It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police officers investigated after assault of Mark Aspinall caught on CCTV

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maya00a
For those that believe this is acceptable behaviour, from police officers, please just stop and think! What if this was you, your son, your dad, your best friend - would you still think it was acceptable? Things are often acceptable to people until it happens to them, or someone they know, and then they're usually the ones screaming the loudest about their rights, etc, etc.



If I had a son he wouldnt be getting drunk and causing problems like this guy!

My dad wouldn't drink himself stupid and act in such a manner as to stand in the middle of a busy street and say crap to cops and others asking for trouble!

My best friend wouldn't do this either, considering I surround myself with good people who control alcohol intake, who do not cuss out people and act like morons!

Maybe people should just act right and do the right thing and guess what...NEVER any problems...but thats right..in this world we blame everyone BUT ourselves for the dumb stuff we do...



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


".in this world we blame everyone BUT ourselves for the dumb stuff we do..."

*Actually, in this world be blame the criminals for the crimes they commit - Even if they are policemen and their victim was drunk.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Canadianduder]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canadianduder
*Actually, in this world be blame the criminals for the crimes they commit - Even if they are policemen and their victim was drunk.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


Thanks for making my point...

Guy gets drunk, guy acts like idiot, guy annoys and bothers INNOCENT people trying to have a good time, guy stands in roadway drunk, guy can't control his alcohol or behavior....its the cops fault for everything that happened!!! Great logic...

As I stated before, yes they went to far with the face scrapping on the street...I agree...and that should be addressed, but to forget about HIS behavior and actions and now make him out to be all innocent and a true victim...BS!!!!



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


Just because You don't like Human Rights doesn't mean they don't exist - and that the Courts won't observe them.

I'm sorry your so hard done by... It must be hard being an apologist these days




posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canadianduder
Just because You don't like Human Rights doesn't mean they don't exist - and that the Courts won't observe them.

I'm sorry your so hard done by... It must be hard being an apologist these days



Oh yes forgive me I forgot...human rights include getting drunk and acting out like an idiot...I'm guessing it is his right to harrass and ruin peoples nights too right? I keep forgetting...we were born to drink, get high, act out and when punished or fed up people push back then its wrong and everyone else should be punished for your behavior...


And we wonder how/why society is getting worse and worse...ha!



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Well, I for one trust nobody here.

The police probably went over the top. But at the same time the video is meant to portray the police in a bad light, it says they suddenly start walking towards him, but the video is cut...we don't know what happened in between without seeing it.


So the police were over the top.

The man invovled probably deserved arresting, and may have struggled, we can't see truly from the bad resolution.

The media has spun it to make the police look worse than they were.



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


Do you think all those individuals who get drunk or otherwise intoxicated should be be beaten by police?

Same for women? Teens?

How about war heroes?

Do you know that on ATS, you are regarded as an apologist for corrupt police... you are.

It turns out you also pretend to be a police officer - pathetic.

This reminds me of you:

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Canadianduder]



posted on Dec, 2 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by rcwj75

Originally posted by Canadianduder
*Actually, in this world be blame the criminals for the crimes they commit - Even if they are policemen and their victim was drunk.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


Thanks for making my point...

Guy gets drunk, guy acts like idiot, guy annoys and bothers INNOCENT people trying to have a good time, guy stands in roadway drunk, guy can't control his alcohol or behavior....its the cops fault for everything that happened!!! Great logic...

As I stated before, yes they went to far with the face scrapping on the street...I agree...and that should be addressed, but to forget about HIS behavior and actions and now make him out to be all innocent and a true victim...BS!!!!

Being a jerk isn't a free pass to get to beat someone, let alone someone restrained. Cops should be way above that behavior, as should any mature person. Trying to argue that he deserved it, is just pathetic on your part.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lokey13
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


No I'm not familair with English law, and if this is acceptable behavior as part of English law then I suppose I'd be called a terrorist there. Absolutely no reason for this beating, how bout you get drunk call me a bunch of names then I grind your head into the pavement; sound good? Well by what your saying that would be acceptable behavior.

[edit on 1-12-2008 by Lokey13]


Erm, no. Where exactly am I stating that it's acceptable behaviour? Can you point to it or quote where I say that?

Did you miss this sentence in the post you replied to?


I think the police were really in the wrong here and way over the top,


How, from that, did you think I was saying the Police's behaviour was acceptable? Do you really and honestly think that I was saying it was acceptable? To me, it just looks like you're making a strawman.

What I was pointing to was yet another American who seems to think it's 'the American Way or the highway'. As weird as it may sound, we have our own laws and we've actually had a legal system for a very long time. It's not about what you wrote here:


Originally posted by Lokey13Last time I checked being drunk wasn't a crime and the free speach law would allow you to say whatever you wanted


You've admitted you're not familiar with English law, so to say "the last time I checked" is meaningless as you can only be referring to a law that is irrelevant to this story. Being drunk can be crime when tied to a particular kind of behaviour in England and as I stated, depending on what Aspinall actually said to the Police, that could be the case here. As for your "free speach law" again, an American irrelevance that has nothing to do with this particular story. Although I'd be very surprised if being drunk and spouting off/threatening/harrassing/&c - if indeed Aspinall was spouting off &c - it wasn't also some kind of offence in American law. I could be wrong, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't the case.

EDIT: rejigged for clarification and to ask a genuine question: does 'free speech' really cover anything and everything?

[edit on 3-12-2008 by Merriman Weir]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canadianduder
Do you think all those individuals who get drunk or otherwise intoxicated should be be beaten by police?


When you cant control your alcohol and disrupt others, and cause all sorts of problems...yeah you should get your butt whipped...either that or grow up and you have nothing to worry about


Same for women? Teens?


I believe it was WOMEN who said they are equal to men, they faught for the same rights, same treatment...sooo if a women decided to drink and act like a fool then baby here it comes. Again, learn how to grow up and control your alcohol intake/behavior..and guess what NO WORRIES!!

As for teens..IF..IF we had parents who actually cared that their teen kid got caught drinking/drunk...all the cops would have to do is call mom & pop and that kid SHOULD wish the cops put one on him instead...but this new society we breed proves that a drunk teen is a harrassed teen by the growing police state..



How about war heroes?


What about them...if they ARE war hero's and professional soldiers...they WILL NOT act in such a manner, they WILL NOT draw unneeded attention to themselves and they WILL correct any problems with "those" who choose to act like morons..if they happen to be fellow soldiers...


Do you know that on ATS, you are regarded as an apologist for corrupt police... you are.

It turns out you also pretend to be a police officer - pathetic.

[edit on 2-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


Really...man what am I going to do...that kind of label from people on the internet whom I do not know...man, I think I will lose sleep over this..matter of fact..knowing how SOME ATS members will view me as all these bad things...I may just go get drunk, harass people, stand in the middle of a street, taunt the cops and other people, cuss and scream and be arrogent...then have the cops cuff and slap me around a bit..then come back here to ATS and know that the most important people in my life (the ATS community) will stand behind me and bash the cops for doing what they did when I got out of control. Because lets face it...being called an apologist by you or other members will affect me drastically!!!!!!!

As for your retarded comment about pretending to be something...aka a LEO...you obviously like to make assumptions...you did it this entire thread, and do it on many other threads.....I'll let you continue believing whatever you want...but my credentials as a LEO and my military experiance have already been verified a LONG time ago....so with that..enjoy your day in canada!!



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


"my credentials as a LEO and my military experiance have already been verified a LONG time ago."

*How predictable. You must realize that is exactly what everyone says when they are lying about their credentials online - 'my credentials and my military experiance have already been verified a LONG time ago.' that is exactly what I would say


Great minds think alike.


Nevertheless you are trying to excuse the inexcusable.

By continuing to lie about your credentials you are only detracting from credibility you may already have - and judging from other member's responses to you, it is not much.

Your chosen false persona and posting patterns belie a strong bias on behalf of the police - you are continuously Astroturfing on their behalf, regardless of how inexcusable their offenses.





[edit on 3-12-2008 by Canadianduder]



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Man_Versus_AntiMan
 


askin for "trouble", by running away, do me a favour, I have long lost respect for the cops and I dont think one should accept a beatin at the hands of paid thugs just for running away



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Lokey13
reply to post by magicmushroom
 



I should remind you that this actually happened in Lancashire, England. How familiar are you with British laws?

Now whilst I think the police were really in the wrong here and way over the top, there may have been grounds for drunk and disorderly or something under the Public Order Act depending on what Aspinall actually said to the Police.

Unfortunately, neither you nor I actually know for certain what was said. I'm not sure about your "free speach law" but it really doesn't stretch to saying whatever you want to the Police whilst you're drunk in Britain.

Also, just in case it's not been mentioned in this thread - or I missed it - one of those involved, the man who banged Aspinall's head on the floor wasn't even a copper as such, he was a 'special constable' or, as they get called round our way: a 'hobby bobby'.


Why would you ask me if I were familiar with British law, unless you were defending the policemen's action. Then you go on to state that there may have been GROUNDS (YES GROUNDS) for the actions by the police for something Aspinall did or said. Then you deny that free speach is a possibility in your country, I don't care about what your laws are; they must be wrong if this is happening. I don't care about what he actually said, so therefor since the man wasn't violent why should the police be.
Also the "constable" should be receiving further action against him then since he wasn't supposed to be policing in the first place. You clearly defended the police in this post and if you can't see it, read the terminology you used and it's all there.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


Wow I can see if there is any up and coming change by 2012 that you'll be the first to get hit by lightning. The world has no place for men high on authority, which your not high on authority but you sooooooo wish you were; sad life, sad, sad, life. I would also expect more from a man of military service but you clearly show why American's have a problem on the global level and if your representing our country; it is a sad day(but I think your lieing about being in the military/ why else have a photo of someone else in military gear because you don't have a picture of yourself). Also why exactly should a man be beaten for talking or yelling or swearing? Why also should a woman be beaten? (Remember the golden rule Men don't hit Women, regardless of your call for equality; women should never be struck by a man) Last I checked those weren't a reason to fight someone, the only reason I've ever had in my life to fight is if someone trys to hit me. I am a man of many different martial arts disciplines and this has taught me that you are never as strong as you think you are; and that a human can kill another human so easily, even by a touch, so whats the point in being a thick headed bullie? Because you can? Well my friend the better man would know he could do and wouldn't; you are clearly not a better man and a sad excuse for a human being. Also our current president has said just about everything imaginable, from an idiots perspective that is, and I gaurantee the drunk man made more sense then 90% of GW's speaches; so would GW need a beating as well? The most ironic thing is that you seem to think you haven't done anything as foolish as this man; well 99% chance that you have and just won't admit it: nice to be a hypocrit, and I'm not saying you had to be drunk to sound like an idiot I mean take a look at your post.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Lokey13]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lokey13
Originally posted by Lokey13

Why would you ask me if I were familiar with British law, unless you were defending the policemen's action. Then you go on to state that there may have been GROUNDS (YES GROUNDS) for the actions by the police for something Aspinall did or said. Then you deny that free speach is a possibility in your country, I don't care about what your laws are; they must be wrong if this is happening. I don't care about what he actually said, so therefor since the man wasn't violent why should the police be.
Also the "constable" should be receiving further action against him then since he wasn't supposed to be policing in the first place. You clearly defended the police in this post and if you can't see it, read the terminology you used and it's all there.


Erm, no. I'm not defending the over-the-top actions of the Police at all. What, by pointing out that Aspinall may have committed some offence, which was the point I've been making regarding your comments as to how:


Originally posted by Lokey13
Last time I checked being drunk wasn't a crime and the free speach law would allow you to say whatever you wanted


so to point out that that depending on what Aspinall actually said, and that the testimonies made against him are truthful, I'm somehow "defending the police"? How do you make that ridiculous leap when I've already stated that I thought the Police were in the wrong. Reread this from my first post on this thread:


Originally posted by Merriman Weir
I think the police were really in the wrong here and way over the top


You make a massive mistake in thinking that because I think might have been "GROUNDS (YES GROUNDS)" for some charge against Aspinall regarding being drunk and disorderly or some Public Order charge this somehow means I advocate the Police's actions here - despite my already saying they were wrong and over-the-top.

So, you really can't tell the difference between the two points or are you just trying to start a fight here?



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canadianduder
*How predictable. You must realize that is exactly what everyone says when they are lying about their credentials online - 'my credentials and my military experiance have already been verified a LONG time ago.' that is exactly what I would say


Great minds think alike.


Nevertheless you are trying to excuse the inexcusable.

By continuing to lie about your credentials you are only detracting from credibility you may already have - and judging from other member's responses to you, it is not much.

Your chosen false persona and posting patterns belie a strong bias on behalf of the police - you are continuously Astroturfing on their behalf, regardless of how inexcusable their offenses.





[edit on 3-12-2008 by Canadianduder]


You must be related to be below member...gotta be..lol


Originally posted by Lokey13
Wow I can see if there is any up and coming change by 2012 that you'll be the first to get hit by lightning. The world has no place for men high on authority, which your not high on authority but you sooooooo wish you were; sad life, sad, sad, life. I would also expect more from a man of military service but you clearly show why American's have a problem on the global level and if your representing our country; it is a sad day(but I think your lieing about being in the military/ why else have a photo of someone else in military gear because you don't have a picture of yourself). Also why exactly should a man be beaten for talking or yelling or swearing? Why also should a woman be beaten? (Remember the golden rule Men don't hit Women, regardless of your call for equality; women should never be struck by a man) Last I checked those weren't a reason to fight someone, the only reason I've ever had in my life to fight is if someone trys to hit me. I am a man of many different martial arts disciplines and this has taught me that you are never as strong as you think you are; and that a human can kill another human so easily, even by a touch, so whats the point in being a thick headed bullie? Because you can? Well my friend the better man would know he could do and wouldn't; you are clearly not a better man and a sad excuse for a human being. Also our current president has said just about everything imaginable, from an idiots perspective that is, and I gaurantee the drunk man made more sense then 90% of GW's speaches; so would GW need a beating as well? The most ironic thing is that you seem to think you haven't done anything as foolish as this man; well 99% chance that you have and just won't admit it: nice to be a hypocrit, and I'm not saying you had to be drunk to sound like an idiot I mean take a look at your post.


[edit on 3-12-2008 by Lokey13]


You two make a great duo!!! And I must say...between both your posts, and assumptions...by far the two best at not having a clue as to what you ever talk about. As I said to the canadian...you must be related...

As for this thread...as I stated...act right, control your behavior, don't inflict your stupidity on others who WANT to enjoy life and good times...and there would never be a problem....SUCH an EASY solution...well for those of us with common sense...



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


"act right, control your behavior, don't inflict your stupidity on others who WANT to enjoy life and good times..."

That is what I have been saying all along - The police had no right to attack that man who just wanted to enjoy life and good times.

The police did not Act as the Law specifies they should (in fact they acted in contravention of it) and due to their actions and criminal Behaviour they are now facing criminal charges.

Is that you in the avatar picture - or is it who you wish you were?





[edit on 4-12-2008 by Canadianduder]



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   
RCW, you still don't get it do you, the Police do not have the right to attack people especciaslly ones that run away and pose no threat to them. If you cannot understand that then there is something lacking in your thought process.

The Police are supposed to be a beacon of good and enforce the laws of the land but somewhere in your thinking that changes to give everyone a kicking for the slightest provocation. Violence beggets violence does it not. And how can you be a LEO if you advocate such actions. If you do then you are just another corrupt Police Officer who thinks he can take the law into is own hands and get away with it.


The Police are there to uphold the law and an individuals rights not abuse them. Your logic of if someone miss behaves then they should get a kicking is just plain stupid and ignorant. How can you support such actions when you know its against the law. Or are you saying you are a Police Officer that breaks the law beccause you like doing it and enjoy hitting people. Mind you your Avatar speaks volumes.



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Merriman Weir
 


You can't think the police were over the top, and then say its ok if he's sentenced as part of disorderly conduct. All charges against the man should be waved no matter what, well short of him killing an infant. So I don't understand why you keep saying if theres something credible to what the police say he did, because it doesn't matter, it's not credible what he did because the ends never met the means. So even though you are saying your for Aspinall you'll be ok with this if he's found guilty?



posted on Dec, 4 2008 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by rcwj75
 


Thank you for answering all of my questions RCW, *cough* I mean thank you for answering none. You have shown me your intelligence and clearly aren't smart enough to hold a debate with. So like so many others continue to post your idiotcricy, I'm simply going to IGNORE you, damn I can't get enough of that button. Good day, sir or mam, you've been a pitiful opponent. O and great minds think alike clearly because not one person has agreed with you here, so I'm sorry my friend but your the retard. IGNORED!!!

[edit on 4-12-2008 by Lokey13]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join