7news.com.au/news/qld/qld-policewoman-choked-cuffed-and-bitten-c-1147101

Unbelievable! Wholly suspended sentences, they should be in jail thinking about what they did. There is just no excuses for this type of offence.

Terrible that the assault happened, but still "haha" to the police woman who got cuffed on the job! So un-australian!

whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

Select to expand quote

Chris_M said..
Terrible that the assault happened, but still "haha" to the police woman who got cuffed on the job! So un-australian!

Haha, true.
But geez, what was the partner doing? Not much by the sound of it.

Select to expand quote

sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

I'm sure these two scumbags are really sorry (when people are looking) and are just misunderstood, had a terrible upbringing etc

My older brother used to choke me out now and again... he watched WWF and copied the sleeper hold.

Select to expand quote

sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?

Seriously?
Without clarification your message is dishonest virtue signalling.

Most people would be able to envision a situation, in normal circumstances, where police would be forced to use force to subdue a violent person.
There is no excuse, in normal circumstances, for a civilian to ever assault a police officer.

Of course there's no excuse - for anybody.

Police have a long track record of unauthorised violence against civilians, particularly under the cover of detention.

You are engaging in the virtue signalling my friend.

Assault is assault. Wearing a police uniform is no excuse.

The point is not whether it happens. The point is about consistency of standards.

Surely you're not seriously saying police are exempt from the law controlling assault?

Yeah, that's right, that's what I'm saying.
I'm saying it's ok for police to assault anyone at any time under any circumstances, any age, any gender, any colour, disabled or abled or under the influence.
Not only is it ok, it should be encouraged and medals should be handed out for it.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..
Of course there's no excuse - for anybody.

Police have a long track record of unauthorised violence against civilians, particularly under the cover of detention.

You are engaging in the virtue signalling my friend.

Assault is assault. Wearing a police uniform is no excuse.

The point is not whether it happens. The point is about consistency of standards.

Surely you're not seriously saying police are exempt from the law controlling assault?

I think coppers should be able to use the taser to force compliance, like on that seen from "Meet the Parents" where the police officer gives them to the count of three to comply then stuns them. There will be no more police assaults as it all done at arms length and it would be safer for police as they can force copmpliance without needing to get into a scuffle.

Having to fight with scum like the subject of this thread then justify yourself to people who criticise you from the safety of an arm chair is to much to ask of someone who is just doing their job.

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

Seriously?
Without clarification your message is dishonest virtue signalling.

Your title of this thread is virtue signalling. 'change my mind' is obviously not something you are seriously considering, but drawing attention to your point of view.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?

A little context:
The sideline snappers see the cop punch the scum bag, post to the internet. HG, the sideline snappers and the online lookers work them selves into a lather and scream police violence and have their little one eyed field day, possibly getting the cop suspended.
What is missing is the scum bag was reaching for a knife and cop makes a quick decision to stun the scum by giving him a deserved rap on the noggin, because once the knife is out the day at work becomes a life threatening situation.
And its usually these #ucktards and their side line lobby group that are the first to cry when the police aren't there at the first sign of trouble to help them.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?

What does the law say about use of force?

You guys have all gone off topic here. How about seeing the silver lining, which was this coppers epic fail at work. Imagine that feeling as soon as you felt that 'click'.

You'd question your ability to be a cop at the very minimum. Immediately.

Select to expand quote

Chris_M said..
You guys have all gone off topic here. How about seeing the silver lining, which was this coppers epic fail at work. Imagine that feeling as soon as you felt that 'click'.

You'd question your ability to be a cop at the very minimum. Immediately.

I'll question someone's abilities in their work when I'm willing to do a better job for less pay

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

Seriously?
Without clarification your message is dishonest virtue signalling.

Your title of this thread is virtue signalling. 'change my mind' is obviously not something you are seriously considering, but drawing attention to your point of view.

Well you didn't change my mind. Try making sense next time.

Select to expand quote

psychojoe said..

Chris_M said..
You guys have all gone off topic here. How about seeing the silver lining, which was this coppers epic fail at work. Imagine that feeling as soon as you felt that 'click'.

You'd question your ability to be a cop at the very minimum. Immediately.

I'll question someone's abilities in their work when I'm willing to do a better job for less pay

Cool story. I'll question a cop's ability when they get their own set of handcuffs used against them and then get bitten by a couple of drunken bar flies who outsmarted said cop.

Select to expand quote

Chris_M said..
You guys have all gone off topic here. How about seeing the silver lining, which was this coppers epic fail at work. Imagine that feeling as soon as you felt that 'click'.

You'd question your ability to be a cop at the very minimum. Immediately.

She probably didn't feel it, I don't know, maybe being choked was probably taking her attention and priorities.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..
Seriously?
Without clarification your message is dishonest virtue signalling.
Your title of this thread is virtue signalling. 'change my mind' is obviously not something you are seriously considering, but drawing attention to your point of view.

Sheet no. Only lefties virtue signal.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..

holy guacamole said..

sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?

What does the law say about use of force?

Lots, and the cops are allowed to use it under lots of circumstances. Unfortunately a lot of keyboard warriors and media perceive lawful use of force as assaults. In the court of public perception, perception is reality.

In an actual court room these maggots go to jail, and then get deported. Jacinda can have them back.

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said..What does the law say about use of force?

holy guacamole said..

sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?

I'm not talking about the legal use of force. I'm talking about un-lawful assault. Simple. Why the confusion?

Some police are scumbags in my view. Some are just a victim of the culture of violence that their training instills or the culture existent in the system...and let's face it, there aren't many Rhodes scholars in the police force so quick assessment of law and ethical conduct often go out the window under stress..

The difference with police is they have a very long track record of getting off without a conviction especially with assaults against black Australians - but finally that's changing - slowly.

^^Is that an informed opinion based on research or stats or are you just swallowing the BS like a hungry participant at a bukkake festival?

Select to expand quote

kiterboy said..

FormulaNova said..

kiterboy said..

Seriously?
Without clarification your message is dishonest virtue signalling.

Your title of this thread is virtue signalling. 'change my mind' is obviously not something you are seriously considering, but drawing attention to your point of view.

Well you didn't change my mind. Try making sense next time.

Why would I need to change your mind? I agree with you. All I am doing is pointing out that your use of that in the title is actually virtue signalling as well.

I think people don't give enough credit to police in that they have a tough job and it must be difficult to make expert judgements at the time, when someone, possibly a lawyer can come along months later and criticise the response.

I am surprised at the effectiveness of a sleeper hold and anyone using one on a cop, or choking them, deserves to be locked up.

Select to expand quote

Chris6791 said..
^^Is that an informed opinion based on research or stats or are you just swallowing the BS like a hungry participant at a bukkake festival?

Best quote ever!

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said..What does the law say about use of force?

holy guacamole said..

sn said..
whatever happened to "assaulting a police office" = mandatory goal time??

What about when a police officer assaults a civilian? Same rule applies?

I'm not talking about the legal use of force. I'm talking about un-lawful assault. Simple. Why the confusion?

Some police are scumbags in my view. Some are just a victim of the culture of violence that their training instills or the culture existent in the system...and let's face it, there aren't many Rhodes scholars in the police force so quick assessment of law and ethical conduct often go out the window under stress..

The difference with police is they have a very long track record of getting off without a conviction especially with assaults against black Australians - but finally that's changing - slowly.

You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convicted.

Cue the conspiracy theories...

This post is part of the QLD LNP testing the waters for their election strategy.


Jobson Groeth has gone missing so they've put the call out to Laura Norder

It's gonna be called, "Deb's Comprehensive Plan to Crack Down on Youth Crime"

AKA "Karen calls the manager about noisy kids"

Select to expand quote

Kamikuza said...You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convicted.

Rubbish.

It appears that you are asserting that a police officer in Australia has never assaulted anyone nor been convicted of assault, ever.

This is plainly, utterly ridiculous.

For example: www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-31/11919510?nw=0

www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/police-officer-convicted-of-assault-after-tasering-driver-in-fremantle-breath-test-stop-20190515-p51nr0.html

www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-officer-guilty-of-assault-perverting-the-course-of-justice-20180621-p4zmx5.html

I could go on...

My point was VERY simple. I wasn't asserting that all police violence is assault. I was asking if in the case where assault charges could be laid against a police officer (and they have, many times), then the same rule regarding mandatory gaol time SN raised should apply - to be fair and consistent and not demonstrate hypocrisy.

Cue the conspiracy theories I guess...

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Rubbish.

It appears that you are asserting that a police officer in Australia has never assaulted anyone nor been convicted of assault, ever.

This is plainly, utterly ridiculous.

For example: www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-31/11919510?nw=0

www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/police-officer-convicted-of-assault-after-tasering-driver-in-fremantle-breath-test-stop-20190515-p51nr0.html

www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-officer-guilty-of-assault-perverting-the-course-of-justice-20180621-p4zmx5.html

I could go on...

My point was VERY simple. I wasn't asserting that all police violence is assault. I was asking if in the case where assault charges could be laid against a police officer (and they have, many times), then the same rule regarding mandatory gaol time SN raised should apply - to be fair and consistent and not demonstrate hypocrisy.

Cue the conspiracy theories I guess...

It appears that you're asserting I asserted something I never asserted. You're right, you're being ridiculous.

"Police have a long track record of unauthorised violence against civilians, particularly under the cover of detention. "
If it was investigated and no chargers were laid, then by definition it was lawful. The litmus test of lawfulness is -- a guilty decision. It's not confusing.

Charges are laid for a variety of reasons, including to either get to the truth or get a conviction. If there is insufficient evidence to get a conviction, why waste tax-payer resources on laying charges?

It's not rubbish, it's the rule of law. Doesn't matter what you think about an incident, and that's the great thing.

Pretty funny, you being worried about hypocrisy

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

Kamikuza said...You're confused because what you're whinging about is by definition lawful. Otherwise... They'd be convicted.

Rubbish.

It appears that you are asserting that a police officer in Australia has never assaulted anyone nor been convicted of assault, ever.

This is plainly, utterly ridiculous.

For example: www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-31/11919510?nw=0

www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/police-officer-convicted-of-assault-after-tasering-driver-in-fremantle-breath-test-stop-20190515-p51nr0.html

www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/police-officer-guilty-of-assault-perverting-the-course-of-justice-20180621-p4zmx5.html

I could go on...

My point was VERY simple. I wasn't asserting that all police violence is assault. I was asking if in the case where assault charges could be laid against a police officer (and they have, many times), then the same rule regarding mandatory gaol time SN raised should apply - to be fair and consistent and not demonstrate hypocrisy.

Cue the conspiracy theories I guess...

Ah, the hangover howl at the just past full moon.