Copper cleared of assault

[danny]

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.

[Daft]

Self defence? What a cunting joke.

[danny]

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.

[Ramar]

Bit extreme to use the baton. When a copper whips it out like that (innuendo!) don't go in his face for thirds.

[Daft]

You're right, I'm sure that tiny lady was going to cause a world of trouble.

 

Proven in court? Farcical excuse for a system created to defend the status quo.

 

Edit: Hold on, just watched the video again. Yeah, she was TOTALLY about to lay into that group of 10 or so police officers and cause massive damage.

[danny]

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?

[The Bard]

It's all funny and justifiable, until a police officer caves your (admittedly useless) cranial cavity in with all the impact of an elephant charging a rotten watermelon, for looking at him funny, you infantile pillock.

[Daft]

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?

 

That's a completely different situation.

 

If she was causing so much trouble why not restrain her? He clearly had back up; so even if is superior physical power couldn't restrain her, one of his multiple collogues could help.

 

By law, self-defence must be proportional to the perceived threat. If you think that was a proportional reaction, then you're a nut.

 

If the police really wanted to avoid all the furore of people playing up they would have told the photographers to leave; God knows they already abuse the 2000 Terror Act to target photographers.

[danny]

It's all funny and justifiable, until a police officer caves your (admittedly useless) cranial cavity in with all the impact of an elephant charging a rotten watermelon, for looking at him funny, you infantile pillock.

 

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.

 

That's a completely different situation.

 

If she was causing so much trouble why not restrain her? He clearly had back up; so even if is superior physical power couldn't restrain her, one of his multiple collogues could help.

 

By law, self-defence must be proportional to the perceived threat. If you think that was a proportional reaction, then you're a nut.

 

If the police really wanted to avoid all the furore of people playing up they would have told the photographers to leave; God knows they already abuse the 2000 Terror Act to target photographers.

 

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.

[Daft]

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.

 

Say waaaaaa?

 

It argued he was justified in pushing her back and striking her with the back of his hand but claimed he went too far by striking her with an extendable metal baton.

 

Ms Fisher was left with severe bruising to her leg.

 

Is this from the very BBC article that you posted? Yu-huh, I think so.

 

 

And there are two bruises in that photo, so that means TWO batton strikes along with the backhand and the push back.

 

Proportional? Utter shite.

 

I feel like Veronica Mars. Hot damn.

[danny]

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

"It was for the prosecution to prove this defendant was not acting in lawful self-defence.

 

"The prosecution has failed in this respect and the defendant has raised the issue of lawful self-defence and as such is entitled to be acquitted."

 

 

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.

[Emasher]

Its hard to see what's going on, but it doesn't look like she was actually trying to outright attack him. More, just yell at him, which she's well within her rights to do. When he was actually hitting her, she wasn't even that close to him compared to the bit where he slapped her away. It look more like he hit her because he was pissed off at her yelling at him than because he feared for his safety, which is considered assault in most countries.

[Daft]

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.

 

Don't make me laugh. This is the same rubbish my sister pulls. She's a barrister and whenever she helps some undeserving piece of detritus back onto the street she blame the prosecution for not doing their job well enough.

 

Whatever makes her sleep at night.

 

I call it human error and I suspect that's what it would be called in any other system that measure is applied to.

 

Edit: On the flipside, the criminal youth system is indicative of this "human error" going the other way. People getting lost in the system.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Daft

[danny]

Don't make me laugh. This is the same rubbish my sister pulls. She's a barrister and whenever she helps some undeserving piece of detritus back onto the street she blame the prosecution for not doing their job well enough.

 

Whatever makes her sleep at night.

 

I call it human error and I suspect that's what it would be called in any other system that measure is applied to.

 

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.

[Emasher]

But someone simply walking up you and yelling at you isn't sufficient grounds to attack them in self defense.

[Daft]

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 frak 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.

 

Who exactly is he protecting in that video? The protesters from each other?

 

Is she not one of the 'people'?

 

My example of 'detritus' was extreme. It happens at all levels. I though I'd just emphasise for effect.

 

I don't see what the weapon has to do with it. It's symbolic of his, and the state's power. I'm sure as an able police officer he could do a lot of damage with his hands. Or would that appear more brutal? Does a weapon authoritise the action?

 

That situation, middle of London. The day after the protest so the group is in fact very small. Not much more than you see in the footage. You also have a veritable array of photographers (the media is already buzzing from the death of a bystander from the previous day). This woman is obviously playing up to the camera, and this moron falls for her ploy.

 

If anything I think someone should reprimand him for his utter stupidity.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Daft

[danny]

But someone simply walking up you and yelling at you isn't sufficient grounds to attack them in self defense.

 

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.

[Daft]

I think Tony Blair and George Bush called it a 'preemptive strike'.

 

 

Funny...they were found not guilty too... No, wait, they weren't put on trial.

[Nintendohnut]

There's no point arguing over this fact: if a person shouts at you and you attack them in any way, it is assault and you have broken the law. They may have provoked you with shouting but by taking the first physical action you are the one who will be taken to court. Denying this truth is pointless, and as it is what most people here are pointing out then I don't really understand what you are trying to argue. Whether or not you are surrounded by people who are shouting, whether they are threatening to hurt you or whatever, if you lay a hand on them before they do to you, you have broken the law. Considering the fact that the woman did not attack the man and after the beating made no attempts to retaliate, he should have been tried for, at the very least, assault. These are simply facts; you can deny them but it will not stop them being true.

 

PS We get it, you're a policeman/army man/whatever and you will always agree with whatever anyone in a uniform does. Get over it and start posting in other threads instead of starting 'discussions' (arguments) against everyone.

[danny]

How exactly is he protecting in that video? The protesters from each other?

 

Is she not one of the 'people'?

 

My example of 'detritus' was extreme. It happens at all levels. I though I'd just emphasise for effect.

 

I don't see what the weapon has to do with it. It's symbolic of his, and the state's power. I'm sure as an able police officer he could do a lot of damage with his hands. Or would that appear more brutal? Does a weapon authoritise the action?

 

That situation, middle of London. The day after the protest so the group is in fact very small. Not much more than you see in the footage. You also have a veritable array of photographers. This woman is obviously playing up to the camera, and this moron falls for her ploy. If anything I think someone should have a go at him for his utter stupidity.

 

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)

[Emasher]

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.

 

But she wasn't actually physically attacking him. Just approaching him and yelling at him. Look at the footage again. After he slapped her, she backed off, she got a little bit closer again after that, but she didn't even go right up to him, and he just went and hit her. Watch the video from 0.20 to 0.30 again.

[Nintendohnut]

I think the people are against you on this one, danny. Maybe time to hang up your helmet on this.

 

EDIT: Wait, is this entire thread an april fools?!

[danny]

There's no point arguing over this fact: if a person shouts at you and you attack them in any way, it is assault and you have broken the law. They may have provoked you with shouting but by taking the first physical action you are the one who will be taken to court. Denying this truth is pointless, and as it is what most people here are pointing out then I don't really understand what you are trying to argue. Whether or not you are surrounded by people who are shouting, whether they are threatening to hurt you or whatever, if you lay a hand on them before they do to you, you have broken the law.

 

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

 

But she wasn't actually physically attacking him. Just approaching him and yelling at him. Look at the footage again. After he slapped her, she backed off, she got a little bit closer again after that, but she didn't even go right up to him, and he just went and hit her. Watch the video from 0.20 to 0.30 again.

 

She is still right there. Hes given her warning and she hasnt backed off. He claimed self defence and hes been found guilty.

[Nintendohnut]

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

 

But where does that end? Who decides whether someone is about to hit someone? Why is it up to a judge who wasn't even there to decide that this woman was about to strike the police officer? I didn't get that impression, and it seems others didn't. Who decides that? And at what point does it stop being assault by one party and start being an act of self-defense? The entire discussion is pointless because if this really is the case, which I don't think it is, then the law is flawed and anyone could be right.

[danny]

I think the people are against you on this one, danny. Maybe time to hang up your helmet on this.

 

EDIT: Wait, is this entire thread an april fools?!

 

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