renth

You're commenting on your own comment.

It's never OK to assault a police officer even if you believe they are assaulting someone else. You step back and don't get involved.

fraser

Rubbish, the law says otherwise. If they're assaulting someone they're not behaving lawfully and not acting as a police officer so reasonable force would be allowed. So if his father was in mortal danger would you expect him not to act to save him, would he be standing there thinking this is a police officer he isn't acting appropriately I'll wait until he's done his worst and then go through the correct complaints procedure? Even if his worst in his opinion at the time would lead to his fathers ultimate demise?

Would you stand by and let a police officer kill one of your family?

Now before any one jumps all over me, I believe if it was an unprovoked attack he should of been found guilty, but I wasn't there and don't know but anyone assaulting anyone no matter who they are is not above the law.

Had you been on jury Renth I have no doubt that you would have decided he was guilty before even attending the case, I'm sure back in medieval days you would be leading witch hunts.

The bottom line is just because one side of an argument is the police doesn't necessarily make it black and white.

And anyone who can proclaim anyone guilty without hearing the facts is a fool.

renth

My dad and me wouldn't be fighting the police outside a pub.

I'd seen the footage prior to the trial and yes, I would have listened to the evidence then found them guilty. Just as well for the McLeods I wasn't on the jury. I heard the defence was challenging any juror who looked like they might have ever seen or been in a pub fight so I wouldn't have got picked anyway.

fraser

So if you saw the police assaulting someone outside a pub you'd just walk past, yet if one of your mates was being assaulted you'd go at them with an axe, very selective aren't you.

A crime is a crime whoever it's committed by.


A defense lawyer picking a jury, shock horror whatever next. The prosecution also picks jury members

renth

I'd shout encouragement to the cops. The cops wouldn't be assaulting a firefighter going about their duties.

If you do as a copper asks then they are not going to have to get heavy with you.

fraser

Excellent so to sum it up, Cops are allowed to assault who they like. The public aren't no matter whether in self defense or not unless of course they're a fire fighter then it's ok.


You're a very funny man Renth, although entirely unintentionally

renth

Sure, the public are allowed to use self defence, just not against the police. don't see what's so amusing about that.

Amazulu

Like I said before, I can accept that the cops were being a bit tasty but Butcher did not deserve what happened to him.

Mcleod is a coward. If you are going to hit someone, stand in front of him and fight him like a man - whether he is a cop or not. A flying headbutt to the back of the head is the act of a ruthless, bullying coward.

fraser

Police are only allowed to use reasonable force, anything more than that is illegal do you understand this.

So if 3 coppers are kicking the shit out of someone it isn't reasonable force, there fore it's a criminal attack. Hence the law says you're able to defend yourself.

Police are not immune from the law, and neither should they be.

What you believe isn't relevant the law is. If the law wasn't such no way could he have been acquitted.

Or maybe you're suggesting we should only apply the law when it suits our individual needs.

lapin_windstar

I'm afraid your tank is empty on this one (either that or you're just being deliberately obtuse).

1) the jury found as a matter of fact that the cops assaulted the McLeods. ("the cops were being a bit tasty" = assault+battery, by the way, there's no halfway house).

if they hadn't been being assaulted, then they couldn't have acted in self-defence, and they would have been convicted instead of acquitted. are you still trying to discuss this case when you haven't picked up on this crucial thread of argument?

2) the right to self-defence is the right to defend yourself against assault by anyone, whether or not they're a wearing a police uniform. if you use that right, you can expect a jury to decide whether that was a reasonable response.

you're trying to say that the police can never assault anyone, but that's just not legally or factually true. this case is proof of that, isn't it?

fraser

I agree in normal circumstances, but not having been there, maybe he had a split second to act before a fatal blow from the taser was administrated.

If that head butt had saved his dads life would you still find it cowardly?

The whole point is nobody can say for definite what was right or wrong without knowing all the facts.

Hopefully this can be learned from and there wont be any more incidents like it.

renth

The jury got it wrong. We all saw the video, those cops weren't beating the shit out of some defenceless old man they were breaking up a brawl and the only way you can do that is with force.

Amazulu

Mcleod is a big lad and looks like he can handle himself. He could have rugby tackled Butcher into the ground. Hell, a big f**k-off shove would have done the trick.

I agree with you on the fact that I was not there and do not know all the details, and I accept the verdict of the court.

renth

I don't.

renth

The cops saved the dad's life, they administered CPR on him.