NSW Police Slam 'Trial By Social Media' As Mardi Gras Brutality Video Goes Viral [Updated]

A video of a young man's ordeal with NSW Police officers at the Sydney Mardi Gras on Saturday night is going off all over the web right now. The video -- which is particularly tough viewing -- shows officers brutally handling the young man who has today been reportedly charged with assaulting police and abusive lanugage. NSW Police, however, have come out to defend themselves, saying that they're the victims of "trial by social media".

The video shows an 18-year old man being arrested at the Sydney Mardi Gras on Saturday night by aggressive police officers who, at one point, sickeningly slam the handcuffed young man to the ground, despite the fact that the suspect hadn't showed any physical resistance previously in the recorded footage. If you are about to watch the video, be advised that the footage could disturb some viewers.

During the video, six officers surround the young man as the crowd hurls abuse at officers. Several officers ask the camera operator on a few separate occasions to cease recording. For what it's worth, it is legal to film Police going about their operations in New South Wales, so don't let an officer tell you it isn't no matter what they're being caught doing.

The video now has hundreds of votes on Reddit, hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube and its spread over the web in the last 12 hours could be likened to a wildfire.

Deputy Commissioner of the New South Wales Police Service Mark Murdoch told the media today at a press conference that the behaviour of police who asked citizens to stop filming that they demonstrated naivety in their comments.

"We support the right of the community to film anyone in a public space and we do so ourselves. Our police need to be mature enough to know that everyone has a mobile phone with a camera facility and they will use that. We thought at the senior level it had been communicated loud and clear but we have more work to be done there," he said.

The Deputy Commissioner had nothing to say about the conduct of the officers, adding only that these incidents are now subject to both internal and criminal investigations.

Despite what we've seen in the footage overnight, the head of the NSW Police Association, Mark Weber, said that the public shouldn't demonise police before investigations have been concluded:

"We've only seen a small snippet in regards to the incident and we need to have a proper investigation before a trial by social media," he told the SMH.

Right now, the police are calling for anyone with additional mobile phone footage of two incidents on Oxford Street -- one at 10pm and one at 11:30pm -- to come forward to CrimeStoppers with that footage.

Update: you can now watch the Police media conference online.



    you glossed over the important parts of this: he has been charged with assaulting police. and there is no footage of what happened prior to this incident.

    If you assault police, it's a pretty fair bet that you're going to get your ass kicked.

      @hazzzaa and you believe the police, despite years of police brutality, corruption and some? Ever heard a story about a boy who cried wolf?

      I don't understand how you can justify being slammed into the ground while handcuffed.

        I'm not saying what they did was right, but he was struggling.

        If you cooperate with police, they might be dicks to you, but you won't get slammed into the concrete.

        I used to be a security guard. You don't know what it's like having drunk people constantly in your face, telling you that you're a despicable human being. People snap. Bad things happen. If you're not a dick to police, and you cooperate, you'll only get charged for your offence and probably won't have to sleep in the watchhouse.

        It's really not that complicated when you think about it.

          Oh, you're one of them. Good for you.

            it just means he has more experience an insight into the matter than you do.

              He was handcuffed when he was thrown to the ground. That's illegal fullstop

                He was kicking police officers while handcuffed before he was thrown to the ground. And hit the ground so hard that there was not even a scratch or bruise the following day when he was interviewed. That must be some elite hardcore throw to NOT leave a mark. Either that or the concrete in Sydney is as soft as the NSW Origin team.

      he was handcuffed and then slammed in to the ground even that he didn't really try to do much at that stage... btw slam like that with your hands behind his back can result in some very bad injuries

      no matter what he did before the video started he shouldn't be treated like that

      Even if you assault a Police officer (which can be as simple as stumbling and putting your hand on one! You only need to be inside his personal space to be considered to have assulted one)
      Being thrown to the ground whilst being handcuffed is beyond reproach! Once the cuffs are on, a Police officer has a moral obligation to maintain the safety of a suspect, regardless of his/her crimes.
      It's the courts job to handle punishment, not the arresting Officer.

        You assault and abuse police, you will rightly so get treated like dirt.

        Cry more.

          Mark, you speak as if you know exactly what he did... I take it you were there then? As Greg alluded to, 'assaulting an officer' can be as simple as accidentally stumbling into one - for cops to then be able to say 'i was assaulted' and beat the shit out of a citizen.. you consider this okay?

            The Officer did not "Beat the Shit out of Him." He was too ruff with putting him to the ground. The Officer is a big fella and the dude is small - all I would say is the Officer Used 'Excessive Force.' A case of underestimating your own strength.

            The fact is though, if the dude wasn't causing trouble in the first place, none of that would of happened! And maybe the Officer, too, stopped a full-blown riot in the process.

            The Officer did not look angry at all.

            Last edited 06/03/13 2:29 pm

              that's the point - the Officer looked happy at what he had done - what a scary thought. Maybe that's the way things are done out west.

                You don't know where Oxford Street is, do you?

                  The officer was from the Ashfield/Parramatta precinct

              hpyerthx - I was responding to Mark D's statement that assaulting an office (whatever that may mean) justifies the cop being able to treat the person 'like dirt', and was talking more in general than this incident - which as you say, is difficult enough to analyse with the video evidence

            Nolram/Greg - you act as tho he DIDN'T do anything - whose to say either way... maybe he did - maybe he didn't - speculation and assumption on both sides is stupid. The video doesn't show before the cuffing or the incident so leave it be - this is what causes the issues with judgments being thrown around without any sort of knowledge what so ever.

              Kronosah/Mark, we are not in third word country. Put it this way, When you see a kid been slapped by teacher on youtube, will you actually say 'oh maybe he/she kicked the teacher first?'

              For me, whatever happened, lets it justified by law. The kid and the policemen. I am strongly disagree violent and that policeman definitely ruin the relationship to the community.

            You don't know what he did either! You criticise someone for assuming, then go on to imply that he was just casually strolling down the road innocently before stumbling into a cop!

            I find it interesting that everyone is making instant judgments without seeing footage of the alleged assault on the cops.

              Exactly, this is entirely out of context. Without the full story none of us should be making judgements on the situation.

        "Even if you assault a Police officer (which can be as simple as stumbling and putting your hand on one! You only need to be inside his personal space to be considered to have assulted one)"

        This is absolute garbage, from start to finish! You have proven that you have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, about law. Please do not give legal opinions/advice when you clearly have no idea.

          I don't think you know what your talking about. I know a guy who was charged with brushing a sniffer dog away in a club. He didn't know the dog was behind him and thought someone had pinched his ass so he brushed it away. Got charged with assaulting an officer. Granted, the charge was later quashed.

            Because he touched the dog. Physical contact had been made. Big difference to 'being inside his personal space'. Plus, brushing away the sniffer dog can be seen as obstructing a police investigation.

              I don't usually comment, but I'm reasonably qualified in this area - you don't have to touch an officer of the law to be charged with assaulting him.

              For example, in Western Australia courts have ruled that breathing bad breath on a police officer qualifies as assaulting that officer.

                What if your breath is minty fresh?

                  And a female cop?

                  "Mmmmmmh. What's that minty flavour"
                  "P.K." :P


                  Last edited 07/03/13 12:00 pm

                  Then the cops may have the right to search you based on you having your Macleans a-showing.

                @sharky If it's on purpose well... some sick bastards are like that ya know!

                Last edited 07/03/13 11:54 am

        So lets just say you have arrested me. You have me in cuffs but I'm kicking at you and other police officers. Do you allow me to do this or do you do something to stop me from trying to injure other people?

        My suggestion was to Zap the dickhead, but looking at the videos (thats right videos plural, I've seen 3 different ones so far) none of the police apeared to have them. I saw one with what apeared to be pepper spray in their belt but the crowd was too close to be able to use it without them getting dosed too.

        What would your suggestion be? I suppose you would have the police ask politely?

      I know everyone has already said this - but regardless of what transpired before this, the police have no right to assault someone like this. None what so ever.

        He was arrested for "Offensive language" (I assume to a police officer). During the course of the arrest, he assaulted said officer and resisted arrest.
        Once either of these happens, I'm pretty sure the police can use increased force to subdue and make the arrest. The Police have every right to defend themselves and do what we pay them to do.

        So the kid got slammed because he assaulted an officer. Boo Hoo. What did he think was going to happen?

          What you're implying is that once you break the law, it's okay for police to break the law too. It doesn't work that way.

            The law in NSW in respect of arrests and other matters considers the concept of using "no more force than is absolutely necessary". You know nothing about what transpired before the video started. Let's let it for the Courts and Ombudsman to determine.

              Yep - he used Excessive Force. But the internet does not care at all for the actual facts! Only how much the story can be blown out of proportion, just to create an Us Vs Them scenario.

              It's either his first run-in with the cops - or he's just a smart-arse.

              I do have training in appropriate use of force from a previous job, and in my view, the throw in the video was excessive use of force. But that said, I'm not making any determinations, I'm specifically addressing the misconception that "Chunky Love" seems to have that if you break the law, the police are free to go to town on you.

              Last edited 06/03/13 2:46 pm

                I get what you're saying, and I agree the force in which he was throw down could have been a little over the top. He MAY have been able to have been placed down. But the video is a bit sketchy.. You can't see WHY the officer needed to subdue him, he may have been doing a runner, and needed a quick take down. Maybe because of the previous violence, the officer wasn't taking any risks..
                Who can say. We'll have to wait for the investigation.

                Last edited 06/03/13 2:59 pm

                  Agreed that there are a lot of possibilities. I can only go on what I saw in the video of course, and try not to fill in the blanks with assumptions that might not be correct. It'll be interesting to see if any additional footage for this incident surfaces.

            What I'm implying is once you an assault an officer who is arresting you, you can expect an escalation of force proportionate to what is required to serve said arrest.
            (ie handcuffs>holds>pinning>taser>gun)

              As long as it's proportionate, I agree. But I think where people here disagree is on whether what happened really was a proportionate response.

                Agreed. And therein lies the problem. We don't really know what happened, and hence cannot determine if the force used was proportional to situation or not.

                Trial by social media is right!

                  Actually, the proportionality of force escalation isn't contingent on previous incidents. The use of force to slam the guy to the ground is only relative to whatever the officer was trying to do with him at that specific moment. The footage is unclear on that, but he didn't seem to be attacking the officer at that time.

                  Force escalation cannot be based on a previous assault - I mean, imagine the consequences:

                  Well, the guy hit me so I cuffed him. Then he sat up quickly, so I bludgeoned him to death with an extendable baton and tased his corpse repeatedly.

                  That obviously doesn't make sense. Which is why police powers don't extend to punishing the accused with violence for their previous actions. "Not taking any risks" doesn't necessitate the takedown in the video.

                  It is certainly possible that the guy in custody was doing something to warrant the slam, but it looks deeply unlikely from the footage. He seemed to be standing close and probably didn't respond to instructions to step back - which justifies sitting him down against his will. But, come on, a cop that big has to resort to a violent takedown to subdue a 40kg kid?

              "(ie handcuffs>holds>pinning>taser>gun)"

              This is absolutely ridiculous, a handcuffed person can in no way justify the cop withdrawing his gun, what threat can a handcuffed person pose? the only thing he can do is run and kick, and that does not require a gun to subdue.

                I don't think he meant it as a sequential chain, but rather a straight choice of escalation, ie. if handcuffs are insufficient, use a hold; if holds are insufficient, use a pin; etc.

      There is a bit, actually, on the News.com.au story. It shows him trying to be apprehended by police, and basically flailing weakly in their general directions. You know, what they would consider "assault."

        Assault is assault, just because someone is smaller doesn't mean anything. So if a 120kg does the exact same thing your saying it should be a different punishment. If you commit a crime, no matter how then you deserve to be punished. Excuses like he is weakly flailing isn't good enough. He assaulted a police officer and resisted arrest.

          Well, at least you've admitted what everyone else defending the police here are implying - that its okay for them to use force to punish someone being taken into custody. But that is not what force is for. For punishment we have these court thingees.....

          In addition, someone being bigger or smaller means everything. Being assaulted by different people is not the same thing at all. By that logic a frail-aged great grandmother needs 6 officers to crash tackle her in the same way as a 6'10 pro-wrestler on crank in a nightclub. That isn't consistent with the force escalation principles used by various law enforcement agencies in comparable countries around the world. The amount of force necessary is directly proportional to the individual and the situation.

          If you think that anyone who upsets the police deserves to be mistreated, you are arguing for another society (a much less pleasant one) to replace our own. This is Australia in the 21st century, not Guantanamo Bay or Nazi Germany.

          Sure, the police have an unpleasant job to do (like lots of other people). But the reason we're supposed to trust them is that they should not be trying to punish or intimidate people with violence. Instead, they should be protecting us from people who punish and intimidate with violence. Otherwise, what exactly is the purpose of having police at all?

      That's the most naive comment I've seen in some time. I've been arrested for "assault", and I hadn't thrown a single punch and I was the one being beat up by someone twice my size for no reason whatsoever. The guy just attacked me in the street while I was walking with friends. Police wouldn't listen, and I too was cuffed and thrown to the ground and spent a scary and painful night in lockup. I was released without charge the following day, but to say it was a traumatic and unjust experience is an understatement.

      I don't have a grudge against cops in general as most of them do a great job, but I detest BAD cops, who use violence unnecessarily, and cops that won't listen to a word you say when you are in a messed up situation and need their help.

      Its also worth noting that some cops are homophobe bogans, so it doesn't surprise me to see them using excessive force at Mardi Gras. It probably gave that prick cop a real kick to throw a young gay man (or if he isn't gay - a supporter of gay rights) to the ground.

      Things aren't as black and white as people like you make them out to be. Its actually quite easy to get arrested for doing nothing at all, if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. When you do, good luck trying to explain your way out of it, because it doesn't work.

      not just glossed over mate, Luke is actively encouraging this imho:

      'The video — which is particularly tough viewing' - wait, hang on... this is 2013 not 1983, nothing to see here, seen much much worse...

      'aggressive' (because asking nicely is working so well), 'sickeningly' (overacted, girl overreacting, needed more cowbell)

      'no matter what YOU’re being caught doing.'...

      fixed for the civil libertarianist, keyboard warriors ./facepalm

      There is now footage of him on the ground before being handcuffed, when the police officers let him go he swings around and punches on in the head.
      Its so stupid that people blame this on the police officer being homophobic and in turn that is also being discriminatory for automatically thinking that someone who has had an altercation with a gay or lesbian person is homophobic.
      I have plenty of friends and family who are gay, and it makes me angry that it is used as an excuse. He committed a crime and its about time there were no more excuses and people started doing the time. Pretty sure he tried to kick one of the police officers when handcuffed if you watch the video closely.
      The media only shows half the story.


        The video I think hr is talking about

      There were multiple incidents of alleged police brutality in Sydney on the night in question. The other was the brother of a friend of mine. He did absolutely nothing to provoke the beating he took according to both him, his sister and another friend who was with them at the time. Take from that what you will. According to both victims, the attacks were completely unprovoked.

      Unfortunately it is current practice for NSW police to use the charge of either resisting arrest or assaulting police to justify their assault and battery of citizens. They do this because they know that citizens have to first clear their name of those charges before they can then pursue police officer responsible. This process is financially and emotionally draining, often with little of either left to continue at the end. So most often the officer gets away with it.

      There needs to be an independent body to investigate claims of police misconduct, that are not staffed by current or former Police, and who have the power to instigate criminal charges against serving officers.

        Sure, because police do not have sufficient oversight. In NSW oversight of police is taken to an absurd level with THREE independent organisations, all paid for by public funds, that take turns justifying their positions and budgets.
        PIC (Police Integrity Commission), ICAC (Independant Commision Against Corruption), and The NSW Ombudsman.
        This triplicate form of wasteful public oversight is in addition to the NSW Professional Standards Command (Internal Affairs) which investigates complaints, and which ever Magistrate/Coroner before which the matter is invariably presented to in court.
        Good Suggestion Bob222, I know I'd love my tax dollars to go to the establishment of a fourth independent oversight body... or maybe we could use the money for roads, health, transport, education, something we actually need.

    The problem here in this story is the police union/association. All around the country the relevant state police unions and associations keep on butting in to support the police in matters that are criminal and under investigation.

    Their calling out this incident as trial by social media, through the media is hypocrisy at its best.

      Agreed. Police culture always seems to be about "protecting their own" no matter what has transpired.

    “We’ve only seen a small snippet in regards to the incident and we need to have a proper investigation before a trial by social media,”. So i guess its common practice to thrown a handcuffed prisoner to the ground. Regardless of what this young man may or may not have done leading up to this event, I fail to see why a hancuffed person was literally thrown to the ground in the manner recorded. By the looks of the video the young mans head could have easily hit the concrete split open and he could have died from the injury sustained. I wonder how the police let alone a coroner would view the action then?

      If he died the police would just close ranks and not say anything.

      The police are a law onto themselves. In the eyes of the police, media and some fairly gullible people in the public, the Police are saints who can do no wrong and nothing is ever their fault.

      "I'm sorry, I was wrong" said no police officer in Australia ever.

      Most people don't realise that unless you are a compulsive liar, it's impossible for you to be a politician or a police officer. You might get in, but you wouldn't last longer than a year.

        if aliens fall from the sky and walk the planet, cows will fall over in upside down skirts.

        Who gives a flying f**k. Anyone who assaults police, resists arrest and abuses them get treated like dirt, because you are dirt.

          I don't think that this guy came after them with a lead pipe or anything. If he did do anything serious, it would have been a punch. And judging by the fact that he would have done it when there were officers everywhere around and the things he was saying in the video, he was pretty drunk (if he wasn't concussed). Not likely to be much of a threat. It could definitely be an exaggeration by the others to say "he didn't do anything" but that throw was definitely a bad move (and an illegal one) by these guys.

          Having said that, it was a difficult situation for them (drunk people and/or mobs tend to make people get nervous and make mistakes) and it's not proof-positive that the entire police force is beating up innocent people on a regular basis.

        @jjcoolaus That's a bit of a broad Generalisation don't you think?

        Last edited 06/03/13 2:36 pm

    I think regardless of what led up to this it's brutallity, the kid is a lamb being attatcked by lions, he's obviously intoxicated and probably with a concussion, if the police can't handle a guy that small without going overboard, maybe they're not doing their jobs right.

    well well,, all i can say lucky he was"t black and gay the poor guy would be shot and beaten up lying in hospital .....

    The guy is in cuffs, clearly not resisting, only protesting his innocence. The officer tells the camera operator to stop recording, which they are not allowed to do.
    Not the first instance of police brutality caught on camera, in fact there have been a string of these recently.

    Honestly, what kind of reaction are the Police expecting when footage like this gets uploaded to YouTube? Especially when it seems many of the perpetrators get off with a slap on the wrist.

    I have a lot of respect for the police and the job they do, I have a sibling who currently serves on the force so I know the difficulties they face on a daily basis...but I also think too many police get away with acting like thugs simply because the incidents aren't recorded. I've witnessed this several times and even been on the receiving end once myself.

      You know what, I have been on this Earth for 26 years, and have not once been abused by, or felt I was treated unfairly by the police. If you act like a muppet, you have to deal with the consequences.

      I am nearly positive I am going to be shot down by offering my opnion on this, however, if you do nothing to earn the extra attention of a police officer, you have nothing to worry about. Simple.

        I am always respectful when dealing with the police, and would be so even if I didn't have a family member currently serving.
        You're basically saying just because it never happened to you, it never happens to those who don't deserve it. That's a huge, and quite unfair, generalisation.

        My thoughts exactly. +1

        Lucky you, but you must be naive if you think only people in the wrong have been abused and/or mistreated by the police.

        The consequences of your actions shouldn't be police brutality, acting like a "muppet" or not.

          Where exactly is this archaic brutality? How do we know how brutal he was or wasn't in his alleged assault against a police officer? I honestly am not that bad that I think police should be allowed to run around and tase, club and beat all comers, but this really is a "beat up" in my opinion.

          The guy is obviously acting like a fool, he clearly tried to make a run for it / do something else while cuffed and the Police officer reacted to that. If he did nothing in the first place, he wouldn't be in that position. again, super simple. Police have a absolute shit job - and this "trial by social media" and just about every commenter here obvious dislike of the Police doesn't help matters.

            "Where exactly is this archaic brutality?"

            Right in front of your face.. on the video.. we're not talking about some random bouncer standing outside of a nightclub.. we're talking about a sworn in police officer using 'excessive force'.

            I work with the police (both state and federal) on a daily basis.. have a great deal of respect for them.. but this one particular bad apple ruins the public image for the rest of the barrel. There's no excuse for what he did.. no matter which way you want to spin it, it happened, it's been recorded and now it's out there in the wild for all the see.

              Okay sure, I have seen the video, and I guess the cop should have reduced the strength of his throw by a few newtons, his bad. But what was the alternative, let the guy kick out, Maybe even get out of control, maybe kick the cop in the face, or run himself into traffic and get killed? Handcuffs aren't some magical device that can cause a human to just sit down and shut up which would have been the "victims" best option here.

                The cop let the situation get out of control with hand cuffs on, the guy recording didn't help but then again he should have ignored the public and not let it get to him or engage with them. This comes down to training.

                Maybe he will get the help from NSW police, maybe he wont, but he was in the wrong and wont be punished that is for sure.

                Oh well.

        +1 to this, however only 23 years @longjohn87

        Last edited 06/03/13 1:47 pm

          Yeah anyone in their right mind knows once the cops nab ya it's best to sit down and shut the f*ck up so you can be released in an hour or two instead of 24hrs+

        this comment just shows how stupid you must be.. its like saying if you did nothing wrong than you wouldnt get assaulted by the school bully, or trolled on the internet like so many innocent victims have been. police can be bullies like anyone else and i think its just great we are allowed to film them and prove they can be truly undeserving of the position they are placed in.

        Read my post above to see how what you are saying is utter bullshit. I was essentially arrested for being beaten up. I did nothing wrong whatsoever and it could have happened to anyone.

      "only protesting his innocence"

      Well, that settles it then. No-one has ever lied to police, so he must be innocent /sarcasm

        Your sarcasm has opened my eyes. Now I understand that no police officer has ever arrested an innocent man, and that everyone detained by police who protest their innocence must be guilty. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, Peter T.


    maybe my last comment was a little hash. maybe the N.S.W police need to practice what they tell us.... ONE HIT CAN KILL....

    Now have a think about the countless times the police do this sort of crap when there's no witnesses let alone cameras. Police brutality will never really be stopped as long as they keep enrolling thugs.

    The police are incredibly insecure when it comes to average citizens filming them. The reason is because it can be used as evidence against them, their job is on the line. If you can't already tell the governments of the world are trying desperately to control humanity, this is why they're attempting to put drones up in our skies while using "terrorism" as a boogyman to scare people into their agenda.

      The Governments of the World are trying to control us is the same damn bogey man.

      Here's a fact; The Powers that be have always controlled the populous since 6000 B.C. - it's a fact of life! And you cannot tell me you would rather live in an Feudal world - any show of resistance/anarchy would have your head separated from your neck :/

    Hold on, where exactly do police "slam trial by media"? Official response confirms there will be and investigation. Surely everyone knows they can't comment otherwise before it is officially investigated like every other crime. One would assume jail time is appropriate. I expect he'll simply get a stern talking to.

    Pfft I don't trust either side. The video is out of context, the guy probably did stuff before they started recording, and the cops will close ranks and get their story straight while some higher up will give a deadpan "The officer acted appropriately given the circumstances" and the investigation conveniently concludes nothing.

      Probably tried to grab his Junk!

        Thanks for your bullshit homophobic statement.

        Just before he gets slammed down and the camera isn't directly on him it does seem like the guy made a struggle. Even in cuffs he could still kick or bite and while being slammed on the ground like that is definitely excessive it could have just been the cop trying to restrain the guy quickly and he ended up using more force than intended, or maybe it was completely intentional, I dunno.

        It's easy to sit back and watch a video a few times and decide what the best course of action to take would have been.

    looks like the guy was trying to A) either run for it or B) kick someone just a second before he got slammed to the ground. Shadows indicated he lifted his leg. Either way, looks more like the officer got shitty with the guy for being difficult and people watching the incident. Probably just wanted to shut him up and get out of there.

    What will happen the officer will get a suspension without pay, some counselling and stuck to a desk for 3 months. The guy will get some suspended fine and a warning.

    Maybe the officer thought it was the S&M section of the parade... j/k.. no-one deserves to get slammed into the ground like that while cuffed.

      On another note, straight men get arrested for Indecent Exposure if we did/do what gay people are allowed to do in public!

      Last edited 06/03/13 2:50 pm

        C'mon, mate. Mardi Gras is one day a year and people know what they're going to be seeing if they go to watch. I don't know if they're allowed to be nekkid on the day, but I wouldn't fault the police if they were given a concession. And don't make it sound like it's common that gay people be given more rights than straight ones. It's just different circumstances for them in this case. And it's not like mesh pants (or whatever they're called) are more revealing than g-strings

    Yeah they have asked me to stop filming and told me it wasn't legal to do so and I could be under arrest.. Clearly more bad cops lying their asses off to protect each other.
    After seeing this, I believe all police should be followed by a roaming reporter that works against the police and not for them, What gives them the right to attack anyone? Where is the cop hurt or bleeding too if he truly was assaulted? I'll bet the other police gave the police officer in question a bruise or something before they got back to the police station, again to protect the BS cops make up!!

    The guy could've committed murder and it still would NOT have been ok for the police to do this. They are not there to inflict punishment on people that's what the court is for. Not surprised the police union has come out to defend the cops. When the cops ran a red light and killed a woman here in WA they did the same thing and then asked for legislation to protect cops from prosecution no matter what they do during a car chase . No wonder the community has such a low view of them. They act like a law unto themselves and face NO repercussions for their actions.

      If the police weren't there he may have well ended up murdering someone, then you and everyone else would be screaming "where were the police!?" either way your prejudice has already condemned the police without knowing the whole story.

        i'm not saying the police shouldn't be there. if they arrest someone then that's ALL they should do. when did slamming his head against the ground become part of the arrest procedure. Who cares what the whole story is? They shouldn't behave like this under any circumstances. That's the point.

          Pro tip, your opinion is worthless, you were not their.

          End of story.

            I'm sure plenty of people who were there agree with me and many cops who weren't there agree with the cops. Funny that.

            If only you realised that about your own opinion, Mark D.

        This is basically vigilante justice, obviously he did something wrong, but is it ok for an angry officer to take that out on his prisoner. No trial, just one copy getting angry on a drunk guy. That one throw to the ground could have killed that guy.

    wow! this is hypocrisy at it's best!
    on the one hand we have police ads educating us against this sort of bullish and thuggish behaviour... how many times have we seen in the news a young kid killed by one punch or their head hitting the concrete???

    every bully and thug needs to understand that your actions can and will have serious consequences.. this kid was lucky! thank god!

    i'm sure it's a privilege to be police officer... although i'm ashamed and embarrassed ... so should his colleagues and the police forces that protect us...

    Wow so much cop hate. I think it's a shit job and they should be allowed to throw a drunk abusive person on the ground if they don't shut up and do what they tell them to do.

      The problem in my experience is that 90% of abuse I've seen on a night out has been coming from the cops, not the punters.

        You've been awarded the most ridiculous post of the day.

        *** Congratulations ***

          I go out a lot, and to some pretty shitty places. I stand by my comment, though I should clarify by saying I'm not blaming the cops perse, but 90% of the violence I've seen when I've gone out has been along the lines of:

          1. Minor transgression (like not ashing out a cigarette butt).
          2. Polite request from police.
          3. Punter tells the officer to get stuffed.
          4. Six on one body slam.

          I hardly ever see punter on punter fights anymore. What I see is a lot of minor infringements being unnecessarily escalated by police officers who I believe are poorly trained in crowd control.

      I only see a few comments here that appear to be "cop hate" as you call it.. the rest are all objective and some subjective comments discussing the use of excessive force as seen in the video.

      So everyone at kings Cross on 3am (cab change over time) is going to get a beating?

      it is not cop hate. it is disgust at disproportionate violence from the police officer. just from the video there were several less violent options, tripping him so he fell face first while cuffed was not a reasonable reaction to the situation. like a lot of people have been saying the police are to arrest a subject and the courts handle the punishment

        I don't think its disproportionate. The video is very one-sided. You don't know what he did to provoke the officer. He was taken down, perhaps because the officer thought he was trying to escape? I don't know I'm speculating there. How would you subdue someone who is trying to get away?

        All I can say is, there were obviously ALOT of witnesses, and I'm pretty sure the coppers aren't going to act disproportionately given both the nature of the event and the volume of witnesses.
        Hopefully the truth of the incident will come out in the trial.

          it was disproportionate even if he did provoke the officer sitting him on his arse would have been an acceptable response not the trip and faceplant that resulted. the police wield a large amount of power and spiderman said it best, they have a responsability and he acted rashly and irresponsable

    Funny that Police are crying over "trial by social media" when they want to catch a crim, they'll use the persons Facebook updates and Twitter comments against them.

    As others have mentioned, regardless of whether you assaulted a police officer or not, you shouldn't be treated that way. They are playing executioner and giving the person a punishment when its not their job to do so.

      How do you know they're playing executioner? Are you claiming to have been there and actually have seen the entire event unfold before you?

    Assault police, hes clearly drunk, probably disorderly. If the police want to restrain and/or arrest him, then they're just dong their job.

      There's use of force and then there is use of excessive force. This was the latter. There was no need for him to literally slam the guy, wrestling-style, into the pavement. They are trained to subdue without doing that.. but he chose to slam the guy's face into the pavement. He is much larger than the offender and could have quite easily put him down to the ground in a less "excessive" way.

      I'm really hesitant to assume the guy was drunk (they he may well have been) as the video implies he'd taken a blow to the head.

    I wouldn't do what that cop did, but I'm not going to victimize the handcuffed guy either. You've only seen a tenth of the story, yet you all act like you were there, watching the entire thing. Look at the guy, he's drunk off his head, he's only wearing boxer shorts and he's been cuffed. He's not innocent in any way shape or form. I want to see footage of what happened before he got slammed to the ground, because it seems he tried something.

    Cops put up with drunken low breeds all day, every day. They get kicked, punched and spat on, they have to endure the worst of human kind every single day. So while they're out there, cleaning up the scraps, putting drunken idiots like this in check and putting up with shit that nobody else has to, the entire community of bleeding heart white knights, look beyond logic, understanding, proof and "the full story" and jump to conclusions based on a 4 minute video.

    Wait until the full story is available. I trust the police over ordinary people any day, as they're held accountable for their actions. This cop will probably spend time doing desk work, just to appease the masses, but lets face it, he's a beat cop which means he's contributed to putting people behind bars before they could rob, bash, murder or rape you or family members.

      "You've only seen a tenth of the story, yet you all act like you were there, watching the entire thing. Look at the guy, he's drunk off his head, he's only wearing boxer shorts and he's been cuffed. He's not innocent in any way shape or form."

      You're also acting like you were there and saw the whole thing too. Well actually of all the comments I've read yours seems to assume the most (while ironically telling everyone else to wait for the full story), certainly a lot more than people saying he shouldn't be attacked AFTER being put in cuffs, especially if the cops won't even tell him what he's supposedly been charged with.

        From the footage and the articles it is SAFE to deduce that he did something wrong, do you deny that?

          The article certainly says he was supposedly "charged with assaulting police and abusive language." I personally think it's a bit suss that the police wouldn't say that when he was actually on the ground in cuffs, after all they're required to have a reason to detain someone and if they would only state it AFTER the incident went viral it seems extremely suss to me. Obviously we have different opinions, hopefully the actual truth will be reached by the investigation.

            The police aren't going to divulge charges to a crowd of people. It's not their business.

              To be fair *He* was asking as well and they wouldnt answer him, i thinks its quite pertinent that he knows what he is being arrested and manhandled for.... No expert but I believe cops need to let you know that you are being arrested and what you are being arrested for.

      In the space of two sentences, you did the exact thing you criticised everyone else for doing. If indeed we've only seen "a tenth of the story" then you can't possibly come to the conclusion "he's not innocent in any way shape or form". You're being hypocritical.

        So what you're saying is, cops will handcuff and arrest a drunk in boxer shorts, for no reason? Your powers of deduction amaze and astound us all.

          I'm sure you wouldn't be foolish enough to base a black-and-white statement that he's not innocent on evidence you haven't even seen, so please, by all means link the evidence of guilt you have on the person in that video. Otherwise you're making assumptions based on the content of the video, on something you haven't seen yourself, just the same as the people you're having a go at here, and that makes you a hypocrite.

          Last edited 06/03/13 2:39 pm

            Sorry but it's not that simple. I am making educated deductions using provided stimulus. The people I'm having a go at, are making uneducated guesses because their hearts are bleeding.

              Deduction requires that all premises leading to a conclusion are true, as per Aristotle: all men are mortal; Aristotle is a man; therefore Aristotle is mortal. That final conclusion is deduced. You have no such chain of true premises, unless you make the false inference that all handcuffed people are guilty. Rather, you are making an assumption - determining a thing to be true without proof.

              Here's your statement: "He's not innocent in any way shape or form." If you really believe you're deducing instead of assuming, please show the chain of logical premises that lead to this conclusion.

              Last edited 07/03/13 6:53 am

                My favorite part, is where you just learned about deduction on wiki.

                "Simple Example

                An example of a deductive argument:

                All men are mortal.
                Aristotle is a man.
                Therefore, Aristotle is mortal.

                The first premise states that all objects classified as "men" have the attribute "mortal". The second premise states that "Aristotle" is classified as a "man" – a member of the set "men". The conclusion then states that "Aristotle" must be "mortal" because he inherits this attribute from his classification as a "man"."

                You should read further on, as there are many forms of deductive reasoning. You have only given an example of it's most simplest of forms. Here you go, straight from the same wiki page you just learned deductive reasoning from -

                The law of detachment (also known as affirming the antecedent and Modus ponens) is the first form of deductive reasoning. A single conditional statement is made, and a hypothesis (P) is stated. The conclusion (Q) is then deduced from the statement and the hypothesis. The most basic form is listed below:

                P→Q (conditional statement)
                P (hypothesis stated)
                Q (conclusion deduced)

                Law of Syllogism

                The law of syllogism takes two conditional statements and forms a conclusion by combining the hypothesis of one statement with the conclusion of another. Here is the general form, with the true premise P:

                Therefore, P→R.

                The following is an example:

                If Larry is sick, then he will be absent from school.
                If Larry is absent, then he will miss his classwork.
                If Larry is sick, then he will miss his classwork.

                We deduced the final statement by combining the hypothesis of the first statement with the conclusion of the second statement. We also allow that this could be a false statement. This is an example of the Transitive Property.

                Hopefully now, you have a more clear understanding of the concept of deductive reasoning. More to the point, I hope you realise your last post has been completely invalidated.

                  Nice try, but no. The example about Aristotle I quoted above is a well-known classical example that appears in most textbooks. It's been around forever, though I can understand that for someone such as yourself who is completely unfamiliar with the subject of deduction and syllogistic logic, your first experience would be to read about it on Wikipedia.

                  Fortunately, what you copy/pasted from Wikipedia has confirmed what I said above. For the conclusion (P→R) to be true, all prior conditionals must be true. Instead what you've done is reach a conclusion on the basis of a false premise, which renders your conclusion in error.

                  I'm glad that you at least took some effort to try to look up deduction, but the only thing you've achieved here is to outline just how little you understand about formal logic, even though you like to throw around the word 'deduce' as though it somehow makes your position more credible. You seem to be well out of your depth here, but for the sake of pride you'd rather keep arguing instead of learning.

                  My original statement stands - even after repeated requests, you have still failed to describe the chain of evidential premises that led you to the supposedly 'deductive' conclusion that the person in the video was guilty. If you have one, please do provide it. If not, then you are indeed a hypocrite.

                Looks like I have to reply to this one.

                "Nice try, but no. The example about Aristotle I quoted above is a well-known classical example that appears in most textbooks. "

                Wrong. The example that appears in nearly every single text book is -

                All men are mortal.
                Socrates is a man.
                Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

                This was first indicated in literature by Aristotle, not written about him.

                Somewhere during your false claims to understanding deductive logic, you completely missed a blindingly simple observation, even for someone only reading about it for the first time.

                P→Q (conditional statement)
                P (hypothesis stated)
                Q (conclusion deduced)

                An example of a conditional statement is - If I kick the ball (protasis), it will go far (apodosis).

                I began with a conditional statement, so lets break that statement down to two simple parts.

                The man is in handcuffs (protasis)
                He has committed an offense (apodosis)

                The apodosis is a derivative of consequential behavior.

                The hypothesis ("provisionally accepted as a basis for further research").

                The man is drunk and in handcuffs, therefore he has committed an offense. The Police Officer slammed the man to the ground, because he was resisting arrest or became violent.

                The conclusion deduced through a conditional statement, forming a hypothesis is -

                The man is not innocent.

                Last edited 07/03/13 10:47 am

                  I'll certainly concede that examples also exist using Socrates as the subject. My old textbooks use Aristotle as the subject, which is why I used him in my example. Aristotle never wrote the example himself as you suggest however, that's a myth. The example is considered ancient but not from Aristotle himself. It is, however, an example of Aristotlean formal logic.

                  I am aware of the law of detachment, however your assertion that he is guilty didn't appear to conform to it so I presumed you were attempting a syllogistic assertion. In either case, your logic still fails: "the man is drunk and in handcuffs, therefore he has committed an offense" is a false premise. There are a number of reasons police use handcuffs on a person, several of which have nothing to do with having committed an offence. The premise is further false because it fails to acknowledge the perception of the officer, ie. whether he is in handcuffs because the officer believes he has committed an offence, not whether he actually has.

                  You cannot base a conclusion - in this case that the man is guilty - on a false premise. Your conclusion is not a sound deduction and instead derives in part from assumptions you've made, eg. you assume that the man had committed an offence solely because he was in handcuffs. You assume that the specific reason the police placed him in handcuffs was that he had committed an offence. There is no evidence to support that premise in the video. Would you like to revise your logic?

                You are completely ignoring the existence of an hypothesis.

                I will re-iterate - The hypothesis ("provisionally accepted as a basis for further research").

                  I'm not ignoring the hypothesis, I'm saying your conditional premise is wrong.

                  Conditional: If a man is handcuffed (P), then he has committed a crime (Q).
                  Hypothesis: The man in the video is handcuffed (P).
                  Conclusion: He has committed a crime (Q).

                  For this chain to work, the conditional must be true. If the conditional were true, then your hypothesis would lead to your conclusion. But it isn't, for the reasons I mentioned above. In formal logic, that means the logic is valid (Q is the correct conclusion if all the premises (conditional and hypothesis) are true) but unsound (one or more of the premises is false). Another example of a valid but unsound conclusion would be to say 'if you're a police officer, then you are male; Jane is a police officer, therefore she is male'.

    They joined the force knowing full well that sometimes they'd have to deal with unruly people, no cop has ever joined the force under the assumption that, im going to deal with clean, sweet and nice people in my career.
    There is no need for police to hurt a man who is handcuffed and incapable of attacking or running away.
    In LA (where im originally from) we have this problem X10, and they get away with it, they say the Force is the biggest baddest gang in the world, Rampart.

    Trial by social media is bad.
    Trial by face slam into concrete while handcuffed... ehhh... that's line of duty stuff.

    I'm going with the benefit of the doubt on this one. We don't see in the video why he was arrested in the first place and we don't see why he was thrown to the ground. If you look at 57 seconds, you'll catch a brief glimpse of him doing something which looks like him kicking out. Two sides to every story and both he and the police are entitled to presumption of innocence and not faux internet outrage.

      Yes, I agree that the offender was doing something.. but slamming the guy's face into the pavement is "excessive" and that's really, objectively speaking, what this is about.. whether the police officer used excessive force or whether the force used was reasonable.. obviously it's for the courts to decide.. but we are just discussing our opinions about this event with the limited knowledge we have of the event. What limited knowledge we do have suggested excessive (in the heat of the moment) force was used in this one particular instance.

    Coming from England I've seen worst but usually these things unfold into a bad situation because other people get involved. These people tend to be intoxicated or go at the police with venom. Some would say there's no problem with that and it's justified but what it tends to do is get the cops more irate, prone to more anxiety and aggression. Cops are no angels but my advice would be don't give them more ammunition, pardon the pun.

    Last edited 06/03/13 1:13 pm

    Its hilarious at all the sheep who believe that what they are seeing is the full story in this obviously heavily edited video.

    It has been edited sheep.

      You are correct, this guy was in handcuffs for assaulting police, yet we failed to see that. But regardless this cop was way to heavy handed, and should be questioned for throwing him to the ground. Its like the people bashing people for going to see Geert Wilders, yes what he says its wrong, but people have a right to go see him as the people who assaulted them have the right to protest him. Everyone needs to see the whole story first.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now