G20 police officer cleared of assault

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...
Still waiting to see comprehensive official numbers to support this claim...

It's not "let off" by the way, it's found not guilty, i.e. innocent. You're not one of the "theres no smoke without fire" brigade are you?

Actually don't answer that, I think we know the answer already...
 
Would this case have got this amount of exposure if he had hit a man in the leg instead? Equality only matters when a woman is involved...
 
Athanor said:
Still waiting to see comprehensive official numbers to support this claim...

It's not "let off" by the way, it's found not guilty, i.e. innocent. You're not one of the "theres no smoke without fire" brigade are you?

Actually don't answer that, I think we know the answer already...
Click to expand...

Great you know me, and my views on EVERYTHING, so yah, kudos. Do i need to post anymore or will you argue my corner on everythig from here on in? It would free up my time to do constructive things.

By the way, form whatever opinion you want of me, I really do not mind. I'm only vocal on these things when i see an imbalance of perception, and "fight for the underdog" as it were. I'm actually quite balanced with my views, and feel a middle of the road approach to most things is better than an extreme. All for respect, manners & politeness - just being nice in general, but a response from a "position of authority" should be proportionate to the action.

As for the "let off" comment, apologies for throwing a colloquialism in there, i'll be using the OED with all my posts from now on - hopefully you will approve? Whilst we're picking up vocabulary, lets do the same on grammar and punctuation (could have field day with your post!), but i fear that would detract from communicating and debating the point in question, which people seem to struggle with.

In fact talking of detracting from a debate, so would making assumptions and casting aspersions on people's characters - but it would appear we're happy to do that too?

As for your "comprehensive official numbers" request you know its something i cannot provide, but that doesnt detract from the point - heck, i could ask you to provide information to the contrary to prove me wrong, but its churlish.

The point i was attempting to make is that it appears (better?) to be a double standard with some cases (this one aside - to save argument) whereby the judgement passed down (if the "accused" even gets to court - Ian Tomlinson for refs) is often more lenient/proven innocent to members of our illustrious and proud police force. Take for example mentions in this thread of people being convicted for assualt for spitting on people, seems slightly less offensive than being struck to the face, and body with an offensive weapon to me :confused:

Any more retorts you want me deal with Athanor, please leave below and my trained, errrrr, helper will answer on my behalf.

Ooops, nearly forgot the obligatory :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
-BA- said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I am not a masochist, I would take a back hand slap over a baton strike any day of the week.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
While I am not a masochist, I would take a back hand slap over a baton strike any day of the week.
Click to expand...

I can see his point though. The baton strikes were controlled and targetted at specific 'green' areas in order to subdue someone. The backhand slap, when I saw that I couldn't help putting my own audio track over it that said "B**** please". It's more of a spontaneous, uncontrolled and somewhat humiliating act.
 
Swi1ch said:
I can see his point though. The baton strikes were controlled and targetted at specific 'green' areas in order to subdue someone. The backhand slap, when I saw that I couldn't help putting my own audio track over it that said "B**** please". It's more of a spontaneous, uncontrolled and somewhat humiliating act.
Click to expand...

But not an illegal strike that must not be used.

That sort of strike is available to the officer to use and it is up to him or her to justify it.

My posts may come across as being pro-violence which couldn't be further from the truth. What I saw did not make good viewing but if the whole saga must come down to one thing the surely training and defensive / pre-emptive strikes is it ?

His actions are almost exactly what police are taught when faced with such an aggressive subject and / or a hostile crowd.
 
Pug said:
Great you know me, and my views on EVERYTHING, so yah, kudos. Do i need to post anymore or will you argue my corner on everythig from here on in? It would free up my time to do constructive things.

By the way, form whatever opinion you want of me, I really do not mind. I'm only vocal on these things when i see an imbalance of perception, and "fight for the underdog" as it were. I'm actually quite balanced with my views, and feel a middle of the road approach to most things is better than an extreme. All for respect, manners & politeness - just being nice in general, but a response from a "position of authority" should be proportionate to the action.

As for the "let off" comment, apologies for throwing a colloquialism in there, i'll be using the OED with all my posts from now on - hopefully you will approve? Whilst we're picking up vocabulary, lets do the same on grammar and punctuation (could have field day with your post!), but i fear that would detract from communicating and debating the point in question, which people seem to struggle with.

In fact talking of detracting from a debate, so would making assumptions and casting aspersions on people's characters - but it would appear we're happy to do that too?

As for your "comprehensive official numbers" request you know its something i cannot provide, but that doesnt detract from the point - heck, i could ask you to provide information to the contrary to prove me wrong, but its churlish.

The point i was attempting to make is that it appears (better?) to be a double standard with some cases (this one aside - to save argument) whereby the judgement passed down (if the "accused" even gets to court - Ian Tomlinson for refs) is often more lenient/proven innocent to members of our illustrious and proud police force. Take for example mentions in this thread of people being convicted for assualt for spitting on people, seems slightly less offensive than being struck to the face, and body with an offensive weapon to me :confused:

Any more retorts you want me deal with Athanor, please leave below and my trained, errrrr, helper will answer on my behalf.

Ooops, nearly forgot the obligatory :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So what your somewhat erratic rant boils down to is that you made "facts" up to support your argument and you don't like being called on it.

I'm not sure that came as much of a surprise to anyone tbh...

Pug said:
Whilst we're picking up vocabulary, lets do the same on grammar and punctuation (could have field day with your post!)
Click to expand...
Irony for the win... \o/
 
Last edited:
I think that's fair (no manslaughter charges). No way could he have reasonably forseen a death from pushing someone over (who was clearly not in a hurry to move along by the way).

Also if a police officer is assaulting someone every time he pushes them, then the police will be crippled in their abilities to do their jobs.
 
Robbie G said:
I think that's fair. No way could he have reasonably forseen a death from pushing someone over (who was clearly not in a hurry to move along by the way).
Click to expand...

A guy driving to fast and hitting a child would have forseen a death but it would still be there fault,

and the fact the guy wasnt in a hurry has **** all to do with it, the police officer attacked and killied the guy.
 
territt said:
A guy driving to fast and hitting a child would have forseen a death but it would still be there fault,
Click to expand...

Well yes, obviously :confused:.

territt said:
and the fact the guy wasnt in a hurry has **** all to do with it, the police officer attacked and killied the guy.
Click to expand...

A shove to a dawdler is a perfectly valid tactic imo.

Longbow said:
Well that is essentially what manslaughter is, killing someone without intent.
Click to expand...

I thought manslaughter had to be when your actions could have reasonably been expected to lead to the death of the individual. Otherwise every time someone gets tackled on a rugby pitch and then has a brain hemorrhage, it's manslaughter.
 
She deserved it, said this last time i'll say it agian.

She was in his face, I don't care if it's a damn protest or not, you don't shout at a police office, and carry on after he's told you not to, then complain he's 'assaulted you' because you've been throwing abuse at him.

People are pathetic, the police need to be backed up in some cases, so many times they catch criminals, and do their job, and so many times, there work is basically 'dumped down the toilet' by letting so and so off...No wonder the country is like it is in some places, because police have no respect now, you can get away with almost anything, regardless of whether or not it's been RECORDED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom