Why do you think that I will be saying that next?

That woman was a protestor, an agitator who was deliberately and repeatedly antagonising a policeman at a protest. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

The leap to suggest that I agree with shooting innocent bystanders 7 times in the head is beneath you.

i am quite aware who is on trial and the reasons for it, and with this i have no issue. i don't think i ever put forward a special case for this officer to be treated differently because of his job with regard to what he did.
what i said is once at trial, and in the presentation of this case before the courts he should be afforded the same advantages as anyone else, whether you agree with this legal system or not.
as regard to the person making the complaint, she may not be on trial, what witness ever is? but as you yourself put witnesses are ripped apart on cross examination for a reason, to discredit them and their evidence. the defence team of this officer will not have that possibility as she will not be there, therefore any possible bearing her past may have on the trial will never come to light.

Yes the orange juice defence seems weak.

and thats a fair point as long as the video evidence is conclusive. considering the cases i have lost where it was not considered conclusive due to, chain of evidence failing, shadows, angles, blurred images, reputation of camera operator tarnished, video lost, prejudicial viewpoint as video aired publicly before trial, i do not think this is as open and shut as it may appear. that said i should imagine he will be found guilty as the outcry will be larger if he is found not guilty.

Give me an example of something from her past that may impact this trial? Note that it has to be something that that copper has to have know about at the time to excuse what he did.

Maybe he shouldn't but that doesn't mean it was assault. It may warrant a warning, training etc but that doesn't mean it was assault.

It would be assault if somebody swore at me in the street and I beat them with a stick.

Antagonising a policeman is not an offence. She didn't appear to hit him, he towered over her and had lots of colleagues around him for backup.

I have faced riots in Northern Ireland as part of HM Forces. Never did I feel the need to aimlessly hit people. The actions of the officer appear to come from frustration as opposed to genuine fear, something he is expected to be able to control.

A threat of unlawful violence is an assault. If I say to you, "I am going to punch you in the face" that is an assault.

How can you discredit her in relation to whether or not she was assaulted? That is the only issue here, not whether she has assaulted people in the past. The only issue is whether the officer used reasonable force.

In your view, based on what we see, is it reasonable force?

I think he was in a difficult situation faced with a persistantly aggressive individual with lots of noise and pushing and shoving going on around him and took steps to neutralise that threat. Given the situation he was in I don't think the action he took was completely unreasonable. Viewed now from computer/officeland it might well be considered unreasonable by some I agree.

Agreed.

I do find it sad that a woman who is basically a professional protestor - she is described in court as an animal rights activist - can't take the odd whack from a copper as an occupational hazard.

And it's sadder still that a 47-year-old Police Sergeant is basically perjuring himself rather than tell the truth.

Out of interest what happened after she was hit? Did she get arrested?

Erm, they do get training dont they?


No other officers there saw fit to assault anyone armed with a noisy gob (and a dangerous carton of juice) did they?

Yes, you are right, it IS easy to judge. He was frustrated and overreacted. Should it end his career? no probably not. Should we turn a blind eye? Certainly not.