Thread: Cop punches Jaywalker

Originally Posted by Sdigit

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

^^^ In the UK officers need to comply with Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 relating to 'reasonable force' in order to effect an arrest.

I have been wondering about the year of this law that you've quoted, 1967.
It was not always the case that the British police would arrest a person as gently as they do now, indeed 30 years ago the police could be firm bordering on brutal in some instances when arresting a person.

So what has changed if not the law, has it been amended or are there now more recent laws that they must adhere to?

You're pretty much spot on Sdigit.

Before The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was introduced in 1984 i would agree that alleged perpetators of cime were treated more harsher than they are today. Interviews now need to be recorded, videoed and in my view this has lead to a more professional attitude from officers. Prior to PACE, officers would often force a confession from suspects. Judges Rules legislation being too open to interpretation. Corruption within forces was almost out of control. I believe Sir Robert Marks, Metropolitan Police Commisioner in the 70's, was instumental in rooting out those officers who were less than honest and with PACE came a new breed of officer.

Under PACE, a custody officer is appointed to look after the welfare and process of prisoners at Police stations. Prisoners are entitled to food/drink at certain intervals and are checked regularly whilst in their cells, all of which is recorded. The custody officer also need to be aware of how and why the arrest was effected. e.g. if a prisioner is brought to the station with marks on his face/hands etc:, how did he/she suffer them? The custody officer may decline to accept the prisoner if he feels that excessive force was used or that the arrest may not have been carried out to the letter of the law.

To be fair Section 3 of the CLA of 1967 has stood the test of time and applies to any person. Not only in effecting an arrest but also where someones life is at risk so it covers quite an area. It doesn't define what reasonable force is and should not be confused with 'minimum force'. e.g. if someone was attacking you or another with a knife and you believed that yours or anothers life was in immediate danger or you or that person may suffer a serious injury and the only way of stopping that person was to use a lethal weapon then the force used may be deemed as reasonable. If the attacker was not in an immediate position to cause serious harm/death than the use of a firearm or other lethal weapon may be deemed unreasonable.

The US officer in the video found himself in a difficult position with the 2 females, he needed to get things under control quickly or he may have been subjected to violence himself. He achieved his goal and although the larger lady may have suffered a bloody mouth as a result, she was in the process of assaulting the officer and thus committing a crime of violence herself. He was entitled to defend himself. Was it reasonable or excesssive? One would need to refer to US legislation and in most cases these things are decided in court or at a disciplinary hearing, that is if one has a complainant of course.

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

Originally Posted by Sdigit

Originally Posted by Mr Lick

^^^ In the UK officers need to comply with Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 relating to 'reasonable force' in order to effect an arrest.

I have been wondering about the year of this law that you've quoted, 1967.
It was not always the case that the British police would arrest a person as gently as they do now, indeed 30 years ago the police could be firm bordering on brutal in some instances when arresting a person.

So what has changed if not the law, has it been amended or are there now more recent laws that they must adhere to?

You're pretty much spot on Sdigit.

Before The Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) was introduced in 1984 i would agree that alleged perpetators of cime were treated more harsher than they are today. Interviews now need to be recorded, videoed and in my view this has lead to a more professional attitude from officers. Prior to PACE, officers would often force a confession from suspects. Judges Rules legislation being too open to interpretation. Corruption within forces was almost out of control. I believe Sir Robert Marks, Metropolitan Police Commisioner in the 70's, was instumental in rooting out those officers who were less than honest and with PACE came a new breed of officer.

Under PACE, a custody officer is appointed to look after the welfare and process of prisoners at Police stations. Prisoners are entitled to food/drink at certain intervals and are checked regularly whilst in their cells, all of which is recorded. The custody officer also need to be aware of how and why the arrest was effected. e.g. if a prisioner is brought to the station with marks on his face/hands etc:, how did he/she suffer them? The custody officer may decline to accept the prisoner if he feels that excessive force was used or that the arrest may not have been carried out to the letter of the law.

To be fair Section 3 of the CLA of 1967 has stood the test of time and applies to any person. Not only in effecting an arrest but also where someones life is at risk so it covers quite an area. It doesn't define what reasonable force is and should not be confused with 'minimum force'. e.g. if someone was attacking you or another with a knife and you believed that yours or anothers life was in immediate danger or you or that person may suffer a serious injury and the only way of stopping that person was to use a lethal weapon then the force used may be deemed as reasonable. If the attacker was not in an immediate position to cause serious harm/death than the use of a firearm or other lethal weapon may be deemed unreasonable.

The US officer in the video found himself in a difficult position with the 2 females, he needed to get things under control quickly or he may have been subjected to violence himself. He achieved his goal and although the larger lady may have suffered a bloody mouth as a result, she was in the process of assaulting the officer and thus committing a crime of violence herself. He was entitled to defend himself. Was it reasonable or excesssive? One would need to refer to US legislation and in most cases these things are decided in court or at a disciplinary hearing, that is if one has a complainant of course.

A very comprehensive answer indeed Mr Lick thank you very much