danny

£19.99 from the superdry store. Headtorch think it was about £15 from blacks after my discount.

Em i have honestly lost count of the number of times i have seen polie officers hitting leairy people outside of pubs and clubs. But then again the street where all the clubs are here is called the Gaza strip for a reason. And it was the protester who provoked the reaction. She was gobbing off etc. You also dont know what she might have ahd in her hand. True story a friend of mine passed out of marine training, first draft was to fleet protection group RM in faslane guarding the submarines. Some lefty woman gets inside the wire. He catches her grabs her and has a used sanitry towel thrown in his face. So you cant judge her just because she looks like she might blow away with the next gust of wind.

Do you reguarly leave the house warmed with a weapon? Do you reguarly cary out a weapons handling test on that said weapon? DO you reguarly undertae training on the rulesof engamnet escualtion drills? Are you in a profesion with extra powers allowing you to use a weapon to protect yourself and others as you are put in confrontaional situations on behalf of the state? NO? Then i doubt it would stand up in court.

If it was on CCTV then it cant have been that clear cut. If someone was gobbing off at your mate and he then made no effort to leave at all, or he walked over to the guy and punched him first. Then i can see why he could get charged. Either that or he had crap lawyers. If however it was on camera and your mate was minding his own buisness and he tried to either leave or the guy came over and sqaured up to him then h would but well withing his rights. It could be hard to argue in court. Also depends on what witness say in court as well, if they are lieing or not. CCTV dosent have sound and isnt that good quality so witness will have been a lot more important in your friends case.

Well this was the best discussion i have had on this website in a good while anyway haha. bed time now i think lol

I agree he could have reacted better, but i dont think that his reactions were over the top. I dont think she was going to attack him. But i know put in that sitaution where very possibly he may have been attacked either that day or the day before (not all the protesters were peacfull, unfortuantly there are always a few that ruin it) that itcould easily feel like he was about to be attacked again.

But my point is itseasy to see that here. But when you are there an you are having to think on the spot things are very different. You cant judge that because its a woman she isnt going to attack you. You just have to go off your feelings. Like ive said ses a fucking tool for getting lippy with someone with a weapon. Why woudnt you just wind your kneck in, i know i would. Thank god you came along i thought i was in the nut house haha.

By the sounds of it people higher up the chain than this copper did make some bad choices. But i dont really know what you mean at the top it dosent make sense? I think you mean she. Well i dont know what reason she had to be screaming at him like she was so i find it hard to say she had no reason to hi him either. He claims he thought that she was going to attack him so if that was his belief at that moment in time he cant be in the wrong.

With a casco baton you should have to reach out to hit themyou shoudnt be on top of them. If it is this clear cut that it wasnt self defence and not insulting you at all cyber lawyers can say he was in the wrong. why coudnt real lawyers do it in a court of law. The answer is he was within his rights.

Im in the navy we have to be trained with battons as well as fire arms due to the fact we go in to faslane and the hippys try to get on the ships. And although normally they are very peacful people, there are always trouble makers. But i havent been on a ship fo getting on for 3 years and have spent time in certain sandly places both inside and outside the wire. And essentially the same rules of engagment apply here as they do there. Only here its batons normally and there its with rifles. Before you get sent to a place like that you are given lectures on what your rights are and what you can and cant do so that if you ever are put in a situation that you might have to use a weapon you know the law.

But he did have good reason she kept coming back and he felt threaened by it. She did provoke him the second time she gives him a nudge when he isnt from behind/his side in a crowd of people that in itself could get you jumpy that your about to be attacked. But why should he wait to be hit so she looses credability. I didnt make the assumption that she was. Just thats he sort of thing coppers have to put up with day in day out (not thta all people from council estates are like that but soe do like to make a name for themselves).

In the case of the armed forces and police i would presume you are given the benefit of the doubt to an EXTENT and it comes down to 'your honest belief' at that moment in time. You have to have this extra dispensation as you are being put in situatios that normal civilians are not. And you can only do things as you see them at that moment in time. Trust me you do not have to be assaulted before you hit some back. That is the law i have sat in enough lessons in this sort of thing.

Why so we can go back to birthday threads and the same old mega threads? God at least we have a proper discussipn going haha

But that is not the law. You do not have to wait to be hit to hit someone if you believe they are about to hit you. That is the LAW. And i wont defend anyone in uniform. I wont defend the coppers who hit that bloke who later died that isnt defendable. That why im happy this copper has been found not guilty as i thought he would be tarred with the same brush She is still right there. Hes given her warning and she hasnt backed off. He claimed self defence and hes been found guilty.

Hes trying to keep order. Shes the one geting in his face acting aggressive. Well would you be getting in someones face holding a weapon is that a normal thing to do? And no its not really advised for you to use your hands as it makes escualtion drills very hard drawing the weapon is the first escualtion drill (the one any normal person would have a serious think about hwat they were doing), you then go for the limbs as the green zones minus the joints, unless you are some kind of superhero this will put you down. If however after sevral attemts at a green zone has not put someone down you move on to amber areas joints and hands. And then there are red zones which you woudnt get to normally unless the person had say a gun which you are well within your rights to try and kill them, these are head and central body mass. If you were to use your hands it would be hard to with a single blow put someone down with a hit to a green zone. also it allows for a much greater chance of error to hit some one in there temple etc. And the copper dsent really want to be that close. With a batton you take your strike and are able to move back as you only normally need the one strike. As for being a symbol of the states power the state does have power and police should be armed with at least a batton for there self defence as they are at a much greater risk of attack than a normal civi. If you are using the argument that she is playing up to the cammeras how far is she going to go while playing up these cameras. Is she going to hit him so she gets knicked on camera and is some legend back on her council estate (ppl do this im not saying she would but at that moment in time you dont know that)

If you feel the person is being aggressive and that you are likely to becombe a victim it is suffcient grounds thats why he has been found not guilty.

I think theres a difference here than some random thug. This guy has been placed in this sitution as his job which is to protect people. He isnt some piece of detritus who goes around filling people in for the crack. Everything else aside what the fuck is she doing going back a third time when he is holding a lethal weapon? (because thats exactly what it is). Having been put in a sitaution where i nearly had to do something a lot worse than this i can feel for this copper. You only have seconds to think you have noise, you have plenty of otherthings going thrugh your mind. Your thinking am i about to get attacked. This woman isnt leaving me alone, next thing you know she is lieing there. Coppers are only human as i saidif he looked back i dont think he would have do it again. But thatdosent mean he sould have his career ruined as i think in the circumstances it was fair. Not the best thing he could have done. But again what was she doing going back at him with a weapon in his hand. She has to accept some responsability as well.

Ok i did see that picture but when i watched the video i only saw he strike her once the first time watching it again he does appear to perhaps strike again you cant see (i guess he did though) but you also cant see whats shes doing at this point is she kicking him? (who knows). also fro mthat article If he was not acting in self defence a RIGHT me, you, the police, prisoners even RMT union bosses are entitled to why did the prosecution not prove this in court? I suggest to you seen as a team of lawyers in a high profile case could not prove it that it was perfectly legal.

Im not saying its funny at all. It is very justifiable though if you have even the slightest grasp of the ROE. As for caveing anything in as said he hit green zones just as he should have in acordance with SOPs. Last time i did my baton handling test (was a few years ago now) the cranial cavity would be a red zone along wit the abdomen. As for me being an infantile pillock you sort of lost the high ground there when you turned a discussion in to infantile name calling. You big poo you. It was proportional. He gave one hit then dressed back is the woman still alive? Yes, Can the woman still walk? Yes Did the copper kick her cunt in? No. It was perfectly proportional and the court saw that. As for restraining anyone in that crowd not really a wise move unless it can be really helped. You dont want to be on the floor dealing with someone and putting them in cuffs when there is a crowd around you leaves you far too open. Even if you have got back up that situation could quickly go down hill. And its ok to sit her behind a screen saying he should have done this he should have done that but having to act at te very moment is very different.

It dosent matter how big she is. Ive seen some pritty small women spill quite a lot of blood on a sat nite up and down the country. Everyone has the right to slef defence the police are not an exception. If she was so innocent why did she go back 3 time even after he drew his baton? No one gets paid enough to be punched. I dont see how you can say its a farcial system, if someone in the street came up to you fing and blinding and you sent them on there way twice. And the third time they came back more adgitated dont you think you should be able to do something about it before you becombe the victim?

How is it not self defence? She came over twice he fucked her off twice she came back again. I woudnt like to have been in that position there was clearly loads of cameras there. He gave te minimum strikes he didnt go at her and kick her head in. Self defence and it was proved in court.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8597217.stm Glad to see sense has provailed in the favour of this officer. I was afraidhe wasn going to get caught up with what happend in other events that day. He acted in acordance with procedure for using a baton. He only made contact with green zones (green zones being limbs minus joints). And he wasnt found guilty for using his right to self defence (this right allows you to use force if you fear an attack is iminent). Ok the woman didnt have a weapon but he had fucked her off twice before and the crowd did look quite hostile so i think he was deffinatly with his rights to do what he did when she came back again and the crowd were getting larey. Im sure in with hindsight he woudnt have done it but you have to act at that moment.

The fighting might have gone on for 35 solid days. And even some people migt have fought for 35 days solid. I very much doubt that was the majority. As you said they spent a year in melbourne. So its proably work out right.

i havent seen any of this yet. But they always say war is 95% of doing nothing, and 5% of compleate chaos. So it sounds like it might be a but closer to reality.

I just mean what if a sponser for Mclaren wanted him to be there figurehead for an event but there was a rally on that day? I just dont think for the money Mclaren pay the guy giving it your total attention is to much to ask. It is corporate Mclaren but at the end f the day F1 is a buisness just as much as it is a sport. From a corporate point of view they have a better driver set upany way having the past two world champions in there line up must be a big draw for sponsorship.