Manchester Airport police assault trial | Man found guilty of assaulting two female police officers | Both defendants cleared of assaulting third PC

[i kne albert davy]

I'm pretty certain I didn't ever announce I was a police officer when making an arrest-unless off duty, in plain clothes or during a stop search.

That dark blue suit is usually a bit of a giveaway.

 

[west didsblue]

eg, I stopped the driver of a car and he had an asp in the door pocket

Didn’t know it was against the law to keep a snake in your car. Certainly seems unwise.

 

[abu13]

The jury also saw the policeman on video get stompy stompy on an unconscious man’s head

If I was to guess I’d say this had an impact on them not being able to say the policeman wasn’t overly aggressive as the defence claimed

You do know he’s already been found guilty of attacking the other 2 police officers?

Just not colonel stomper

I do yes.

 

[Bigga]

Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 is the principal case in relation to what constitutes reasonable self defence. From Lord Morris’ judgment:

“If there has been an attack so that the defence is reasonably necessary, it will be recognised that a person defending himself cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of his necessary defensive action. If a jury thought that in a moment of unexpected anguish a person attacked had only done what he honestly and instinctively thought was necessary that would be most potent evidence that only reasonable defensive action had been taken.”

This is to the singular person ("himself") and does not reflect "in defence of".

 

[abu13]

Colonel stomper?? He’d just been assaulted by 2 males,they weren’t having a tickle fight…I think the lad should count himself lucky he only got a boot to the head when the copper was armed.

Yes, He wouldnt have tried this shit in America, the police would have shot the prick after he started throwing fists.

 

[west didsblue]

Just hope the sentence isn’t significantly reduced by the dropping of the third charge.

 

[Bigga]

That's me in the clear then, cos having watched the footage I've haven't got a clue how he walked away scot free.

And, in isolation, that's a perfectly reasonable take.

It's the knobheads with their inferences that are the issue.

In isolation, I might wonder myself, so there must be a technical loophole that allowed the jury to get to their finding.

 

[Bigga]

I'm pretty certain I didn't ever announce I was a police officer when making an arrest-unless off duty, in plain clothes or during a stop search.

Announcing being an officer is different than announcing an arrest when in uniform, surely?

 

[Bigga]

Come off it,we’ve all seen the cctv,he knew they were coppers and what they wanted.

What we MIGHT perceive as citizens doesn't mean the police don't follow their own law.

If, for example, the individuals cited were approached by the police and weren't under arrest at the time things happened, then it's reasonable to think self-defence has been enacted if the attacker think a n officer is abusing his brother 'for no reason' (not cautioned at the time).

Context matters and I suspect the officers own cams captures the context and why the jury found 'self-defence' a legitimate case.

Some of you need to think in terms of the law and evidence, not as angry citizens.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

This is to the singular person ("himself") and does not reflect "in defence of".

Same principle plainly applies.

 

[Bigga]

Same principle plainly applies.

Fair, I already know the self-defence law in the work I do.

Just pointing out it didn't reflect the same thing through that particular quote and others on here, clearly, don't understand that law.

 

[N1985]

Two mistrials says to me that the police and CPS don't have enough and there's reasonable doubt.

 

[HolisticJim]

What we MIGHT perceive as citizens doesn't mean the police don't follow their own law.

If, for example, the individuals cited were approached by the police and weren't under arrest at the time things happened, then it's reasonable to think self-defence has been enacted if the attacker think a n officer is abusing his brother 'for no reason' (not cautioned at the time).

Context matters and I suspect the officers own cams captures the context and why the jury found 'self-defence' a legitimate case.

Some of you need to think in terms of the law and evidence, not as angry citizens.

Why? We are angry citizens and the law should be reflecting the reality; not an interpretation of reality designed to create loop holes.

 

[jimbobmanc]

What we MIGHT perceive as citizens doesn't mean the police don't follow their own law.

If, for example, the individuals cited were approached by the police and weren't under arrest at the time things happened, then it's reasonable to think self-defence has been enacted if the attacker think a n officer is abusing his brother 'for no reason' (not cautioned at the time).

Context matters and I suspect the officers own cams captures the context and why the jury found 'self-defence' a legitimate case.

Some of you need to think in terms of the law and evidence, not as angry citizens.

As a citizen,forget all the legalities…after seeing the CCTV,do you think he should have been found guilty for assaulting the 3rd copper? or would you say it was self defence?

 

[Ho Chi Man City]

The video footage was not the only evidence presented and we have no idea what the other evidence was or how it impacted the jurors thinking. They have listened to all the evidence, the testimonies, then deliberated and this is their conclusion.

That you disagree with the verdict is your personal opinion and not based on the entirety of the evidence.

Do you really think the police started it? These were a pair of dick heads who disregarded and disrespected the police who were there to protect the public, they’re guilty as fuck but I won’t interact anymore.

 

[BobKowalski]

Unlikely - the two times i have been in a jury the jurors had said things like "the evidence may not make them look guilty but look at their face, it takes more than that to make me believe they are innocent' or 'look at his brother watching on, you can tell what the whole family are like' or (my favourite) "I am happy to go with the majority, I have tickets for the festival tomorrow'. - all genuinely true statements i heard when i was a juror. Unfortuantely your average juror is like your average person - IQ 100 - so logically half the fuckers on there are less than 100 and inevitibly two or three are thick as horseshit. And you expect them to sit through often complex trials when they probably have the intellect of a gnat?
My advice to anyone is - if you are accused of something and you are innocent dont ask for a jury - the judge is far more likely to understand the law and won't think you are guilty because you have a tattoo or shaved head.
if you are accused and you are actually guilty - get a jury - especially if the trial is complex. All you need is a decent barrister to confuse the idiots on the jury. And scrub up well...

In my one and only time on the jury I was impressed by the level of attention and seriousness the jurors gave to the matter. That said, it resulted in a majority verdict. I and one other voted guilty and the rest not guilty - it was actually more not proven. It was a sex abuse case and became a ‘he said/she said’ case.

We all agreed he was a dodgy fucker, but being a dodgy fucker isn’t a crime in itself and some could not bring themselves to vote guilty based on the evidence. I could see their reasoning even if I didn’t agree with their conclusion.

You’re right about being guilty and opting for a jury trial, though. It’s a tough ask to imprison someone, so jurors tend to err on the side of caution.

 

[BobKowalski]

Do you really think the police started it? These were a pair of dick heads who disregarded and disrespected the police who were there to protect the public, they’re guilty as fuck but I won’t interact anymore.

No, I don’t think the police started it. I’m just saying I wasn’t there, neither were you and we didn’t hear all the evidence presented, so my opinion is just that - an opinion based on a video.

Tearing up the trial by jury system because you don’t like a verdict is dumb. It ain’t perfect, sometimes it sucks and life is a bitch. Deal with it.

 

[bert38]

Announcing being an officer is different than announcing an arrest when in uniform, surely?

not really-I think there's case law to say for instance you can handcuff someone before you need to tell them they are under arrest-which I often did esp if they were a big bugger or likely to be violent-because its expected they should know-I'm paraphrasing..

 

[Bigga]

Why? We are angry citizens and the law should be reflecting the reality; not an interpretation of reality designed to create loop holes.

There are rules, in life, to follow. You can choose to follow them or choose not to.

Those choices are yours, alone, to decide.

The police have their own rules and laws to follow and it's why they (as a rule) 'follow the book', @bert38 sounds like he was one such individual.

Or you can live in chaos where police can bend the rules cos citizens do. Where you might be the victim just cos a copper decided and we've seen plenty of those, too.

Thank goodness those bent tw@s are far and few between.

 

[BerkshireBlue]

No that's also per capita i believe.

Well you're wrong im afraid