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

[bert38]

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

what was he convicted of? ABH?

-ABH
assault emergency worker
common assault? on member of public

v likely he will walk due to time served on remand.

 

[Bigga]

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?

If my family was getting surrounded and tuned in and a copper hadn't have said "You're under arrest", yes I'd go ballstic.

I'm not going to speculate on guilt cos I don't know the circumstances on what the jury knows to find that verdict and I'm not going to go on video evidence alone cos...

Context...

Matters...

 

[bert38]

If my family was getting surrounded and tuned in and a copper hadn't have said "You're under arrest", yes I'd go ballstic.

I'm not going to speculate on guilt cos I don't know the circumstances on what the jury knows to find that verdict and I'm not going to go on video evidence alone cos...

Context...

Matters...

as I said you don't need to 'announce' it.

reading the report from the court hearing last year they did however use the defence of the police not 'identifying' themselves and then 'fearing' they were under attack..I mean its nonsense but sufficient to have muddied the waters and to have caused doubt in some of the jury-and that's all it can take.

 

[jimbobmanc]

If my family was getting surrounded and tuned in and a copper hadn't have said "You're under arrest", yes I'd go ballstic.

I'm not going to speculate on guilt cos I don't know the circumstances on what the jury knows to find that verdict and I'm not going to go on video evidence alone cos...

Context...

Matters...

Ok context matters…so in that case your “family are getting tuned in and a copper hadn’t said you’re under arrest” but your family had just assaulted a man minutes earlier…would you still go ballistic or try and diffuse the situation?

 

[west didsblue]

what was he convicted of? ABH?

-ABH
assault emergency worker
common assault? on member of public

v likely he will walk due to time served on remand.

From what I can gather the younger one was convicted of Assault.
I was mistaken about the other one. He was not convicted of anything and looks like he got away with it.

 

[Monkfish]

just checking in on the thread, are the flag shaggers still against trial by jury or have we moved on?

We now at no non whites on juries to make sure justice prevails and the feeble minded foreign type can’t stop us taking are country back?

 

[Bigga]

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..

So if you slap cuffs on someone and took them to the station without presenting the announcement they were arrested, then what? Surely, you've denied that person rights of knowledge of caution?

"What MUST happen: Officers only need to inform you that you are under arrest and state the grounds (the specific offence you are suspected of committing) as soon as reasonably practicable."

To me, that leaves ground for the 'self-defence' that the jury found where there's no cuffs on and no statement of arrest, just a reaction to what was happening to the family member.

Nothing else makes sense.

 

[Bigga]

as I said you don't need to 'announce' it.

reading the report from the court hearing last year they did however use the defence of the police not 'identifying' themselves and then 'fearing' they were under attack..I mean its nonsense but sufficient to have muddied the waters and to have caused doubt in some of the jury-and that's all it can take.

Semantics on my point.

Identifying and announcing is pretty much the same thing in that wild situation.

 

[Bigga]

Ok context matters…so in that case your “family are getting tuned in and a copper hadn’t said you’re under arrest” but your family had just assaulted a man minutes earlier…would you still go ballistic or try and diffuse the situation?

I have my own sense of justice within a context. The previous post of yours was in isolation.

With the added context, that shapes things differently for ME, not anyone else, so I'm not going to act like I have the knowledge of what happened in the other person's brain to react the way he did.

The question isn't for me to answer.

Ask the jury.

 

[jimbobmanc]

I have my own sense of justice within a context. The previous post of yours was in isolation.

With the added context, that shapes things differently for ME, not anyone else, so I'm not going to act like I have the knowledge of what happened in the other person's brain to react the way he did.

The question isn't for me to answer.

Ask the jury.

I asked about you,not the other person or the jury,I thought it was quite a straightforward question.

 

[bert38]

So if you slap cuffs on someone and took them to the station without presenting the announcement they were arrested, then what? Surely, you've denied that person rights of knowledge of caution?

"What MUST happen: Officers only need to inform you that you are under arrest and state the grounds (the specific offence you are suspected of committing) as soon as reasonably practicable."

To me, that leaves ground for the 'self-defence' that the jury found where there's no cuffs on and no statement of arrest, just a reaction to what was happening to the family member.

Nothing else makes sense.

your mixing scenarios up a little

I appreciate what you are trying to say-of course you need to inform someone that they are under arrest and caution them as soon as practicable..so if for example you are on the floor desperately trying to restrain someone-and don't utter the words until you have full control, that's perfectly fine -clearly a long gap would be wrong.

forget the cuffs-most people aren't cuffed-so in your argument every one of those arrests would be unlawful.

And I am certain that wasn't the basis of their defence-I think its more likely they stuck with their 'honestly held belief' that the police were 'attacking them'...

The more I type the more I struggle to understand how they weren't found guilty...but there you go. That's down to the jury.

There are circs when (I'd remember it as VIM) you don't have to necessarily inform them (same applies to custody officer), 1) too Violent 2) Incapable of understanding 3) Medical reasons-but that's not relevant here

 

[Bigga]

I asked about you,not the other person or the jury,I thought it was quite a straightforward question.

Did I not answer your question?

My sense of justice, right and wrong, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

 

[jimbobmanc]

Did I not answer your question?

My sense of justice, right and wrong, doesn't mean it's the same for everyone.

No you didn’t answer my question,please re read what I asked.

 

[Bigga]

Ok context matters…so in that case your “family are getting tuned in and a copper hadn’t said you’re under arrest” but your family had just assaulted a man minutes earlier…would you still go ballistic or try and diffuse the situation?

If my family member had assaulted someone and cops assaulted him in their approach, yes, cos that's blood.

If they said they were arresting him and it went off, I would try and diffuse.

Context always matters as different scenarios present differently.

Happy now?

 

[jimbobmanc]

If my family member had assaulted someone and cops assaulted him in their approach, yes, cos that's blood.

If they said they were arresting him and it went off, I would try and diffuse.

Context always matters as different scenarios present differently.

Happy now?

“If my family member had assaulted someone and cops assaulted him in their approach, yes, cos that's blood.”
Ok that’s fair enough…but would you expect to get a prison sentence after that?

 

[Bigga]

“If my family member had assaulted someone and cops assaulted him in their approach, yes, cos that's blood.”
Ok that’s fair enough…but would you expect to get a prison sentence after that?

I would expect to cite self-defence of my family member cos I wouldn't know what the fk they were doing to him and how far they were gonna go.

 

[jimbobmanc]

I would expect to cite self-defence of my family member cos I wouldn't know what the fk they were doing to him and how far they were gonna go.

I think we’re best leaving it there pal,we’re going round in circles…I honestly don’t think they have any defence after seeing the cctv and they got off very lightly but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Bigga]

I think we’re best leaving it there pal,we’re going round in circles…I honestly don’t think they have any defence after seeing the cctv and they got off very lightly but that’s just my opinion.

I was honest in my response.

For family I care for I would kick doors in and have done so in my youth.

They're young guys still in that mindset.

 

[bert38]

I was honest in my response.

For family I care for I would kick doors in and have done so in my youth.

They're young guys still in that mindset.

they had already assaulted somebody else and then punched a woman in the nose breaking it...not sure you'd have done that tbh.

 

[manclad]

Apparently their elder brother ( and other members of their family) are serving police officers with GMP.
I wonder what these 2 absolute cretins would think if it was their police officer brother on the end of a beating on the street.
No respect for the police at all.