Would The NZ Police Treat A Woman Like This?
Auckland Man Bashed By Police – Sexually Assaulted by Police
Seems the independent Police Complaints Authority are not so independent after all. It appears to be just a front to avoid criminal charges.
The length of time to investigate one(s) of their own on physical and sexual assault has taken far too long.
And why does the media print his name and not the offending sworn police officers?
Imagine the police bashing a woman, forcing her to take her underwear off in front of camera’s. And what were the police expecting to find down there anyway?
Imagine if a woman said to police she was sexually assaulted by police and the police told her “Well, you are a good-looking woman”. What is the name of this police sergeant? And why is that called banter if it was a man?
Where are the criminal charges Supt Naila Hassan? And why do you get to keep your job if you won’t charge your own with assault, sexual assault?
If I was in a gang, and we took a drunk woman from the street, made her sit in a drivers seat of car with her bottle of bourbon to frame her, bashed her, smashed her phone when she started to video me, pepper sprayed her, handcuffed her, stripped her, ripped her panties off, rubbed her vagina. – Where would I be now? That police person needs to face a criminal trial.
These actions are not a breach of the Police code of conduct, they are a breach of the crimes act. Where are the charges?
All credit to Mr Matt Burrows, an Auckland based reporter for Newshub.
IPCA – Independent Police Coverup Authority.
Move along, no breach of the crimes act here.
A criminal investigation was never launched, as the police’s professional conduct team didn’t deem it necessary.
Seems to be just a strip search, Bond assaulting police, stripped naked on video cam, officers acting in good faith, officers getting it wrong, just a letdown by the police inaction.
Seems Bond has to file his own charges of making an intimate visual recording. Looking forward to that outcome.
The difficulty in this case, is the victims compliance.
You can, not resist.
Resulting in no use of force, or pepper spray.
In saying that, whatever started things.
Things do look excessive, for an arrest.
One has to ask, if this is in there training.
A jury would hear arguments, from the officers perspective.
The person was behaving irrationally, and even if by accident stuck the officer.
The person didn’t provide details, and was trying to get away.
They then resisted, what the officer ‘thought’ was a legal arrest.
The better work story, has turned sour.
Would they do this to a woman, is the question.
We would not want them to, as they would then be far worse to men.
It’s is also bound to have occurred, many times to women.
But I’m guessing, less often and with less violence.
Why this happened to the male, is interesting.
And I have read somewhere, how males can easily be violent to other males.
But most males, would struggle with violence towards a female.
So inevitably, women would experience less violent arrests.
I’m also guessing women get stripped searched, unwillingly.
I have read, of a female stripped by force.
There is a point in the arrest, where exactly enough force was used.
You cannot have not enough force, or you cannot make the arrest.
So inevitably you must use more force, than was necessary.
Would enough force, still cause injury.
Or with good training, no injury.
Or due to excessive force, the injury occurred.
What was the intent, of the alleged crimes.
Or is this a crime, of negligence.
Certainly biology, played a role.