Cops bashing girl - on TV2 20/20 [Archive]

bear

1st July 2005, 09:20

Well the documentary did say at the start that the "victim" was drunk and couldn't remember exactly what happened. She did end up with a broken arm, but the evidence was inconclusive as to whether this happened before or at the time of the cops confronting her.
Anyway, a condition of receiving the apology and $20k is that she doesn't seek any further results.

spudchucka

1st July 2005, 09:22

Just saw the doco bout the girl getting bashed - unbelievable looking at the police PR person - couldn't have looked more guilty if they even tried.

Insiders who know more about this story what's the other side?? If there is one.
The doco was the first I'd heard of it so I know no more than was portrayed on the box. However I believe if she had been bashed in the face with a baton, as she claimed, the facial injury would have been a lot worse than what it was.

The pathologist said her broken arm was probably caused by a strike from a baton or flash light. Depending on the circumstances that action may have been totally justified or alternatively may have been deemed unlawful and therefore an assault. Considering police charged a person it is logical to assume that they considered it to be the later. However the case against the cop was chucked out at court because of conflicting evidence.

Lou Girardin

1st July 2005, 09:38

I would have thought that breaking bones would be considered excessive force. Especially with cop v woman.

placidfemme

1st July 2005, 09:42

Yeah I watched this last night... I don't think her injuries looked as bad as they should have been given the supposed beating she recieved... And in the meantime she was having the supposed shit beaten out of her... and her wonderful boyfriend stayed inside and watched the alleged assult.

I honestly wouldn't put it past the cops to do such a thing... But then again... she did get the pay out... so she shouldn't be making any more accusations as it has been settled...

And if she failed to even buy a fridge with her $20K then maybe she needs another beating to knock some sense back into her...

spudchucka

1st July 2005, 09:46

I would have thought that breaking bones would be considered excessive force. Especially with cop v woman.
Like any use of force it is subjective, depending upon the circumstances. If it was justified and necessary to use a baton and the arm was broken as a result of that then the injury is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant that she is a woman if that level of force was necessary in the circumstances.

And before you get on your high horse again, I'm not saying this is the case in this incident because I know nothing about it. I am speaking hypothetically.

Lou Girardin

1st July 2005, 10:02

Like any use of force it is subjective, depending upon the circumstances. If it was justified and necessary to use a baton and the arm was broken as a result of that then the injury is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant that she is a woman if that level of force was necessary in the circumstances.

And before you get on your high horse again, I'm not saying this is the case in this incident because I know nothing about it. I am speaking hypothetically.

So am I, and unless she was some 18 stone hefferlump I would have thought a big strong Policeman could subdue her without too much trouble.
She may not have a fridge, but has she got a widescreen TV and Sky digital?
Priorities ya know!

750Y

1st July 2005, 10:59

It is also irrelevant that she is a woman if that level of force was necessary in the circumstances.

people who get violent while on P are an absolute handful. the best known cure is to wave another pipe at them & they snap straight out of it. maybe the cops should carry plastic replica pipes for such occasions.

spudchucka

1st July 2005, 12:01

So am I, and unless she was some 18 stone hefferlump I would have thought a big strong Policeman could subdue her without too much trouble.
Like I said, I'm not talking about that case because I don't know the facts. You carry on making assumptions and draw your own conclusions.

spudchucka

1st July 2005, 12:02

people who get violent while on P are an absolute handful.
They can easily have broken bones and just carry on as if nothing was wrong with them.

SixPackBack

2nd July 2005, 08:05

Police are represented from a cross section of society, as such some of them are likely to be undesirable. However your attitude towards them is one of the single biggest factors to how they treat you, remember folks they usually have they following. Guns and weapons and a whole lotta mates they can call on. Best not to fuck with them, you cannot win.
One more thing, don't bitch if you get caught, you know the rules.
Spud let it be known i will rally when the dregs start cop bashing threads, without them we'd be totally fucked

Virago

3rd July 2005, 00:15

Just caught up with the programme myself. I didn't get the impression she wants more money, but just wants legal justice.

By paying out in a civil settlement, the police have accepted that the violent attack was unnecessary. By getting the officer off the charge of assault and claiming "not guilty", the police have shown yet again that their primary role is to serve and protect themselves, and that they are above common law and justice.

scumdog

3rd July 2005, 01:18

I've had a gutsfull of sorry arsed cheese-dick mofos, think you have had a bad turn of luck, get real, life is not as you would expect. I have had a mouthful of Famous Grouse and my life is so enhanced

Enjoy.

spudchucka

3rd July 2005, 06:35

By getting the officer off the charge of assault and claiming "not guilty", the police have shown yet again that their primary role is to serve and protect themselves, and that they are above common law and justice.
According to the story a person was charged with assault but the charge was thrown out by the court due to conflicting or lack of credible evidence.

Your comments show you have a lack of understanding of the court process and even less understanding of the police organisation. Fuck off to Zimbabwe if you think things are bad here.

Jackrat

3rd July 2005, 09:28

Virago

3rd July 2005, 14:59

According to the story a person was charged with assault but the charge was thrown out by the court due to conflicting or lack of credible evidence.

Your comments show you have a lack of understanding of the court process and even less understanding of the police organisation. Fuck off to Zimbabwe if you think things are bad here.
Oh dear, the best form of defence is attack, eh? Sounds like you would be more at home in Zimbabwe.

I'm not anti-police. I believe that they do a bloody tough job, and have no doubt that many people they have to deal with need the proverbial "clip round the ear". I would also suspect that the victim in this case was the author of her own misfortune.

But the fact remains she was seriously assaulted, and her assailant(s) should be brought to justice. After all, being verbally abused by someone is not a valid defence for the the rest of us, if we assault that person.

Yes, the case was dismissed due to conflicting evidence. Why? Conficting evidence means someone is lying to the court, and without independant evidence, the case cannot be proven. End of case.

However, following later civil action, the police accept that they were responsible for the injuries, and issued an apology and compensation. Does this not conflict with the earlier court outcome?

Front-line police officers are only human. But if they overstep their lawful powers, they should be held accountable. Otherwise the damage to the police force's reputation is serious indeed, damage that can't be repaired by deporting all critics to Zimbabwe.

spudchucka

3rd July 2005, 21:02

Oh dear, the best form of defence is attack,
Wrong, I just call bullshit what it is. Take it as an attack if you want to, I couldn't care less.

Indoo

4th July 2005, 00:52

I'm not anti-police.....

And yet somehow you make a ridiculous generalisation like this...

the police have shown yet again that their primary role is to serve and protect themselves, and that they are above common law and justice

Im very interested in how you came to this opinion which i have no doubt is based on a mass of evidence and that you have the well-documented cases to back it up?

Its just ironic how wrong you are, Police bosses love nothing more than to charge their own.

Lou Girardin

4th July 2005, 12:07

Thanks Spud, another incisive rebuttal that demolishes an argument instantly.
"Fuck off to Zimbabwe", well done.
There have been sufficient cases of the Police refusing responsibilty for their errors over recent years for it to be clear that it is ingrained in their culture.
Your bosses would go a long way to rebuilding public opinion with a bit of honesty. But seeing that your bosses are no more than pollies themselves it's not likely to happen.

spudchucka

4th July 2005, 15:24

"Fuck off to Zimbabwe", well done.
Theres a seat with your name on it waiting for you on the next plane out.

Virago

4th July 2005, 18:40

And yet somehow you make a ridiculous generalisation like this...

Im very interested in how you came to this opinion which i have no doubt is based on a mass of evidence and that you have the well-documented cases to back it up?

Its just ironic how wrong you are, Police bosses love nothing more than to charge their own.
If you believe that critisising any police action is anti-police, then we must accept the inevitable conclusion that the police are above us all, rather than normal humans like the rest of us. Amen. :not:

Please Spud, are you human, or are the rumours all true? :not: :nya:

justsomeguy

4th July 2005, 18:46

Will you naughty kids shut up - or I'll send you to detention and tell your parents about it.:mad:

The reason for the thread was to see the other side - unless you were there on the night you cannot say for certain who was wrong.

The girls side: Cops attacked me. I sufferred tremendously and still have emotional scars. All factors which justify her case and wanting someone punished.

The Cops side: Questionable evidence, possible drug use, lack of credibility. All factors which could have justified the use of excessive force.

End result: We don't know - only the lawyers, the cops there and the girl know. The judge doesn't really know for sure - he/she just made a very very educated guess on what happened.

Indoo

5th July 2005, 00:30

If you believe that critisising any police action is anti-police, then we must accept the inevitable conclusion that the police are above us all:

Yes but you were not 'critisising' any police action you were slagging off all Police in general, as being 'above the law' and only out to serve and protect themselves. And if you had any knowledge on the issue you would realise how completely wrong you are.

speedpro

5th July 2005, 09:19

Sometimes even without "knowing" the facts a person with a (cynical in my case) view can figure out the likely scenario. I got it pretty right with that car that fell off the bridge in Hamilton and I daresay I could (cynically) make a pretty good guess about what went on here.

You only have to live life a bit to see the scumbags that the cops have to deal with every day and to know the devious lying cheating underhand sort of lives those bastards live.

I personally think it's a symptom of the state NZ is in that the bitch got anything other than a good bashing.

curious george

5th July 2005, 09:41

Four police later and some Midaz
Interesting, cpos and zip ties I understand, but how was the Midaz administered? Not through a 15mg tablet you have to drink, and unless he had an IV in, that only leaves a suppo.....ewwwwwwwwwww :puke:

I really don't understand the problem with the above....
1: Cop asks you to do do something, you do it = no problem
2: Cop asks you to do something, you say 'fuck off' and lash out = you deserve a beating.
I didn't see the programme, (got taped anybody?), but my guess is she didn't follow #1. See #2 for result.
It's a simple guideline that works well for most people, not to sure why some struggle with it

Lou Girardin

5th July 2005, 10:27

Interesting, cpos and zip ties I understand, but how was the Midaz administered? Not through a 15mg tablet you have to drink, and unless he had an IV in, that only leaves a suppo.....ewwwwwwwwwww :puke:

I really don't understand the problem with the above....
1: Cop asks you to do do something, you do it = no problem
2: Cop asks you to do something, you say 'fuck off' and lash out = you deserve a beating.
I didn't see the programme, (got taped anybody?), but my guess is she didn't follow #1. See #2 for result.
It's a simple guideline that works well for most people, not to sure why some struggle with it

What if he asks you to do something that you don't have to do and you refuse.
Can he still beat you? And then say you "resisted".
Yes, it has happened.

I'm amazed that people still think that a Police 'bashing' is justified under any circumstances. They're allowed to use reasonable force only, just like us.
If a citizen did it, the Police are only too keen to charge them. And, yes, this has happened too.
Gordon McLauchlan once described NZ'ers as the Prussians of the South Pacific, the tendency still seems to be strong.

Lias

5th July 2005, 12:21

Google is my friend..

That Midaz sounds like some powerful shit lol (asusming its Midazolam yer talking abotu)

Wolf

5th July 2005, 12:43

He He.. a suppo woulda been good too!!
Fuck administering a suppo to someone, I'd stick with the IM jab.

Thanks for your posts SM, sounds like P is kinda like "Angel Dust" in its effects - aggro behaviour and the strength of ten. I've heard of US cops emptying entire mags into "dusted" individuals who were on a rampage and the bugger's kept coming at them.

I know the P scene is quite strong in Hamilscum and I feel worried if I am in Central City at night. I've seen a fair few fucked-up drugged people around the Ward St area even in daylight. Would hate to encounter a meth-enraged person while I'm heading home from work.

skidz

5th July 2005, 15:13

Violence comes from P; Just think about which one must have been on it? Must have been the one with the fist & batten.

scumdog

5th July 2005, 17:16

Violence comes from P; Just think about which one must have been on it? Must have been the one with the fist & batten.

Nice troll!

You tax payers don't pay us enough to buy P. :no:

Oh, I see you meant the WOMAN had the fists and batten (baton?) while she was on P!!

curious george

9th July 2005, 11:20

What if he asks you to do something that you don't have to do and you refuse.
Can he still beat you? And then say you "resisted".
Yes. Do as you are told.
Out of curiosity, can you give an example?

I'm amazed that people still think that a Police 'bashing' is justified under any circumstances. They're allowed to use reasonable force only, just like us.
If a citizen did it, the Police are only too keen to charge them. And, yes, this has happened too.
Not any circumstances, but most.
The Police are not ordinary citizens, we have given them authority to restrict people and enforce the laws that we have made.
The question to be asked is "have I done everything possible to not deserve a beating".
If yes, then take it up with the Police complaints dept.
Using a baton is reasonable force if you are a cop imho.
I'm very glad the regular Police don't carry handguns on person though..
I recon the Police are a last resort for people who can't control themselves with accectable public manners. = BEATING!
*sorry for dredging up slightly old thread, just re-found it...