harvey19 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 Is that a yes? I would be silly to commit myself to say at all costs but I if they do not maintain control we have mob rule and anarchy and then the army would be brought in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anywebsite Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 If you'd been at Orgreave and seen the damage done by the rioters not the police to local peoples property ie fences, gates, walls and lamp posts to goad the police with missiles I'm sure you'd think "Oh what peaceful pickets the miners are". Regardles of your views there was no excusing the damage done by the pickets to private property. I said I don't have an opinion on it, I was 3 years old at the time & I wasn't at Orgreave. I never said anyone was peaceful. I'm not sure who's post you were replying to, but you quoted me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 if they do not maintain control we have mob rule and anarchy and then the army would be brought in. It's an hard balance, i'll agree with that. I think any path that leads to brutality can only be bad, especially state sanctioned brutality. Tell the police that there is 'anarchy on the streets' and they have carte blanche to end it and it will end in anarchy anyway. I can't see any justification for the police breaking 1 single law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 ... I can't see any justification for the police breaking 1 single law. If the law states that you can use proportionate force, and if required defend yourself when threatened, then at what point are they breaking the law? It's the same for us as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 If the law states that you can use proportionate force, and if required defend yourself when threatened, then at what point are they breaking the law? It's an hypothetical scenario, and I could easily reverse the scenario. If a protestor is being attacked, and is required to defend himself when threatened, at what would they be breaking the law? To answer, a policeman has the right to defend his life, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 It's an hypothetical scenario, and I could easily reverse the scenario. If a protestor is being attacked, and is required to defend himself when threatened, at what would they be breaking the law? To answer, a policeman has the right to defend his life, of course. I think the main difference in a public order scenario is the police can demand the protestors move, stay etc and use force if their instructions are not complied with. The protestor has to comply with instructions and cannot demand they be allowed to move, stay etc. The only way a protestor can use lawful force against the police in a public order scenario is if they can prove they were using reasonable force to prevent the police using unreasonable force which would be nigh on impossible to prove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 It's an hypothetical scenario, and I could easily reverse the scenario. If a protestor is being attacked, and is required to defend himself when threatened, at what would they be breaking the law? To answer, a policeman has the right to defend his life, of course. Chris you speak of a protester being attacked, the police do not lawfully attack protesters without reason they take whatever actions they deem necessary to control a situation. It is easy to sit and analyse a situation from the safety of our homes but when there is a violent situation erupting decisions and actions have to be made quickly to control that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 the police do not lawfully attack protesters without reason Why not? Are they infallible beings? Or are they human beings like every one else, with the same fears, angers and reactions to emotions as everyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 The only way a protestor can use lawful force against the police in a public order scenario is if they can prove they were using reasonable force to prevent the police using unreasonable force which would be nigh on impossible to prove. So the police have a carte blanche? Any police violence can be called "reasonable" because it's impossible to prove otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 Why not? Are they infallible beings? Or are they human beings like every one else, with the same fears, angers and reactions to emotions as everyone else? Read the complete post again please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.