The similarities are in how the Police are being viewed in both cases.
I don't know the numbers so I'm plucking them out of the air, but I bet for every arrest that goes wrong, 10 go right. Those don't get reported though.
In this case the police are being ridiculed, and in my opinion rightly so. I dont think you can put it down to bad luck. These two officers just looked incompetent.
The other case is far more complex, and involved difficult questions. Although, you could almost guarantee that bereaved parents, friends, and family members will look for someone to blame, and inevitably point fingers at the police. I dont know if the police were chasing them. What the police should have done if they werent supposed to be chasing them. Or whether anything the police did contributed to their deaths.
Taking the 2 cases individually.
The minor 1-police have to be able to do 1001 jobs. Most of them do not involve physical strength. They looked like 2 rookie cops/PCSOs. But then you are not exactly going to deploy a S.W.A.T team for this sort of thing. There are precious few police actually on the streets-no need to ridicule the few that actually go outside. Why do people presume every poline officer will win every altercation against every assailant?
The fact that the second video seems to show the women surrounded by 5 officers, doesnt seem to be a good use of police resources. The police have rules regarding officers with long hair. These rules are in place to avoid what happened to the female officer. The male officers firstly cowers away from a slap from the woman, before retreating, leaving his female colleague in trouble. The officers showed no determination to make an arrest. Admittedly, the female officer had her hair pulled, and the male officer narrowly avoided a slap, but they looked relieved when the woman made off. For me, it wasnt that things went wrong, they were completely incompetent. You surely cant be thinking that requiring five officers to make this arrest, is a wise use of police resources? To expect that two officers are able to arrest one woman without incident, seems to be a fairly low bar.
The Welsh one. There are all sorts of guidelines as to how close the police are supposed to follow, to avoid danger to the public. Seems odd that the Police started saying were not following at all-when clearly they were.
I think that the police try to differentiate between chasing, and following at a distance. Some of the parents accused the police of chasing, and I believe the police were saying following. I am not sure what the police should do under these circumstances. I understand the argument that chasing is likely to make those being pursued increase their speed. Although following in view is unlikely to result in a different response.
Perhaps if people didn't routinely assume they can be better policemen than policemen are, regardless of total lack of experience and training the World would be a better place.
Perhaps if people who appreciated that they were incapable of making an arrest under these circumstances, didnt join the police force, we would have a better, less ridiculed police force.
It's like when poker players automatically presume they can run a poker site better than people whose job it is to run poker sites...
The trouble with opinions is that they are like ar5eholes, everyone has got one.
If you look at the very end of video two, there appear to be five or six officers involved with the original two approaching, making a total of seven or eight. Ridiculous. This will depend on the big fella in a black shirt that appears to be talking into a radio. If he is an officer it will be eight, if not seven. Four cars?
The similarities are in how the Police are being viewed in both cases.
I don't know the numbers so I'm plucking them out of the air, but I bet for every arrest that goes wrong, 10 go right. Those don't get reported though.
In this case the police are being ridiculed, and in my opinion rightly so. I dont think you can put it down to bad luck. These two officers just looked incompetent.
The other case is far more complex, and involved difficult questions. Although, you could almost guarantee that bereaved parents, friends, and family members will look for someone to blame, and inevitably point fingers at the police. I dont know if the police were chasing them. What the police should have done if they werent supposed to be chasing them. Or whether anything the police did contributed to their deaths.
Taking the 2 cases individually.
The minor 1-police have to be able to do 1001 jobs. Most of them do not involve physical strength. They looked like 2 rookie cops/PCSOs. But then you are not exactly going to deploy a S.W.A.T team for this sort of thing. There are precious few police actually on the streets-no need to ridicule the few that actually go outside. Why do people presume every poline officer will win every altercation against every assailant?
The Welsh one. There are all sorts of guidelines as to how close the police are supposed to follow, to avoid danger to the public. Seems odd that the Police started saying were not following at all-when clearly they were.
Perhaps if people didn't routinely assume they can be better policemen than policemen are, regardless of total lack of experience and training the World would be a better place.
It's like when poker players automatically presume they can run a poker site better than people whose job it is to run poker sites...
I am not sure what made you draw this conclusion, but if they were rookies, then it just demonstrates more incompetence. To send a couple of rookies out to arrest someone accused of assaulting three people is just silly. Although you would hope that the basic training would include the expertise required for 2 officers to make an arrest of one person that may prove a little difficult.
Part of the reason I am able to draw conclusions is I bother to read the news articles you put up.
This was not a simple arrest, as shown by the end of the article-
"The woman continued with her aggressive behaviour, with the Met saying she then assaulted and racially abused the arresting officers.
While in custody, she is said to have assaulted another officer, who suffered a suspected broken nose.
The woman was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act, police said."
So-woman having some sort of psychotic episode. Unusually violent-most criminals do not assault police officers, simply because of the likelihood of going to prison.
Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved, and the large amount of police officers making the arrest.
I couldn't be a police officer. Don't have it in me.
Neither do 99% of people who feel able to critique the policemen who do.
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
Which rather neatly brings us to the important news item today.
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
Part of the reason I am able to draw conclusions is I bother to read the news articles you put up.
This was not a simple arrest, as shown by the end of the article-
"The woman continued with her aggressive behaviour, with the Met saying she then assaulted and racially abused the arresting officers.
While in custody, she is said to have assaulted another officer, who suffered a suspected broken nose.
The woman was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act, police said."
So-woman having some sort of psychotic episode. Unusually violent-most criminals do not assault police officers, simply because of the likelihood of going to prison.
Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved, and the large amount of police officers making the arrest.
I couldn't be a police officer. Don't have it in me.
Neither do 99% of people who feel able to critique the policemen who do.
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
Part of the reason I am able to draw conclusions is I bother to read the news articles you put up.
This was not a simple arrest, as shown by the end of the article-
"The woman continued with her aggressive behaviour, with the Met saying she then assaulted and racially abused the arresting officers.
While in custody, she is said to have assaulted another officer, who suffered a suspected broken nose.
The woman was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act, police said."
So-woman having some sort of psychotic episode. Unusually violent-most criminals do not assault police officers, simply because of the likelihood of going to prison.
Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved, and the large amount of police officers making the arrest.
I couldn't be a police officer. Don't have it in me.
Neither do 99% of people who feel able to critique the policemen who do.
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
^^^^^ And there we have it.
I wish Phil would stop using facts it doesn't run with the narrative 🤔
Essexphil said:Part of the reason I am able to draw conclusions is I bother to read the news articles you put up.
This was not a simple arrest, as shown by the end of the article-
"The woman continued with her aggressive behaviour, with the Met saying she then assaulted and racially abused the arresting officers.
While in custody, she is said to have assaulted another officer, who suffered a suspected broken nose.
The woman was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act, police said."
So-woman having some sort of psychotic episode. Unusually violent-most criminals do not assault police officers, simply because of the likelihood of going to prison.
Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved, and the large amount of police officers making the arrest.
I couldn't be a police officer. Don't have it in me.
Neither do 99% of people who feel able to critique the policemen who do.
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
I read the article, and am aware of the highlighted bit above. To be clear, I only asked why you drew one particular conclusion, which you didnt answer. I agree with you about 99% of people dont have it in them to be police officers, the two officers in this case are living proof of this. In your earlier post you were critical of people not being prepared to get involved. You make a number of assumptions in this post which may be true.
At the end of the second video the suspect is sat on the ground, up against a wall surrounded by 7 or 8 officers, and appears calm. I assume that at this point that her hands are cuffed. I would love to see an explanation of how this situation later resulted in a suspected broken nose. I am sure that this would be entertaining. Are you really saying that we shouldnt criticise the police if we couldnt be one of them, because I find that absolutely ridiculous.
I think you are struggling to make some of your points. They were aware that this woman had assaulted three people. If more officers were required to respond, why not send them in the first place? The response by the male officer put the female officer in real danger, which could have resulted in tragedy had she had a weapon, like a knife. Both the officers were unprepared, and incapable.
Which rather neatly brings us to the important news item today.
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
Yeah I saw that. Although in this case, it is difficult to see how it would make a difference. I will make a couple of assumptions as we dont know the full story. Lets assume that she stole some penny sweets, and the people she assaulted were people attempting to stop her getting away with it. Lets assume it was the shop owner that phoned the police. He would pass on the facts to the police. I am not sure the shop owner would be able to diagnose any mental disorders. So the police turn up and get assaulted. Should they phone a doctor at this point?
Which rather neatly brings us to the important news item today.
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
Yeah I saw that. Although in this case, it is difficult to see how it would make a difference. I will make a couple of assumptions as we dont know the full story. Lets assume that she stole some penny sweets, and the people she assaulted were people attempting to stop her getting away with it. Lets assume it was the shop owner that phoned the police. He would pass on the facts to the police. I am not sure the shop owner would be able to diagnose any mental disorders. So the police turn up and get assaulted. Should they phone a doctor at this point?
Allow me to make some assumptions of my own.
In most cases of this type, the person in question has a long history of mental illness. Something that the shopkeeper knew, the police knew, and the bystanders knew. Simply because that is the way these things usually pan out. Not every time. But most times. Which is, of course, why the Police are being non-aggressive.
There used to be mental hospitals in London-before they realised that large buildings set in beautiful grounds could be sold off for squillions. Replaced by "Care in the Community".
Causing untold misery to local residents and people suffering from mental health problems. And loads of police time diverted from dealing with criminals.
So sorry you feel I am "struggling to make my points". Sometimes, when I have decades of relevant experience, coupled with significant family history, I struggle to explain myself sufficiently clearly to people who believe everything is really simple, and why thousands of experts have failed to provide what you believe to be simple answers.
I really must try harder to explain why a decades-old, worsening problem, cannot be simply resolved...
Try spending some time at a Police station. And see what they have to put up with.
Part of the reason I am able to draw conclusions is I bother to read the news articles you put up.
This was not a simple arrest, as shown by the end of the article-
"The woman continued with her aggressive behaviour, with the Met saying she then assaulted and racially abused the arresting officers.
While in custody, she is said to have assaulted another officer, who suffered a suspected broken nose.
The woman was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act, police said."
So-woman having some sort of psychotic episode. Unusually violent-most criminals do not assault police officers, simply because of the likelihood of going to prison.
Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved, and the large amount of police officers making the arrest.
I couldn't be a police officer. Don't have it in me.
Neither do 99% of people who feel able to critique the policemen who do.
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
^^^^^ And there we have it.
No we dont. Why on earth do they have to batter her? Why couldnt they just use necessary force? I dont believe that the police usually batter anyone, when making an arrest. I couldnt see this woman just submitting, so I would think some force was used.
Which rather neatly brings us to the important news item today.
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
Yeah I saw that. Although in this case, it is difficult to see how it would make a difference. I will make a couple of assumptions as we dont know the full story. Lets assume that she stole some penny sweets, and the people she assaulted were people attempting to stop her getting away with it. Lets assume it was the shop owner that phoned the police. He would pass on the facts to the police. I am not sure the shop owner would be able to diagnose any mental disorders. So the police turn up and get assaulted. Should they phone a doctor at this point?
Allow me to make some assumptions of my own.
In most cases of this type, the person in question has a long history of mental illness. Something that the shopkeeper knew, the police knew, and the bystanders knew. Simply because that is the way these things usually pan out. Not every time. But most times. Which is, of course, why the Police are being non-aggressive.
There used to be mental hospitals in London-before they realised that large buildings set in beautiful grounds could be sold off for squillions. Replaced by "Care in the Community".
Causing untold misery to local residents and people suffering from mental health problems. And loads of police time diverted from dealing with criminals.
So sorry you feel I am "struggling to make my points". Sometimes, when I have decades of relevant experience, coupled with significant family history, I struggle to explain myself sufficiently clearly to people who believe everything is really simple, and why thousands of experts have failed to provide what you believe to be simple answers.
I really must try harder to explain why a decades-old, worsening problem, cannot be simply resolved...
Try spending some time at a Police station. And see what they have to put up with.
I firmly believe that the police have a thankless job. I also believe that there are many instances where they receive unfair criticism. However, this is not one of them.
I am not going argue with your assumptions.
So the police knew that they had a madwoman running around, stealing and assaulting people, and whats their response?
Send two rookies out. That sounds like a very cunning plan.
Which rather neatly brings us to the important news item today.
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
I am not sure how this is going to work. They have said that they will only respond in life threatening situations. So lets take this situation, and assume your assumptions are correct. The police are aware that the woman has mental issues. So they then refuse to respond. Do they then expect a medical professional to scour the streets of London, trying to track the women down? While she continues to assault people to her hearts content.
Example 2. Your assumptions are incorrect, and the police are not aware of any mental issues. The police send 2 rookie officers out in response. They also get assaulted bringing the total of assaults to 5 so far. Whilst attending the rookies notice mental issues. Perhaps she was talking to herself for example. She escapes arrest. Do they pass it on to medical professionals at this point, and they have to track her down. While she continues on the rampage.
The Metropolitan Police will no longer attend 999 calls linked to mental health incidents from September.
Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has told health and social care services that officers won't be sent unless there's a threat to life.
It's intended to allow police to focus on crime and its victims rather than dealing with people who need expert medical help.
"Where there is an immediate threat to life, officers will continue to respond," the Met Police said.
"In the interests of patients and the public, we urgently need to redress the imbalance of responsibility, where police officers are left delivering health responsibilities.
"Health services must take primacy for caring for the mentally ill, allowing officers to focus on their core responsibilities to prevent and detect crime, and keep communities safe and support victims."
Former Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary Zoe Billingham told Sky News she had reservations over the move, saying: "I do find this really rather concerning.
"The police are the only people with the powers to be able to make that immediate as soon as the police have attended, and some forces are sending police officers with mental health professionals and nurses and so on."
She added: "Resorting to brinkmanship and ultimatums - that's now always the right way forward."
Ms Billingham also said that there needs to be millions in investments to improve mental health services in the NHS.
I am not sure why you would use this case case as an example for anything. I dont know much about it, but the bare facts seem to be, that a 95 year old woman who required a walking frame to move around, and was armed with a steak knife, at a care home in Australia, died after being tasered by police, and the officer responsible has been charged with assault. My reaction to the bare facts is that you would hope than an experienced police officer would be able to safely arrest a 95 year old, that required a walking frame, without resorting to using a taser, despite the fact she was "armed" with a steak knife. This is a particularly sad story.
The only things these officers could be charged with is narrowly avoiding a slap, and getting her hair pulled.
The officer who Tasered Mrs Nowland has been charged with assault.
The 33-year-old senior constable will face court in early July on charges of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and common assault.
Last week, police said she was "armed" with a steak knife. On Friday, they confirmed that she required a walking frame to move and the officer discharged his Taser after she began approaching "at a slow pace".
Mrs Nowland is believed to have suffered a fractured skull and a serious brain bleed after falling and hitting her head during the incident.
It has prompted calls for a state parliamentary inquiry and the release of police bodycam vision of the confrontation.
Which rather neatly brings us to the important news item today.
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
Yeah I saw that. Although in this case, it is difficult to see how it would make a difference. I will make a couple of assumptions as we dont know the full story. Lets assume that she stole some penny sweets, and the people she assaulted were people attempting to stop her getting away with it. Lets assume it was the shop owner that phoned the police. He would pass on the facts to the police. I am not sure the shop owner would be able to diagnose any mental disorders. So the police turn up and get assaulted. Should they phone a doctor at this point?
Allow me to make some assumptions of my own.
In most cases of this type, the person in question has a long history of mental illness. Something that the shopkeeper knew, the police knew, and the bystanders knew. Simply because that is the way these things usually pan out. Not every time. But most times. Which is, of course, why the Police are being non-aggressive.
There used to be mental hospitals in London-before they realised that large buildings set in beautiful grounds could be sold off for squillions. Replaced by "Care in the Community".
Causing untold misery to local residents and people suffering from mental health problems. And loads of police time diverted from dealing with criminals.
So sorry you feel I am "struggling to make my points". Sometimes, when I have decades of relevant experience, coupled with significant family history, I struggle to explain myself sufficiently clearly to people who believe everything is really simple, and why thousands of experts have failed to provide what you believe to be simple answers.
I really must try harder to explain why a decades-old, worsening problem, cannot be simply resolved...
Try spending some time at a Police station. And see what they have to put up with.
I didnt mean to cause any offence by making that comment. The reason I made it is because of the following,
At the start of the thread, you made the point that you would be ashamed of yourself had you been one of the people that filmed the event, without helping. You followed this up by saying that you respect anyones right to not get involved. And then, Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved.
What I do not understand is people calling the police "weak" when the police are trying to help while their accusers do absolutely nothing.
Yet I assume the advice from the police to the public in situations like this would be to not get in the way, or get involved.
They looked like 2 rookie cops/PCSOs. But then you are not exactly going to deploy a S.W.A.T team for this sort of thing.
I am still unclear about how you came to the conclusion that they were rookie officers, but lets accept that they were. I think that you made this point to justify what occurred from the police point of view, yet if it was the case that they were rookies, then it makes the decision made by their superior to send them, a very poor one. You are right, this situation didnt require a S.W.A.T team. Did it really require the deployment of 8 officers?
Perhaps if people didn't routinely assume they can be better policemen than policemen are, regardless of total lack of experience and training the World would be a better place.
Would you also apply this to politics, and politicians? Or football teams, and footballers?
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
If this were the case then they would deserve the criticism. Although I cant see that this is the only option. Whats wrong with the police arrested her in an efficient, professional manner? You surely cant be suggesting that we should police with headlines in mind?
In my view the video is so bad, that it could be used to great effect in basic training, showing how it should not be done. John Cleese used to own a company that produced training films. I have used them in a couple of companies that I have worked for. As you might expect, they used comedy to illustrate stuff that you shouldnt do, and the effect it might have. When I saw this video, my first thoughts were that this was something that he might have produced.
Comments
Ridiculous.
This will depend on the big fella in a black shirt that appears to be talking into a radio.
If he is an officer it will be eight, if not seven.
Four cars?
To send a couple of rookies out to arrest someone accused of assaulting three people is just silly.
Although you would hope that the basic training would include the expertise required for 2 officers to make an arrest of one person that may prove a little difficult.
This was not a simple arrest, as shown by the end of the article-
"The woman continued with her aggressive behaviour, with the Met saying she then assaulted and racially abused the arresting officers.
While in custody, she is said to have assaulted another officer, who suffered a suspected broken nose.
The woman was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act, police said."
So-woman having some sort of psychotic episode. Unusually violent-most criminals do not assault police officers, simply because of the likelihood of going to prison.
Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved, and the large amount of police officers making the arrest.
I couldn't be a police officer. Don't have it in me.
Neither do 99% of people who feel able to critique the policemen who do.
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
The Police have had enough of being called out every time someone has a mental health problem. They don't get called out every time someone has a physical injury, so why do they have to deal with the mentally ill?
Reason is simple. We used to have Mental Health teams, and specialist accommodation to deal with such matters. Budget cuts mean that all disappeared. And we expect the Police to deal with it instead. For free. With minimal training. Without additional resources.
And this sort of criticism is part of the reason why they have better things to do with their lives. Perhaps the Medical profession might actually be willing to deal with mentally ill people....
^^^^^ And there we have it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-65696475
This was not a simple arrest, as shown by the end of the article-
"The woman continued with her aggressive behaviour, with the Met saying she then assaulted and racially abused the arresting officers.
While in custody, she is said to have assaulted another officer, who suffered a suspected broken nose.
The woman was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act, police said."
So-woman having some sort of psychotic episode. Unusually violent-most criminals do not assault police officers, simply because of the likelihood of going to prison.
Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved, and the large amount of police officers making the arrest.
I couldn't be a police officer. Don't have it in me.
Neither do 99% of people who feel able to critique the policemen who do.
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
I read the article, and am aware of the highlighted bit above.
To be clear, I only asked why you drew one particular conclusion, which you didnt answer.
I agree with you about 99% of people dont have it in them to be police officers, the two officers in this case are living proof of this.
In your earlier post you were critical of people not being prepared to get involved.
You make a number of assumptions in this post which may be true.
At the end of the second video the suspect is sat on the ground, up against a wall surrounded by 7 or 8 officers, and appears calm.
I assume that at this point that her hands are cuffed.
I would love to see an explanation of how this situation later resulted in a suspected broken nose.
I am sure that this would be entertaining.
Are you really saying that we shouldnt criticise the police if we couldnt be one of them, because I find that absolutely ridiculous.
I think you are struggling to make some of your points.
They were aware that this woman had assaulted three people.
If more officers were required to respond, why not send them in the first place?
The response by the male officer put the female officer in real danger, which could have resulted in tragedy had she had a weapon, like a knife.
Both the officers were unprepared, and incapable.
Although in this case, it is difficult to see how it would make a difference.
I will make a couple of assumptions as we dont know the full story.
Lets assume that she stole some penny sweets, and the people she assaulted were people attempting to stop her getting away with it.
Lets assume it was the shop owner that phoned the police.
He would pass on the facts to the police.
I am not sure the shop owner would be able to diagnose any mental disorders.
So the police turn up and get assaulted.
Should they phone a doctor at this point?
In most cases of this type, the person in question has a long history of mental illness. Something that the shopkeeper knew, the police knew, and the bystanders knew. Simply because that is the way these things usually pan out. Not every time. But most times. Which is, of course, why the Police are being non-aggressive.
There used to be mental hospitals in London-before they realised that large buildings set in beautiful grounds could be sold off for squillions. Replaced by "Care in the Community".
Causing untold misery to local residents and people suffering from mental health problems. And loads of police time diverted from dealing with criminals.
So sorry you feel I am "struggling to make my points". Sometimes, when I have decades of relevant experience, coupled with significant family history, I struggle to explain myself sufficiently clearly to people who believe everything is really simple, and why thousands of experts have failed to provide what you believe to be simple answers.
I really must try harder to explain why a decades-old, worsening problem, cannot be simply resolved...
Try spending some time at a Police station. And see what they have to put up with.
Why on earth do they have to batter her?
Why couldnt they just use necessary force?
I dont believe that the police usually batter anyone, when making an arrest.
I couldnt see this woman just submitting, so I would think some force was used.
I also believe that there are many instances where they receive unfair criticism.
However, this is not one of them.
I am not going argue with your assumptions.
So the police knew that they had a madwoman running around, stealing and assaulting people, and whats their response?
Send two rookies out.
That sounds like a very cunning plan.
They have said that they will only respond in life threatening situations.
So lets take this situation, and assume your assumptions are correct.
The police are aware that the woman has mental issues.
So they then refuse to respond.
Do they then expect a medical professional to scour the streets of London, trying to track the women down?
While she continues to assault people to her hearts content.
Example 2.
Your assumptions are incorrect, and the police are not aware of any mental issues.
The police send 2 rookie officers out in response.
They also get assaulted bringing the total of assaults to 5 so far.
Whilst attending the rookies notice mental issues.
Perhaps she was talking to herself for example.
She escapes arrest.
Do they pass it on to medical professionals at this point, and they have to track her down.
While she continues on the rampage.
Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has told health and social care services that officers won't be sent unless there's a threat to life.
It's intended to allow police to focus on crime and its victims rather than dealing with people who need expert medical help.
"Where there is an immediate threat to life, officers will continue to respond," the Met Police said.
"In the interests of patients and the public, we urgently need to redress the imbalance of responsibility, where police officers are left delivering health responsibilities.
"Health services must take primacy for caring for the mentally ill, allowing officers to focus on their core responsibilities to prevent and detect crime, and keep communities safe and support victims."
Former Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary Zoe Billingham told Sky News she had reservations over the move, saying: "I do find this really rather concerning.
"The police are the only people with the powers to be able to make that immediate as soon as the police have attended, and some forces are sending police officers with mental health professionals and nurses and so on."
She added: "Resorting to brinkmanship and ultimatums - that's now always the right way forward."
Ms Billingham also said that there needs to be millions in investments to improve mental health services in the NHS.
https://news.sky.com/story/metropolitan-police-to-stop-attending-999-calls-linked-to-mental-health-incidents-12892351
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65741824
I dont know much about it, but the bare facts seem to be, that a 95 year old woman who required a walking frame to move around, and was armed with a steak knife, at a care home in Australia, died after being tasered by police, and the officer responsible has been charged with assault.
My reaction to the bare facts is that you would hope than an experienced police officer would be able to safely arrest a 95 year old, that required a walking frame, without resorting to using a taser, despite the fact she was "armed" with a steak knife.
This is a particularly sad story.
The only things these officers could be charged with is narrowly avoiding a slap, and getting her hair pulled.
The officer who Tasered Mrs Nowland has been charged with assault.
The 33-year-old senior constable will face court in early July on charges of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and common assault.
Last week, police said she was "armed" with a steak knife. On Friday, they confirmed that she required a walking frame to move and the officer discharged his Taser after she began approaching "at a slow pace".
Mrs Nowland is believed to have suffered a fractured skull and a serious brain bleed after falling and hitting her head during the incident.
It has prompted calls for a state parliamentary inquiry and the release of police bodycam vision of the confrontation.
The reason I made it is because of the following,
At the start of the thread, you made the point that you would be ashamed of yourself had you been one of the people that filmed the event, without helping.
You followed this up by saying that you respect anyones right to not get involved.
And then, Would also explain why people were reluctant to get involved.
What I do not understand is people calling the police "weak" when the police are trying to help while their accusers do absolutely nothing.
Yet I assume the advice from the police to the public in situations like this would be to not get in the way, or get involved.
They looked like 2 rookie cops/PCSOs. But then you are not exactly going to deploy a S.W.A.T team for this sort of thing.
I am still unclear about how you came to the conclusion that they were rookie officers, but lets accept that they were.
I think that you made this point to justify what occurred from the police point of view, yet if it was the case that they were rookies, then it makes the decision made by their superior to send them, a very poor one.
You are right, this situation didnt require a S.W.A.T team.
Did it really require the deployment of 8 officers?
Perhaps if people didn't routinely assume they can be better policemen than policemen are, regardless of total lack of experience and training the World would be a better place.
Would you also apply this to politics, and politicians?
Or football teams, and footballers?
Imagine the Headlines if the Police battered and forcibly subdued a mentally ill woman...
If this were the case then they would deserve the criticism.
Although I cant see that this is the only option.
Whats wrong with the police arrested her in an efficient, professional manner?
You surely cant be suggesting that we should police with headlines in mind?
John Cleese used to own a company that produced training films.
I have used them in a couple of companies that I have worked for.
As you might expect, they used comedy to illustrate stuff that you shouldnt do, and the effect it might have.
When I saw this video, my first thoughts were that this was something that he might have produced.