Copper cleared of assault

[Emasher]

But she was backing off when he hit her. Watch the video again.

 

From what I understand, they actually have to make a move to try and hit you, which she was very clearly not doing at the time. You can't just go around saying, "Oh, I don't like the way you're treating me, I think you are about to hit me" *Hit them*.

 

I do agree that this thread has a point though. Its actually the most interesting thread I've seen all day here, it is good to have some actual discussion for a change.

[Nintendohnut]

Also, you keep saying she didn't back off - is that perhaps because she was surrounded by other protestors, photographers and cameramen who were all pushing forward to protest/get a good picture? It looked that way to me.

[Daft]

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?

 

Trying to keep order by hitting people? That didn't work the day before.

 

Like I said, there weren't many people there the morning after. She was actually isolated from the main body of protesters, you can see them holding the red flags being cordoned off by the rest of the police.

 

Would I be getting in someone's face who has a weapon but has no necessary right to use it because I haven't provoked them? If I wanted to get in that person's face, I would. Especially someone who in many respects is meant to mediate between the people and the state.

 

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 she hits him, then she looses all credibility. She knows that and he definitely should know that.

 

And that's a bizarre assumption that she is from a council estate.

[danny]

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.

 

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.

[Nintendohnut]

Without wanting to get too personal danny, do you mind if I ask how you know these things? What is/was your job? I am genuinely interested.

[Daft]

He's a trained ninja. Please be true.

[danny]

 

Trying to keep order by hitting people? That didn't work the day before.

 

Like I said, there weren't many people there the morning after. She was actually isolated from the main body of protesters, you can see them holding the red flags being cordoned off by the rest of the police.

 

Would I be getting in someone's face who has a weapon but has no necessary right to use it because I haven't provoked them? If I wanted to get in that person's face, I would. Especially someone who in many respects is meant to mediate between the people and the state.

 

 

 

If she hits him, then she looses all credibility. She knows that and he definitely should know that.

 

And that's a bizarre assumption that she is from a council estate.

 

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).

[Emasher]

The point is you actually have to use your judgement though. Like I said before, you can't just say you think they were going to attack you and call it self defense. They actually have to do something that makes it look like they're going to attack you. He was justified in slapping her away from him the first time because she was right in his face. When he hit her with his nightstick (or whatever you call them in the UK), she was maintaining her distance, and he actually had to reach out quite far to hit her.

 

Self defense isn't waiting for a good moment to strike, its stopping someone else from attacking you.

[danny]

Without wanting to get too personal danny, do you mind if I ask how you know these things? What is/was your job? I am genuinely interested.

 

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.

[Daft]

But he did have [original adjective] 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).

 

Because simply put he needs to understand that he has no reason, at all, to hit him. Surely one of the things you are briefed on is situational background?

 

Then again, the police tactics were pretty stupid. Kettling and containment? Real bloody moronic idea, why don't you do it next to the only windows that aren't boarded up as well? Fantastic, you did. There was very definitely a PR plan to smear the protesters, unless whoever was in charge was really that phenomenally stupid.

[danny]

The point is you actually have to use your judgement though. Like I said before, you can't just say you think they were going to attack you and call it self defense. They actually have to do something that makes it look like they're going to attack you. He was justified in slapping her away from him the first time because she was right in his face. When he hit her with his nightstick (or whatever you call them in the UK), she was maintaining her distance, and he actually had to reach out quite far to hit her.

 

Self defense isn't waiting for a [original adjective] moment to strike, its stopping someone else from attacking you.

 

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.

[Daft]

You put too much faith in "real" lawyers, you really do.

 

Not to mention, it would have to be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt' which can lend bias.

[danny]

Because simply put he needs to understand that he has no reason, at all, to hit him. Surely one of the things you are briefed on is situational background?

 

Then again, the police tactics were pretty stupid. Kettling and containment? Real bloody moronic idea, why don't you do it next to the only windows that aren't boarded up as well? Fantastic, you did. There was very definitely a PR plan to smear the protesters, unless whoever was in charge was really that phenomenally stupid.

 

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.

[Daft]

Her reason was to provoke him, that's why she was screaming. That's why she was in front of all those bloody cameras.

 

He, and I'm afraid you, are an idiot if you thought she was actually going to attack him. She'd lose any credibility she'd have for that silly stunt if she did.

 

It's pretty basic logic.

[The fish]

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

 

Actually, if he's threatened by it, it's an assault on her part. Legally, the cop was within his rights. Given the situation, there is little else he could have done. And don't say 'do nothing', his job, afterall, is to something...

[danny]

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.

 

Actually, if he's threatened by it, it's an assault on her part. Legally, the cop was within his rights. Given the situation, there is little else he could have done. And don't say 'do nothing', his job, afterall, is to something...

 

Thank god you came along i thought i was in the nut house haha.

[Daft]

I guess that's fair enough. I honestly think he could have been aware of the situation more and not reacted exactly how she wanted.

 

I'm not defending her stupidity. She's probably one of those fecking Marxists who have no idea how their concept of class based struggle is painfully out of date.

[danny]

I guess that's fair enough. I honestly think he could have been aware of the situation more and not reacted exactly how she wanted.

 

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.

[Daft]

Fair enough, I've never been in that kind of situation and I wasn't at that specific one. So, who knows really?

[danny]

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

[ReZourceman]

This person who was attacked is a woman?

[MoogleViper]

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.

 

Yeah when I'm next out in town on a friday night and some prick is walking up to me, shouting about how he's going to kick my head in, I'll definitely wait for him to crack my skull open before I do anything.

[Nintendohnut]

Yeah when I'm next out in town on a friday night and some prick is walking up to me, shouting about how he's going to kick my head in, I'll definitely wait for him to crack my skull open before I do anything.

 

Hey, that's up to you. I have a friend who was in a situation like this, and he did 'defend himself' (he hit the guy) which I personally don't think he should have done. Especially as it was all caught on camera and the guy who started the whole thing pressed charges on my friend, who ended up with a fine and community service.

 

But yeah, go ahead and hit the person if you really want a criminal record.

 

This is why I was arguing that the whole thing is stupid, one person can claim they thought they were going to be attacked whereas another can claim that they were never going to attack the person and it was assault. The system is flawed.

 

 

 

ANYWAY I'm glad everyone came to some sort of agreement, it's good that we can disagree about stuff but in the end agree to disagree, and maybe bring our points round to a more reasonable conclusion on this forum. That's why I like this place - the discussion did not turn into a argument about whether the policeman represented hitler or not.

[MoogleViper]

ANYWAY I'm glad everyone came to some sort of agreement, it's stunning that we can disagree about stuff but in the end agree to disagree, and maybe bring our points round to a more reasonable conclusion on this forum. That's why I like this place - the discussion did not turn into a argument about whether the policeman represented hitler or not.

 

Of course it didn't.

 

 

It was clearly the woman who represents Hitler.

[danny]

Hey, that's up to you. I have a friend who was in a situation like this, and he did 'defend himself' (he hit the guy) which I personally don't think he should have done. Especially as it was all caught on camera and the guy who started the whole thing pressed charges on my friend, who ended up with a fine and community service.

 

But yeah, go ahead and hit the person if you really want a criminal record.

 

This is why I was arguing that the whole thing is stupid, one person can claim they thought they were going to be attacked whereas another can claim that they were never going to attack the person and it was assault. The system is flawed.

 

ANYWAY I'm glad everyone came to some sort of agreement, it's [original adjective] that we can disagree about stuff but in the end agree to disagree, and maybe bring our points round to a more reasonable conclusion on this forum. That's why I like this place - the discussion did not turn into a argument about whether the policeman represented hitler or not.

 

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.