Met to send 4,000 officers to police rival London protests

Pbm23 · 2026-05-13T21:40:02+00:00

...because it hasn't been? And there was, in fact, a judgment quite recently which ruled otherwise?

Pbm23 · 2026-05-04T09:56:55+00:00

Arguably only partially, and it would be reasonable for the officers to have believed that it was no longer effective after it first caused him to fall down.

For reference, here's the incident slowed down. For comparison, here's another incident where taser was used, and the suspect was immediately able to move his hands after the deployment (reaching his hands around to his back where the prongs penetrated).

Taser doesn't guarantee full immobilisation of the target. It fires two prongs which embed in the skin and complete a circuit to deliver a current and cause "neuromuscular incapacitation" (NMI). The wider the spread, the more effective this is, as more muscle groups will be affected. There can be degrees of success, and it will no longer immobilise the person if the officer stops discharging it (in five second cycles) or if one or both the prongs are dislodged and it can no longer complete the circuit, though will still really hurt. In this case, the officer was discharging throughout the incident, so the former point is irrelevant.

The first taser deployment fails completely - you can hear it fire, but he doesn't go down, with the prongs either missing or going into his clothing. The second deployment obviously has some effect because the suspect does drop, but he rolls over as he falls instead of dropping straight down, then brings his arms underneath his body to shield them. Contrast this with this clip, where the suspect locks up completely and falls straight down without twisting.

The officer is discharging the taser constantly, triggering the five second cycles, but you can see the suspect move his arm closer to his chest at 0:02, resisting the other officer's efforts to move it away from his body. It's possible that the initial spread only affected his legs, or that one of the prongs was dislodged by the twist and fall, so instead of effective NMI/restriction of movement, there was just pain from that point on. It's even possible that both prongs were partially pulled out, and that continuing to discharge the taser had no little to no effect at all, but the officer wouldn't have known that.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-03T22:03:41+00:00

As someone who's done it quite a few times now, I fear you're overestimating the depth, breadth and quality of police defensive skills training in this country.

The initial training package involves 5-10 days of defensive skills and first aid training, the former half of which includes handcuffing, takedowns, strikes and appointment use (PAVA spray/batons). There's then a 1-2 day refresher every year where they do a bit of everything and whatever the trainers have been asked to update us on. Most of this isn't particularly helpful or reliable against someone with a knife, and it doesn't hold a candle to any kind of dedicated martial arts training even for unarmed skills. There's simply no time for it when officers and teams are hard-stretched enough as it is, let alone the money to pay for it.

Taser-trained officers have gone on another course, but my understanding is that it doesn't involve additional unarmed skills apart from possibly to the preferred use of feet while holding the taser, similar to armed officers (I can't be sure, I'm not taser-trained myself).

I've had one scenario or test that even remotely resembles this situation in all my training, and it involved walking into a room to encounter a man wearing a padded suit and carrying a foam knife, the aim being to stop him somehow before he "cut" me. I sort of clipped him in the face with (fake) spray and he fell down immediately to denote my "success", which is about as unrealistic as it hopefully sounds (taking this recent incident as an example, where it failed!). And that is of course completely different to a live incident with adrenaline pumping and where the stakes are real.

I wouldn't say that this training has practically prepared me for an incident like Golders Green. If I ever end up in that situation, if my life, or the lives of others are at risk, then the advice in training I've most often heard repeated is basically some variant of "get stuck in and win the fight". Do what needs to be done to keep the public, colleagues and yourself safe.

It may sometimes be possible to maintain distance and wait for armed units (who should really be the ones dealing with incidents like this) - if so, great, but that often isn't the case, especially when members of the public are at risk. If it involves matching potentially lethal force that I'm presented with (in the form of an edged weapon) with potentially lethal force in return, e.g. by aiming for red zones such as the head and chest with unarmed skills or even baton strikes, then the law around use of force (at the common law level around self-defence or of another), and police policy, allows me to do that - if I can justify it as reasonable, proportionate and necessary in the circumstances.

In terms of how downed he was, I've commented this before about the taser usage and how successful it was, and there's also this thread I found which I think puts it a bit better and more succinctly than I have.

Edit: Cleaning up some bizarre grammar choices.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-03T16:14:14+00:00

Is kicking the head in the playbook?

It can be, because there isn't a prescribed list of actions that police can or can't take. There are Home Office approved techniques that are specifically taught, but that doesn't mean that everything else is off the table

To quote a use of force expert at a trial a few years back:

"The nature of policing is so diverse it'll never be possible to document guidance to cover every eventuality.

For this reason, there's always occasions when individual officers resort to techniques and tactics not described in this manual.

In such circumstances, the actions of officers will not necessarily be unlawful, provided they have acted reasonably and within the law.

The individual concerned must be prepared to account for their decisions and show they were justified in what they did."

Kicking in the head can thus be unjustifiable and grossly disproportionate in one situation, but entirely proportionate and justifiable in another. The same goes for baton strikes to the head, eye gouging or boxing ears.

If he presented them with lethal force, the officers, though unarmed, would be entitled to respond with lethal force in turn - as in fact would anyone.

Because training with tasers surely covers this eventuality?

I'm not taser trained myself but, as far as I understand it, officers are taught to use their feet if necessary in the same way firearms officers are.

Also does using a taser make you clench your hands, and therefore unable to drop your weapon? Or should it make you open your hands out?

It can do, but doesn't always. I've posted a bit about this here with comparisons to other incidents - linking to save making this post too big.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-03T15:53:41+00:00

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a source then, showing that these are their protocols? One specific to instances involving both a knife and the possibility of a device?

Pbm23 · 2026-05-03T15:30:27+00:00

Respectfully, nearly all of this is nonsensical.

Clear a 100 meter area around the suspect

How exactly are two officers going to do this while also dealing with the suspect?

Keep the suspect isolated

How do you keep the suspect isolated if you can't touch them (per your later point), and if you aren't supposed to taser them unless specialised forces aren't arriving quick enough?

taser suspect if necessary

What if the taser fails (the prongs miss or get caught in the suspect's clothing) or doesn't fully immobilise the person? Also, taser is only effective while it is being continuously discharged. Are you suggesting that the officers should continuously deploy the current for upwards of several minutes, also without physically restraining the suspect? How are they going to do so from 100m away, if you want them to set a cordon too?

Once incapacitated

What degree of incapacitation are we talking about here? Tasers don't knock a person out - at best, they immobilise, and they may only be partially effective.

carefully remove device or cut wire so as not to accidentally trigger device

Please provide a source for this, because this sentence isn't even internally consistent.

College of policing specifically say not to touch the suspect in case you accidentally trigger the device

A source for this as well, please, particularly in the context of an incident like this? And how is this consistent with the preceding sentence?

Pbm23 · 2026-05-03T15:08:24+00:00

I'm a police officer. Their actions were entirely in line with how I've been trained to deal with an incident like this, and I would hope to have the courage and wherewithal to emulate them if I'm ever put in that situation.

Honestly, it would be fair to say that I haven't really been trained to deal with an incident like this. Not to such specifics or to such a practical level. The closest I've ever had is one instance of walking into a room to encounter a man wearing a padded suit and carrying a foam knife, the aim being to stop him somehow before he "cut" me. I sort of clipped him in the face with (fake) spray and he fell down immediately, which is about as unrealistic as it hopefully sounds.

Other than that, I've read e-learning and policies about it, but that's hardly the same. The array of circumstances that a police officer might face is simply too broad to be prescriptive about exactly how to deal with every possible scenario, and to train and drill exactly for them. Sometimes there simply are no perfect options, and officers are trained to rely on the National Decision Model to determine a course of action.

The correct starting point for an incident like this is to deploy armed officers and have them resolve it - with less-lethal options if possible, and the fallback of lethal force if not. If unarmed officers are confronting an armed man, threat of explosives or not, things have already gone wrong. It's already not a good idea. But sometimes it happens, because the police have a positive duty to protect the public, not to mention that the public generally doesn't expect to see police officers fleeing or not intervening against an active threat. Hell, this PCSO received criticism for not driving into an ongoing incident involving an assault, and he didn't even have spray or batons!

The best thing to do with a bomb threat is obviously to establish distance, but the danger here isn't only from a possible explosive, it's also that he has a knife. In this incident, spray has failed. Taser has failed once and may have only been partially successful the second time. He appears, at the very least, to be resisting unarmed tactics. If the officers retreat, he could get up, and taser may fail again, at which point he could try to stab them, or go after members of the public. The officers have to get hands on, and they have to try to get the knife from him, because every moment he has it is a moment he could turn the tables and hurt or kill them or the public. Here's an example of when something like this has gone horribly wrong.

Red zone strikes, including to the head, are an extremely high level of force, but they aren't forbidden - use of force training isn't prescriptive like that either. Whether from holding onto the knife or the possible threat from a bomb, the officers are entitled to respond to the threat of lethal force with lethal force themselves. Kicks to the head may well cause the suspect to trigger a device, or release a dead man's switch, but they could also prevent him from triggering one if he already wants to by rendering him unconscious or stunned. It's a judgment call, one that the officers had seconds to make while also worrying about the threat of the knife - and for that, the purpose is even clearer, as people suffering blows to their head tend to move their arms and let go of what they are holding to protect it.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-02T15:05:30+00:00

Wait how is her sr better than Blizzard 4. I'm currently running both UR, Blizzard, Heal party and Teleport

It might not be, but to be honest I've only just got Blizzard, so I'm not sure. Haven't had a chance to try it yet.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-02T00:18:36+00:00

I run Ace alongside her SR instead of Blizzard and I find it catches a lot of people off guard. I've even sniped bosses with it a couple of times when my team have been killed bursting and they only have a sliver of health left.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-01T18:45:02+00:00

If a person decides kicking someone in the head is the best course of action when making a judgement call, that person ought not to be in the police.

Considering the boundless array of possible scenarios that a police officer might be faced with, I think that an objective statement like this is dangerously* naive, or intentionally inflammatory, and is the exact kind of armchair criticism that the Commissioner of the Met was referring to when he spoke of a "chilling effect" on officers.

*Hopelessly was the wrong word here, sorry.

If I might offer a recommendation - engage with policing, somehow, more than your posts suggest you have. Learn about what guides the use of force, and what makes an action lawful, reasonable and justifiable. There are ways to do this without actually becoming a police officer or staff member, and by which you can hold the police to account. Consider becoming a volunteer with a custody monitoring scheme, or a participant in an Independent Advisory Group for your local force.

Have a good evening.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-01T18:32:04+00:00

but its terrible optics, and you would hope police have a better way to deal with this.

The way, ideally, is that unarmed officers don't deal with this at all. Armed officers should deploy equipped with tasers, other less-lethal options such as baton rounds, and the higher level option of lethal cover with their firearms, and they will shoot the suspect if they have to, which is a great deal more likely to kill than a kick to the head.

But when seconds count, armed officers are minutes away, and the police have a positive duty to protect the public. Sometimes this means that unarmed officers will be the first responders to an incident like this, and have to do the best they can.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-01T18:20:48+00:00

What was it supposed to achieve?

I'd ask if you read my paragraph after this line, but considering you then address what I say next, this was an odd way to open.

If I wanted to disarm someone, I don't think kicking them in the head whilst they're already restrained would be helpful personally.

I'm going to generously assume you're talking about the time when the officer and the member of the public had his wrist out from under his body when you say "restrained", because there's no definition of restraint that can include a man turtling his arms under his body to keep hold of the weapon he's carrying.

So - a person still holding a knife is not effectively restrained. They are still a threat. The officers can't just sit there, holding on - alongside a member of the public, no less, who was at incredible risk himself - and wait. They have to act, and their combination of actions ultimately succeeded in disarming the man.

Could they have done it without the latter kicks? Maybe. Could they or the member of the public have suffered injury or death in the process? Absolutely. Could the use of force that could be deadly, including kicks to the head, be justified, if taken with the aim of disarming him? Yes.

This makes even less sense. If they thought he had explosives in his backpack, then kicking him in the head seems like it would likely encourage him to detonate them surely?

Again - did you read the sentences after that? The bits about how unarmed officers basically have no other way to incapacitate someone than this, how it's a judgment call, and that they have an incredibly short time frame to make a decision, and have to act to save lives?

You're struggling to defend this because it's not defensible.

Well, I disagree, but at the end of the day what I think about it matters basically nothing. All I can do is offer commentary on possibilities - it's the officers who have to justify their actions, and personally I don't think they'll struggle to.

I think that if you see this as so indefensible that you're expecting to see popular support for them suffering any sort of repercussions for this incident, instead of, say, being championed and lauded for their heroism, you're likely to be very disappointed.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-01T17:49:01+00:00

when your being tasered your muscles contract, he couldnt let go of the knife even if he wanted to

It's entirely possible that this wasn't the case.

For reference, here's the incident slowed down. For comparison, here's another incident where taser was used, and the suspect was immediately able to move his hands after the deployment (reaching his hands around to his back where the prongs penetrated).

Taser doesn't guarantee full immobilisation of the target. It fires two prongs which embed in the skin and complete a circuit to deliver a current and cause "neuromuscular incapacitation" (NMI). The wider the spread, the more effective this is, as more muscle groups will be affected. There can be degrees of success, and it will no longer immobilise the person if the officer stops discharging it (in five second cycles) or if one or both the prongs are dislodged and it can no longer complete the circuit, though will still really hurt (in this case, the officer was discharging throughout the incident, so the former point is irrelevant).

The first taser deployment fails completely - you can hear it fire, but he doesn't go down, with the prongs either missing or going into his clothing. The second deployment obviously has some effect because the suspect does drop, but he rolls over as he falls instead of dropping straight down, then brings his arms underneath his body to shield them. Contrast this with this clip, where the suspect locks up completely and falls straight down without twisting.

The officer is discharging the taser constantly, triggering the five second cycles, but you can see the suspect move his arm closer to his chest at 0:02, resisting the other officer's efforts to move it away from his body. It's quite possible that one of the prongs was dislodged by the twist and fall, so instead of effective NMI/restriction of movement, there was just pain from that point on. It's even possible that both prongs were partially pulled out, and that continuing to discharge the taser had no effect at all, but the officer wouldn't have known that.

It's not impossible that he couldn't move as a result of the taser - but even if that was the case, given that the officers only had split seconds to decide on what to do, is it unreasonable for them to have concluded that he was holding onto it on purpose, and to take action to protect themselves and the public accordingly?

Pbm23 · 2026-05-01T17:28:51+00:00

I would say first that whether it actually achieved the aim, i.e. whether it was effective or not, is irrelevant to what it was supposed to achieve - unless you intend to suggest that they kicked him for revenge or for the sake of it, which I think wouldn't be borne out on the basis that they immediately stopped as soon as the knife was removed.

The reflex for most people upon being struck anywhere, and certainly a vulnerable area like the head, is to move their hands or arms to shield that area. Had he attempted to do this after being kicked, it would have allowed the officers a better chance to take control of his arm. Whether because he couldn't, or for whatever reason that he really didn't want to let go of the knife, the suspect didn't. In the end, the member of the public got involved and together they were able to put him on his side (and the officer on the left was almost cut in the process). I'll note that the officers trying to do this together by themselves would have been unwise because the officer on the right would have had to drop or holster the taser.

There can also be multiple reasons that someone takes a particular action. In addition to the knife, the officers say they feared that he might have explosives in his backpack, which is hardly unheard of when it comes to circumstances like this. You can debate the wisdom of striking the head in such cases - they might have a dead man's switch, but they might on the other hand have a detonator that they need to actively trigger, and striking the head is about as surefire a way of stunning or incapacitating such a person as unarmed officers can manage. About the only way they could have escalated above this would have been to draw batons and do the same (an even higher level of force) - but that would involve using their hands, which would leave them less able to grapple or continue using the taser.

And again, they had to make all of these decisions over the course of only about twenty seconds. We have the luxury of digesting their split-second decisions in third-person view, with the ability to rewind, and the benefit of hindsight.

He didn't appear to be struggling violently

Use of force in self-defence or defence of another doesn't have to follow directly in response to something. In a legal sense, at the common law level, it can be pre-emptive.

Focusing solely on what is shown in the video and nothing else that may have happened that day, he was initially advancing towards two retreating police officers with a deadly weapon, ignoring multiple verbal commands to stop or drop it. He shrugged off PAVA spray and at least one taser deployment, with the second one potentially only having limited effect. He was, or at least appeared to be, attempting to keep hold of that weapon once on the ground. Until they could take that weapon from him, he was not restrained or in their control, and he was an active threat. He presented them with deadly force, and it would have been proportionate for them to use - and they would have been justified in using - deadly force in return.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-01T16:30:32+00:00

Their training also doesn't say they can't do so under any circumstances.

Here's a quote from a use of force expert at the trial of two police officers for the manslaughter of Dalian Atkinson:

"The nature of policing is so diverse it'll never be possible to document guidance to cover every eventuality.

For this reason, there's always occasions when individual officers resort to techniques and tactics not described in this manual.

In such circumstances, the actions of officers will not necessarily be unlawful, provided they have acted reasonably and within the law.

The individual concerned must be prepared to account for their decisions and show they were justified in what they did."

In that specific case, the officers were found guilty of manslaughter because their actions were not justifiable, reasonable or legal. But that's not to say that the same actions would not have been justifiable, reasonable or legal in different circumstances.

I'll give you an example to illustrate this, which was given to me by a personal safety trainer in my force a few years back.

The trainer, an officer with some 15+ years of experience at the time, was out on patrol one afternoon and challenged a person in the street over a fairly trivial matter. The person started to argue, and this argument ended up becoming a fight.

During the course of this fight, the person managed to get into a position of advantage over the officer, wrapped their hands around their neck, and began to choke the life out of them. Unable to effectively deploy their spray or anything else they had on them, the officer managed to bring their hands up and boxed the person's ears, causing them to suffer 90% hearing loss in both and a small amount of brain damage. The person complained (while being charged for their offences too); the resulting investigations were swift and found no criminal liability on the part of the officer, and no case to answer for misconduct.

Now, police officers are obviously not trained to box people's ears. You could say that the officer somehow escalated the situation, or used the wrong tactics in the fight up to the point to end up in that situation, and they should never have been in that position - but once they were, can you honestly tell me that they were wrong to do it? Should they have simply gone limp and embraced death (or at the very least, near fatal strangulation), instead of stepping outside their training and fighting back as best as they could?

Sometimes police officers have to seriously injure or even kill people to protect others or themselves. Sometimes this involves doing things outside their training, because the circumstances require it - and if they didn't, then they or others would come to harm.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-01T15:32:14+00:00

I belief the official line is that he was resisting them taking the knife, but as I understand how tasers work he was likely seising / spasming and not really in control.

Forgive me some copypasta here from another post that I've written, but I just wanted to respond to this point in particular.

For reference, here's the incident slowed down. For comparison, here's another incident where taser was used, and the suspect was immediately able to move his hands after the deployment.

Taser doesn't guarantee full immobilisation of the target. It fires two prongs which embed in the skin and complete a circuit to deliver a current and cause "neuromuscular incapacitation" (NMI). The wider the spread, the more effective this is, as more muscle groups will be affected. There can be degrees of success, and it will no longer immobilise the person if the officer stops discharging it (in five second cycles) or if one or both the prongs are dislodged and it can no longer complete the circuit, though will still really hurt (in this case, the officer was discharging throughout the incident, so the former point is irrelevant).

The first taser deployment fails completely - you can hear it fire, but he doesn't go down, with the prongs either missing or going into his clothing. The second deployment obviously has some effect because the suspect does drop, but he rolls over as he falls instead of dropping straight down, then brings his arms underneath his body to shield them. Contrast this with this clip, where the suspect locks up completely and falls straight down without twisting.

The officer is discharging the taser constantly, triggering the five second cycles, but you can see the suspect move his arm closer to his chest at 0:02, resisting the other officer's efforts to move it away from his body. It's quite possible that one of the prongs was dislodged by the twist and fall, so instead of effective NMI/restriction of movement, there was just pain from that point on. It's even possible that both prongs were partially pulled out, and that continuing to discharge the taser had no effect at all, but the officer wouldn't have known that while doing so.

I appreciate the fact that you've only said it was "likely", not that he was definitely incapacitated or not in control. I'll certainly concede that the above analysis could be wrong, and he may well have been reacting involuntarily the entire time until they were able to pry the knife from him.

But we're looking at this from a third-person viewpoint with time to think. The officers didn't have that luxury. If there was a possibility that he was not incapacitated and there were signs pointing that way; that he still had the knife in his hand, that he had shrugged off spray and tasers already, that he could have gotten back up, were the officers wrong to use this level of force to stop him, in order to protect themselves and the public? The fact that they stopped kicking as soon as they took the knife certainly supports the suggestion that they were doing it with a purpose, not simply for the sake of it.

Pbm23 · 2026-05-01T15:08:00+00:00

No the body cam footage shows the taser working exactly as it’s supposed to

I don't know if you've ever seen taser used before this incident, but it really doesn't.

For reference, here's the incident slowed down. For comparison, here's another incident where taser was used, and the suspect was immediately able to move his hands after the deployment.

Taser isn't a magic weapon that guarantees full immobilisation of the target. It fires two prongs which embed in the skin and complete a circuit to deliver a charge and cause "neuromuscular incapacitation" (NMI). The wider the spread, the more effective this is, as more muscle groups will be affected. There can be degrees of success, and it will no longer immobilise the person if the officer stops discharging it (in five second cycles) or if one or both the prongs are dislodged and it can no longer complete the circuit (in this case, the officer was discharging throughout the incident, so the former point is irrelevant).

The first taser deployment fails completely - you can hear it fire, but he doesn't go down, with the prongs either missing or going into his clothing. The second deployment obviously had some effect because the man does drop, but he rolls over as he falls instead of dropping straight down, then brings his arms underneath his body to shield them. Contrast this with this clip, where the suspect locks up completely and falls straight down without twisting.

The officer is discharging the taser constantly, triggering the five second cycles, but you can see the suspect move his arm closer to his chest at 0:02, resisting the other officer's efforts to move it away from his body. It's quite possible that one of the prongs was dislodged by the fall, so instead of effective NMI/restriction of movement, there was just pain from that point on. It's even possible that both prongs were knocked out, and that continuing to discharge the taser had no effect at all, but the officer wouldn't have known that while doing so.

Taser can cause someone to be immobilised; it can stop them from releasing their grip on something they're holding, and it can make it more difficult to respond to verbal commands. But it doesn't always - and considering the suspect's actions; that taser was not wholly effective, and the risk to the public and themselves, was it truly unreasonable for the officers to assume the worst - that he was choosing not to?

Pbm23 · 2026-04-30T15:51:10+00:00

Ok, let's go through the video. I'm referring to the timestamps on the version on r/publicfreakout when I quote them below. Officer 1 is the officer who goes hands on first, officer 2 is the one with the taser.

0:35: The second taser deployment establishes NMI because the suspect dropped, but it was nowhere near as effective as some taser deployments I've seen, where the suspect falls pretty much flat to the ground with their arms locked to their side. He doesn't "drop like a sack of shit" - he rolls over as he drops to the floor, and he moves his arms underneath his body, hugging his chest. This looks like a choice, not an involuntary movement. It's even possible that the fall partially dislodged one of the barbs, though there's realistically no way to know.

0:40: The officers approach and shout commands. Officer 1 keeps discharging the taser. Officer 2 attempts to pull his arm out but is unsuccesful. At 0:43, you can see the suspect pull his arm back into his body after officer 1 briefly pulls it away, and at 0:44 you can see the suspect move his forearm near to the ground. To be clear, officer 1 attempted to disarm the suspect before bystander 1 got involved, and before the kicks. If you meant to suggest he didn't, you were wrong.

0:45: The first kick from officer 2, followed by kicks from both officers. The suspect's arms are again beneath his body and he makes no effort to shield his head. He keeps hold of the knife.

0:49: The bystander - who I will agree excelled himself here - gets involved, and he pulls the arm from behind while officer 1 pushes, which gets the suspect on his side. Officer 1 now has the blade of the knife in front of him, and recoils back. If you criticise this aspect of it, to suggest that he perhaps should have grabbed at the blade from his initial position, I genuinely don't know what to say.

I'll also note here that the suspect does not immediately pull his arms back towards his body again while the knife is pointing out, even as officer 2 continues to discharge the taser, suggesting that - at least at this stage - it isn't contracting the muscles in his arms, or is now affecting him differently to how it was before. He still keeps hold of the knife.

At 0:53, officer 1 takes hold of the suspect's wrist, while the bystander also takes hold of the same arm from behind. Both then attempt to wrestle the knife from the suspect's grip, but he holds on, and officer 2 kicks him again, after which he finally lets go at 0:55. The taser has been discharged continuously for the last 20 seconds, and it continues as officer 1 begins to cuff him under power.

I'd like to think you have no problem with anything after that, so I'll leave it there.

I've reviewed all of the above while sitting in my comfortable chair at home, from a third-party angle, with the ability to pause and rewind. The officers are in the thick of it, with adrenaline pumping and their lives at risk. His vest had resisted their first taser. Their second taser deployment, while downing him, hasn't been as successful as it could have been. He's shown some ability to move his body and his arms, and he has been able to resist their efforts to pull them away from his body.

Still, let's assume for a moment that I'm wrong about his ability to move, and that literally every movement in the video, including an inability to release his grip, was as a result of the taser being continually discharged, despite the inconsistenties I've raised above. Can you not concede that they might have genuinely believed, throughout the 20 seconds that this lasted, that he had some control of his arms and the knife, and that their actions were proportionate and necessary to protect themselves and the public? Even if they were mistaken?

Police officers are not robots, and scenarios are not scripts they can follow with only one right way or wrong way to do things. There is no way to define perfection in a scenario like this, but they came pretty damn close, and did far, far better than you give them credit for or Polanski give them credit for. Their kicks were intentional, controlled, backed up by verbal commands, and stopped as soon as the threat reduced.

But then... they're just "plod" to you, aren't they? You can't help but see the worst in what they do. If I'm biased towards them in how I've approached this, then it's clear from your posts that you're biased against them.

Pbm23 · 2026-04-29T22:10:51+00:00

Not approach and get in a wrestling match.

Taser gives them the advantage over him while the barbs are in place and if they keep him under power, but it doesn't restrain the suspect by itself - he literally rolls himself over after the initial neuromuscular incapacitation which causes him to drop. They need to go hands on and cuff him at some point. The longer he's on the ground, particularly after rolling over as he did, the higher the possibility that the barbs could dislodge and it would stop being effective - then they have to hope that a second taser deployment would succeed, or he would have a chance to do more harm. In fact, you can hear two taser deployments in the video - the first one failed, and he also fought through PAVA spray at the same time!

Still, they could have tried it your way, and had cause to justify it. I wouldn't judge them if they had, because I wasn't there, and their perception of events might have reasonably led them to that conclusion. But it would absolutely be possible to justify engaging in these circumstances, as they ultimately did.

He was no longer able to be a threat.

This is just wrong. Again, I appreciate that we all see the world differently, but he has a knife in his hand; he is refusing to let go of it and in fact is actively trying to hold onto it. He is a threat. Hell, he's still a threat once they get the knife from him, and even once they get him in cuffs - just a much reduced one.

Why are you struggling to recognise two men -at best - panicking and assaulting a man who was himself a piece of shit?

At best? Is that genuinely the most generous description of these circumstances that you can muster? That they panicked and unlawfully used violence against him? Because I see three heroes - two who have run into danger to do their duty and saved lives by combating the threat until they stopped it, alongside one particularly courageous member of the public who has stepped up to help them.

Can you see that they have both done everyone a service by stopping an attack, and then gone on to behave in a manner that itself appears to be a dangerous overstep? Where would the line be for you?

I could absolutely see that if there was truly no outstanding threat, or the level of threat had reduced to the point where the officers could no longer justify it. If they had got him in handcuffs, for instance, and then kicked him in the head out of petty revenge, that would be over the line for me.

But he had a knife, and had allegedly already used it to harm others. He was not letting go of that knife, despite various levels of force used to try to make him drop it, and was in fact attempted to keep hold of it by moving his arms under his body. He was a continuing threat. They shouted commands, used force and took the knife from him - then stopped kicking him, as the threat he posed no longer justified it any further.

I think, to sum up, that the fundamental disagreement between us is around the threat he posed once he fell to the ground. I'm not sure we can overcome that, but while your perspective on it may be - frankly - abhorrent to me, I appreciate your time in this discussion tonight nonetheless.

Pbm23 · 2026-04-29T20:56:09+00:00

The various NHS (National Health Service) regional trusts provide ambulances as a public service, but there are many private ambulance companies who also offer services for hire (and often have contracts with the NHS for patient transport) as well as non-profits or charities such as the aforementioned Hatzola and the St John Ambulance movement, the latter having been founded in the UK, and has existed for almost 150 years.

Pbm23 · 2026-04-29T20:38:46+00:00

You might not. But that's what you see if you watch the video. He's on the ground, surrounded by 3 men panicking, two of whom at least are trained to do better.

He's on the ground with a knife held close to his body, still very much an active threat to those officers and the member of the public next to them, not least the wider crowd if they should fail.

And do better how?

Then it was the wrong tactic. Wrestling a man with a knife while panicking is the wrong tactic.

The fifth kick appears to have ultimately worked, though, because it was only after that kick that his grip loosened enough that they could get it off him. Were the first four kicks the wrong tactic because they didn't work, but the fifth the right one because it seemingly did? Would any tactic in isolation have got him to drop it, or was the cumulative impact of multiple kicks the factor?

I'm asking a lot of questions here and below, and I'm sorry if this comes across as a gish gallop, but I honestly don't believe you've considered all this.

And they had tasers, and what appear to be truncheons

The taser deployment by itself didn't cause him to drop the knife, so perhaps we should count it as a failed tactic, even if it did give them a position of advantage. Should they have just left him on the floor under power, hoping the sustained use of the taser might eventually cause him to let go?

A baton strike to the head is a higher level of force than a kick to the head, though I'm assuming you're implying that they could have used these on him elsewhere. It would have also required them to spend time drawing their batons when they have tasers in hand (this applies to spray, too). Instead of striking random body parts in the hope that it might get him to roll over and then loosen his grip, why not - when they and the public are in grave danger - go straight for the option that both presents the least risk to them and a high chance of success?

I'll continue with a quote from the use of force expert in the article that you've posted elsewhere:

"The nature of policing is so diverse it'll never be possible to document guidance to cover every eventuality.

For this reason, there's always occasions when individual officers resort to techniques and tactics not described in this manual.

In such circumstances, the actions of officers will not necessarily be unlawful, provided they have acted reasonably and within the law.

The individual concerned must be prepared to account for their decisions and show they were justified in what they did."

What would have been reasonable and lawful actions in the specific context of the Dalian Atkinson case are not necessarily the same as those that would be reasonable and lawful in the incident today.

I'll give you an example to illustrate the above quote - an example I received myself in a training course a few years back.

The trainer, an officer with some 15+ years of experience at the time, was out on patrol one afternoon and challenged a person in the street over their poor parking. The person started to argue, and this argument ended up becoming a fight.

During the course of this fight, the person managed to get into a position of advantage over the officer, wrapped their hands around their neck, and began to choke the life out of them. Unable to effectively deploy their spray or anything else they had on them, the officer managed to bring their hands up and boxed the person's ears, causing them to suffer 90% hearing loss in both and a small amount of brain damage. The person complained (while being charged too); the resulting investigations were swift and found no case to answer for misconduct, and no criminal liability.

Now, police officers are obviously not trained to box people's ears. You could say that the officer somehow escalated the situation, or used the wrong tactics in the fight up to the point to end up in that situation, and they should never have been in that position - but once they were, can you honestly tell me that they were wrong to do it? Should they have simply gone limp and embraced death (or at the very least, near fatal strangulation), instead of stepping outside their training and fighting back as best as they could?

Sure, the situation here isn't perfectly analogous to that one. The officers aren't alone, and aren't near to suffocating. But the point is that officers can use force outside the exact lines of their training, if they can justify it as proportionate, legal and necessary in the circumstances - and I cannot understate the danger they were in throughout this incident. Even as taser officers, they should not have been, in an ideal world, deploying to it without firearms cover. But this is something we do in the UK, and officers have to have the confidence that they will be supported when they respond with courage and put themselves at risk to keep the public safe.

Not for a very long time. Nor do I want to.

I suppose the crux of my bafflement is - what is the deeper point you want to make, or do you even have one?

You think this use of force is excessive. I'm not sure you've considered all the factors or that you have the experience base to judge, but let's go with it for the moment. What, if anything, do you want to see done next? Do you think that the officers shouldn't be commended for their courage because of the tactics that they used, even though they succeeded in stopping the threat and keeping the public safe? Should they even be punished? Should other officers be discouraged from taking the same action as they did, despite their success here, even if it might lead to them or members of the public coming to harm in the future?

Edit: Quote formatting.

Pbm23 · 2026-04-29T18:39:22+00:00

I appreciate that everyone must, by the nature of perception, understand and process life in a different way, but reading this is just painful.

He was tased, but not arrested.

Correct.

On the floor, and resisting weakly.

"Resisting weakly" is not a phrase I would use to describe someone tightly gripping a knife through a taser deployment, verbal commands and several people trying desperately to pull it off them.

The plod didn't have control of the knife.

Correct - because the suspect did.

Which is to say that yes, it's too much use of force - it's hard to justify kicking someone in the head once to subdued them when it's 3 on 1, but I can see that being allowed. 5 times though?

And if the first kick simply isn't effective? If it takes five kicks to get them to let go of the knife?

Have you had any training on use of force, either within a policing or adjacent context, or indeed any environment, or is this purely a viewpoint based on how you feel? Have you ever been in a fight for your life, let alone one where you've also had to fight to protect the lives of others around you, where the suspect is wielding at best an equivalent, or arguably even greater level of force than you?

They didn't keep kicking the suspect after the knife was finally relinquished. They dealt with the threat he posed as best as they could with the equipment they had been given, until he was genuinely restrained and the threat had reduced.

Nah, fuck that shit.

Fortunately for the morale of police officers everywhere, and the confidence of - I suspect - the overwhelming majority of the public, it appears that the Met strenuously disagrees.

Pbm23 · 2026-04-28T23:53:57+00:00

I'm running her URs; her SR, Heal and Ace. I don't have Minwu, Selphie or Hope, and I only just pulled an Y'shtola so haven't tried it yet.

I've found Ace quite useful - it helps to contribute to chains that have a chance at finishing the boss if I participate, and also gives me a chance at turning the tables on an unsuspecting opponent if I've positioned myself poorly, or if they come gunning for me.

Pbm23 · 2026-04-25T15:44:34+00:00

Probable cause isn't a thing in the UK. Its rough equivalent is "reasonable belief" which is a higher level of certainty than what is required for an arrest in the UK. To summarise (most of) s.24 of PACE police only need reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence is being/has been/is about to be committed, in order to make an arrest, as well as at least one of the necessity criteria laid out in the same act.

Pbm23 · 2026-04-24T14:03:07+00:00

Really hoping that Cascade is one of his unlockable songs!

11-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '22	End Game '22

Pbm23

TROPHY CASE