Police assault/CCTV footage on Meridian
Gareth Attrill
footage:
CCTV camera pans around to group of people (3 women, 2 men, both late
teens early twenties IIRC). Very high quality pictures, perfectly
framed.
Two police officers, one man one woman are intervening in an argument,
looks like one man is giving "verbal" but no physical threats at all -
not even raised arms or an intimidating posture.
The male police officer then lunges at the man and knees him in the
groin, and while the man is doubled up the officer knees him in the
chest/abdomen.
Ok, pretty rare to have such footage like that in the UK, but the next
thing left me genuinely speechless:
Within a couple of seconds the camera pans down from the group and is
left pointing at the empty road!
The report made a small reference to this, but I think it is possibly
even more important than the assault - IMHO the operator should be
immediately sacked.
I have seen pictures of operators filming dodgy things but nothing
quite as astounding stupid as that! What was the point, considering
the start of the assault had already recorded?
Gareth
Bad Man
"Gareth Attrill" <gar...@nospamplease-attrill.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oplg7vs2b3f5jkhn7...@4ax.com...
Guy is "giving verbal" as you say to an office of the law. I personally
have no problem with the police kicking 7 shades of shit out of him.
Clearly he has no respect for the rule of law and therefore no respect for
society. A few lumps and a night in jail might help sort his attitude
problem.
A Bad Man
Mike
titan.btinternet.com>
>
>Guy is "giving verbal" as you say to an office of the law. I personally
>have no problem with the police kicking 7 shades of shit out of him.
>Clearly he has no respect for the rule of law and therefore no respect for
>society.
Clearly the police officer has no respect for the rule of law and,
therefore, deserves no respect from society.
> A few lumps and a night in jail might help sort his attitude
>problem.
>
In this case, it's the police officer who should be in gaol.
--
Mike
Bad Man
"Mike" <mi...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mQzDDLAk...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
> Bad Man <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet <b5ansl$93n$1@
> titan.btinternet.com>
> >
> >Guy is "giving verbal" as you say to an office of the law. I personally
> >have no problem with the police kicking 7 shades of shit out of him.
> >Clearly he has no respect for the rule of law and therefore no respect
for
> >society.
>
> Clearly the police officer has no respect for the rule of law and,
> therefore, deserves no respect from society.
>
police?
Mike
sparta.btinternet.com>
UK.
--
Mike
Bad Man
Again - so what? Guy gives cop abuse. Guy gets some lumps. Next time guy
may think twice before abusing cops. I can't see any problem - only
potential benefit to society. Do you think that the cop should have simply
accepted the abuse? What social benefit would that have led to? Greater
respect for the rule of law on the part of the abuser? I personally don't
think so.
A Bad Man
Mike
titan.btinternet.com>
>> UK.
>> --
>> Mike
>
>Again - so what? Guy gives cop abuse. Guy gets some lumps. Next time guy
>may think twice before abusing cops. I can't see any problem - only
>potential benefit to society. Do you think that the cop should have simply
>accepted the abuse?
If the guy was committing an offence, the police officer should have
arrested him. There is no excuse for a police officer to commit a
criminal offence. Doing so simply makes the police officer as bad as
any other criminal.
> What social benefit would that have led to?
There is no social benefit from being policed by a gang of violent
thugs.
> Greater
>respect for the rule of law on the part of the abuser? I personally don't
>think so.
>
A police officer who commits a criminal offence becomes a criminal. Do
you believe criminals have the respect of society?
--
Mike
Andy Long
"Gareth Attrill" <gar...@nospamplease-attrill.co.uk> wrote in message
news:oplg7vs2b3f5jkhn7...@4ax.com...
> footage:
>
>
> Within a couple of seconds the camera pans down from the group and is
> left pointing at the empty road!
>
> The report made a small reference to this, but I think it is possibly
> even more important than the assault - IMHO the operator should be
> immediately sacked.
>
> I have seen pictures of operators filming dodgy things but nothing
> quite as astounding stupid as that! What was the point, considering
> the start of the assault had already recorded?
Most of the cameras are 'on tour' which means that they have programmed
stops and delays.
The few operators will be manually guiding one camera each, the area I
Police having 1 or 2 operators for 30+ cameras.
If the operator was in control its unacceptable, but if it was on tour then
I don't see a reason for your comments.
Perhaps you are able to say which it was?
Triffid
>
> And the point is...?
>
> Guy is "giving verbal" as you say to an office of the law. I personally
> have no problem with the police kicking 7 shades of shit out of him.
> Clearly he has no respect for the rule of law and therefore no respect for
> society. A few lumps and a night in jail might help sort his attitude
> problem.
>
Nice troll :-)
fmurl
>Guy is "giving verbal" as you say to an office of the law. I personally
>have no problem with the police kicking 7 shades of shit out of him.
Oh dear.
--
Please reply to the group, respect follow-ups and don't email me. Thank you.
paul nutteing
From the Meridien Site
Quote
Dorset man claims CCTV footage shows police assault
By Martin Dowse
Mar 17, 2003, 5:34pm
A Dorset man claims CCTV pictures show a police officer deliberately
assaulting him as he
was being arrested in Bournemouth. 22-year-old James Hannah was being
restrained by
several officers. He says that images captured on camera then show him
being kneed in
the groin and stomach. Dorset Police are investigating his allegations.
The CCTV footage shows 6ft 7ins James Hannah handcuffed by police officers
in
Bournemouth last summer following an incident in which he claims he was
assaulted
by another man near a taxi rank.
He is seen arguing his case when a police officer takes action. The CCTV
camera then
moves off the scene.
Mr Hannah, who is a painter and decorator, claims the force used in the
arrest was
excessive and has lodged an official complaint with Dorset Police.
Following the incident, Mr Hannah was charged with a public order offence.
He pleaded
not guilty and earlier this month was acquitted by magistrates at
Bournemouth after they
watched the CCTV footage.
Dorset Police has confirmed that following Mr Hannah's acquittal, an
investigation was
launched into the circumstances of his arrest. It will decide whether this
is viewed as
excessive force or not. And its findings will be sent to the Crown
Prosecution Service
and the Police Complaints Authority.
End Quote
Re earlier reference to "verbal"
I was not aware these community CCTV syustems were fitted
with microphones to pick up and remotely monitor conversations.
A couple of years ago I watched a piece of CCTV footage from
a Winchester incident.
The action could not have been covered better by a BBC TV camerman
used to doing live coverage at football matches.
Suspecting shoplifters - he picked them up remotey 50 -100 yards distant
in a
street,they then started running back towards the camera and then
right beneath it, ie 10 foot below it,they dived down an alley .
At all times the operator followed them in pan,tilt and focus.
The recent Meridien shown tape had human control ,before he
deliberately chose to drop the tilt and hold on a patch of road
where there was absolutely no action.
So human control ,no computer control targetting into areas of
,computer algorythym determined, points of interest.
regards
Paul Nutteing,Hampshire,England
e mail nutteing2@quickfindit.....com (just one dot)
Exposing corrupt,psychotic and incompetent social workers
http://www.nutteing.chat.ru/nutteing3.htm
or nutteing3 in a search engine
--
Article posté via l'accès Usenet http://www.mes-news.com
Accès par Nnrp ou Web
Bad Man
"Triffid" <pun...@btspamworld.com> wrote in message
news:b5b4md$21d$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Andy Long
"paul nutteing" <nutt...@quickfindit.com> wrote in message
news:mW.HC1...@mes-news.com...
> Andy Long declarait :
>
>
> > "Gareth Attrill" <gar...@nospamplease-attrill.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:oplg7vs2b3f5jkhn7...@4ax.com...
> > > On Meridian news a couple of days ago they had some interesting
> > > footage:
> > >
> > snip
> > >
> > > Within a couple of seconds the camera pans down from the group and is
> > > left pointing at the empty road!
> > >
> > > The report made a small reference to this, but I think it is possibly
> > > even more important than the assault - IMHO the operator should be
> > > immediately sacked.
> > >
> > > I have seen pictures of operators filming dodgy things but nothing
> > > quite as astounding stupid as that! What was the point, considering
> > > the start of the assault had already recorded?
>
> > Most of the cameras are 'on tour' which means that they have programmed
> > stops and delays.
>
> > The few operators will be manually guiding one camera each, the area I
> > Police having 1 or 2 operators for 30+ cameras.
>
> > If the operator was in control its unacceptable, but if it was on tour
> then
> > I don't see a reason for your comments.
>
> > Perhaps you are able to say which it was?
>
There is nothing there to indicate whether the camera was on tour or not.
>
> Re earlier reference to "verbal"
> I was not aware these community CCTV syustems were fitted
> with microphones to pick up and remotely monitor conversations.
You could perhaps see that he was talking, and the message is usually clear
without hearing the words.
>
snip
> The recent Meridien shown tape had human control ,before he
> deliberately chose to drop the tilt and hold on a patch of road
> where there was absolutely no action.
How do you know? Cameras on tour behave as an operator would move the camera
until fine control is required, this includes Pan Tilt and Zoom.
> So human control ,no computer control targetting into areas of
> ,computer algorythym determined, points of interest.
You may be right, who knows?
Cynic
<badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>Again - so what? Guy gives cop abuse. Guy gets some lumps. Next time guy
>may think twice before abusing cops. I can't see any problem - only
>potential benefit to society. Do you think that the cop should have simply
>accepted the abuse? What social benefit would that have led to? Greater
>respect for the rule of law on the part of the abuser? I personally don't
>think so.
Regardless of what you may think, it is against the law to physically
assault a person except in self defence or with that person's consent.
Verbal abuse would not be considered a good enough reason to justify
physical assault in "self defence".
Physical assault is a far more serious crime than verbal abuse,
therefore the policeman was the one most at fault in law.
The policeman should indeed have ignored the abuse (it cannot harm him
after all), or he could have prosecuted the guy for BotP or similar.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>If the operator was in control its unacceptable, but if it was on tour then
>I don't see a reason for your comments.
>
>Perhaps you are able to say which it was?
The fact that the camera was moved so that the incident was perfectly
framed is evidence that the camera was under manual control. It is
not certain proof however, and it may be simply coincidence that the
incident occurred in a place that was perfectly framed for a
programmed stopping point of the camera. It should not be difficult
to prove whether such a point is indeed programmed into the camera,
though it would also be trivial for the operator to reprogram the
stopping point to agree with a contention that it was simply
coincidence.
--
Cynic
Cynic
<dont....@all.thankyou> wrote:
>How do you know? Cameras on tour behave as an operator would move the camera
>until fine control is required, this includes Pan Tilt and Zoom.
It would be unlikely that such automatic movements would follow the
action perfectly.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>I think that provocation (verbal or otherwise) IS a defence against a charge
>of assault, isn't it?
Mitigation certainly. I'm not sure to what extent it can be used as a
defence. Perhaps a lawyer could explain. I'd be surprised if it
could constitute a defence for a policeman on duty.
--
Cynic
Gareth Attrill
The start of the footage I saw was the camera moving right then up
slightly to perfectly frame the group. Right after the assault the
camera panned down until it was looking right down at road - not a
destination on a typical camera "tour"!
Gareth
Lottery Funded
>
> Regardless of what you may think, it is against the law to physically
> assault a person except in self defence or with that person's consent.
Cynic, one of the joys of this ng are your answers which are always
informed, instructive and complete.
I have to ask it. I know there will be an obvious answer. Here goes.
Deep breath.
Under what circumstances might someone give their consent to being
physically assulted?
Ian Diddams
Funded) wrote:
>Under what circumstances might someone give their consent to being
>physically assulted?
B&D, S&M types?
Though there was that case where homosexuals were (with consent)
nailking each other's penises to a plank but the judge IIRC decreed
that this wasn't "allowable" ,,,,
didds
Ian Henden
A film actor, plot demands he be thumped?
bigbrian
Funded) wrote:
It happens in boxing matches, indeed many sports, all the time.
There's case law also that confirms that a woman can lawfully consent
to being branded by her husband (although contrarily, the R v Brown
case confirmed that sadomasochistic behaviour a group of homosexual
men was deemed to be assault, notwithstanding that they consented. I
believe one of the men was actually convicted of assasulting himself)
Brian
Mike
.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net>
--
Mike
Cynic
Funded) wrote:
>> Regardless of what you may think, it is against the law to physically
>> assault a person except in self defence or with that person's consent.
>
>Cynic, one of the joys of this ng are your answers which are always
>informed, instructive and complete.
>
>I have to ask it. I know there will be an obvious answer. Here goes.
>Deep breath.
>
>Under what circumstances might someone give their consent to being
>physically assulted?
Undergoing surgery. Having your ear pierced. Playing rugby. Taking
part in boxing, wrestling or any contact sport. Making love to your
wife or girlfriend. And many, many other circumstances, both trivial
and seriously kinky!
--
Cynic
adam
>
> "Gareth Attrill" <gar...@nospamplease-attrill.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:oplg7vs2b3f5jkhn7...@4ax.com...
>> On Meridian news a couple of days ago they had some interesting footage:
<snip>
>> Ok, pretty rare to have such footage like that in the UK, but the next
>> thing left me genuinely speechless:
>>
>> Within a couple of seconds the camera pans down from the group and is
>> left pointing at the empty road!
>>
>> The report made a small reference to this, but I think it is possibly
>> even more important than the assault - IMHO the operator should be
>> immediately sacked.
>>
>> I have seen pictures of operators filming dodgy things but nothing quite
>> as astounding stupid as that! What was the point, considering the start
>> of the assault had already recorded?
>>
>> Gareth
>>
> And the point is...?
>
> Guy is "giving verbal" as you say to an office of the law. I personally
> have no problem with the police kicking 7 shades of shit out of him.
> Clearly he has no respect for the rule of law and therefore no respect for
> society. A few lumps and a night in jail might help sort his attitude
> problem.
>
> A Bad Man
How do you know that this will help 'sort his attitude'? If that kind of
thing happened to me, I think it would worsen it.
Bad Man
"adam" <ad...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:8mch5b...@adamc.hopto.org...
Because you don't have any respect for the law?
Mike
titan.btinternet.com>
>> thing happened to me, I think it would worsen it.
>
>Because you don't have any respect for the law?
>
especially those police officers who themselves have no respect for the
law.
--
Mike
Bad Man
"Mike" <spam...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MzS5bPAm...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
The law is the embodiment of society. Police are the embodiment of the law.
Assaulting a police officer (verbally) shows contempt for society.
Mike
sparta.btinternet.com>
>
>"Mike" <spam...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MzS5bPAm...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> especially those police officers who themselves have no respect for the
>> law.
>> --
>> Mike
>
>The law is the embodiment of society. Police are the embodiment of the law.
>Assaulting a police officer (verbally) shows contempt for society.
>
contempt for the law and society.
--
Mike
Bad Man
That policeman was teaching a mouth prick a valuable lesson. Sorry, I still
can't see any problem with this.
adam
Precisely the opposite - I respect the law - and if the police don't
adhere to it themselves, then they cannot claim to be good enforcers of it.
Mike
titan.btinternet.com>
>
>"Mike" <spam...@fensoft.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MQSJTTAk...@fenlandsoftware.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> contempt for the law and society.
>> --
>> Mike
>
>That policeman was teaching a mouth prick a valuable lesson. Sorry, I still
>can't see any problem with this.
>
>
a criminal offence or that it's OK to physically assault anyone who say
something that offends you? I prefer a society where the police uphold
the law, not one where they show total contempt for it.
--
Mike
fmurl
>That policeman was teaching a mouth prick a valuable lesson. Sorry, I still
>can't see any problem with this.
I take it the protaganist is a friend of yours, then?
Bad Man
I prefer to walk the streets safely at night. The mouthy pricks (sorry for
the poor spelling before) who verbally abuse the police are the same ones
who contribute to an overall lack of safety in Hampshire's cities,
Again, I can't see the problem.
A Bad Man
Bad Man
"fmurl" <fm...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:r54s7vse9hg8galc1...@4ax.com...
Nope - just commenting on a scene described by a previous poster.
Mike
>> >
>> What lesson would that be? That it's OK for a police officer to commit
>> a criminal offence or that it's OK to physically assault anyone who say
>> something that offends you? I prefer a society where the police uphold
>> the law, not one where they show total contempt for it.
>> --
>> Mike
>
>I prefer to walk the streets safely at night. The mouthy pricks (sorry for
>the poor spelling before) who verbally abuse the police are the same ones
>who contribute to an overall lack of safety in Hampshire's cities,
>
>Again, I can't see the problem.
>
a bit "mouthy" or should only the police be above the law? There is a
proper procedure, which the police are expected to follow, for dealing
with suspected offenders. If the police are permitted ignore that
procedure and to commit offences of violence with impunity, they become
just another bunch of thugs - no better than those they are supposed to
be protecting society from. As a result, society loses respect for the
police (and the law as a whole) and crime increases. Lawless police
officers are IMHO the worst type of criminal.
--
Mike
Bad Man
Lets agree to disagree - we are unlikely to convince each other and are
probably boring the pants off everyone else.
Mike
titan.btinternet.com>
>Lets agree to disagree - we are unlikely to convince each other and are
>probably boring the pants off everyone else.
>
--
Mike
fmurl
>Nope - just commenting on a scene described by a previous poster.
So, why are you posting with authority about this?
jazzman
> Ok, pretty rare to have such footage like that in the UK, but the next
> thing left me genuinely speechless:
>
> Within a couple of seconds the camera pans down from the group and is
> left pointing at the empty road!
>
> The report made a small reference to this, but I think it is possibly
> even more important than the assault - IMHO the operator should be
> immediately sacked.
I totaly agree, thats why we have cctv to catch this sort of unacceptable
behaviour.
k
You can be sure if it had been the other way round the camera would
have caught it all. No doubt about that at all
Tom Moore
> [ . . . ] Lawless police officers
> are IMHO the worst type of criminal.
What? All of them?
Far too much law breaking by Police Officers for them all to be treated as
the worst type of criminal.
--
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds
http://www.tom-moore.com
Fergus O'Rourke
> "Gareth Attrill" <gar...@nospamplease-attrill.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:oplg7vs2b3f5jkhn7...@4ax.com...
>> Two police officers, one man one woman are intervening in an
>> argument, looks like one man is giving "verbal" but no physical
>> threats at all - not even raised arms or an intimidating posture.
>>
>> The male police officer then lunges at the man and knees him in the
>> groin, and while the man is doubled up the officer knees him in the
>> chest/abdomen.
[snip]
> Guy is "giving verbal" as you say to an office of the law.
When did this become a breach of the law ?
> I
> personally have no problem with the police kicking 7 shades of shit
> out of him. Clearly he has no respect for the rule of law and
> therefore no respect for society. [snip]
When did the rule of law permit policemen to break it at will ?
Bad Man
"Fergus O'Rourke" <callasbe...@tinet.ie> wrote in message
news:FMSga.5445$pK2....@news.indigo.ie...
Cynic
<badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Guy is "giving verbal" as you say to an office of the law.
>> When did this become a breach of the law ?
>> > I
>> > personally have no problem with the police kicking 7 shades of shit
>> > out of him. Clearly he has no respect for the rule of law and
>> > therefore no respect for society. [snip]
>> When did the rule of law permit policemen to break it at will ?
>All the bleeding hearts - no wonder we're not safe in our cities.
Yes, police officers should be able to beat the crap out of anyone
they don't like the look of. Verbal abuse should result in the
offender being whisked away to a dark cellar, tied to a chair and
persuaded to behave by the use of a telephone magneto.
Only then will we feel safe in our cities.
I take it you are a big fan of Saddam Hussein's regime, and admire the
security his citizens enjoy? Mugabe must be a role model for you as
well, nobody dare show disrespect toward his private police force (the
"spear of the people").
--
Cynic
fmurl
>All the bleeding hearts - no wonder we're not safe in our cities.
You are simply a troll, aren't you?
The whole point here is that the policeman stepped over the line, it's that
simple. If you were to apprehend someone damaging your property in some way
and used a similar amount of force you would be up before the beak, because
in no way can what he did be seen as reasonable force.
wanderer
> "Bad Man" <badm...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >All the bleeding hearts - no wonder we're not safe in our cities.
>
> You are simply a troll, aren't you?
>
> The whole point here is that the policeman stepped over the line, it's
that
> simple.
Err, no, it ain't that simple. There have been all sorts of opinions voiced
as the thread has developed, but in the end, that's *all* they are, the
highly subjective rantings of a load of ill-informed plonkers crawling out
of the woodwork to have a pop at the police.
The OP made reference to an investigation by the police, with possible
reports to CPP and the Police Complaints Authority. Has there been any
objective follow up reporting in the local media?
I don't for one minute condone what the copper did - if it has been proved
that he did assault the guy, but until there's solid evidence to support the
original story, neither you nor I nor I suspect anyone else who has had
their two-pennyworth in this thread knows what the actual circumstances
were. Don't present your own prejudices and misconceptions as facts.
fmurl
>Err, no, it ain't that simple. There have been all sorts of opinions voiced
>as the thread has developed, but in the end, that's *all* they are, the
>highly subjective rantings of a load of ill-informed plonkers crawling out
>of the woodwork to have a pop at the police.
That's the whole point. It really is as simple as I said earlier. He went
over the line.
Bad Man
"fmurl" <fm...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:dtd88v0b9mfdrh23l...@4ax.com...
>
> >All the bleeding hearts - no wonder we're not safe in our cities.
>
> You are simply a troll, aren't you?
>
> The whole point here is that the policeman stepped over the line, it's
that
> simple. If you were to apprehend someone damaging your property in some
way
> and used a similar amount of force you would be up before the beak,
because
> in no way can what he did be seen as reasonable force.
Yeah - sick isn't it. And the bastard burgler would probably be able to sue
me. Again, part of the reason that the streets are no longer safe
> --
> Please reply to the group, respect follow-ups and don't email me. Thank
you.
You're very welcome
wanderer
"fmurl" <fm...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "wanderer" <wand...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> >Err, no, it ain't that simple. There have been all sorts of opinions
voiced
> >as the thread has developed, but in the end, that's *all* they are, the
> >highly subjective rantings of a load of ill-informed plonkers crawling
out
> >of the woodwork to have a pop at the police.
>
> That's the whole point. It really is as simple as I said earlier. He went
> over the line.
But you don't *know* that for sure. *You* don't know the *facts* of the
case, now stop trolling......
fmurl
>But you don't *know* that for sure. *You* don't know the *facts* of the
>case, now stop trolling......
It was plain to see! The way he laid into the youth was too much. He WENT
TOO FAR!
wanderer
"fmurl" <fm...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> "wanderer" <wand...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> >But you don't *know* that for sure. *You* don't know the *facts* of the
> >case, now stop trolling......
>
> It was plain to see! The way he laid into the youth was too much. He WENT
> TOO FAR!
But you are looking at one part of the incident in isolation. YOU don't know
all of the facts, any more than I do. Now stop being a pratt, or don't you
believe in the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty?
As I said earlier, I don't for one minute condone what APPEARS to have
happened, if it is PROVED to have happened in the way it was reported. You
seem to have already made up your mind based on one part and one part only
of the evidence, and without any more than an apparently rudimentary
knowledge of the laws of this country.
fmurl
>But you are looking at one part of the incident in isolation. YOU don't know
>all of the facts, any more than I do. Now stop being a pratt, or don't you
>believe in the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty?
It's a shame you have to keep resorting to insults.
Look, it doesn't matter what we didn't see. Explain to me one situation
where, legally, the policeman could lay into the youth in the way he did.
>As I said earlier, I don't for one minute condone what APPEARS to have
>happened, if it is PROVED to have happened in the way it was reported. You
So you're saying he didn't lay into him? Perhaps he was a mate, and he was
just having a bit of fun or something? But that doesn't explain why the
youth was being interviewed later saying he was considering legal action
against the officer.
Last chance: if you can't post without resorting to insults, we'll just
leave it, okay?
wanderer
> "wanderer" <wand...@tesco.net> wrote:
>
> >But you are looking at one part of the incident in isolation. YOU don't
know
> >all of the facts, any more than I do. Now stop being a pratt, or don't
you
> >believe in the concept of innocent until PROVEN guilty?
>
> It's a shame you have to keep resorting to insults.
That wasn't an insult, believe me. You have already made up your mind. You
have made assertions about the policeman's behaviour. You have chosen to
ignore the due processes of the law. That makes you a pratt in my book.
> Look, it doesn't matter what we didn't see. Explain to me one situation
> where, legally, the policeman could lay into the youth in the way he did.
That is largely irrelevant. I will explain as simply as possible, because
you seem to have trouble understanding why I have taken issue with you. You
have already made up your mind that the policeman's behaviour was not
acceptable. That has quite clearly been based only on what you saw reported
about the incident. The media has already convinced you that the policeman's
conduct was not acceptable. The media isn't always noted for its
impartiality!
My view is that his conduct was apparently not acceptable. There is a
subtle, but most important difference, that is crucial for the upholding of
the rule of law. We happen to live in a society where the individual,
whether a policeman or a youth being apprehended, is innocent until proven
guilty. They are not, or should not be, subject to trial by the media.
> >As I said earlier, I don't for one minute condone what APPEARS to have
> >happened, if it is PROVED to have happened in the way it was reported.
You
>
> So you're saying he didn't lay into him? Perhaps he was a mate, and he was
> just having a bit of fun or something? But that doesn't explain why the
> youth was being interviewed later saying he was considering legal action
> against the officer.
Now you are being silly. Just read my words immediately above that comment.
fmurl
>My view is that his conduct was apparently not acceptable. There is a
>subtle, but most important difference, that is crucial for the upholding of
In that case, we'll end this here. I agree with you, okay?