G20 police officer cleared of assault

She was warned, but kept coming forward!

He showed great restraint in just hitting her on the back of the legs.

And the fact she never bothered to turn up in court to give evidence, speaks volumes.

No respect for the police in this country anymore.
 
NightSt@lk3r said:
Of course he did, it's called Assault, thats what any civillian would have been charge with for for slapping some screaming bint in the exact same circumstance.

But of course, he is a copper, he is above the law:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The statement would be true if this has happened on the beat in a sunny village of Sandford. As it is the situation happened to be G20, an event that attracts thousands of people who are there to protest. While there isn't a problem with that as that's what democracy is for and large number of the protesters are harmless, many of those protests do turn violent (just look at the history of previous summits). Some people are only there to reinforce their blind points of view in any way they can, which usually involve acts of violence and provocation to show the world the "Police brutality".

So as you can imagine policing tactics are quite different when situation borders the riot act. In the video the situation appears to be quite calm initially and at point some sort of an altercation occurs and 10 seconds in the crowd starts getting wound up and officers start to react and form a line. If you look at the actual officer involved in this story before and after the initial contact with Ms Fisher he seems to be bracing himself from something not covered by the camera to the left, which I can only presume are other protesters. So he really doesn't have time to listen to someone shouting their point of view in his face and obstructing him. She was asked 2 or 3 times to move back and pushed in the face once before the baton was used on her.
 
Last edited:
NightSt@lk3r said:
Of course he did, it's called Assault, thats what any civillian would have been charge with for for slapping some screaming bint in the exact same circumstance.

But of course, he is a copper, he is above the law:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, except of course that a civilian in the same situation would have got the same results (see bouncers, for example). A civilian is less likely to be in the situation where a reasonable person fears for their safety, but the law treats them the same.

You never know, perhaps if the woman had behaved like a normal citizen the problem would never have occurred.

Still, don't let the truth get in the way of irrational judgement.
 
Let's be honest. The results of the court case are pretty immaterial as people have already made up their minds and nothing so simple as a court of law is going to change that!
 
I see no one has been charged with Ian Tomlinson killing yet.
That will another court case without a jury. Only in the UK
 
Dolph said:
Well, except of course that a civilian in the same situation would have got the same results (see bouncers, for example). A civilian is less likely to be in the situation where a reasonable person fears for their safety, but the law treats them the same.

You never know, perhaps if the woman had behaved like a normal citizen the problem would never have occurred.

Still, don't let the truth get in the way of irrational judgement.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much wether a civilian would have got away with thuggish behaviour like that and I very much doubt the 'fear for his safety' excuse would have washed had that been a burly bouncer dealing with that women 'armed' with a soft drink carton and a mobile phone.

I have little sympathy for her, particularly as she didn't even appear in court, but I feel this verdict was a bad one for our society. To be expected though.

What is a 'normal citizen' BTW?
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
You never know, perhaps if the woman had behaved like a normal citizen the problem would never have occurred.

Still, don't let the truth get in the way of irrational judgement.
Click to expand...

Yah, darn normal citiziens thinking they have the right to free-protest, without fear of assault, by using non-physical means to address a superior officer of the law.

/sarcasm

The copper looked like a thug before the woman came into frame, his body language the lot.
 
britboy4321 said:
Seriously, if ***** women had smacked police-man hard with a stick, do you think a jury would have returned 'self defence, fair enough' in a million years??
Click to expand...

Would the police go out of their way to shout in this womans face to entice her to commit violence? The police man was restrained in my opinion, he told her many times to step back which she refused to take notice of before he struck out, and even then it was a single blow to her legs, which is a "green zone" to hit with a baton.

Stretch said:
I don't know, what sort of reaction would you expect from a 6 foot male member of the public when a small woman get's in his face "intimidating" him? Oh year, it's fine to hit them with a metal stick.
Click to expand...

This is one of the stupidest things I've heard, size has nothing to do with intimidation. "Intimidation (also called cowing) is intentional behavior "which would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities" fear of injury or harm."

I'm personally 6ft 4 and have been intimidated by people much smaller than I am, size is completely irrelevant to this case.
 
ringo747 said:
Very good decision. People got to learn to respect authority in this country.
Click to expand...

but that doesnt apply to ONLY the police, thats the issue. The police officer should show restraint and respect to her - she was breaking NO LAW. I totally agree about respect being shown to fellow people, but there seems to be a perception in this thread that we should all bow down, respect and respond to the police differently than any other member of our society.

Their **** smells the same as everyone elses, they're just wearing a suit and badge which permits them to detain & restrain people they believe are breaking a law - NOTHING MORE.
 
Whilst I agree that the situation will have been extremely volitile and keeping people cramped up together will have only added to the situation I do not agree with attacking positions of authority or being confrontational toward them.

You are at the summit to protest and NOT to vent anger. A lot of people go to these such events as they do football games, to get in with a
crowd mentality and to vent aggression from other things in their lives.

In striking her, the crowd lost all agressive momentum towards the officers as it turned from the figure of authority representing the object of hatrid from the small minded aggressors into 'oh **** these guys aren't going to simply be the object of our abuse and take it all day until it escalates.

Crowd mentality is dangerous take a read on the subject.
If you let them gain the nerve then you will see them striking. It is best to exert authority sooner to cause fear than later when it escalates into physical attacks.

Ask yourself this, when is it okay for the officer to hit the women. Before the attack when she is building up guile and shouting or when she is punching or stabbing?
The officer in question may have been a thug, but he is a riot officer and to stop violence when it is taking place you often need greater violence.

Now I dont agree with violence to all situations, but the people who go to the G20 are often chavs/anarchists who only go to vent anger for the situations that they have put themselves in which are nothing to do with the summit
Protests should be quiet and in large numbers. The people who go to make lots of noise and get drunk and are not going for the right reasons.

I myself however would never bother to go as I strongly believe that the voice of the nation in terms of politics is well and truly silenced instead we mealy see reflections of often irrelevant general (not scientific) opinions being the driving force behind politicians.
Vote for me to save money on taxes or to get more jobs or public health.
 
PoD said:
the people who go to the G20 are often chavs/anarchists who only go to vent anger for the situations that they have put themselves in
Click to expand...

I thought it was a differing opinion, but well constructed post, up until this bit.

You genuinely believe this? There were MANY people from MANY different back grounds, i myself am a Doctor, and whilst i didnt go some of my colleagues did - and i didnt realise that Drs are now chavs & anarchists? :confused:

Some people attended to cause trouble, a fact i think no one would disagree with. The majority attended because they see the governments stripping away our human and civil rights. There is such a groundswell growing of resentment that peoples rights ARE being eroded, liberties taken, and the governments and wealthy decision makers are making important decisions on our behalf, using our money. I wont dredge it all up in this thread (i only understand a fraction of the principles) but it remains as fact, and all we, the populace have left is demonstrations such as these to tell the powers that be we WONT stand for it, we WONT be controlledlike puppets and we DO have free will.

(christ just realised how far left that sounds!)
 
Pug said:
I thought it was a differing opinion, but well constructed post, up until this bit.

You genuinely believe this? There were MANY people from MANY different back grounds, i myself am a Doctor, and whilst i didnt go some of my colleagues did - and i didnt realise that Drs are now chavs & anarchists? :confused:
Click to expand...

Do you think a woman who refused to give evidence on such an important subject as police brutality because "her life style may be brought in by the defence" was sa doctor?


Or in anyway actually cared about the issue beyond yay i got on the telly \o/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom