Recommended Posts

You're definitely confused. Just because something is deemed legal doesn't remove it's classification as a drug. Do some reading. Start with "psychotropics".

speaking of drugs, is your username based off the drug roflcoptor?

http://www.mixmag.net/words/features/roflcopter

I have seen the uncropped video, her weight is on her back foot, she is leaning back and attempting to not be put into the cell.  Argue it any way you want, you're wrong.  Her face shattered because she fell, she fell because he pushed her, he pushed her because she was attempting to not be put into the cell, she was being put into the cell because she was arrested, she was arrested because she had committed a criminal act.  And you paint the cop as the problem... LOL

Her face was NOT shattered because she fell - it was shattered because she was pushed across the room with great force. I mean, by your logic if a police officer pushed someone off a cliff it would be the fault of the victim because they "fell". And again, whether she had committed a crime is entirely irrelevant. You're quick to blame the person who committed the crime yet refuse to accept that the officer also committed a crime - two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I just cannot believe for one second that if you had been arrested?regardless of the merit of the offence?and the same thing happened to you that you would be defending the police officer. The woman was attacked because the officer was irritated that she wouldn't look at the camera in the "right way". Thugs like him should be in jail, not in the police force.

Her stance before entering, she is leaning backwards.  Why are you defending someone who has been arrested, she's clearly in the wrong here.

 

She may be leaning back slightly, but she was drunk...what would you expect.  Her hands were pulled way behind her and there was no reason to push her so hard as she was going in to the cell without resistance.  I have seen violent criminals handled with more care than she was.  Yes, she is a criminal and has been arrested but criminals have rights as well and does not give anyone the excuse to treat them badly.

 

I have seen the uncropped video, her weight is on her back foot, she is leaning back and attempting to not be put into the cell.  Argue it any way you want, you're wrong.  Her face shattered because she fell, she fell because he pushed her, he pushed her because she was attempting to not be put into the cell, she was being put into the cell because she was arrested, she was arrested because she had committed a criminal act.  And you paint the cop as the problem... LOL

 

The point really isnt if she was resisting or not.  Its the force that was used to put her in the cell.  She had her arms pulled behind her, she was drunk and not stable, and she was pushed and since her hands were pulled behind her, had no way to brace herself.  She is a small woman and you cannot tell me that one cop, or the 2-3 cops outside the cell, couldnt get her in the cell without that much force.  Again, I have seen tougher criminals subdued with less force and treated better than this lady was.  And the cop who shoved her was not struggling to keep her under control.  So that amount of force was not needed.

 

I normally side with the cops, but cop clearly is in the wrong here.

  • Like 1

Her face was NOT shattered because she fell - it was shattered because she was pushed across the room with great force. I mean, by your logic if a police officer pushed someone off a cliff it would be the fault of the victim because they "fell". And again, whether she had committed a crime is entirely irrelevant. You're quick to blame the person who committed the crime yet refuse to accept that the officer also committed a crime - two wrongs don't make a right.

 

I just cannot believe for one second that if you had been arrested?regardless of the merit of the offence?and the same thing happened to you that you would be defending the police officer. The woman was attacked because the officer was irritated that she wouldn't look at the camera in the "right way". Thugs like him should be in jail, not in the police force.

 

I wonder how it would go over if her DUI defense was, yes I'm guilty of DUI, but I've already been punished by the arresting officer, so am I free to go now?

 

I can't say he shouldn't be on the force, and from the looks of what happened not jail. But they should definitely be liable for the injuries she sustained and I would imagine retraining/counseling for the offending officer and hopefully progressive discipline for future incidents of this nature.

She'd been drinking. Its difficult to gauge how stable they are upright. 

Did you actually watch it?  It's pretty obvious she was shoved. 

 

I was arrested once (for a ticket I had already paid), and I was handcuffed and being led by the officer.  He ran me into the corner of a chair and I went forward to catch my balance and he said "Where do you think you're trying go?"  Did he think I was going to run and try to escape, handcuffed, from the police station?  

 

I didn't take that amount of force to take care of the situation.  If he needed help with her, there were obviously enough officers around to help.  There is really no excuse for this.

It is amazing how easy it is to skew the results in your favor with the Internet.

 

For instance, I googled:

 

police brutality UK

 

 

http://police-brutality-uk.co.uk/

 

UK must have a real issue with police brutality, eh?

We do. I had the imprint from the sole of a boot on my face to prove it, not to mention the stuff I have seen where I wasn't involved.

 

Compared to other countries, it could be a lot worse, but they are all ######, in my book.

We do. I had the imprint from the sole of a boot on my face to prove it, not to mention the stuff I have seen where I wasn't involved.

 

Compared to other countries, it could be a lot worse, but they are all *****, in my book.

Well, I am not saying there are not instances of it, but can you say that it happens all the time, everywhere?

 

Or is even terribly common?

 

Isolated incidents don't count, IMO.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Free Software Foundation Europe pushes EU to force Google to allow AI uninstalls on Android by Paul Hill Credit: Pexels Users should be able to fully uninstall AI-based features from Android devices and be able to access interoperability functions, free from Google’s verification requirements, the European Commission has heard as part of an Android interoperability consultation under the Digital Markets Act. These measures were proposed by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) last week when it submitted its documentation. The FSFE noted that Google had started silently installing AI models without telling users. It noted that the EU’s DMA requires companies like Google to allow users to uninstall pre-loaded software from their devices, but in the case of the AI models Google is installing, they reinstall if you delete them, contravening the DMA. To get Google back under control, the FSFE has told the European Commission that there needs to be improvements within the Android Open Source Project (AOSP). First, it said that users should be able to fully remove pre-loaded AI components from their devices, with companies being prohibited from silently reinstalling or reactivating them. Second, access to Android interoperability features should not be contingent on registration, authorization, or contractual relationships with Google. This pertains to Google’s attempt to force developers to register with Google, even to publish apps to alternative app stores like F-Droid. Discussing its submission, Lucas Lasota, FSFE Legal Programme Manager, said: Google is planning to roll out its Android Developer Certification in September 2026. This will force every Android app developer to register with Google before their software can be installed on certified Android devices, but it should affect those who have removed Google Apps from their device. The program is controversial because it entails the signing of contracts and payment of account fees to Google, as well as the handing over of the identities of developers. It said: The FSFE said that if the Commission’s draft measures remain unchanged, then Google will be allowed to make developers verify their identity. The FSFE believes that asking developers to register is contrary to the text and spirit of the law. In summary, the FSFE has told the Commission that no developer should need a Google account, a Play Store presence, or any agreement with Google to access Android’s interoperability features.
    • You could disable this "functionality/feature/whatever" with 2 registry keys, ages ago.
    • My Photos app is version 2026.11050.1001.0 and it remembers the window size and position. My Snipping Tool is version 11.2602.49.0 and it can capture the taskbar.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      sumytbe earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Year In
      B4dM1k3 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • One Year In
      DarkWun earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      519
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      184
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      87
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      81
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!