Is this the "Jury of his peers" argument? I'm sure a jury made up only of coppers would be somewhat beneficial to his cause, but even they may have a hard time with the perceived physical threat aspect of the juice carton.

rae, I asked this before. I'd like an example of something from her past that could possibly have bearing in this case - something that officer smellie would have to have known about at the time of the beating to justify it? I can't think of one thing, but I'm not a legal expert.

i'm not trying to excuse what he did alan, and his prior knowledge of her does have a bearing with regard to the ACPO use of force model. such as a prior occasion where he may have arrested her for assault, then found she had a weapon hidden on her. on seeing her this day and recognizing her, it would be perfectly reasonable given the past encounter to suspect a higher level of force may be necessary to achieve his aim.

but i am not talking as much about the incident as the way it is being tried in public and the nature of the evidence being presented, this guy has been convicted before he ever sees the light of a courtroom.
i don't think i have said anywhere he is justified in what he did, because if it happened exactly as it was portrayed then clearly he has lost it momentarily and lashed out. i would not try to defend that as it would be clearly wrong of me.

So what, the police are trained to deal with that, its their job. He lost his rag and overreacted. The fact he cant see why he was suspended still is a bit scary. I wonder if an apology was ever forthcoming under the circumstances.

He obviously cant come out and say she annoyed the tits off him so he hit her, as that would be assault, so we have the orange juice carton perceived as weapon thing in order to justify bringing her down.... but I dont think thats helping his credibility any. Has he even said with hind-site that it was a mistake and that he regrets his actions? That would go a long way in helping him in the court of public opinion I think.

with regard to the first bit alan you may do, but here is my point again, it would never see a courtroom without a statement bare minimum of complaint against you, of this i am certain.

the police should be held to a higher account absolutely, but this should come also with some acceptance that they will find themselves in situations on a regular basis that the average citizen will not. if you police these events over and over again year after year then sooner or later something like this is going to be happen. should that excuse his actions, no of course not, but i do think this should be taken into account.

with regard to the higher standards you will see much higher and more severe punishments handed out to the police over a civilian. drunk driving for instance, instant job loss. not many other occupations do that.

The video evidence is damning - he overstepped the mark considerably. You might argue mitigating circumstances, but that won't change the fact that it looks like assault. fwiw I don't think he deserves prison or anything like that, although he does need to be punished, but given that this is probably career ending for him and all he has to look forward to is a life of security work I think that is more (well a lot more proportionate to the harm caused) than enough.

just for your amusement the worst assault i suffered was from a 18yr old slip of a girl who as i turned my back on her picked up a pool ball and smacked me on the back of the head with it. judge a book by its cover at your peril.

The only issue here is whether he acted reasonably, not whether she had past convictions for anything.

I have to admit that it concerns me somewhat that a serving police officer can't see the wood for the trees. You are usually the epitome of sensibility. OK, you aren't, but I've got to make you feel good somehow

Ahem. Police are civilians. The forgetting of which, I respctfully suggest, is at the root of much of the negative vibes from protestors such as Little Miss Lentils.

I doubt you beat her with your big stick because of it. Although I bet that was the last time you turned your back on potential assailants even slips of girls.

i think its a complete joke and he is making himself and the rest of us look like total tools. i've been in the shit a few times and the best advice i ever had from an old inspector was fall on your sword. if you have done wrong cough it and move on, we all make mistakes. what he should be saying is in the heat of the moment, in a highly charged situation, fearing for his safety he lashed out. (don't forget there was more than her there, off camera to the left of the screen is where he initially faces) in hindsight this was unreasonable, unjustified and unwarranted and will accept whatever comes his way to make up for it.
hows that.

sorry it may have got lost, previous answer with regard to prior arrests.

If the met and him had come out immediately and apologized - even visiting the girl in question to do so I doubt it would have gone any further. As guilty as that guy probably is, I don't think any of us are under any illusion that this is anything but a PR exercise for the met that is in dire need of some good publicity.

i'm not saying its not alan. i'm obviously not making myself clear, i just hope you can trust me on this one. the way this prosecution is being handled is not the norm, special circs for the cops. now as i have said as its in the publics interest i can understand this, i just find it galling though that a normal judicial procedure for a case of this nature involving a civilian is not followed because its a cop. its one thing to proceed in the publics interest, but the rules are being bent a bit too much for that in this case for my liking.

i agree, thats not my point. my point is that the normal judicial procedure is being bent well out of shape, more so than a normal public prosecution because of the publicity surrounding the case. come on mate, no statements, no witnesses i could bloody defend that and win, video or no video. in fact the presence of the video would be the one thing undermining the entire case, its airing everywhere has created a prejudicial environment not conducive to a fair trial.
that will be 10 grand and a law degree please sir.