G20 police officer cleared of assault

territt said:
in what way?
Click to expand...
Just seems like you don't care enough in your writing, so care similarly little in your opinion forming.

I'm not being mean, I understand (and disagree with) your points, they just lose credibility? <shrugs>.

I'm no grammar perfectionist though!
 
Tefal said:
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/
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly, she is a fool for not following through on it. However, her actions AFTER the event dont explain, or condone his actions DURING the event in anyway.

And meghatronic, quit with the strawman. If you don't have anything constructive to add, i'd suggest you but-out.
 
refusing to testify under oath does drag you "i only wanted to talk to him" defence off a little.

Makes it seem very much like you're trying to hide what she was really yelling/doing.

But as for the "from his posture you can tell he was a thug"


If you where at an away game with your football club with your biggest/historical rivals, and you come across a big crowd of them screaming at you and your 10 mates (with a large history of violence in such occasions) would you stand there "hands in pockets" as on e poster suggested?
 
woah woah woah! We're getting a little off track here.

My point was purely that, going on the 2 mins of evidence snapped from an 8h day, he appeared to me to have the body language of someone not looking to mediate a situation, but someone looking to control it, with force prefereably. He thought his colleagues had an issue at the beginning so he moved up behind them to "dole out some justice". Perhaps a little over zealous?

Not suggesting he was swinging at people and being like a football hooligan, more that his professionalism had dropped, to make way for a more aggressive outward persona.

And i still dont see how her refusing to testify alters in anyway the fact that she was "only" mouthing off (non-physical, and i dont approve of this - but its a civil right to protest in a public place). She didn't startle or surprise the copper (he saw her advance slowly and would have MORE than enough time to assess her threat potential, through training & experience etc), and despite her retreating he still deemed it neccessary to strike her.

In fact when he DID strike her, she would have not been able to stab him with her 3" blade as she was too far away. Had he turned around to see her "upon him" and did a twitch hit, then i could defend him to be honest for the reasons you lot are. But it just didnt play out that way.

I'm not going to convince you, and on the evidence i see, i'm not likely to be convinced either by yourself. Whilst i'm happy to debate this all day, it will only prove counter-productive.
 
Last edited:
Pug said:
woah woah woah! We're getting a little off track here.

My point was purely that, going on the 2 mins of evidence snapped from an 8h day, he appeared to me to have the body language of someone not looking to mediate a situation, but someone looking to control it, with force prefereably. He thought his colleagues had an issue at the beginning so he moved up behind them to "dole out some justice". Perhaps a little over zealous?
Click to expand...



The police are not there to mediate there are there to control such situations.

it looks like a small group of them surrounded by a large group of protesters.

They have to keep them back for their own safety.

Even if there no violent attack the crowd being pushed/surging forward could cause major injuries.
 
And hitting a woman who is more than 2x an arm length away is the most productive way of doing that?

(yeah, i get and agree with the preventing a larger incident by being proactive, but that only seemed to enrage the crowd to me?)
 
Pug said:
And hitting a woman who is more than 2x an arm length away is the most productive way of doing that?
Click to expand...


Every time he hits/strike her he does so without having to even fully extend his arm so how you got x2 arm distance from that i don't know :confused:


Heck before he batons her he even steps back.
 
maybe a bad angle, but i meant for HER tostrike him. Seems to me she couldn't swing where she is standing and hit him, but would in fact have to wak a foot or two closer to be able to (in response to the can being a deadly weapon, and his safety fears). With a baton, and his increased reach (and the fact he leans into it) means he can close a gap she wouldnt be able to, hence i dont see why he was in danger from being attacked by her?

The point i'm making is that his defense of safety fears from a hidden blade etc is unfounded as she gets closer to him before he hits than she is when he hits her.

EDIT: Having rewatched it he blatantly steps in with the swing? Are you watching the video in rverse motion or something :?
 
This isn't an insult or critisism.

Does anyone think it's wierd that the people that are generally more right wing believe in small government, less public services, lower tax, individualism, smaller 'state', and are VERY anti-police-state - yet these people are always the ones that seem to most avidly support the police when they do stuff like this :?

And left wing believe in more government powers, better social state (with the associated higher taxes etc), yet are generally much more ANTI-police when stuff like this happens???

I haven't written that very well, but if you 'get me', I'm saying I think both sides are kind of arguing AGAINST their fundermental core beliefs, which is most strange (if that makes any sense!)
 
Pug said:
My point was purely that, going on the 2 mins of evidence snapped from an 8h day,
Click to expand...

The court had a lot more evidence and they found him not guilty. Maybe that suggests that the 2 mins of video evidence you have seen isn't the whole picture?
 
never said it was, hence i quoted the fact it was a snapshot? But what else do we have to go on if we're going to have a discussion about it?

And i'd follow that up with a "and the courts ALWAYS make the right decisions everytime do they?" question as well.

You'll find the number of cases where police officers taken to court and let off vastly exceeds the number of convictions attained. Just saying maybe the courts aren't so "just" as you might think..
 
Pug said:
And meghatronic, quit with the strawman. If you don't have anything constructive to add, i'd suggest you but-out.
Click to expand...
Oh I'm so sorry. I missed the memo when you were declared supreme lord and patriarch of the world.

Move your eyes a few inches northwards and you'll see I have been contributing in this thread.
 
Pug said:
never said it was, hence i quoted the fact it was a snapshot? But what else do we have to go on if we're going to have a discussion about it?
Click to expand...

What else do we have to go on? Well the results of the court case? The fact that the woman involved decided that it was better NOT to put her side of the story?

Pug said:
And i'd follow that up with a "and the courts ALWAYS make the right decisions everytime do they?" question as well.
Click to expand...

No, but they do seem to get it right more often than they get it wrong. Is there anything about this case that would make you think that they got it wrong? Other than the very small snapshot you have seen on video?

Pug said:
You'll find the number of cases where police officers taken to court and let off vastly exceeds the number of convictions attained. Just saying maybe the courts aren't so "just" as you might think..
Click to expand...

Personally I don't have access to those figures so I can't actually make a judgement on it. Do you have a link to them so I can see just how skewed it is? It would possibly also be worth suggesting that the police are going to be in situations where they are more likely to have false complaints made against them?
 
I suppose in a society where people have conditioned to support preemptive warfare, support for preemptive self-defense isn't much of a surprise anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom