New Met police video

[Fedster + 1,307]

People he arrested ended up in hospital.

An officer has appeared in court charged with GBH after complaints about the way he used his police dog.

Greater Manchester Police PC Paul Jackson is charged with five counts of wounding/causing grievous bodily harm with intent.

He was investigated by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) after complained were made about excessive use of force during separate incidents between May 2015-September 2016.

Some of those arrested sustained such serious incidents they needed hospital treatment.

Another GMP officer, PC Paul Lockett, was also in court. He is charged with aiding and abetting in relation to one of the Section 18 wounding charges.

An IOPC spokesman said: “We provided evidence from our investigations to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), who made the decision to charge the officers.

"Both officers made their first appearance before Preston Magistrates Court on Wednesday. They are due before Preston Crown Court on July 3."

In 2010 GMP was told by IOPC’s predecessor Independent Police Complaints Commission to retrain all of its staff after a man lost an eye and suffered a broken leg while being arrested.

View On Police Oracle

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

Bad dog

[Techie1 + 2,024]

Bad criminal? 🤔

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

Bad criminal? [emoji848]

Obviously, or he would have run faster!

[MerseyLLB 8,426]

GBH with intent? That's quite the charge to level against an officer. Nothing like an elevated charge to grab a headline.

I'll await further details.

[jimmyriddle 87]

I've never understood the use of the dog in many instances. It's way above spray, taser or even a baton because it's designed to cause injury esp. since those powerful teeth are going right into flesh near artieries.

Yes, if the suspect has a knife or is posing a real danger, but how are we justifying the use just for someone non-compliant?

[ParochialYokal 1,119]

I've never understood the use of the dog in many instances. It's way above spray, taser or even a baton because it's designed to cause injury esp. since those powerful teeth are going right into flesh near artieries.

 

Yes, if the suspect has a knife or is posing a real danger, but how are we justifying the use just for someone non-compliant?

 

I assume that you have never seen a police dog in action?

 

Getting a dog out in a public order situation often diffuses the threat and helps to disperse crowds. It also sends out a clear message that a situation has escalated and this signals people to leave the area. Sadly, in many situations you end up getting people involved verbally because they are drunk and suffering from ‘know it all syndrome’ but they soon disperse when a dog jumps about barking.

 

Police presence and tactical communications always were the lowest forms of force on the conflict resolution model in my day (not too sure if that model has changed?). Merely having a handler and a barking dog probably straddles the two but is nowhere near using a baton, Taser or spray as you suggest.

 

Dogs can obviously track and trace people, which isn’t a use of force but a form of detection. They are trained to bark when they find the subject and only engage if they (stupidly) try to make off.

 

When I was a police cadet we had a demonstration from a dog handler and we got to play ‘hide and seek’, where we hid and Fido was asked to go seek. Obviously, we were told not to run off when found as he would have engaged us. But he found us individually nonetheless and, whilst he barked loudly, he didn’t bite.

 

Also, dogs aren’t necessarily trained to bite people but to contain them. Most dog handlers are fearful of their dog actually biting someone, as they have to record it on a use of force form and if they have a disproportionate amount then they face additional scrutiny. As most absolutely love their dogs, they wouldn’t have to put them at risk of ‘early retirement’.

[cookyy2k 536]

On 02/06/2018 at 04:09, MerseyLLB said:

GBH with intent? That's quite the charge to level against an officer. Nothing like an elevated charge to grab a headline.

Surely if they had a level of suspicion of such a serious charge (not like you can really "cover up" the sorts of injuries that this charge relates to) for the first incident in May 2015 then someone in the force would have taken more action than just letting it continue until September 2016, over a year later, especially if the 2nd incident also caused enough injury to warrant GBH. It just seems very odd to me that there could be a suspicion of GBH with intent but the officer allowed to continue in a operational role. Then from the article "Some of those arrested sustained such serious incidents they needed hospital treatment.", some? If it was GBH I would expect all of them to require hospital treatment, and as we all know a detainee going to hospital for treatment after arrest is not rare nor as shocking as this seeks to imply, if they banged their head in the process of the arrest the custody SGT is probably sending them right up to A&E.

[SD + 714]

It’s a case of PSB going on a hunt after getting 1 complaint. It’ll go nowhere at court and shouldn’t have got there in the first place.