BF2S Forums British Brutality

Seems to me the reaction was on par with the action.

ROE when I was there was that you could fire any time you feel 'threatened' (anyone know if that changed?  Gunslinger?)  By that measure, they would have been justified responding with a hail of 5.56, but they didn't.

I'm not bothered a bit by the (very measured) 'beatings.'  The clown doing the recording needs to relax a bit, but other than that, I don't see a problem here.

Anyone who has a big problem with this has probably never been on the receiving end of a bunch of rocks.  They HURT.

forgot to mention all the times we test fire our weapons on the millions of fucking wild dogs running around.  Only way to zero your rifle out there.

When the year first started, they continued to tell us no warning shots, shoot to kill.  But,  the rise of VBIED's made TCP's really really dangerous.  So soldiers started shooting at dumb iraqis who didnt understand how to stop their vehicle at a check point, thinking they are suicide bombers.  When the amount of collateral damage started to rise, warning shots were allowed...especially in the freeways or in downtown baghdad...try to keep any iraq vehicle at least 50m away on patrol without busting off some shots is impossible.  A lot of them fuckers actually thought they could beat a bradley to it.  Or, when wed go into a known bad zone, we let off a couple rounds of 25mm right before we get there to let them fuckers know we're in business before they get a chance to detonate one on us, and you know how loud that beast is.  Funny too, whenever we go in their shooting like wild cowboys, them fuckers never try anything on us.  Its when we go in by the book following routine, thats when we saw contact.  But I had a brand new anal retentive butter bar LT as a PL and a 17 year 'twice demoted to the rank of of E-6" and still an E-7 as plt sgt who loved to go and buy whiskey out on patrol.

Horseman 77 wrote:

But wackings was all they got, no ball kix, face kix etc.. so who cares

What are you saying, that the video is fine and the British soldiers shouldn't be facing charges?

jord wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

But wackings was all they got, no ball kix, face kix etc.. so who cares

What are you saying, that the video is fine and the British soldiers shouldn't be facing charges?

I think he's saying that people are taking this worse than it actually is.The soldiers didnt use weapons i don't think and didn't totally go crazy on them rioters.It's not like they got the back of their rifle and smacked the teens repeatedly in the head and then stamped on their heads.
I just think its not that bad of a beating ,thats all.

Watch the video closely. 

A) The beating only stops when a load of other soldiers walk in holding riot gear.  They clearly eased up alot when there were lots of witnesses.

B) Look at about 1 minute in.  They are holding batons and beat them hard round the head whilst they are handcuffed.  Also why don't all the soldiers have their weapons strapped to their backs, they may well use the back of the rifle, but you can't always see what is happening.

C) 1:43, hard kick in the bollocks to one of the victims whilst he is handcuffed and held down.  Can you not hear the scream afterwards?  Even the corporal filming seems to wince at that one.

They were supposed to be acting like a police force and using riot gear to control a crowd.  If the police dragged you out of site of prying eyes and beat you or your child like that and filmed it would you think it was "not that bad of a beating", or police brutality?

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

jord wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

What are you saying, that the video is fine and the British soldiers shouldn't be facing charges?

I think he's saying that people are taking this worse than it actually is.The soldiers didnt use weapons i don't think and didn't totally go crazy on them rioters.It's not like they got the back of their rifle and smacked the teens repeatedly in the head and then stamped on their heads.
I just think its not that bad of a beating ,thats all.

Watch the video closely. 

A) The beating only stops when a load of other soldiers walk in holding riot gear.  They clearly eased up alot when there were lots of witnesses.

B) Look at about 1 minute in.  They are holding batons and beat them hard round the head whilst they are handcuffed.  Also why don't all the soldiers have their weapons strapped to their backs, they may well use the back of the rifle, but you can't always see what is happening.

C) 1:43, hard kick in the bollocks to one of the victims whilst he is handcuffed and held down.  Can you not hear the scream afterwards?  Even the corporal filming seems to wince at that one.

They were supposed to be acting like a police force and using riot gear to control a crowd.  If the police dragged you out of site of prying eyes and beat you or your child like that and filmed it would you think it was "not that bad of a beating", or police brutality?

but they are not police, they are soldiers in a very hostile part of the world and those hajis should be glad that a beating is all they got.  How do you expect to throw rocks and harrass coalition soldiers with assault rifles who are only there because their country told them to be there, and not expect repurcussion.

jord wrote:

Okay sorry long time since i watched it.And if i had a child i don't think i'd be letting him attend riots were they throw rocks and those little fire bomb things.

I've been to about 3 or 4 peaceful protests that turned into 'riots', starting at the age of about 15.  I doubt my parents would have let me go if they knew where I was going.  They almost always start off peaceful and then all of a sudden loads of bastards with riot gear and vans close every exit but one.  Then they start to squeeze the crowd a little bit, trying to get everyone to disperse into areas they don't think are important (but what's the point in protesting in an area no-one cares about), and they all start beat their batons against their shields.

This is a really scary situation, a everyone starts to think the police are getting ready to charge, but lots of people aren't prepared to disperse until the evening comes, because they've travelled miles to make a stand for something they believe in.  So they try to hold their ground.  Then the police line starts moving.  Step then baton beating on shields.  Step, thump thump.  Step, thump thump. 

But there are too many people at the back pushing forwards for anyone at the front to turn around, so the crowds and police meet.  They basically beat any arms legs or heads that happen to go behind the riot shields as they push forwards.  Before long there are people screaming with blood dripping down their faces, missing teeth. That's some of the crowd think they aren't putting up with this and the mask's come out. 

The police have batons and riot gear, but the crowd has nothing so a few people start pulling up paving slabs and smashing them, or grabbing scaffolding poles or anything they can find to try and hold the police back.  Then all hell breaks lose with both sides taking casualties, bricks flying, chaos spreading everywhere.  However, a very small % of the crowd were ever actually throwing rocks, and think how many molatovs there are for a crowd of x people... if everyone threw one the whole city would be on fire. 

Basically, I think that more often than not it will be the police who start the conflict, not the crowds, as the crowds usually just want to stay where they are and police want them to leave.  Without knowing exactly what happened and why the crowd gathered it is hard to say that they 'attacked' the compound, when there are soldiers walking back in with crowd control gear of the type used to push people away from specific areas.  It certainly doesn't give the police in question the right to extend their authority beyond the specific task they were there to do and drag people aside to be repeatedly beaten whilst cuffed and in custody.

And between them, people I know have probably been sentenced to more than 20 years combined (although most are very peaceful, and never misbehave in prison, hence almost always get early release) for just being at a protest which happened to get a bit rough, and not being able to get away before getting injured or arrested, which are both pretty much guaranteed prison sentences whatever you may have done.

You can say that you wouldn't let your child attend, but you can't actually stop them because they won't listen if they believe in what the protest is about.  Just because some people turn peaceful protests ugly that doesn't mean they should be subjected to some kind of massive beating whilst in custody, especially with no proof that they were actually involved in anything more than simply being there.  Innocent until proven guilty, and I've not seen any proof in the video or anywhere else that the ones they drag into the compound were guilty of anything.  Apart from anything, wouldn't they have run before the soldiers got anywhere near them if they had a guilty conscience?  For all we know they were just unlucky enough to have tripped and fallen after the soldiers charged the crowd.

I just don't think there is an excuse for dragging people away from the street and beating them.  Luckily in this case the law agrees with me, although I expect they will get far more lenient sentences than they really deserve.

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

I just don't think there is an excuse for dragging people away from the street and beating them.

whittsend wrote:

It's pretty easy to sit here on our computers and say, "Oh what horrible things those soldiers are doing."  It's entirely different when someone is trying to kill you every day.  The viewpoint changes, and I don't think one can fairly apply judgement from our cosy little homes to their extremely unpleasant situation.  The frame of reference is entirely different, and what might seem to be an absolute truth here, is an idealistic path to suicide there.  Walk a mile in a soldiers shoes, and then tell me what you think.

Spearhead wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

UnOriginalNuttah wrote:

What are you saying, that the video is fine and the British soldiers shouldn't be facing charges?

THEY GOT SPANKINGS FOR GODS SAKES !

one time I got a spanking for not washing my hands before dinner and telling my dad that I had.

in the " gaza strip " they would be dead

It was MUCH more than a spanking, if you saw any adult doing that out in public to one of their kids, TRUST me, it would not be viewed as a spanking.

it was a " good " spanking. did (child, Boy, youth, young adult, teen etc..) collapse or go limp?
they all seemed lucid throughout.
Plus you could clearly see the Child clearly knew himself,  only his Ass would be whipped.

In Picadilley [sp] or Central Park, ya call cops. In a War zone.. it is realitive. If I saw a guy in a Helmet and Pack in Central park I would be alert.

Sorry I just think its a non issue. If they slapped or punched faces I would have the same view given the situation.

The amusing thing is that nobody seems to care that the soldiers were being pelted with rocks.  It's like the assholes who spit on soldiers returning from Vietnam learned that if they want to be miserable to the troops, they just have to be a little more 'PC' about it.

something else id like to add: In a situation like that you dont know whether the next flying projectile is gonna be a rock or a bullet/mortar.  I wouldnt be surprised if that particular unit didnt run into anymore riot situations, because next time I'd bet it wouldnt be an asswhooping that haji would be worrying about

blademaster wrote:

Darth_Fleder wrote:

The amusing thing is that nobody seems to care that the soldiers were being pelted with rocks.

Would you have a rock thrown at you rather then a grenade lol I prefer a rock ......

Actually you are crediting me with something whittsend wrote.