Unlike stop/search, compliance is a complicating factor. Don't spit, don't get spit hooded. Don't fight, don't get tasered, if properly used
-
-
Replying to @brianpaddick @grahamwettone
Seems 2 poss grey areas: (1) if
#spithoods used pre-emptively where belief/concern that spitting may occur; (2) if not used on all spitters>1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
> in both cases there wld be the poss of bias. If neither apply, however, then focus on the detained suspect alone (in the MPS custody case)
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @gmhales @grahamwettone
Exactly, which is why further research is needed. Spit hoods should not be used preemptively & taser only as last resort. Should focus there
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @brianpaddick @grahamwettone
From what I've been told previously it is sometimes used pre-emptively, eg based on DP's behaviour &/or threats
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gmhales @grahamwettone
No knowledge but I do not support preemptive use of spit hoods. Disproportionate in my view to hood someone who has not already spat.
4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Why Not? If someone has spat at officer previously or says they'll spit, Why not use it as a pre-emptive tactic for safety of all?!!!?!?!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The question is, is it justifiable & proportionate in all the circumstances? If they've got previous & threatening again, maybe. Difficult.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Those two words justifiable & proportionate - down to officer using it & maybe before waiting to be spat at.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Pre-emptive strike under common law... would include spit hood use? You do not have to wait for the offender to throw the first punch.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
I'm expressing an opinion not a legal certainty. I'm saying this needs to be carefully researched.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.