public, permission of the landowner is usually sufficient to be able to photograph visitors and staff. However a recent court case upheld a right to eat a meal in a restaurant in privacy even though the restaurant owner had consented to the photography, because in the court's view it was a customer's normal expectation not to be photographed there. If in doubt, this is probably the question to ask yourself. • • 'You have violated my human rights'. Police seem to sometimes object to being photographed on the grounds that their 'Human Rights' are being violated. This really means the same thing as 'privacy' and there is none in the street as the presence of CCTV and police photographers shows. The Human Rights Act 1998 recognises a human right to expect privacy wherever privacy is normal, eg in the home. So photographs taken where privacy may be expected require permission of the subject. EG photographs taken from public places that depict someone within their home in a situation where they expect privacy, for instance through a window using a telephoto lens, will be actionable. • • 'You are harassing me'. Photography can indeed constitute harassment, but for an act to constitute harassment requires deliberate acts of harassment on at least 2 separate occasions. The complainant may then seek a restraining order from the court.[/p][/quote]An excellent post! If I may add, the Human Rights Act is there to protect you from actions of the state or its agents, not individuals, companies etc - thats what criminal and civil law is for. So the 'Right to privacy' argument could be used against the police by an individual, not the other way round. RickH

7:49pm Tue 9 Jul 13

yawnnn says...

Disgusting behaviour yet again by the corrupt lot in sussex,i hope all those clowns are sacked instantly and the victim sues for assault,as for the bloke that filmed it,well done its on sky news!!! They watch us,we watch them,works both ways in a democratic society!!!
Disgusting behaviour yet again by the corrupt lot in sussex,i hope all those clowns are sacked instantly and the victim sues for assault,as for the bloke that filmed it,well done its on sky news!!! They watch us,we watch them,works both ways in a democratic society!!! yawnnn

7:50pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Roundbill says...

"Caps Lock" is cruise control for cool.
"Caps Lock" is cruise control for cool. Roundbill

7:55pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Hove Ex-Pat says...

Brings new meaning to, "It all kicked off when we got there, sarge."
Brings new meaning to, "It all kicked off when we got there, sarge." Hove Ex-Pat

8:04pm Tue 9 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

Ballroom Blitz wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
Ballroom Blitz wrote:
Who cares? He's a thieving lowlife. Probably a druggie as well. Don't steal, and the police won't tazer you or kick you in the legs. Simple.
Now there will be an inquiry which will cost thousands of pounds.
What a waste of resources on this idiot.
Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is the rock on which English law stands and anything less is unacceptable in a society that claims it is democratic.
From all eye witness accounts he was very aggressive and resisting arrest. If you don't want to get tasered or manhandled, it's simple. Don't kick off, and go quietly when caught.
Regardless ... the police should not act as judge and jury. Nor should we.
[quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: Who cares? He's a thieving lowlife. Probably a druggie as well. Don't steal, and the police won't tazer you or kick you in the legs. Simple. Now there will be an inquiry which will cost thousands of pounds. What a waste of resources on this idiot.[/p][/quote]Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That is the rock on which English law stands and anything less is unacceptable in a society that claims it is democratic.[/p][/quote]From all eye witness accounts he was very aggressive and resisting arrest. If you don't want to get tasered or manhandled, it's simple. Don't kick off, and go quietly when caught.[/p][/quote]Regardless ... the police should not act as judge and jury. Nor should we. mimseycal

8:05pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Rocker says...

It is a non story,massively hyped up to imply there was over-the-top police response to a citizen minding his business.

First off,the guy was bang out of order
,swearing,threatenin
g,aggressively challenging the police,he wouldn't calm down. I wouldn't have wanted to take him on,he was a real threat.

The police tried to get him to surrender.The policeman who took him down give him a short kick to the back of his knee to down him,no big deal and it worked. He had an expandable baton drawn before this,but never used it,even though the "victim" tried to engage him in a fight.

The "victim" wanted to fight the police. They took him down with a minimum of force. Truth be told,he looked pathetic,after bigging himself up as a big fighting man only to be downed like that.

So,back to the filming man. I know people film anything these days,but was this an opportunity to get a few quid at the expense of the truth? Or to try and make the police look bad?Well,it hasn't worked. They did a great job taking out an aggressive man who wanted to fight them. The filmer was or is probably hoping no-one would rumble his attempt to present a victim when in fact the victim was a violent man seeking a dust up with the police.
It is a non story,massively hyped up to imply there was over-the-top police response to a citizen minding his business. First off,the guy was bang out of order ,swearing,threatenin g,aggressively challenging the police,he wouldn't calm down. I wouldn't have wanted to take him on,he was a real threat. The police tried to get him to surrender.The policeman who took him down give him a short kick to the back of his knee to down him,no big deal and it worked. He had an expandable baton drawn before this,but never used it,even though the "victim" tried to engage him in a fight. The "victim" wanted to fight the police. They took him down with a minimum of force. Truth be told,he looked pathetic,after bigging himself up as a big fighting man only to be downed like that. So,back to the filming man. I know people film anything these days,but was this an opportunity to get a few quid at the expense of the truth? Or to try and make the police look bad?Well,it hasn't worked. They did a great job taking out an aggressive man who wanted to fight them. The filmer was or is probably hoping no-one would rumble his attempt to present a victim when in fact the victim was a violent man seeking a dust up with the police. Rocker

8:11pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Valerie Paynter says...

rmp253 wrote:
It's a real shame to see the Argus use this to try to recreate some kind of Sussex version of the disgraceful Rodney King beatings.

We are only shown a split second of the entire event. But what this looks like, the officer strikes the suspect at the back of his knee, which is a tried and tested tactic to bring a suspect down to the floor.

The way this has been hyped by the Argus, I expected to see the officer laying in to some guy with boots and baton. But no, the suspect was simply taken down onto the floor.

I wonder if the Argus could show the entire build up to the arrest so we can see if the suspect was giving up all nice and peaceful or was he being violent making threats towards the Police or the public????
Uh, you missed out the tasering. And did you notice the tethering to the female officer by chance?

And can you explain WHY the boy needed to be felled - by first a tasering and secondly with a kick to his legs. What purpose did it serve? It just looks like a hot, impatient and irritated copper losing it.

I can see ZERO justification for tasering or kicking - there are four of these coppers shifting about on their feet stupidly and one spindly boy not even looking like resisting arrest.

Sussex police don't look good if this is something they treat as anything less than a sacking offence. This behaviour does not increase respect.
[quote][p][bold]rmp253[/bold] wrote: It's a real shame to see the Argus use this to try to recreate some kind of Sussex version of the disgraceful Rodney King beatings. We are only shown a split second of the entire event. But what this looks like, the officer strikes the suspect at the back of his knee, which is a tried and tested tactic to bring a suspect down to the floor. The way this has been hyped by the Argus, I expected to see the officer laying in to some guy with boots and baton. But no, the suspect was simply taken down onto the floor. I wonder if the Argus could show the entire build up to the arrest so we can see if the suspect was giving up all nice and peaceful or was he being violent making threats towards the Police or the public????[/p][/quote]Uh, you missed out the tasering. And did you notice the tethering to the female officer by chance? And can you explain WHY the boy needed to be felled - by first a tasering and secondly with a kick to his legs. What purpose did it serve? It just looks like a hot, impatient and irritated copper losing it. I can see ZERO justification for tasering or kicking - there are four of these coppers shifting about on their feet stupidly and one spindly boy not even looking like resisting arrest. Sussex police don't look good if this is something they treat as anything less than a sacking offence. This behaviour does not increase respect. Valerie Paynter

8:22pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Valerie Paynter says...

Rocker wrote:
I saw the man filming this on his iPhone....he knows the truth,like I do.

The film man has an agenda here,he knows the full story,but wants to make the police look bad by showing a tiny bit of what happened.

Why not show the man shouting,gesticulati

ng,challenging the police to fight him? Refusing to calm down.

The police were totally correct.

Our film man is deceiving people into thinking this was unwarranted police aggression. It wasn't,the police were absolutely spot on in taking down an intimidating man acting like a violent lout.
Can you give any reason why four coppers were incapable of using their training to physically restrain him?

As a former Shoreham Live Exports protester from the 1990's I saw dozens and dozens of physical arrests of compliant and resisting people. They just tackled people. No tasers then.

The failure to understand that someone on their face on the ground and not moving after getting 50,000 volts and a kicking just might be unconscious or injured from the fall is inexcusable.

Police training does actually include 'how to stay cool' and behave calmly. This lot needs retraining! And none of them should ever be allowed to carry a tazer again - a lifelong ban.
[quote][p][bold]Rocker[/bold] wrote: I saw the man filming this on his iPhone....he knows the truth,like I do. The film man has an agenda here,he knows the full story,but wants to make the police look bad by showing a tiny bit of what happened. Why not show the man shouting,gesticulati ng,challenging the police to fight him? Refusing to calm down. The police were totally correct. Our film man is deceiving people into thinking this was unwarranted police aggression. It wasn't,the police were absolutely spot on in taking down an intimidating man acting like a violent lout.[/p][/quote]Can you give any reason why four coppers were incapable of using their training to physically restrain him? As a former Shoreham Live Exports protester from the 1990's I saw dozens and dozens of physical arrests of compliant and resisting people. They just tackled people. No tasers then. The failure to understand that someone on their face on the ground and not moving after getting 50,000 volts and a kicking just might be unconscious or injured from the fall is inexcusable. Police training does actually include 'how to stay cool' and behave calmly. This lot needs retraining! And none of them should ever be allowed to carry a tazer again - a lifelong ban. Valerie Paynter

8:33pm Tue 9 Jul 13

south1919 says...

I just hope he was one of those squatters
I just hope he was one of those squatters south1919

8:40pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Rocker says...

VP,you really don't have a clue.

This bloke didn't get a kicking....he was downed by a policeman showing great restraint after being repeatedly threatened...more of a sharp push with the foot to the back of the knee to cause the man to go down. One quick action.

If you had been there,and the "victim" was threatening you,you would probably have wanted someone to arrest him and stop the threat. The police did it.

It wasn't them being violent for the sake of it,the "victim" was the one bouncing around,making short rushes towards the police,challenging them to fight him. He wanted the violence.

So,sorry to tell you it wasn't police brutality or overkill.

I've already phoned the police,I will give more information to them and not on here. The police shouldn't be disciplined when they did an absolute first class job taking a violent man out of causing them harm.

It was all over in seconds.

Ask yourselves why the film maker didn't show the the man behaving like a drunken yob and challenging the police to violence.
VP,you really don't have a clue. This bloke didn't get a kicking....he was downed by a policeman showing great restraint after being repeatedly threatened...more of a sharp push with the foot to the back of the knee to cause the man to go down. One quick action. If you had been there,and the "victim" was threatening you,you would probably have wanted someone to arrest him and stop the threat. The police did it. It wasn't them being violent for the sake of it,the "victim" was the one bouncing around,making short rushes towards the police,challenging them to fight him. He wanted the violence. So,sorry to tell you it wasn't police brutality or overkill. I've already phoned the police,I will give more information to them and not on here. The police shouldn't be disciplined when they did an absolute first class job taking a violent man out of causing them harm. It was all over in seconds. Ask yourselves why the film maker didn't show the the man behaving like a drunken yob and challenging the police to violence. Rocker

9:12pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Valerie Paynter says...

Rocker wrote:
VP,you really don't have a clue.

This bloke didn't get a kicking....he was downed by a policeman showing great restraint after being repeatedly threatened...more of a sharp push with the foot to the back of the knee to cause the man to go down. One quick action.

If you had been there,and the "victim" was threatening you,you would probably have wanted someone to arrest him and stop the threat. The police did it.

It wasn't them being violent for the sake of it,the "victim" was the one bouncing around,making short rushes towards the police,challenging them to fight him. He wanted the violence.

So,sorry to tell you it wasn't police brutality or overkill.

I've already phoned the police,I will give more information to them and not on here. The police shouldn't be disciplined when they did an absolute first class job taking a violent man out of causing them harm.

It was all over in seconds.

Ask yourselves why the film maker didn't show the the man behaving like a drunken yob and challenging the police to violence.
You flail about in your reply to me. You ignore my question!

I hope the use of taser and kick can be justified to superiors because they have had training in arresting people like this without that need and they should have used it.

They will need to justify flooring him at all too. They know how to restrain people in that situation, and cuff them without use of tasers, screaming at unconscious bodies on the floor and kickings.

That was a two person job of physical restraint on an unarmed man. How do you think people behaving wildly in mental hospitals ever got restrained before tazers were invented?
[quote][p][bold]Rocker[/bold] wrote: VP,you really don't have a clue. This bloke didn't get a kicking....he was downed by a policeman showing great restraint after being repeatedly threatened...more of a sharp push with the foot to the back of the knee to cause the man to go down. One quick action. If you had been there,and the "victim" was threatening you,you would probably have wanted someone to arrest him and stop the threat. The police did it. It wasn't them being violent for the sake of it,the "victim" was the one bouncing around,making short rushes towards the police,challenging them to fight him. He wanted the violence. So,sorry to tell you it wasn't police brutality or overkill. I've already phoned the police,I will give more information to them and not on here. The police shouldn't be disciplined when they did an absolute first class job taking a violent man out of causing them harm. It was all over in seconds. Ask yourselves why the film maker didn't show the the man behaving like a drunken yob and challenging the police to violence.[/p][/quote]You flail about in your reply to me. You ignore my question! I hope the use of taser and kick can be justified to superiors because they have had training in arresting people like this without that need and they should have used it. They will need to justify flooring him at all too. They know how to restrain people in that situation, and cuff them without use of tasers, screaming at unconscious bodies on the floor and kickings. That was a two person job of physical restraint on an unarmed man. How do you think people behaving wildly in mental hospitals ever got restrained before tazers were invented? Valerie Paynter

9:16pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Fight_Back says...

rufgruff wrote:
holly1977 wrote:
rufgruff wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers !
On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.
Holly I would love to see these police officers prosecuted in a court of law but I'm afraid that will not happen. This incident will be brushed under the carpet by the Professional standards department .The officers involved will be told to make sure that they are more careful when and where they electrocute someone in future........
So you're basically backing up Holly's accusation against you that you aren't applying the principles of innocent until proven guilty evenly then ?
[quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holly1977[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers ![/p][/quote]On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.[/p][/quote]Holly I would love to see these police officers prosecuted in a court of law but I'm afraid that will not happen. This incident will be brushed under the carpet by the Professional standards department .The officers involved will be told to make sure that they are more careful when and where they electrocute someone in future........[/p][/quote]So you're basically backing up Holly's accusation against you that you aren't applying the principles of innocent until proven guilty evenly then ? Fight_Back

9:18pm Tue 9 Jul 13

ARMANA says...

mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .
YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...[/p][/quote]Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .[/p][/quote]YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL ARMANA

9:18pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Dealing with idiots says...

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Rocker wrote: VP,you really don't have a clue. This bloke didn't get a kicking....he was downed by a policeman showing great restraint after being repeatedly threatened...more of a sharp push with the foot to the back of the knee to cause the man to go down. One quick action. If you had been there,and the "victim" was threatening you,you would probably have wanted someone to arrest him and stop the threat. The police did it. It wasn't them being violent for the sake of it,the "victim" was the one bouncing around,making short rushes towards the police,challenging them to fight him. He wanted the violence. So,sorry to tell you it wasn't police brutality or overkill. I've already phoned the police,I will give more information to them and not on here. The police shouldn't be disciplined when they did an absolute first class job taking a violent man out of causing them harm. It was all over in seconds. Ask yourselves why the film maker didn't show the the man behaving like a drunken yob and challenging the police to violence.
You flail about in your reply to me. You ignore my question! I hope the use of taser and kick can be justified to superiors because they have had training in arresting people like this without that need and they should have used it. They will need to justify flooring him at all too. They know how to restrain people in that situation, and cuff them without use of tasers, screaming at unconscious bodies on the floor and kickings. That was a two person job of physical restraint on an unarmed man. How do you think people behaving wildly in mental hospitals ever got restrained before tazers were invented?
You ask
'How do you think people behaving wildly in mental hospitals ever got restrained before tazers were invented?'

Having worked in the mental health sector I will tell you how. 10 big nurses and a syringe full of Largactil, otherwise known as the liquid cosh.

This chap got briefly zapped, pushed over with a foot and told to stay still. I know which method I would prefer.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rocker[/bold] wrote: VP,you really don't have a clue. This bloke didn't get a kicking....he was downed by a policeman showing great restraint after being repeatedly threatened...more of a sharp push with the foot to the back of the knee to cause the man to go down. One quick action. If you had been there,and the "victim" was threatening you,you would probably have wanted someone to arrest him and stop the threat. The police did it. It wasn't them being violent for the sake of it,the "victim" was the one bouncing around,making short rushes towards the police,challenging them to fight him. He wanted the violence. So,sorry to tell you it wasn't police brutality or overkill. I've already phoned the police,I will give more information to them and not on here. The police shouldn't be disciplined when they did an absolute first class job taking a violent man out of causing them harm. It was all over in seconds. Ask yourselves why the film maker didn't show the the man behaving like a drunken yob and challenging the police to violence.[/p][/quote]You flail about in your reply to me. You ignore my question! I hope the use of taser and kick can be justified to superiors because they have had training in arresting people like this without that need and they should have used it. They will need to justify flooring him at all too. They know how to restrain people in that situation, and cuff them without use of tasers, screaming at unconscious bodies on the floor and kickings. That was a two person job of physical restraint on an unarmed man. How do you think people behaving wildly in mental hospitals ever got restrained before tazers were invented?[/p][/quote]You ask 'How do you think people behaving wildly in mental hospitals ever got restrained before tazers were invented?' Having worked in the mental health sector I will tell you how. 10 big nurses and a syringe full of Largactil, otherwise known as the liquid cosh. This chap got briefly zapped, pushed over with a foot and told to stay still. I know which method I would prefer. Dealing with idiots

9:21pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Rocker says...

Unbelievable!

I'm not going to add extra detail at this point,but the arrest was proportionate to the threat the man was giving.

One day idiots like this man might pick on you,and threaten violence or even deliver it. And what will you do,invite him for tea and cake whilst he breaks your neck? You have no idea!

I'll give the eye witness account to the police in the morning.
Unbelievable! I'm not going to add extra detail at this point,but the arrest was proportionate to the threat the man was giving. One day idiots like this man might pick on you,and threaten violence or even deliver it. And what will you do,invite him for tea and cake whilst he breaks your neck? You have no idea! I'll give the eye witness account to the police in the morning. Rocker

9:35pm Tue 9 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .
YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL
You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts.

Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys.

But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...[/p][/quote]Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .[/p][/quote]YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL[/p][/quote]You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts. Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys. But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-) mimseycal

9:36pm Tue 9 Jul 13

poffen says...

Would not have happened 10 years ago. These cops have been trained to assault and ask questions later. NO humanity - all gone and been trained out of them - just official policy you know. Shame. Just glad they do not (yet) have guns!
Would not have happened 10 years ago. These cops have been trained to assault and ask questions later. NO humanity - all gone and been trained out of them - just official policy you know. Shame. Just glad they do not (yet) have guns! poffen

9:39pm Tue 9 Jul 13

rmp253 says...

Rocker wrote:
Unbelievable!

I'm not going to add extra detail at this point,but the arrest was proportionate to the threat the man was giving.

One day idiots like this man might pick on you,and threaten violence or even deliver it. And what will you do,invite him for tea and cake whilst he breaks your neck? You have no idea!

I'll give the eye witness account to the police in the morning.
Well said and very true.
[quote][p][bold]Rocker[/bold] wrote: Unbelievable! I'm not going to add extra detail at this point,but the arrest was proportionate to the threat the man was giving. One day idiots like this man might pick on you,and threaten violence or even deliver it. And what will you do,invite him for tea and cake whilst he breaks your neck? You have no idea! I'll give the eye witness account to the police in the morning.[/p][/quote]Well said and very true. rmp253

9:42pm Tue 9 Jul 13

gnash2911 says...

Were those officers behaving reasonably, or just going in mob handed and feet first? I think the officer who blocked the witnesses video answers that question for us !!
Were those officers behaving reasonably, or just going in mob handed and feet first? I think the officer who blocked the witnesses video answers that question for us !! gnash2911

9:42pm Tue 9 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

Rocker wrote:
VP,you really don't have a clue.

This bloke didn't get a kicking....he was downed by a policeman showing great restraint after being repeatedly threatened...more of a sharp push with the foot to the back of the knee to cause the man to go down. One quick action.

If you had been there,and the "victim" was threatening you,you would probably have wanted someone to arrest him and stop the threat. The police did it.

It wasn't them being violent for the sake of it,the "victim" was the one bouncing around,making short rushes towards the police,challenging them to fight him. He wanted the violence.

So,sorry to tell you it wasn't police brutality or overkill.

I've already phoned the police,I will give more information to them and not on here. The police shouldn't be disciplined when they did an absolute first class job taking a violent man out of causing them harm.

It was all over in seconds.

Ask yourselves why the film maker didn't show the the man behaving like a drunken yob and challenging the police to violence.
Rocker dear, the video clearly shows a kick to the perineal. The back of the knees is quite a bit lower.

I shudder to think of police officers who cannot tell the difference between the perineal and the back of the knees being given the authority to use tasers.
[quote][p][bold]Rocker[/bold] wrote: VP,you really don't have a clue. This bloke didn't get a kicking....he was downed by a policeman showing great restraint after being repeatedly threatened...more of a sharp push with the foot to the back of the knee to cause the man to go down. One quick action. If you had been there,and the "victim" was threatening you,you would probably have wanted someone to arrest him and stop the threat. The police did it. It wasn't them being violent for the sake of it,the "victim" was the one bouncing around,making short rushes towards the police,challenging them to fight him. He wanted the violence. So,sorry to tell you it wasn't police brutality or overkill. I've already phoned the police,I will give more information to them and not on here. The police shouldn't be disciplined when they did an absolute first class job taking a violent man out of causing them harm. It was all over in seconds. Ask yourselves why the film maker didn't show the the man behaving like a drunken yob and challenging the police to violence.[/p][/quote]Rocker dear, the video clearly shows a kick to the perineal. The back of the knees is quite a bit lower. I shudder to think of police officers who cannot tell the difference between the perineal and the back of the knees being given the authority to use tasers. mimseycal

9:45pm Tue 9 Jul 13

south1919 says...

Can someone please tell me why this is headlines and not the racist sex assults on those young girls on the beach ??
Can someone please tell me why this is headlines and not the racist sex assults on those young girls on the beach ?? south1919

9:46pm Tue 9 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

Rocker wrote:
Unbelievable!

I'm not going to add extra detail at this point,but the arrest was proportionate to the threat the man was giving.

One day idiots like this man might pick on you,and threaten violence or even deliver it. And what will you do,invite him for tea and cake whilst he breaks your neck? You have no idea!

I'll give the eye witness account to the police in the morning.
You should have given your eyewitness account before the Argus published the video.

I stood ready to be a witness for an officer once. I waited till the incident was concluded and then gave them my name and address in case they needed corroboration. I didn't wait to read about it in the Argus first.
[quote][p][bold]Rocker[/bold] wrote: Unbelievable! I'm not going to add extra detail at this point,but the arrest was proportionate to the threat the man was giving. One day idiots like this man might pick on you,and threaten violence or even deliver it. And what will you do,invite him for tea and cake whilst he breaks your neck? You have no idea! I'll give the eye witness account to the police in the morning.[/p][/quote]You should have given your eyewitness account before the Argus published the video. I stood ready to be a witness for an officer once. I waited till the incident was concluded and then gave them my name and address in case they needed corroboration. I didn't wait to read about it in the Argus first. mimseycal

9:53pm Tue 9 Jul 13

BrightonCrimeFan says...

Do you know who the victim is? Contact The Argus on 01273 544527.

Yes, it says in the article. The victim is Sainsbury Plc. I'm sorry, but how can The Argus call itself impartial when it calls someone who was arrested a victim? And to be honest, he didn't appear to be "going down" at all, he was stood frozen. The kick was doubtless to put him on the ground without having to touch him flesh to flesh, which would have resulted in the office getting shocked too. Why does this paper thrive so badly on sensationalism instead of just reporting the facts?
Do you know who the victim is? Contact The Argus on 01273 544527. Yes, it says in the article. The victim is Sainsbury Plc. I'm sorry, but how can The Argus call itself impartial when it calls someone who was arrested a victim? And to be honest, he didn't appear to be "going down" at all, he was stood frozen. The kick was doubtless to put him on the ground without having to touch him flesh to flesh, which would have resulted in the office getting shocked too. Why does this paper thrive so badly on sensationalism instead of just reporting the facts? BrightonCrimeFan

10:18pm Tue 9 Jul 13

hubby says...

At least five police including the one who stood in front of the camera.
No knife,no gun,no baseball bat.
So he was shouting at them.Poor things.Five v one and they have been trained to deal with situations like this.
They really needed to Taser him?
Or was it just a bit of fun like the chases they love to provoke in their cars?
He didn't exactly look like a big guy.Unlike the copper who booted him and then shouted at him as he lay on the floor.
How do the police expect anybody to respect them when they behave like this?
At least five police including the one who stood in front of the camera. No knife,no gun,no baseball bat. So he was shouting at them.Poor things.Five v one and they have been trained to deal with situations like this. They really needed to Taser him? Or was it just a bit of fun like the chases they love to provoke in their cars? He didn't exactly look like a big guy.Unlike the copper who booted him and then shouted at him as he lay on the floor. How do the police expect anybody to respect them when they behave like this? hubby

10:23pm Tue 9 Jul 13

Ballroom Blitz says...

yawnnn wrote:
Disgusting behaviour yet again by the corrupt lot in sussex,i hope all those clowns are sacked instantly and the victim sues for assault,as for the bloke that filmed it,well done its on sky news!!! They watch us,we watch them,works both ways in a democratic society!!!
Yaaaaaaawn..
[quote][p][bold]yawnnn[/bold] wrote: Disgusting behaviour yet again by the corrupt lot in sussex,i hope all those clowns are sacked instantly and the victim sues for assault,as for the bloke that filmed it,well done its on sky news!!! They watch us,we watch them,works both ways in a democratic society!!![/p][/quote]Yaaaaaaawn.. Ballroom Blitz

10:37pm Tue 9 Jul 13

south1919 says...

Argus tut tut ,product placement
Argus tut tut ,product placement south1919

5:07am Wed 10 Jul 13

zen4men says...

Our wonderful government's laws are the skeleton upon which the flesh of society is positioned, and self-evidently, that flesh is distorted, because neither flesh nor bones operate in harmony.

Never in our history have there been so many laws, paper-pushers, deadlines, failures to meet deadlines, and catastrophic consequences for many, that comes as standard in this primitive fear-based society.

If you watch the video closely, just after the kick, you will see the policemen's body energy, as he exercises the training the state has given him, projecting at high speed and volume, massive intimidation - directed at a motionless man on the ground. You can see the policeman's head moving with the force of his projected energy, which is clearly aggressive.

One only needs to ask "Is this really the kind of energy we want policing our streets?", and "Why is our government and police so clearly failing, with new instances of corruptions, lies, perjury, and deceit being discovered day by day?"

We need government and police, but both words need the word "good" placed before them. Both government and police have lost sight of their true function, and the police have been rapidly developing into paramilitaries, with a taste for occasional executions in a hail of gunfire.

The system is never honest, transparent, and unbiased whenever one of it's own are discovered breaking laws; cover-ups come as standard, and as is being revealed, those who in any way threaten the glossy public relations images of police so expensively groomed, are infiltrated by Special Branch, who use agents provocateurs to secure the smearing or destruction of such threats.

This pattern is rapidly emerging into view, because the old ways of criminal conspiracy concealment of government crimes, will no longer be tolerated - The People are finally waking up to the sheer scale of the oppression that is the tyranny called The Rule of Law under democracy.

Change begins in the mind, when people say "No!", but one must remember that the system is never going to change it's fundamental nature, being totally based on fear through force - leadership and love are always entirely absent.

So whenever terrible things happen, the system wrings it's hands, sets up a committee of inquiry, appoints safe hands to run it, takes two years ( during which the average Joe Soap loses interest ), and then makes a few meaningless cosmetic alterations to give a false impression of improvement, a couple of expendable non-entities are hung out to dry as scapegoats, while the establishment give themselves even bigger salaries, and shuffle the cards around between themselves, the logo of the organisation is changed, a few soundbytes are organised with a helpfully-compliant mainstream media, and the circus goes on exactly as it always has.

Look again at the video, and focus on the policeman's body and vocal energy. Then ask yourself "Is this really the kind of energy I want running my country?" If the answer is "No!", you can try "democracy", but it is a sham, and your "participation" is occasional, and orchestrated by others.

Far better, is to learn about "Energy", and how to "Return bad energy back to source". The policeman's energy is clearly visible in the video, but ALL energy from government, is an energy wave, which extends from the initiating mind, outwards. All one needs to do, whenever confronted by bad energy, is create a mirror in your mind, and return it straight back to source, invoking The Law of Karma as you do, and placing both yourself AND the source under Karma.

You do not have to lift your little finger, but you may be surprised by the results; I was. I exposed a corrupt council in the west, and police covered it up in a particularly nasty way ( blackmailing my father, for example ), I was bankrupted and criminalised, and serious criminal offences over planning permission 'vanished'. Over the next few years, three lawyers on the case had messy unexpected career terminations ( Judge Andrew Chubb's being the best known, as the circumstances were as bizarre as Karma could make it ). I have taught a number of people the simple technique, with similar ( usually less dramatic ) results.

We do not have to suffer either bad government or bad police; ignore their internal 'complaints' procedures ( they are a sham ); just use your mind, step above their primitive system, return bad energy to source, then relax, and observe results.

I exposed a solicitor in the west who for decades has been blackmailing his clients into sex, with the full knowledge of the police ( who think it funny that criminal class 'scumbags' go down on their knees (mainly boys ) in order to hope to escape jail, having had their fears manipulated by the solicitor's oily words ). Police ran me through a kangaroo court in January, and refused to let me question the witnesses against me ( let alone have a victim give evidence of what the solicitor made him do ). People said "Appeal!", but I see their law as worthless, so I use Karma. It has been six months; it may be six years - but it will come. The last time, Karma showed me what was happening, by printing it on the front page of The Times ( Chubb's second Inquest ).

Just to clarify; you are not PROJECTING energy towards a target; you are merely returning someone's own energy back to source. Anyone wishing to use this technique to deliberately cause harm, is in for a shock, because "What you put out, comes back!" This is why justice delivered by Karma is always perfect justice; no human being is involved.

And this is a meditation technique that anyone can use, anywhere, anytime, so you do not need to be a card-carrying flag-waving clenched-fisted protester, drenched in the traditional sport of 'Revolution', where rioters and police happily play violent games for sport ( with people like Ian Tomlinson available to be conveniently non-murdered ).

Revolution alongside those into that sort of thing, or their non-murdering opposing team, is not my kind of sport. So I created the word (R)evolution. The brackets around the 'R' denote the focused mind, so (R)evolution - is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind.

The policeman's energy displayed in the video, perfectly demonstrates the energy of government. Usually it is concealed behind a very thin veneer of 'honest' professionalism, most people think this is 'normal', and dance to the tune of the tyrants, as they take more and more from you.

Each person who says "No!", and learns how to prevent their energy vibrating on the same sort of level as government's, can raise their energy to a higher level, moving away from fear, towards love. Yes, there will be people who attack you as 'mad', because in an insanely-managed world, anyone who independently seeks sanity, is a threat to the existing common unity myth orchestrated by the system. Simply decide if you want to make your decisions based on fear or on love. It is THAT simple; love or fear; zero or one; attraction or repulsion. Do you emit love or fear? In energy terms, no-one rides two horses.

Look at the video; see the energy displayed - are you attracted to the policeman projecting government-approved energy in the way he was trained, or are you repulsed?

Simple.

Final thought - if anyone is a filmmaker, I would like to put a video on YouTube on how people can return bad energy to source, as there seems to be rather a lot of bad energy all over Earth, and government's answers are simply the same old failed remedies reinforcing failure - on a global scale.

Iraq (oil), Afghanistan(opium, minerals - google US Geological Survey ), Syria ( vital to Iran ).

Get the picture?

~ Zen ~ 10 July 2013

(R)evolution - is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind.
Our wonderful government's laws are the skeleton upon which the flesh of society is positioned, and self-evidently, that flesh is distorted, because neither flesh nor bones operate in harmony. Never in our history have there been so many laws, paper-pushers, deadlines, failures to meet deadlines, and catastrophic consequences for many, that comes as standard in this primitive fear-based society. If you watch the video closely, just after the kick, you will see the policemen's body energy, as he exercises the training the state has given him, projecting at high speed and volume, massive intimidation - directed at a motionless man on the ground. You can see the policeman's head moving with the force of his projected energy, which is clearly aggressive. One only needs to ask "Is this really the kind of energy we want policing our streets?", and "Why is our government and police so clearly failing, with new instances of corruptions, lies, perjury, and deceit being discovered day by day?" We need government and police, but both words need the word "good" placed before them. Both government and police have lost sight of their true function, and the police have been rapidly developing into paramilitaries, with a taste for occasional executions in a hail of gunfire. The system is never honest, transparent, and unbiased whenever one of it's own are discovered breaking laws; cover-ups come as standard, and as is being revealed, those who in any way threaten the glossy public relations images of police so expensively groomed, are infiltrated by Special Branch, who use agents provocateurs to secure the smearing or destruction of such threats. This pattern is rapidly emerging into view, because the old ways of criminal conspiracy concealment of government crimes, will no longer be tolerated - The People are finally waking up to the sheer scale of the oppression that is the tyranny called The Rule of Law under democracy. Change begins in the mind, when people say "No!", but one must remember that the system is never going to change it's fundamental nature, being totally based on fear through force - leadership and love are always entirely absent. So whenever terrible things happen, the system wrings it's hands, sets up a committee of inquiry, appoints safe hands to run it, takes two years ( during which the average Joe Soap loses interest ), and then makes a few meaningless cosmetic alterations to give a false impression of improvement, a couple of expendable non-entities are hung out to dry as scapegoats, while the establishment give themselves even bigger salaries, and shuffle the cards around between themselves, the logo of the organisation is changed, a few soundbytes are organised with a helpfully-compliant mainstream media, and the circus goes on exactly as it always has. Look again at the video, and focus on the policeman's body and vocal energy. Then ask yourself "Is this really the kind of energy I want running my country?" If the answer is "No!", you can try "democracy", but it is a sham, and your "participation" is occasional, and orchestrated by others. Far better, is to learn about "Energy", and how to "Return bad energy back to source". The policeman's energy is clearly visible in the video, but ALL energy from government, is an energy wave, which extends from the initiating mind, outwards. All one needs to do, whenever confronted by bad energy, is create a mirror in your mind, and return it straight back to source, invoking The Law of Karma as you do, and placing both yourself AND the source under Karma. You do not have to lift your little finger, but you may be surprised by the results; I was. I exposed a corrupt council in the west, and police covered it up in a particularly nasty way ( blackmailing my father, for example ), I was bankrupted and criminalised, and serious criminal offences over planning permission 'vanished'. Over the next few years, three lawyers on the case had messy unexpected career terminations ( Judge Andrew Chubb's being the best known, as the circumstances were as bizarre as Karma could make it ). I have taught a number of people the simple technique, with similar ( usually less dramatic ) results. We do not have to suffer either bad government or bad police; ignore their internal 'complaints' procedures ( they are a sham ); just use your mind, step above their primitive system, return bad energy to source, then relax, and observe results. I exposed a solicitor in the west who for decades has been blackmailing his clients into sex, with the full knowledge of the police ( who think it funny that criminal class 'scumbags' go down on their knees (mainly boys ) in order to hope to escape jail, having had their fears manipulated by the solicitor's oily words ). Police ran me through a kangaroo court in January, and refused to let me question the witnesses against me ( let alone have a victim give evidence of what the solicitor made him do ). People said "Appeal!", but I see their law as worthless, so I use Karma. It has been six months; it may be six years - but it will come. The last time, Karma showed me what was happening, by printing it on the front page of The Times ( Chubb's second Inquest ). Just to clarify; you are not PROJECTING energy towards a target; you are merely returning someone's own energy back to source. Anyone wishing to use this technique to deliberately cause harm, is in for a shock, because "What you put out, comes back!" This is why justice delivered by Karma is always perfect justice; no human being is involved. And this is a meditation technique that anyone can use, anywhere, anytime, so you do not need to be a card-carrying flag-waving clenched-fisted protester, drenched in the traditional sport of 'Revolution', where rioters and police happily play violent games for sport ( with people like Ian Tomlinson available to be conveniently non-murdered ). Revolution alongside those into that sort of thing, or their non-murdering opposing team, is not my kind of sport. So I created the word (R)evolution. The brackets around the 'R' denote the focused mind, so (R)evolution - is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind. The policeman's energy displayed in the video, perfectly demonstrates the energy of government. Usually it is concealed behind a very thin veneer of 'honest' professionalism, most people think this is 'normal', and dance to the tune of the tyrants, as they take more and more from you. Each person who says "No!", and learns how to prevent their energy vibrating on the same sort of level as government's, can raise their energy to a higher level, moving away from fear, towards love. Yes, there will be people who attack you as 'mad', because in an insanely-managed world, anyone who independently seeks sanity, is a threat to the existing common unity myth orchestrated by the system. Simply decide if you want to make your decisions based on fear or on love. It is THAT simple; love or fear; zero or one; attraction or repulsion. Do you emit love or fear? In energy terms, no-one rides two horses. Look at the video; see the energy displayed - are you attracted to the policeman projecting government-approved energy in the way he was trained, or are you repulsed? Simple. Final thought - if anyone is a filmmaker, I would like to put a video on YouTube on how people can return bad energy to source, as there seems to be rather a lot of bad energy all over Earth, and government's answers are simply the same old failed remedies reinforcing failure - on a global scale. Iraq (oil), Afghanistan(opium, minerals - google US Geological Survey ), Syria ( vital to Iran [oil]). Get the picture? ~ Zen ~ 10 July 2013 (R)evolution - is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind. zen4men

7:54am Wed 10 Jul 13

greeg2 says...

Ballroom Blitz wrote:
Who cares? He's a thieving lowlife. Probably a druggie as well. Don't steal, and the police won't tazer you or kick you in the legs. Simple.
Now there will be an inquiry which will cost thousands of pounds.
What a waste of resources on this idiot.
Bet your boyfriend's a cop !
[quote][p][bold]Ballroom Blitz[/bold] wrote: Who cares? He's a thieving lowlife. Probably a druggie as well. Don't steal, and the police won't tazer you or kick you in the legs. Simple. Now there will be an inquiry which will cost thousands of pounds. What a waste of resources on this idiot.[/p][/quote]Bet your boyfriend's a cop ! greeg2

8:06am Wed 10 Jul 13

rufgruff says...

Fight_Back wrote:
rufgruff wrote:
holly1977 wrote:
rufgruff wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers !
On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.
Holly I would love to see these police officers prosecuted in a court of law but I'm afraid that will not happen. This incident will be brushed under the carpet by the Professional standards department .The officers involved will be told to make sure that they are more careful when and where they electrocute someone in future........
So you're basically backing up Holly's accusation against you that you aren't applying the principles of innocent until proven guilty evenly then ?
yesi you are both absolutely correct I do beliieve that the law is weighted in favour of the police and my bigotry in this matter is clearly exposed

I'm afraid that I cannot help how I feel IE the police decide innocent and guilt and meter out their own punishmments if they don't like the people they are dealing with..
[quote][p][bold]Fight_Back[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holly1977[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers ![/p][/quote]On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.[/p][/quote]Holly I would love to see these police officers prosecuted in a court of law but I'm afraid that will not happen. This incident will be brushed under the carpet by the Professional standards department .The officers involved will be told to make sure that they are more careful when and where they electrocute someone in future........[/p][/quote]So you're basically backing up Holly's accusation against you that you aren't applying the principles of innocent until proven guilty evenly then ?[/p][/quote]yesi you are both absolutely correct I do beliieve that the law is weighted in favour of the police and my bigotry in this matter is clearly exposed I'm afraid that I cannot help how I feel IE the police decide innocent and guilt and meter out their own punishmments if they don't like the people they are dealing with.. rufgruff

8:43am Wed 10 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

The Law does not favour anyone. How can it do so if it is but a system. Though I'll grant you that it does seem to favour itself. Or, perhaps more accurately, it favours the continuance of Law; and the order it brings.

The general theory behind a system of Law is Utilitarianism. Which in essence applies a simple equation with the contentment of the many being the sole aim.

If it appears to favour its duly authorised upholders, the Police, it is because we, the Public, do not scrutinise them effectively.

Like it or not, but as long as the majority, the Public, remains largely apathetic and inactive, we, by our very silence, encourage this; as Public inactivity is perceived as contentment with the status quo.

And please, do not read this as a call to Anarchy. The remedy to the issue/s is within the system as it stands.
The Law does not favour anyone. How can it do so if it is but a system. Though I'll grant you that it does seem to favour itself. Or, perhaps more accurately, it favours the continuance of Law; and the order it brings. The general theory behind a system of Law is Utilitarianism. Which in essence applies a simple equation with the contentment of the many being the sole aim. If it appears to favour its duly authorised upholders, the Police, it is because we, the Public, do not scrutinise them effectively. Like it or not, but as long as the majority, the Public, remains largely apathetic and inactive, we, by our very silence, encourage this; as Public inactivity is perceived as contentment with the status quo. And please, do not read this as a call to Anarchy. The remedy to the issue/s is within the system as it stands. mimseycal

9:35am Wed 10 Jul 13

KarenT says...

Blah blah blah human rights blah blah blah nasty policemen blah blah blah human rights... Wake me up when it's all over.
Blah blah blah human rights blah blah blah nasty policemen blah blah blah human rights... Wake me up when it's all over. KarenT

9:46am Wed 10 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

KarenT wrote:
Blah blah blah human rights blah blah blah nasty policemen blah blah blah human rights... Wake me up when it's all over.
Who mentioned Human Rights KarenT? Or is it simply a recurrence of the old trypanosomiasis that has you yawning?
[quote][p][bold]KarenT[/bold] wrote: Blah blah blah human rights blah blah blah nasty policemen blah blah blah human rights... Wake me up when it's all over.[/p][/quote]Who mentioned Human Rights KarenT? Or is it simply a recurrence of the old trypanosomiasis that has you yawning? mimseycal

9:50am Wed 10 Jul 13

ARMANA says...

mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .
YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL
You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts.

Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys.

But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)
HA HA HA ITS NOT HARD TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOU BUD, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ,
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...[/p][/quote]Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .[/p][/quote]YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL[/p][/quote]You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts. Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys. But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)[/p][/quote]HA HA HA ITS NOT HARD TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOU BUD, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH , ARMANA

10:03am Wed 10 Jul 13

fredflintstone1 says...

south1919 wrote:
Can someone please tell me why this is headlines and not the racist sex assults on those young girls on the beach ??
Yes, because they weren't filmed.

The frontline officers have a really difficult job. If anyone should be investigated, it's the senior officers who persistently allow travellers to invade public parks, as at Carden Park right now, and take no action.

Having been evicted from one site, why allow groups of people simply to go off and invade another area in the city? There should be a policy to prevent this happening.
[quote][p][bold]south1919[/bold] wrote: Can someone please tell me why this is headlines and not the racist sex assults on those young girls on the beach ??[/p][/quote]Yes, because they weren't filmed. The frontline officers have a really difficult job. If anyone should be investigated, it's the senior officers who persistently allow travellers to invade public parks, as at Carden Park right now, and take no action. Having been evicted from one site, why allow groups of people simply to go off and invade another area in the city? There should be a policy to prevent this happening. fredflintstone1

10:08am Wed 10 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .
YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL
You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts.

Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys.

But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)
HA HA HA ITS NOT HARD TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOU BUD, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ,
What ails the fool to laugh? Does something please
His vain conceit? Or is 't a mere disease?
Fool, giggle on, and waste thy wanton breath;
Thy morning laughter breeds an ev'ning death.
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...[/p][/quote]Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .[/p][/quote]YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL[/p][/quote]You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts. Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys. But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)[/p][/quote]HA HA HA ITS NOT HARD TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOU BUD, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ,[/p][/quote]What ails the fool to laugh? Does something please His vain conceit? Or is 't a mere disease? Fool, giggle on, and waste thy wanton breath; Thy morning laughter breeds an ev'ning death. mimseycal

10:38am Wed 10 Jul 13

wendy13 says...

BURIRAM wrote:
Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.
In general the police do a fantastic job. In this instance however, the trigger happy tazer officer used excessive force, let alone the thug police officer sticking the boot in. There was no need to use tazer with so many police officers at the said job, he was half dressed by the time they tazered him, all they needed to do was restrain him. I hope that these 2 police officers lose their jobs. Bad examples of policing. My daughter was mortified at seeing the news and asked many questions. Absolutely disgusted.
[quote][p][bold]BURIRAM[/bold] wrote: Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.[/p][/quote]In general the police do a fantastic job. In this instance however, the trigger happy tazer officer used excessive force, let alone the thug police officer sticking the boot in. There was no need to use tazer with so many police officers at the said job, he was half dressed by the time they tazered him, all they needed to do was restrain him. I hope that these 2 police officers lose their jobs. Bad examples of policing. My daughter was mortified at seeing the news and asked many questions. Absolutely disgusted. wendy13

1:31pm Wed 10 Jul 13

hubby says...

fredflintstone1 wrote:
south1919 wrote:
Can someone please tell me why this is headlines and not the racist sex assults on those young girls on the beach ??
Yes, because they weren't filmed.

The frontline officers have a really difficult job. If anyone should be investigated, it's the senior officers who persistently allow travellers to invade public parks, as at Carden Park right now, and take no action.

Having been evicted from one site, why allow groups of people simply to go off and invade another area in the city? There should be a policy to prevent this happening.
It is because the ability to comment on the sexual assaults was quickly taken away from us.
[quote][p][bold]fredflintstone1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]south1919[/bold] wrote: Can someone please tell me why this is headlines and not the racist sex assults on those young girls on the beach ??[/p][/quote]Yes, because they weren't filmed. The frontline officers have a really difficult job. If anyone should be investigated, it's the senior officers who persistently allow travellers to invade public parks, as at Carden Park right now, and take no action. Having been evicted from one site, why allow groups of people simply to go off and invade another area in the city? There should be a policy to prevent this happening.[/p][/quote]It is because the ability to comment on the sexual assaults was quickly taken away from us. hubby

1:57pm Wed 10 Jul 13

ARMANA says...

mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .
YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL
You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts.

Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys.

But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)
HA HA HA ITS NOT HARD TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOU BUD, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ,
What ails the fool to laugh? Does something please
His vain conceit? Or is 't a mere disease?
Fool, giggle on, and waste thy wanton breath;
Thy morning laughter breeds an ev'ning death.
YEP, I KNEW YOU WERE FULL OF IT, LOL
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...[/p][/quote]Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .[/p][/quote]YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL[/p][/quote]You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts. Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys. But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)[/p][/quote]HA HA HA ITS NOT HARD TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOU BUD, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ,[/p][/quote]What ails the fool to laugh? Does something please His vain conceit? Or is 't a mere disease? Fool, giggle on, and waste thy wanton breath; Thy morning laughter breeds an ev'ning death.[/p][/quote]YEP, I KNEW YOU WERE FULL OF IT, LOL ARMANA

1:59pm Wed 10 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .
YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL
You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts.

Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys.

But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)
HA HA HA ITS NOT HARD TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOU BUD, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ,
What ails the fool to laugh? Does something please
His vain conceit? Or is 't a mere disease?
Fool, giggle on, and waste thy wanton breath;
Thy morning laughter breeds an ev'ning death.
YEP, I KNEW YOU WERE FULL OF IT, LOL
Better full of it then baying at the moon.
[quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...[/p][/quote]Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .[/p][/quote]YOU CANNOT EVEN PUT A SENTENCE TOGETHER BUD, ID GO BACK TO BED IF I WERE YOU, LOL[/p][/quote]You are right of course. I did not take into consideration the HTML coding or whatever it is the Argus uses in their posts. Where the dots are it states "Caps Lock". The other two are telling you that this generally is located between the "Shift" and "Tab" keys. But carry on "SHOUTING" ... it just means that most people will not even bother reading the rubbish you spout ;-)[/p][/quote]HA HA HA ITS NOT HARD TO LIGHT A FIRE UNDER YOU BUD, THANKS FOR THE LAUGH ,[/p][/quote]What ails the fool to laugh? Does something please His vain conceit? Or is 't a mere disease? Fool, giggle on, and waste thy wanton breath; Thy morning laughter breeds an ev'ning death.[/p][/quote]YEP, I KNEW YOU WERE FULL OF IT, LOL[/p][/quote]Better full of it then baying at the moon. mimseycal

2:40pm Wed 10 Jul 13

Cycling commuter says...

rufgruff wrote:
holly1977 wrote:
rufgruff wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers !
On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.
Holly I would love to see these police officers prosecuted in a court of law but I'm afraid that will not happen. This incident will be brushed under the carpet by the Professional standards department .The officers involved will be told to make sure that they are more careful when and where they electrocute someone in future........
rufgruf, so the officers are judged as guilty by yourself? I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty?
[quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]holly1977[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rufgruff[/bold] wrote: We are all inoccent till proven guilty in a court of law. It looks like the Police decided to meter out their own punishment here. How can anyone say that reasonable force was used? it's 4 officers against one person who clearly has no weapon on him ( perhaps he was taking his clothes off so police could see this?) The police are acting like playground bullys. its been caught on camera THIS time thow often does this happen when no-one is around to witness it ? The great scandal of course is that it will be investigated by fellow police officers ![/p][/quote]On your basis that we are ALL innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, how about you apply the same approach to the police officers? They will be investigated and they will be prosecuted if the law has been broken. The professional standards department (&CPS) apply a much harsher view on prosecuting police officers than members of the public in the same scenario (ie if it was a kick by a member of the public). Unless you are there at the time you cannot be judge and Jury, we dont know all the facts, just what the Argus chose to print/show and if the officer was out of order, I am sure that they will find themselves probably in the job centre.[/p][/quote]Holly I would love to see these police officers prosecuted in a court of law but I'm afraid that will not happen. This incident will be brushed under the carpet by the Professional standards department .The officers involved will be told to make sure that they are more careful when and where they electrocute someone in future........[/p][/quote]rufgruf, so the officers are judged as guilty by yourself? I thought everyone was innocent until proven guilty? Cycling commuter

2:56pm Wed 10 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

@ Cycling commuter 2:40pm Wed 10 Jul 13

There surely is a difference between judging someone guilty or considering someone as suspected of a undesirable act.

Asking that a person account for an action, whether in a Court of Law or not, is not necessarily pre-judging them as guilty. Hence even when charged with a felony/crime, individuals are held to be innocent until the conclusion of their trial; when this status is either confirmed or altered to guilty.
@ Cycling commuter 2:40pm Wed 10 Jul 13 There surely is a difference between judging someone guilty or considering someone as suspected of a undesirable act. Asking that a person account for an action, whether in a Court of Law or not, is not necessarily pre-judging them as guilty. Hence even when charged with a felony/crime, individuals are held to be innocent until the conclusion of their trial; when this status is either confirmed or altered to guilty. mimseycal

3:11pm Wed 10 Jul 13

bikerjimbo says...

Just watched the video twice because I was unsure as to the excessive violence being mentioned. i thought I was going to see the detained person being kicked while on the ground. The officers did not use force other than what appears proportionate. We do not see what happened prior to the detainee being tasered/kicked so this is not quite what it seems to me. Sensationalism by the Argus doesn't help. I wonder how many people who have commented have been involved in incidents like this. There may have been 4 officers there but what you see is that they are adopting defensive type poses while the detainee is on the ground. I was shocked at the headline, annoyed by some of the comments but not surprised. I know many are ignorant of police procedures in this type of case but things like this are not swept under the carpet. It will be investigated thoroughly and remember when officers are running into potential hostile situations many are running away.
Just watched the video twice because I was unsure as to the excessive violence being mentioned. i thought I was going to see the detained person being kicked while on the ground. The officers did not use force other than what appears proportionate. We do not see what happened prior to the detainee being tasered/kicked so this is not quite what it seems to me. Sensationalism by the Argus doesn't help. I wonder how many people who have commented have been involved in incidents like this. There may have been 4 officers there but what you see is that they are adopting defensive type poses while the detainee is on the ground. I was shocked at the headline, annoyed by some of the comments but not surprised. I know many are ignorant of police procedures in this type of case but things like this are not swept under the carpet. It will be investigated thoroughly and remember when officers are running into potential hostile situations many are running away. bikerjimbo

9:52pm Wed 10 Jul 13

Ihopenoonehasthisusername says...

mimseycal wrote:
ARMANA wrote:
THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...
Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .
You're and your. Please learn the difference.
[quote][p][bold]mimseycal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ARMANA[/bold] wrote: THE COPS ,OR ANYONE ELSE SHOULDN'T KICK YOU WHEN YOUR DOWN ON THE FLOOR, AFTER ALL YOU AINT GOIN KNOW WERE, IF YOU GET CAUGHT DOING IT, YOU SHOULD BE NICKED, IF YOUR A COP AND YOU GET CAUGHT, HE SHOULD BE NICKED TO, IV SEEN TO MANY TIMES ,COPS GOING OVER THE TOP WHEN THE PERSON HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN, AND HALF A DOZEN COPS HAVE THERE LITTLE GO, BEFORE THE PERSON IS ALLOWED TO GET UP , IF YOU TOOK AWAY THE UNIFORMS, THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF THUGS, COPS BEWARE,! THERES A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH VERY GOOD CAMERAS ON THERE PHONES TODAY, THEY MUST TRY TO REGAIN THE PUBLIC SUPPORT THEY ONCE HAD, THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOUR, LEADS TO FEAR AND DISTRUST OF THE POLICE...[/p][/quote]Please try and locate your . On most conventional keyboards it will be on the left side, between and .[/p][/quote]You're and your. Please learn the difference. Ihopenoonehasthisusername

11:34am Thu 11 Jul 13

KarenT says...

I could easily improve my English if I just scrolled down to the end of each Argus thread, once the debate has descended into the inevitable; people attacking each other's spelling and grammar. ;-)
I could easily improve my English if I just scrolled down to the end of each Argus thread, once the debate has descended into the inevitable; people attacking each other's spelling and grammar. ;-) KarenT

11:56am Thu 11 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

Ain't that the truth ;-)
Ain't that the truth ;-) mimseycal

7:46am Fri 12 Jul 13

Old Ladys Gin says...

Frank28 wrote:
It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.
What utter rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]Frank28[/bold] wrote: It is not a good idea to film the Police in this way - you could find yourself being arrested and questioned under the Counter Terrorism Act 2008. Even if you're not charged with anything, you will have brought yourself to the attention of the Police, and have spent some time in custody.[/p][/quote]What utter rubbish. Old Ladys Gin

2:33pm Fri 12 Jul 13

nosolution says...

This keeps on occuring,Sussex police officers must have something to hide when they try to stop people filming ,as is their right,when they are on a job.Now we know why.Also 2 tazerings in a week,once one of them does it and boasts in the canteen about it they all can't wait to do it.We must all keep an eye on the police and keep on recording their actions as it is only in this way that they can be held to account as some seem not able to keep good account of themselves...
This keeps on occuring,Sussex police officers must have something to hide when they try to stop people filming ,as is their right,when they are on a job.Now we know why.Also 2 tazerings in a week,once one of them does it and boasts in the canteen about it they all can't wait to do it.We must all keep an eye on the police and keep on recording their actions as it is only in this way that they can be held to account as some seem not able to keep good account of themselves... nosolution

12:28pm Sun 14 Jul 13

Plantpot says...

bikerjimbo wrote:
Just watched the video twice because I was unsure as to the excessive violence being mentioned. i thought I was going to see the detained person being kicked while on the ground. The officers did not use force other than what appears proportionate. We do not see what happened prior to the detainee being tasered/kicked so this is not quite what it seems to me. Sensationalism by the Argus doesn't help. I wonder how many people who have commented have been involved in incidents like this. There may have been 4 officers there but what you see is that they are adopting defensive type poses while the detainee is on the ground. I was shocked at the headline, annoyed by some of the comments but not surprised. I know many are ignorant of police procedures in this type of case but things like this are not swept under the carpet. It will be investigated thoroughly and remember when officers are running into potential hostile situations many are running away.
Agree.
[quote][p][bold]bikerjimbo[/bold] wrote: Just watched the video twice because I was unsure as to the excessive violence being mentioned. i thought I was going to see the detained person being kicked while on the ground. The officers did not use force other than what appears proportionate. We do not see what happened prior to the detainee being tasered/kicked so this is not quite what it seems to me. Sensationalism by the Argus doesn't help. I wonder how many people who have commented have been involved in incidents like this. There may have been 4 officers there but what you see is that they are adopting defensive type poses while the detainee is on the ground. I was shocked at the headline, annoyed by some of the comments but not surprised. I know many are ignorant of police procedures in this type of case but things like this are not swept under the carpet. It will be investigated thoroughly and remember when officers are running into potential hostile situations many are running away.[/p][/quote]Agree. Plantpot

2:59pm Sun 14 Jul 13

cookie_brighton says...

Look at this from the other side...if the guy kicked the policeman like that........he would be charged with assaulting a police officer........in anyones eyes it IS an offence of assault causing bodily harm (ABH)
Arrest him and throw him out of the force...unfit for service.
And please notice in the video......the alleged offender......HAD HIS BACK TO THE POLICE OFFICERS.
Look at this from the other side...if the guy kicked the policeman like that........he would be charged with assaulting a police officer........in anyones eyes it IS an offence of assault causing bodily harm (ABH) Arrest him and throw him out of the force...unfit for service. And please notice in the video......the alleged offender......HAD HIS BACK TO THE POLICE OFFICERS. cookie_brighton

3:10pm Sun 14 Jul 13

cookie_brighton says...

we live in a democratic country where we are innocent of any offence until found guilty in a court of law ( some innocent people have been wrongly convicted )
What gives the police the right to pull up in their vehicles, run over to a suspect( who is still innocent ) grab hold of that person, throw him/her to the ground then several officers, sit on the said person, then force their hands up their back and place handcuffs on them, then throw them into a police van....where is the innocent until proved guilty there......and if the said person tries to object he/she is charged with assaulting police and resisting arrest.
we live in a democratic country where we are innocent of any offence until found guilty in a court of law ( some innocent people have been wrongly convicted ) What gives the police the right to pull up in their vehicles, run over to a suspect( who is still innocent ) grab hold of that person, throw him/her to the ground then several officers, sit on the said person, then force their hands up their back and place handcuffs on them, then throw them into a police van....where is the innocent until proved guilty there......and if the said person tries to object he/she is charged with assaulting police and resisting arrest. cookie_brighton

3:26pm Sun 14 Jul 13

cookie_brighton says...

there was no actual contact needed from the police.......the suspect had been tazered......as the witness has alleged........he was on his way down when he was kicked, the tazer is there to immobolise a suspect......and it does.
there was no actual contact needed from the police.......the suspect had been tazered......as the witness has alleged........he was on his way down when he was kicked, the tazer is there to immobolise a suspect......and it does. cookie_brighton

10:14pm Sun 14 Jul 13

brightonwhatwhat says...

zen4men wrote:
Our wonderful government's laws are the skeleton upon which the flesh of society is positioned, and self-evidently, that flesh is distorted, because neither flesh nor bones operate in harmony.

Never in our history have there been so many laws, paper-pushers, deadlines, failures to meet deadlines, and catastrophic consequences for many, that comes as standard in this primitive fear-based society.

If you watch the video closely, just after the kick, you will see the policemen's body energy, as he exercises the training the state has given him, projecting at high speed and volume, massive intimidation - directed at a motionless man on the ground. You can see the policeman's head moving with the force of his projected energy, which is clearly aggressive.

One only needs to ask "Is this really the kind of energy we want policing our streets?", and "Why is our government and police so clearly failing, with new instances of corruptions, lies, perjury, and deceit being discovered day by day?"

We need government and police, but both words need the word "good" placed before them. Both government and police have lost sight of their true function, and the police have been rapidly developing into paramilitaries, with a taste for occasional executions in a hail of gunfire.

The system is never honest, transparent, and unbiased whenever one of it's own are discovered breaking laws; cover-ups come as standard, and as is being revealed, those who in any way threaten the glossy public relations images of police so expensively groomed, are infiltrated by Special Branch, who use agents provocateurs to secure the smearing or destruction of such threats.

This pattern is rapidly emerging into view, because the old ways of criminal conspiracy concealment of government crimes, will no longer be tolerated - The People are finally waking up to the sheer scale of the oppression that is the tyranny called The Rule of Law under democracy.

Change begins in the mind, when people say "No!", but one must remember that the system is never going to change it's fundamental nature, being totally based on fear through force - leadership and love are always entirely absent.

So whenever terrible things happen, the system wrings it's hands, sets up a committee of inquiry, appoints safe hands to run it, takes two years ( during which the average Joe Soap loses interest ), and then makes a few meaningless cosmetic alterations to give a false impression of improvement, a couple of expendable non-entities are hung out to dry as scapegoats, while the establishment give themselves even bigger salaries, and shuffle the cards around between themselves, the logo of the organisation is changed, a few soundbytes are organised with a helpfully-compliant mainstream media, and the circus goes on exactly as it always has.

Look again at the video, and focus on the policeman's body and vocal energy. Then ask yourself "Is this really the kind of energy I want running my country?" If the answer is "No!", you can try "democracy", but it is a sham, and your "participation" is occasional, and orchestrated by others.

Far better, is to learn about "Energy", and how to "Return bad energy back to source". The policeman's energy is clearly visible in the video, but ALL energy from government, is an energy wave, which extends from the initiating mind, outwards. All one needs to do, whenever confronted by bad energy, is create a mirror in your mind, and return it straight back to source, invoking The Law of Karma as you do, and placing both yourself AND the source under Karma.

You do not have to lift your little finger, but you may be surprised by the results; I was. I exposed a corrupt council in the west, and police covered it up in a particularly nasty way ( blackmailing my father, for example ), I was bankrupted and criminalised, and serious criminal offences over planning permission 'vanished'. Over the next few years, three lawyers on the case had messy unexpected career terminations ( Judge Andrew Chubb's being the best known, as the circumstances were as bizarre as Karma could make it ). I have taught a number of people the simple technique, with similar ( usually less dramatic ) results.

We do not have to suffer either bad government or bad police; ignore their internal 'complaints' procedures ( they are a sham ); just use your mind, step above their primitive system, return bad energy to source, then relax, and observe results.

I exposed a solicitor in the west who for decades has been blackmailing his clients into sex, with the full knowledge of the police ( who think it funny that criminal class 'scumbags' go down on their knees (mainly boys ) in order to hope to escape jail, having had their fears manipulated by the solicitor's oily words ). Police ran me through a kangaroo court in January, and refused to let me question the witnesses against me ( let alone have a victim give evidence of what the solicitor made him do ). People said "Appeal!", but I see their law as worthless, so I use Karma. It has been six months; it may be six years - but it will come. The last time, Karma showed me what was happening, by printing it on the front page of The Times ( Chubb's second Inquest ).

Just to clarify; you are not PROJECTING energy towards a target; you are merely returning someone's own energy back to source. Anyone wishing to use this technique to deliberately cause harm, is in for a shock, because "What you put out, comes back!" This is why justice delivered by Karma is always perfect justice; no human being is involved.

And this is a meditation technique that anyone can use, anywhere, anytime, so you do not need to be a card-carrying flag-waving clenched-fisted protester, drenched in the traditional sport of 'Revolution', where rioters and police happily play violent games for sport ( with people like Ian Tomlinson available to be conveniently non-murdered ).

Revolution alongside those into that sort of thing, or their non-murdering opposing team, is not my kind of sport. So I created the word (R)evolution. The brackets around the 'R' denote the focused mind, so (R)evolution - is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind.

The policeman's energy displayed in the video, perfectly demonstrates the energy of government. Usually it is concealed behind a very thin veneer of 'honest' professionalism, most people think this is 'normal', and dance to the tune of the tyrants, as they take more and more from you.

Each person who says "No!", and learns how to prevent their energy vibrating on the same sort of level as government's, can raise their energy to a higher level, moving away from fear, towards love. Yes, there will be people who attack you as 'mad', because in an insanely-managed world, anyone who independently seeks sanity, is a threat to the existing common unity myth orchestrated by the system. Simply decide if you want to make your decisions based on fear or on love. It is THAT simple; love or fear; zero or one; attraction or repulsion. Do you emit love or fear? In energy terms, no-one rides two horses.

Look at the video; see the energy displayed - are you attracted to the policeman projecting government-approved energy in the way he was trained, or are you repulsed?

Simple.

Final thought - if anyone is a filmmaker, I would like to put a video on YouTube on how people can return bad energy to source, as there seems to be rather a lot of bad energy all over Earth, and government's answers are simply the same old failed remedies reinforcing failure - on a global scale.

Iraq (oil), Afghanistan(opium, minerals - google US Geological Survey ), Syria ( vital to Iran ).

Get the picture?

~ Zen ~ 10 July 2013

(R)evolution - is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind.
do you own a tin foil hat, please?
[quote][p][bold]zen4men[/bold] wrote: Our wonderful government's laws are the skeleton upon which the flesh of society is positioned, and self-evidently, that flesh is distorted, because neither flesh nor bones operate in harmony. Never in our history have there been so many laws, paper-pushers, deadlines, failures to meet deadlines, and catastrophic consequences for many, that comes as standard in this primitive fear-based society. If you watch the video closely, just after the kick, you will see the policemen's body energy, as he exercises the training the state has given him, projecting at high speed and volume, massive intimidation - directed at a motionless man on the ground. You can see the policeman's head moving with the force of his projected energy, which is clearly aggressive. One only needs to ask "Is this really the kind of energy we want policing our streets?", and "Why is our government and police so clearly failing, with new instances of corruptions, lies, perjury, and deceit being discovered day by day?" We need government and police, but both words need the word "good" placed before them. Both government and police have lost sight of their true function, and the police have been rapidly developing into paramilitaries, with a taste for occasional executions in a hail of gunfire. The system is never honest, transparent, and unbiased whenever one of it's own are discovered breaking laws; cover-ups come as standard, and as is being revealed, those who in any way threaten the glossy public relations images of police so expensively groomed, are infiltrated by Special Branch, who use agents provocateurs to secure the smearing or destruction of such threats. This pattern is rapidly emerging into view, because the old ways of criminal conspiracy concealment of government crimes, will no longer be tolerated - The People are finally waking up to the sheer scale of the oppression that is the tyranny called The Rule of Law under democracy. Change begins in the mind, when people say "No!", but one must remember that the system is never going to change it's fundamental nature, being totally based on fear through force - leadership and love are always entirely absent. So whenever terrible things happen, the system wrings it's hands, sets up a committee of inquiry, appoints safe hands to run it, takes two years ( during which the average Joe Soap loses interest ), and then makes a few meaningless cosmetic alterations to give a false impression of improvement, a couple of expendable non-entities are hung out to dry as scapegoats, while the establishment give themselves even bigger salaries, and shuffle the cards around between themselves, the logo of the organisation is changed, a few soundbytes are organised with a helpfully-compliant mainstream media, and the circus goes on exactly as it always has. Look again at the video, and focus on the policeman's body and vocal energy. Then ask yourself "Is this really the kind of energy I want running my country?" If the answer is "No!", you can try "democracy", but it is a sham, and your "participation" is occasional, and orchestrated by others. Far better, is to learn about "Energy", and how to "Return bad energy back to source". The policeman's energy is clearly visible in the video, but ALL energy from government, is an energy wave, which extends from the initiating mind, outwards. All one needs to do, whenever confronted by bad energy, is create a mirror in your mind, and return it straight back to source, invoking The Law of Karma as you do, and placing both yourself AND the source under Karma. You do not have to lift your little finger, but you may be surprised by the results; I was. I exposed a corrupt council in the west, and police covered it up in a particularly nasty way ( blackmailing my father, for example ), I was bankrupted and criminalised, and serious criminal offences over planning permission 'vanished'. Over the next few years, three lawyers on the case had messy unexpected career terminations ( Judge Andrew Chubb's being the best known, as the circumstances were as bizarre as Karma could make it ). I have taught a number of people the simple technique, with similar ( usually less dramatic ) results. We do not have to suffer either bad government or bad police; ignore their internal 'complaints' procedures ( they are a sham ); just use your mind, step above their primitive system, return bad energy to source, then relax, and observe results. I exposed a solicitor in the west who for decades has been blackmailing his clients into sex, with the full knowledge of the police ( who think it funny that criminal class 'scumbags' go down on their knees (mainly boys ) in order to hope to escape jail, having had their fears manipulated by the solicitor's oily words ). Police ran me through a kangaroo court in January, and refused to let me question the witnesses against me ( let alone have a victim give evidence of what the solicitor made him do ). People said "Appeal!", but I see their law as worthless, so I use Karma. It has been six months; it may be six years - but it will come. The last time, Karma showed me what was happening, by printing it on the front page of The Times ( Chubb's second Inquest ). Just to clarify; you are not PROJECTING energy towards a target; you are merely returning someone's own energy back to source. Anyone wishing to use this technique to deliberately cause harm, is in for a shock, because "What you put out, comes back!" This is why justice delivered by Karma is always perfect justice; no human being is involved. And this is a meditation technique that anyone can use, anywhere, anytime, so you do not need to be a card-carrying flag-waving clenched-fisted protester, drenched in the traditional sport of 'Revolution', where rioters and police happily play violent games for sport ( with people like Ian Tomlinson available to be conveniently non-murdered ). Revolution alongside those into that sort of thing, or their non-murdering opposing team, is not my kind of sport. So I created the word (R)evolution. The brackets around the 'R' denote the focused mind, so (R)evolution - is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind. The policeman's energy displayed in the video, perfectly demonstrates the energy of government. Usually it is concealed behind a very thin veneer of 'honest' professionalism, most people think this is 'normal', and dance to the tune of the tyrants, as they take more and more from you. Each person who says "No!", and learns how to prevent their energy vibrating on the same sort of level as government's, can raise their energy to a higher level, moving away from fear, towards love. Yes, there will be people who attack you as 'mad', because in an insanely-managed world, anyone who independently seeks sanity, is a threat to the existing common unity myth orchestrated by the system. Simply decide if you want to make your decisions based on fear or on love. It is THAT simple; love or fear; zero or one; attraction or repulsion. Do you emit love or fear? In energy terms, no-one rides two horses. Look at the video; see the energy displayed - are you attracted to the policeman projecting government-approved energy in the way he was trained, or are you repulsed? Simple. Final thought - if anyone is a filmmaker, I would like to put a video on YouTube on how people can return bad energy to source, as there seems to be rather a lot of bad energy all over Earth, and government's answers are simply the same old failed remedies reinforcing failure - on a global scale. Iraq (oil), Afghanistan(opium, minerals - google US Geological Survey ), Syria ( vital to Iran [oil]). Get the picture? ~ Zen ~ 10 July 2013 (R)evolution - is simply keeping peaceful evolution in mind.[/p][/quote]do you own a tin foil hat, please? brightonwhatwhat

10:15pm Sun 14 Jul 13

brightonwhatwhat says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
we live in a democratic country where we are innocent of any offence until found guilty in a court of law ( some innocent people have been wrongly convicted )
What gives the police the right to pull up in their vehicles, run over to a suspect( who is still innocent ) grab hold of that person, throw him/her to the ground then several officers, sit on the said person, then force their hands up their back and place handcuffs on them, then throw them into a police van....where is the innocent until proved guilty there......and if the said person tries to object he/she is charged with assaulting police and resisting arrest.
We give them the right to protect us, and the tools to do that. Ask yourself what happened before the person started filming? As yourself why the guy had taken his shirt off? As yourself what sort of violence the police deal with day after day. Open your anti-police mind...
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: we live in a democratic country where we are innocent of any offence until found guilty in a court of law ( some innocent people have been wrongly convicted ) What gives the police the right to pull up in their vehicles, run over to a suspect( who is still innocent ) grab hold of that person, throw him/her to the ground then several officers, sit on the said person, then force their hands up their back and place handcuffs on them, then throw them into a police van....where is the innocent until proved guilty there......and if the said person tries to object he/she is charged with assaulting police and resisting arrest.[/p][/quote]We give them the right to protect us, and the tools to do that. Ask yourself what happened before the person started filming? As yourself why the guy had taken his shirt off? As yourself what sort of violence the police deal with day after day. Open your anti-police mind... brightonwhatwhat

10:17pm Sun 14 Jul 13

brightonwhatwhat says...

cookie_brighton wrote:
there was no actual contact needed from the police.......the suspect had been tazered......as the witness has alleged........he was on his way down when he was kicked, the tazer is there to immobolise a suspect......and it does.
Is it possible the cop times the kick to the back of the leg wrong and the two different officers decided to use force at the same time. The cop had already commited to the kick when the taser took effect. The guy had already ripped his t-shirt off, so he may well have been wanting a fight. If that was the case, is this really "brutality"?
[quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: there was no actual contact needed from the police.......the suspect had been tazered......as the witness has alleged........he was on his way down when he was kicked, the tazer is there to immobolise a suspect......and it does.[/p][/quote]Is it possible the cop times the kick to the back of the leg wrong and the two different officers decided to use force at the same time. The cop had already commited to the kick when the taser took effect. The guy had already ripped his t-shirt off, so he may well have been wanting a fight. If that was the case, is this really "brutality"? brightonwhatwhat

10:24pm Sun 14 Jul 13

brightonwhatwhat says...

nosolution wrote:
This keeps on occuring,Sussex police officers must have something to hide when they try to stop people filming ,as is their right,when they are on a job.Now we know why.Also 2 tazerings in a week,once one of them does it and boasts in the canteen about it they all can't wait to do it.We must all keep an eye on the police and keep on recording their actions as it is only in this way that they can be held to account as some seem not able to keep good account of themselves...
wasnt one of the tasering cases against a man who was arrested for trying to kill the police officer with a knife? What planet are you on man? Should the cops have just run at the man until he got tired of stabbing them with his right arm. The when he got tired they could jump him. Would you prefer that? In this video the cop didnt seem to try and hide anything, the film footage is quite clear. If a cop stood in his way whilst trying to deal with a violent man, so what? He wasnt moved, or pushed, or arrested. He was allowed to film and do the right thing by bringing the footage to the police watchdog....oh, no, that's right, he took it to the paper, didnt he! You can film in a public place as much as you want, but there is no law saying the cops cant move out the way, you plum.
[quote][p][bold]nosolution[/bold] wrote: This keeps on occuring,Sussex police officers must have something to hide when they try to stop people filming ,as is their right,when they are on a job.Now we know why.Also 2 tazerings in a week,once one of them does it and boasts in the canteen about it they all can't wait to do it.We must all keep an eye on the police and keep on recording their actions as it is only in this way that they can be held to account as some seem not able to keep good account of themselves...[/p][/quote]wasnt one of the tasering cases against a man who was arrested for trying to kill the police officer with a knife? What planet are you on man? Should the cops have just run at the man until he got tired of stabbing them with his right arm. The when he got tired they could jump him. Would you prefer that? In this video the cop didnt seem to try and hide anything, the film footage is quite clear. If a cop stood in his way whilst trying to deal with a violent man, so what? He wasnt moved, or pushed, or arrested. He was allowed to film and do the right thing by bringing the footage to the police watchdog....oh, no, that's right, he took it to the paper, didnt he! You can film in a public place as much as you want, but there is no law saying the cops cant move out the way, you plum. brightonwhatwhat

10:46pm Sun 14 Jul 13

Rose Watson says...

brightonwhatwhat wrote:
cookie_brighton wrote:
we live in a democratic country where we are innocent of any offence until found guilty in a court of law ( some innocent people have been wrongly convicted )
What gives the police the right to pull up in their vehicles, run over to a suspect( who is still innocent ) grab hold of that person, throw him/her to the ground then several officers, sit on the said person, then force their hands up their back and place handcuffs on them, then throw them into a police van....where is the innocent until proved guilty there......and if the said person tries to object he/she is charged with assaulting police and resisting arrest.
We give them the right to protect us, and the tools to do that. Ask yourself what happened before the person started filming? As yourself why the guy had taken his shirt off? As yourself what sort of violence the police deal with day after day. Open your anti-police mind...
>As yourself why the guy had taken his shirt off?<
Are you suggesting that men who bare their chests in Brighton might be more deserving of an assault by the police? If that were the case it'd keep the police very busy and wouldn't do much for the tourist industry at all.
[quote][p][bold]brightonwhatwhat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cookie_brighton[/bold] wrote: we live in a democratic country where we are innocent of any offence until found guilty in a court of law ( some innocent people have been wrongly convicted ) What gives the police the right to pull up in their vehicles, run over to a suspect( who is still innocent ) grab hold of that person, throw him/her to the ground then several officers, sit on the said person, then force their hands up their back and place handcuffs on them, then throw them into a police van....where is the innocent until proved guilty there......and if the said person tries to object he/she is charged with assaulting police and resisting arrest.[/p][/quote]We give them the right to protect us, and the tools to do that. Ask yourself what happened before the person started filming? As yourself why the guy had taken his shirt off? As yourself what sort of violence the police deal with day after day. Open your anti-police mind...[/p][/quote]>As yourself why the guy had taken his shirt off?< Are you suggesting that men who bare their chests in Brighton might be more deserving of an assault by the police? If that were the case it'd keep the police very busy and wouldn't do much for the tourist industry at all. Rose Watson

2:38am Tue 16 Jul 13

smith15 says...

I would like to know who wrights all this crap for the Argus!!!
So the officer gave the male a little extra nudge so what, I'm sure he will get over it!!
Why add this at the end "Sussex Police also used a Taser on Friday in Whitehawk Hill Road, Brighton, at about 1.35pm after reports a man looked in an “agitated state” you have forgot to mention that the male was carrying a pretty big kitchen knife didn't you Argus reporter!
I would like to know who wrights all this crap for the Argus!!! So the officer gave the male a little extra nudge so what, I'm sure he will get over it!! Why add this at the end "Sussex Police also used a Taser on Friday in Whitehawk Hill Road, Brighton, at about 1.35pm after reports a man looked in an “agitated state” you have forgot to mention that the male was carrying a pretty big kitchen knife didn't you Argus reporter! smith15

7:01pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Farouche says...

The Taser is probably the single best invention of the last 50 years.


They should be standard issue for all police officers.
The Taser is probably the single best invention of the last 50 years. They should be standard issue for all police officers. Farouche

5:23pm Wed 24 Jul 13

freqeist1 says...

BURIRAM wrote:
Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.
he was kicked after he was Tasered.
So in answer to your question, if the Police are behaving this way then yes they should be filmed..there was in no way any `interference, that in itself is a crime, your statement is therefore invalid.
[quote][p][bold]BURIRAM[/bold] wrote: Just saw the video and the police made a good arrest, there job is hard enough without the interferance of the public, perhaps the businessman would like them to come and interfere and film his work.[/p][/quote]he was kicked after he was Tasered. So in answer to your question, if the Police are behaving this way then yes they should be filmed..there was in no way any `interference, that in itself is a crime, your statement is therefore invalid. freqeist1

7:47pm Wed 24 Jul 13

mimseycal says...

Farouche wrote:
The Taser is probably the single best invention of the last 50 years.


They should be standard issue for all police officers.
Tasers are classed as "prohibited weapons" under the Firearms Act 1968.

I know that our various governments are fond of changing things via the back door but arming our police force?
[quote][p][bold]Farouche[/bold] wrote: The Taser is probably the single best invention of the last 50 years. They should be standard issue for all police officers.[/p][/quote]Tasers are classed as "prohibited weapons" under the Firearms Act 1968. I know that our various governments are fond of changing things via the back door but arming our police force? mimseycal

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree