G20 police officer cleared of assault

Richie said:
At 640x480 whilst sitting comfortably in front of a screen with a better view of said object, with hindsight and without hundreds of people shouting and pushing you around... Damn right its obvious.

Try making a split decision in the same circumstances he had after a full day of protesting and fending off the idiots (and by idiots I mean NOT the peaceful protestors).


Besides, if you look at the 2 baton strike injuries, please note that they are textbook strikes to the areas of least damage i.e. primary strike zones. If he had "went OTT" then she would have had injury to her joints, groin, neck, solar plexus or head.

Most of the people saying "he went to far" haven't the first idea of what training and under what circumstances police have to use batons. Thankfully the judge and other witnesses know otherwise.



Also, the complainer didnt want to give evidence because

More likely she feared her story would get ripped to shreds in the box



The CPS need a kick up the backside for taking this to court
Click to expand...

I am in no way a supporter of a nanny state but in what circumstance those of you support the outcome, feel it is acceptable for a police officer to back hand slap a member of the public (anyone for that matter) is truly insane. His baton strikes may have been targeted and perhaps even with an element of restraint but sorry the slap and the gesture it portrayed is just unacceptable.

If any of us were to even spit at another individual we would be charged with assault, yet a police officer can strike someone on camera and you people think it is acceptable? He abused his authority and has got away with it.
 
mmj_uk said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's pretty impressive. Even managing to the get Iraq war into a thread about police violence. Complete rubbish obviously, but well done for trying.
 
If the woman came up to him in the street in a normal day and started mouthing off and he acted in the same way, It'd be a poor showing of the officer, and a bit touch and go..

But when she is part of an angry crowd that is getting out of control, what he did was exactly what he is trained to do, there is absolutely nothing wrong at all..

People seem to be attaching some huge relevance to the drink bottle or the fact she is a woman, or the fact he's a public servant.

He's a police officer trying to control an angry crowd that is clearly getting out of hand. what is wrong with people and thinking this is the same moral situation as if he was just parading up and down the high street on a normal day.

The police are there for a reason, you may not agree with that reason, but you get put in the situation of handling a large and angry crowd, and see how long you last? He certainly didn't lose it at all, tactical strikes to immediately diffuse that situation, it's the only thing to do in crowd control, you can't effectively operate with someone in your 'space' when you are out-numbered considerably. Even a 'drink' in someone's hand isn't ideal, thrown in the eyes, or generally at the officer will cause distraction etc, it could even be not a normal liquid, it's just not a risk worth taking, especially when a short strike that does the lest injury for maximum immobilement removes that from ever occuring.

If you can't see why what he did was quite justified in terms of crowd control etc, then really you need to go an research it a bit, it's unfortunate that crowds sometimes are controlled, but just look at what they have to potentially deal with, and see why swift tactical action can be very effective. It is most certainly not because she was a woman..

/rant over..

I'm happy that he did the right thing, I am fully aware that the police are only human and have the same character flaws as the rest of society, but all I see is a measured/trained response..
 
big fuss over a small issue

she went crazy at him
she ignores repeated warnings
he hit her causing not much damage
everyone backs off and she shuts up

move along
 
erm mmj_uk, there has always been an option to defend yourself from a perceived immediate threat in UK law as I understand it, you don't have to wait for someone to hit you to defend yourself (or another) if the force you use is reasonable and proportionate for the situation you believe yourself to be in.

The officer was in the middle of a protest that was looking to turn nasty, he had someone inside his "personal space" shouting into his face, carrying something that he took to be a threat.
He took action using minimum, but escalating force until the situation was safer.

Hence he acted within the law, even may I add within the law as it applies to you and I.

The only difference is, the officer is put in the situation where he/his workmates are under potentially serious threat without much choice (it's part of the job), whilst most of us would do as much as possible try to avoid it, and is given the tools/equipment/training to let him try and do his job as safely for both himself, and the public as possible.
 
Werewolf said:
erm mmj_uk, there has always been an option to defend yourself from a perceived immediate threat in UK law as I understand it, you don't have to wait for someone to hit you to defend yourself (or another) if the force you use is reasonable and proportionate for the situation you believe yourself to be in.

The officer was in the middle of a protest that was looking to turn nasty, he had someone inside his "personal space" shouting into his face, carrying something that he took to be a threat.
He took action using minimum, but escalating force until the situation was safer.

Hence he acted within the law, even may I add within the law as it applies to you and I.

The only difference is, the officer is put in the situation where he/his workmates are under potentially serious threat without much choice (it's part of the job), whilst most of us would do as much as possible try to avoid it, and is given the tools/equipment/training to let him try and do his job as safely for both himself, and the public as possible.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't watch enough Road Wars :) because a back hand slap is not reasonable force in any situation. Two hands on her shoulders and a firm backwards push to remove her from his personal space would have been appropriate followed by isolation from the group and subsequent arrest if she persisted.

You say in your first paragraph that one can use reasonable force even if the other person doesn't strike the first blow. OK, you are in a one on one situation. The other person is proper in your face and hasn't struck you and you choose to back hand slap that person on camera. Do you seriously see yourself getting off with that? Good luck...
 
-BA- said:
Clearly you don't watch enough Road Wars :) because a back hand slap is not reasonable force in any situation. Two hands on her shoulders and a firm backwards push to remove her from his personal space would have been appropriate followed by isolation from the group and subsequent arrest if she persisted.
Click to expand...


sure if it was just one person and two cops on the street on a Friday night out.


This crowd control/riot control time and you can't just quietly lead people off for acting like she did or you'd run out of officers having to look after them all.


You say in your first paragraph that one can use reasonable force even if the other person doesn't strike the first blow. OK, you are in a one on one situation. The other person is proper in your face and hasn't struck you and you choose to back hand slap that person on camera. Do you seriously see yourself getting off with that? Good luck...
Click to expand...

Are you wearing a big padded glove and are there 2 thousand of their mates screaming behind them?


Otherwise it's not really comparable.
 
It's totally comparable. His actions were actually extremely provocative and he was very lucky the unrest didn't worsen into a full blown riot.

Don't get me wrong his baton strikes (whilst looking agressive) were quite appropriate. A strike to the face is never appropriate, padded glove or no padded glove.

End of story.
 
If he hadn't of struck her, her confidence and that of the mob behind her would have been bolstered to a point whereby a much larger incident probably would have occured.

Force unfortunately is sometimes necessary guys. She new the risks she was taking and frankly got off lightly.
 
I think there's enough evidence in our history that suggests that excessive force to quell a situation only works so far, and then back-fires horribly. Retaliation from acts of police violence have resulted in deaths many times before now,so using it as a means to STOP further violence is a risky strategy.

I find it compelling that the officers at the very end of the video who herded the people back achieved more success in dispelling the crowd, and caused less furore, than the officer with a baton did, yet amazingly he didnt do it with force? Shocker!

As i said previously, we arent going to convice each other of our opnions so its all a bit moot.

ALL I WOULD ASK is that people dont take things as gospel, and question their world around them and DO question authority - the police/anyone has no power over another person, as long as the law is being abided (and even then only VERY limited power).

"The court decided so its right"
"They shouldnt be disrespecting the police"
"the police shouldnt be answerable to the same law as applied to "commoners"

All of these statements have been used in this thread (paraphrased, so not word for word) shouldnt be taken as absolutes, they are all quite open to being wrong - people seem to dismiss this so easily.
 
Last edited:
-BA- said:
Clearly you don't watch enough Road Wars :) because a back hand slap is not reasonable force in any situation.
Click to expand...

Road wars is not a good source of information about law and police training. A backhand slap can be reasonable depending on the circumstances, hell a punch to the back of the head has been shown in court to be reasonable force where the situation permitted it.
 
It seems that this thread actually has an undercurrent, one that is not "A person in position of power may have unlawfully struck another person" and instead "OMG A GUY HIT A WOMAN"

I'm wondering if the woman in this story had been a man, if the responses here would be any different. Just because she's a woman and physically smaller (Note: NOT 'And therefore') doesn't mean she can be any less of a threat.
 
Swi1ch said:
It seems that this thread actually has an undercurrent, one that is not "A person in position of power may have unlawfully struck another person" and instead "OMG A GUY HIT A WOMAN"

I'm wondering if the woman in this story had been a man, if the responses here would be any different. Just because she's a woman and physically smaller (Note: NOT 'And therefore') doesn't mean she can be any less of a threat.
Click to expand...

Yes it does,

1) Huge bloke can use fists or weapon
2) Weedy women can only use weapon
 
Swi1ch said:
It seems that this thread actually has an undercurrent, one that is not "A person in position of power may have unlawfully struck another person" and instead "OMG A GUY HIT A WOMAN"

I'm wondering if the woman in this story had been a man, if the responses here would be any different. Just because she's a woman and physically smaller (Note: NOT 'And therefore') doesn't mean she can be any less of a threat.
Click to expand...
All part of being Alpha on the internet! :p

Thread would unravel in a different way if it was a similar built guy screaming at the policeman.
 
britboy4321 said:
Yes it does,

1) Huge bloke can use fists or weapon
2) Weedy women can only use weapon
Click to expand...

She can also incite other people to cause violence. Men in particularly are more likely to respond to a woman's call for help or assistance. In this situation, had she not been subdued, there's a chance that men could get involved and the situation escalates.

I'm not saying that using a baton is right, but the officer should be judged on his actions towards another person, not his actions towards a woman.
 
fwiw i think the black guy who gets pushed by the group of police, whilst not abused/beatn, is manhandled disproportionately, so no gender doesnt play an issue to me at least.
 
Pug said:
fwiw i think the black guy who gets pushed by the group of police, whilst not abused/beatn, is manhandled disproportionately, so no gender doesnt play an issue to me at least.
Click to expand...

I guess the only way the police could operate in your eyes in a non disporportionate way would be to use a firm voice? :)
 
heck no, i approve of equal and opposite enforcement actually - i'd happily vote yes for invoking a death sentence in certain situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom