What exactly does that ACTUALLY imply?
Does it involve 'violent resistence'- or does 'curling up in a ball to protect yourself' describe it better?
And what exactly is the alternative to resisting arrest?
"Oh ok officer, I completely agree... can you wait a second while I get my coat and turn the iron off? Fancy a cuppa while you're here?"
Ok, where am I going with this?
Well, looking this morning at an article and video in the Guardian, it seems that the implication is; that "resisting" can involve very little indeed... and by the same token; "very little indeed" can mean the police in the UK think it's perfectly alright to shoot 50,000 volts through you.
"The video appears to show four officers converging on a man outside the
city's Theatre Royal in an attempt to arrest him. When he resists, one of
them tells the others to stand back and fires a Taser at him as he lies on
the pavement. As the man continues to resist arrest, one of the officers
punches the man in the head repeatedly."
Is there something here I am just not getting?
Are the police in the UK really so unaware of the public mood?
Sure, I'm all for protecting those who need protecting but surely there's an easier way to 'arrest' someone who is lying prone on the ground. I don't observe any struggle here that four officers cannot surpass?
ho hum
