NSW police drag man from car, bash him (1 Viewer)

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0 said:
POLICE officers who dragged a drunken driver from his car and bashed him with their fists, boots and batons are being investigated by the NSW Police Professional Standards Command and the NSW Ombudsman.

The investigation will determine whether unjust force was used during the arrest of Mount Druitt man Sione Peaua, 43, who was beaten by as many as five police officers following a 45-minute car chase on May 25 last year.

Video footage from a police patrol vehicle and the Polair police helicopter was tendered in court on Friday during Peaua's trial for serious traffic offences, The Sunday Telegraph reports.

The videos show Peaua being dragged from his four-wheel drive after it hit a power pole, then being punched, kicked and bashed with retractable batons as he struggled on the ground.

Peaua - a Tongan father of six who works as a boilermaker and a local rugby league coach - had
a blood alcohol reading of 0.13 when he went on a high-speed rampage through the streets of Mount Druitt and Rooty Hill in a Toyota LandCruiser.

For the early part of the chase - during which speeds of 145 km/h were reached - Peaua had his six-year-old daughter in the vehicle.

On Friday, he was sentenced to four months in jail after pleading guilty to driving with a suspended licence, mid-range drink-driving and dangerous driving.

Police prosecutor Alan Baghurst unsuccessfully argued in court that incriminating video footage should not be released to the public and described it as "not a pretty sight".

He said both sets of footage were being investigated by the NSW Police internal affairs unit.

Ian Lloyd, QC, representing Peaua, told the court both sets of video were the subject of a NSW Ombudsman inquiry.

Peaua would be making a statement to the inquiry, Mr Lloyd said.

The court heard that Peaua did not receive any lasting injuries from the beating.

Mr Lloyd, however, called it a "savage and unjustified attack" and said police "may have been frustrated at being taken for a merry ride through the western suburbs".

A statement from Commissioner Andrew Scipione's office said the investigation had been initiated by police and was being "closely oversighted by the NSW Ombudsman".

"Now that a person has been convicted and sentenced, the police investigation into matters in the immediate aftermath of the arrest can now be completed," the statement said.

Both videos were tendered to the court, along with photographs of Peaua's injuries.

He suffered severe bruising to his upper arms and thighs, as well as an injury to his hand and left forearm, which was bandaged and plastered.

The Sunday Telegraph understands Peaua is considering launching a civil action against police in relation to the injuries.

It is also understood a female constable who was at the scene contradicted the statements of other officers involved that Peaua had resisted arrest and assaulted police before they used force to subdue him.

Two charges of resisting arrest and assaulting police were dropped by the police prosecutor, and Peaua's legal defence received a $41,000 cost order as a result.

A police fact sheet tendered to the court said Peaua was also sprayed with a "burst" of capsicum spray, but does not mention Peaua being punched and kicked.

The fact sheet also said Peaua grabbed one officer's left foot "with both hands" and had "continued to pull away from police, swinging his arms around forcefully".

Several critical moments of the beating were missed because the Polair crew panned the helicopter's camera away as police lashed out and used batons.

Nor is it clear why, at the beginning of the beating, three police officers stand in front of the police patroller's video camera, obscuring vision of the incident.

The statement from the Commissioner's office says: "Standard operating procedure for police helicopters involved in pursuits is to resume patrol once an offender is in custody."
In the sound track of the incident, a police officer can be heard saying, "Don't you f****** move" before telling Peaua to lie on his side.

Peaua then screams, "Get me out of here" and is told by the officer: "You shut the f*** up, c*** and
lay there."

Peaua: "You know what I'm going to do to you."

The officer then tells Peaua: "Let go of my f***ing leg."

Peaua can then be heard screaming, "What the f*** are you doing to me?"

Close examination of the Polair vision reveals four officers standing over a handcuffed Peaua and attempting to hold him down when one officer kicks him twice in the back of the thigh.

The same officer then punches him and kicks him again in the back of the thigh before punching him in the vicinity of his arm.

The vision then cuts to a wide shot where two officers can be seen punching and kicking.

As the shot becomes wider, it appears one or more officers are using a retractable baton.

Police began the pursuit when Peaua refused to stop after they saw him hit the kerb while making a turn in Zoe Place, Mount Druitt.

During the chase, Peaua ran seven red lights, drove on the wrong side of the road 11 times and knocked down two give-way signs before slamming into a power pole on the Great Western Highway at Rooty Hill at 8.25pm.

He was stopped when police deployed two sets of spikes that blew out all four of the vehicle's tyres.

Court documents state that at one stage during the chase, while his six-year-old daughter was in the car, he had the 4WD up on two wheels and "almost rolled when he crashed into a roadworks area at 70km/h," a police fact sheet said.

Of Peaua's reckless driving, Mr Baghurst said: "The potential to kill people was in the extreme."

Peaua, who was still serving a licence suspension from 2006 and had a prior drink-driving conviction, pleaded guilty to charges of driving with a suspended licence, mid-range drink-driving and dangerous driving.

He was sentenced to four months' jail and suspended from driving until 2014. Peaua has lodged an appeal which will be heard in the District Court later this year. He was granted conditional bail.
Thoughts? as much as I hate drunk driving and think the guy deserved it, police are not above the law and this is wrong. They held this guy down while he was handcuffed and punched and kicked him. It isnt their job to dispense justice, all they had to do was cuff him and take him to the station.
 

Azamakumar

bannèd
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
2,748
Location
the gun show
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
And how exactly is that justice? How was his daughter only in the car for 'part of the chase'? Laying into him in front of a 6 year old doesn't say much for nsw police.
 

flaganarchy

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Messages
256
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Fuck the police, lets fucking smash up there cars and shit... that'll show them. Lets get rid of the unnessesary cancerous state that exists!
 

S.H.O.D.A.N.

world
Joined
Jan 6, 2005
Messages
941
Location
Unknown
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Fuck the police, lets fucking smash up there cars and shit... that'll show them. Lets get rid of the unnessesary cancerous state that exists!
What a moron.

Anyway, on topic: the idiot was arrested, an inquiry into the police behaviour is under way. There's not much to do but say 'tut tut'.
 

andyMUFFINS

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2009
Messages
65
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
How terrible, a daughter in the car and he's drink driving.. The way the police treated him is not right, but then again, he was in the wrong as well.
 

SnowFox

Premium Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2009
Messages
5,455
Location
gone
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2009
How terrible, a daughter in the car and he's drink driving.. The way the police treated him is not right, but then again, he was in the wrong as well.
They are allowed to subdue him if hes resisting.

Not to beat him into a bloody pulp for 5 mins even when he was on the ground.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
What a moron.

Anyway, on topic: the idiot was arrested, an inquiry into the police behaviour is under way. There's not much to do but say 'tut tut'.
This.

The Ombudsman is investigating with the assistance of the Professional Standards Command which will hopefully separate fact from fiction. Something the Telegraph rarely seems to do.
 

Uncle

Banned
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
3,265
Location
Retirement Village of Alaska
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Thoughts? as much as I hate drunk driving and think the guy deserved it, police are not above the law and this is wrong. They held this guy down while he was handcuffed and punched and kicked him. It isnt their job to dispense justice, all they had to do was cuff him and take him to the station.
they are the police after all they believe they are law.
 

quik.

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
781
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Meh I'm glad they stuck the boot in, they didn't even rough him up all that bad

Drink driving is an insanely scummy thing to do, let alone with a young daughter in the backseat

I heard him speaking when they played some of the footage on the news, he was gone. 4 months in lock up is letting him off way too easy imo, he was previously suspended for the exact same thing.
 

44Ronin

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
333
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Meh I'm glad they stuck the boot in, they didn't even rough him up all that bad

Drink driving is an insanely scummy thing to do, let alone with a young daughter in the backseat

I heard him speaking when they played some of the footage on the news, he was gone. 4 months in lock up is letting him off way too easy imo, he was previously suspended for the exact same thing.
You're like edward norton in american history x, only you're argument isn't even a quarter as convincing as his....

YouTube - American History X ( Dinner Table Scene )



But seriously.......the police brutalise people all the time. It is not justified when the pigs themselves attempt to cover up the beatings they dish out. Our society's law enforcers need to be both transparent and accountable. The combination of senselessly beating someone and traumatizing a young girl and the policemens' attempt of lying in reports indicates that they are absolutely no better than the criminals they deal with.

Throw the book at the bastards'........no apologetics.

It's obvious what happened. The police were pumped full of adrenaline from the pursuit and could not control themselves. We do not need such animals policing our society.
 
Last edited:

quik.

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
781
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
American history x is a shit movie apart from the curb stomping scene

I think the guy who took to the roads with no control of his vehicle or regard for the safety of other road users, let alone his own daughter, with a suspended licence for, wait for it, DRINK DRIVING deserved a bit of a beating. If you disagree that's fine but I cannot fathom why.
 

44Ronin

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
333
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
American history x is a shit movie apart from the curb stomping scene

I think the guy who took to the roads with no control of his vehicle or regard for the safety of other road users, let alone his own daughter, with a suspended licence for, wait for it, DRINK DRIVING deserved a bit of a beating. If you disagree that's fine but I cannot fathom why.
You have trouble separating the actions of the driver from the actions of the police.

The police -

A. Broke the law by not immediately detaining suspect
B. Broke the law by assualting a subdued suspect (handcuffed and on floor, clearly incapable of resisting at that point)
C. Broke the law and their responsibility of ensuring the safety of the young girl. They did not give two shits about the welfare of the child.
D. Broke the law by means of perjury.

We live by the rule of law and order, not brutality, not mob violence and barbarism.

If you don't like what I am saying then fuck off to countries that endorse mob violence.

The book must be thrown at the police officers. There cannot be any apologetics for their conduct.
 

quik.

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
781
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
You have trouble separating the actions of the driver from the actions of the police.

The police -

A. Broke the law by not immediately detaining suspect
B. Broke the law by assualting a subdued suspect (handcuffed and on floor, clearly incapable of resisting at that point)
C. Broke the law and their responsibility of ensuring the safety of the young girl. They did not give two shits about the welfare of the child.
D. Broke the law by means of perjury.

We live by the rule of law and order, not brutality, not mob violence and barbarism.

If you don't like what I am saying then fuck off to countries that endorse mob violence.

The book must be thrown at the police officers. There cannot be any apologetics for their conduct.
I don't have any trouble separating the actions of the driver and the police, I simply believe the actions of the police were A+

The safety of the young girl isn't in question in the first place so bringing that up is a bit silly mr, and touting laws as if they are the be all and end all is retarded but that is a whole other argument

I'm not advocating mob violence, brutality or barbarism. I do think that sometimes people need a good knock, and the fact that the physical side of things is viewed as some horrible and immoral act has long perplexed me

Feel free to continue sitting atop your high horse of virtue and goodwill for all though
 

44Ronin

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
333
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
I don't have any trouble separating the actions of the driver and the police, I simply believe the actions of the police were A+
Simple people simply believe.


The safety of the young girl isn't in question in the first place so bringing that up is a bit silly mr, and touting laws as if they are the be all and end all is retarded but that is a whole other argument
Seeing your father belted to a pulp isn't mentally damaging? No.....according to you it's okay since the father asked for a beating, right? :rolleyes:

I'm not advocating mob violence, brutality or barbarism. I do think that sometimes people need a good knock,
You are being apologist, which means you agree upon police brutality.

and the fact that the physical side of things is viewed as some horrible and immoral act has long perplexed me
That's probably related to your lack of thinking.

Feel free to continue sitting atop your high horse of virtue and goodwill for all though
Better than mob mentality and stupidity.
 

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
A. Broke the law by not immediately detaining suspect
B. Broke the law by assualting a subdued suspect (handcuffed and on floor, clearly incapable of resisting at that point)
C. Broke the law and their responsibility of ensuring the safety of the young girl. They did not give two shits about the welfare of the child.
D. Broke the law by means of perjury.
On what grounds are you claiming all these illegalities?

A) Where does it specify at law, that the suspect must be immediately detained?

B) The footage doesn't necessarily convey that the suspect is subdued, in fact I would content otherwise. I can tell you with some fair authority, that resisting whilst on the ground is not a difficult task, particularly, for a 100+ Kg Polynesian male. The footage does not depict at what point the suspect is successfully handcuffed. The suspect actually continued to hold onto the leg of one the police officers to hinder their attempts to handcuff him.

C) This point is a little confusing, considering it was the suspect who had severely endangered the life of his daughter?

D) Only a court of law can make that determination.

I will again reiterate that it should be left to the Ombudsman and PSD to investigate, and any question of guilt be left to the determination of the court should proceedings be commenced.
 

44Ronin

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
333
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
On what grounds are you claiming all these illegalities?
That the police abused their responsibilities both in action and subsequent documentation.

A) Where does it specify at law, that the suspect must be immediately detained?
The powers and responsibility bill

B) The footage doesn't necessarily convey that the suspect is subdued, in fact I would content otherwise. I can tell you with some fair authority, that resisting whilst on the ground is not a difficult task. Particularly, for a 100+ Kg Polynesian male. The footage does not depict at what point the suspect is successfully handcuffed.
You've obviously never had any real world experience in watching police take down suspects and keep them there. Trust me, there is no way in the world you need to beat down someone who is pinned, capsicum spray, handcuffed and outnumbered to a ratio of at least 4:1. Even if you did, the video illustrates otherwise.

C) This point is a little confusing, considering it was the suspect who had severely endangered the life of his daughter?
A six year old has little to no concept of the endangerment of drink driving. Your simpleton argument and reasoning doesn't even relate or make any sense


D) Only a court of law can make that determination.
I don't need a court of law to make that determination.

The evidence is the differing accounts between the males and the one female officer's account. The perjury is also proven, undeniably through the video.

Don't try to be apologetic through via the structure of the legal system. It just don't hold water, pilgrim.
 
Last edited:

incentivation

Hmmmmm....
Joined
Jan 15, 2008
Messages
558
Location
Inner West
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
The powers and responsibility bill

You've obviously never had any real world experience in watch police take down suspects and keep them there. Trust me, there is no way in the world you need to beat down someone who is pinned, capsicum spray, handcuffed and outnumbered to a ratio of at least 4:1.


A six year old has little to no concept of the endangerment of drink driving. Your simpleton argument and reasoning doesn't even relate or make any sense

I don't need a court of law to make that determination.

The evidence is the differing accounts between the males and the one female officer's account. The perjury is also proven, undeniably through the video.

Don't try to be apologetic through via the structure of the legal system. It just don't hold water, pilgrim.
You seriously have no idea.

I believe you're referring to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilties) Act 2002, which doesn't specify anything of that kind.. LAW ENFORCEMENT (POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES) ACT 2002

In fact on a second read, most of what you have said really makes no sense, pilgrim..
 

quik.

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
781
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Simple people simply believe.

Seeing your father belted to a pulp isn't mentally damaging? No.....according to you it's okay since the father asked for a beating, right? :rolleyes:

You are being apologist, which means you agree upon police brutality.

That's probably related to your lack of thinking.

Better than mob mentality and stupidity.
Ignoring the whole 'durr violence is for the slow'

Thinking that some people need a bit of sense smacked into them does not equate to being in favour of police brutality, so um

The little girl was probably (yes I am making an assumption) in the care of other officers and away from the scene. If she wasn't, I would lean more to the thinking that her father shouldn't have been a drunk fucktard in the first place, but yeah no need for a little one to see it happen. However the little girl isn't the focus of the article or this topic so?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top