thats partly true, also a little unfair. There are as many mistakes made by others involved in an investigation, whether it be a civilian handling exhibits, a crown prosecutor poorly prepared, a forensic scientist, a so called 'expert' in their field who turns out not to be and civilian witness who changes or gives crappy evidence, there are lots of ways cases fail that then provide these loopholes or stated cases that defence rely on to stop proceedings.
and don't forget we are only human, we make mistakes.

I'm amused to note that google search corrects "coulda bin" to "coulda been".

"I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody", it offers, as the famous quote.

Rae, you have this backwards. The officer is on trial, not the person he assaulted. Her past conduct is irrelevant. His reaction to the situation he found himself in is. Two very different things.

The police, just like all members of society, are not allowed to assault people on a whim. The police will be treated exactly the same way that a civilian would in similar circumstances (unless their name happens to be Mr. Prescott). The officer does not have special powers in this case simply because he is an officer. He has defences available to him and I am confident that he will use those defences. Whether they will enable him to avoid a conviction remains to be seen.

OK. The prosecution obviously think they don't need her evidence and that they will obtain a conviction without it. If 100 people witness an incident, it is not necessary to call all 100 of them to give evidence. At some point, the evidence provided will suffice to prove a fact. The video is likely all the evidence that the prosecution needs.

The video might be all thats needed but on the other hand its only a few seconds clip in one direction.

Looking at the video again, in spite of the provocation and confusion, I'm suprised, with all the cameras there, the policeman did what he did. In fact, for set piece incidents such as this maybe they should be under orders to allow themselves to be knocked over by someone charging at them giving reasonable grounds for the other policeman to rescue them with batons etc.

Are you being serious????? Let themselves get knocked over and jumped/kicked on the floor by an angry mob and then hope they are rescued!!!

The legal issue regarding this case is the pre-emptive strike that the officer used. He has to justify using this pre-emptive strike to protect himself against potential injury.

Tim

I haven't viewed the clip so I don't know.

The fact that this is even going to court and is seen as a dead cert case for the policeman to go down seems to indicate that pre-emtive force is going to be insufficient as a defence.

Regretably, the police may then have to take a more passive approach in the future leaving officers at risk. Maybe then it will take an incident in the future where a police officer is seriously injured due to a reluctance to take appropriate action for a reassessment of what is reasonable.

The law is clear, this case will not set a precedent, it will simply apply the current law to the situation the officer found himself in, just as it would if you or I were charged.

Or perhaps they will just take reasonable actions to protect themselves in futureShould a juice weilding wooly hat wearing activist happen to make any sudden movements in their direction.

I do admire you though for attempting to defend the indefensible.



AND DBD AND SAPPER, quit the personal spat please.

I think that's probably correct. Do you think, based on what we see in video, that the policeman was using reasonable force?

In the circumstances, given the provocation, and given the woman's determination to refuse to stay back, then yes I do think the force could be considered not unreasonable - a good whack after ignoring repeated instructions to stay back.

That's why I'm disappointed that the copper is claiming the "orange juice carton" as a defence.

.

Do you really believe this? Next you will be stating it is OK to shoot Brazilian electricians on the tube.


If that officer felt threatened, he needs to find a new occupation.

Unfortunately, that is what the police are paid to do, if they can't do it, they should not wear the uniform.

I have just watched the clip, I thought the initial slap to the face was suspect.