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

[Bigga]

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

Point taken, but I was reacting to the specific police fight and my state of mind as a younger guy. Personally, I'd have given my own sibling a good hiding if he'd attacked people out of the blue.

But, then again, no one else would have got to do that to him and that's where blood comes into it.

 

[jimbobmanc]

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.

I know I said we’re best off leaving it but I really have to respond to this…we’ve all stuck up for siblings and we all would,that’s what you do but that isn’t the argument here…it’s that this particular case was on cctv and they got off with it (the 3rd assault)

 

[Bigga]

I know I said we’re best off leaving it but I really have to respond to this…we’ve all stuck up for siblings and we all would,that’s what you do but that isn’t the argument here…it’s that this particular case was on cctv and they got off with it (the 3rd assault)

As you say, we're going round in circles. You can argue right and wrongs from your point of you and myself likewise.

The jury has seen things as they've seen them and that's all there is to it. So, ultimately, our trigger responses are different as individuals, the jury were a collective to make their judgement.

 

[HolisticJim]

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.

The reality is that laws which are applied to serve a "purpose" cause frustration and cause people to lose confidence in the system.

Once the confidence is gone then nobody really knows what to expect as an outcome to an action.

Unclear boundaries is the main cause of poor leadership, poor workforce and in this case poor policing.

In short, clearly in this case they are applied in a way which does not serve the purpose and is perceived by most people as dewcriminatory.

 

[Ric]

Surprised by the verdict based on the video footage in the public domain, but who knows what else came to light in the courtroom. If two juries haven’t been able to reach a verdict then I guess you have to accept that. Any suggestion it’s because of their race is nonsense though. As is the suggestion they’ve got away with it too, as one of them has been found guilty on the other charges. Hopefully he’ll be punished accordingly.

 

[Bigga]

You articulate yourself well but the reality is that laws which are applied to serve a purpose cause frustration and cause people to lose confidence in the system.

Once the confidence is gone then nobody really knows what to expect as an outcome to an action.

Unclear boundaries is the main cause of poor leadership, poor workforce and in this case poor policing.

In short, clearly in this case they are applied in a way which does not serve the purpose.

For the most part, I agree with you. A good example of what you talk about is much talked about VAR/ ref decisions where the law is viewed differently depending on what the decision maker is looking for to give or not to give. But, this is NOT that case.

The jury are under instruction of what they can decide on according to the strict parameter of the law applicable to the situation.

Judges, by themselves, are more likely to apply their own personal feelings to the law, which is why we see such disparity to the sentences of men and women doing the same crimes. And, actually, judges, most of the time, don't apply the same sentences after jury delivery.

There should be no nuance for deliberate crime and the jury did not find the 3rd charge for these airport individuals deliberate so it seems.

If people don't like the way the law is, vote for an AI judge and jury, like in the film "Mercy"!

 

[hilts]

No, I can say how 'I feel' but I can also understand objectively that the jury's decision is theirs to make in all the circumstances.

As i said in another post there were numerous times when I'd come away from court really frustrated how we had 'lost'..
eg, I stopped the driver of a car and he had an asp in the door pocket-similar to the ones police have. At court his defence was that he used it to start his car. Of course that was a lie. The mags found him not guilty-and then simultaneously sentenced him for an outstanding matter-possessing a baseball bat with nails in it...I think they were somewhat embarrassed.

I also spent hours as part of a Newton Hearing explaining why as the Inspector I had asked my officers to arrest 3 individuals for aggravated trespass (a trail hunt) and let the dozens of others go-my argument which was accepted by the court that they in failing to give their details were masters of their own demise (because I hadn't used S24 and was not going to lie)..and then the CPS dropped it because one of those arrested said that she didn't speak to me and I didn't warn her-(which is needed to commit the full offence)-In the box I stated, 'with respect she spent most of the day calling me a ginger haired ****'.
So it was a lie but they all walked. And I had to deal with internal misconduct because they all then complained of unlawful arrest-

I've also spent hours in the box trying to demonstrate that a road at the back of some houses was indeed a road for drink drive purposes-i produced maps and everything-I can assure you it was a road-and the defendant was guilty-but the court decided otherwise.

My point being I do think the assailant assaulted the officer-but that does not stop the defence putting forward a defence to that (because we can all see that he does 'assault' him) which negates that-inc as Gordon rightly alluded to, an honestly held belief held by the defendant, or some other defence put forward that the some members of the jury accepted. That's what I mean, I am not party to everything-and that also includes other evidence, police and witness accounts, interviews with suspects etc which none of us are party to.

The system rightly allows defendants to put forward a defence and it is for the prosecution to prove it beyond ALL reasonable doubt.

I get all that but let's be honest here you know they are guilty, I know they are guilty and anyone with no bias knows they are guilty. You don't have to be a racist shitbag to come to this conclusion. Its not a good day for justice in this country. Unless someone can give a credible reason for that verdict then posters defending it via demographic accusations are part of the problem.

 

[hilts]

Surprised by the verdict based on the video footage in the public domain, but who knows what else came to light in the courtroom. If two juries haven’t been able to reach a verdict then I guess you have to accept that. Any suggestion it’s because of their race is nonsense though. As is the suggestion they’ve got away with it too, as one of them has been found guilty on the other charges. Hopefully he’ll be punished accordingly.

So the one who hasn't been found guilty hasn't got away with it? half justice is a good outcome now. My mate got done and I didn't so I didnt get away with it?
Bizarre logic in fairness.

 

[Ric]

So the one who hasn't been found guilty hasn't got away with it? half justice is a good outcome now. My mate got done and I didn't so I didnt get away with it?
Bizarre logic in fairness.

As I said, the verdict was a surprise based on what I’ve seen, but you have to accept the decision. You can’t keep retrying cases until you get the verdict you want.

 

[HolisticJim]

I get all that but let's be honest here you know they are guilty, I know they are guilty and anyone with no bias knows they are guilty. You don't have to be a racist shitbag to come to this conclusion. Its not a good day for justice in this country. Unless someone can give a credible reason for that verdict then posters defending it via demographic accusations are part of the problem.

And eventually someone says it clearly.
What he said with cherries on top.

 

[hilts]

As I said, the verdict was a surprise based on what I’ve seen, but you have to accept the decision. You can’t keep retrying cases until you get the decision you want.

I get that but it wasn't the point, if you found the verdict a surprise how can you then say that a view that one got away with it is not valid? If you go to prison for something you didnt do or don't go to prison for something you did do whatever happened to your mate doesn't square it off.

 

[Ric]

I get that but it wasn't the point, if you found the verdict a surprise how can you then say that a view that one got away with it is not valid?

Because none of us were in the courtroom so don’t know for certain what evidence or mitigation was offered.

Maybe worded it badly though, as it’s more the insinuation that they “got away with it” because of their race that I take exception to. If that really was the case, then the previous guilty verdicts presumably wouldn’t have happened.

 

[hilts]

And eventually someone says it clearly.
What he said with cherries on top.

Too many people seem scared to just say I think this....... they worry about how it looks, what dodgy fuckers they may get lumped in with. Its rife, no wonder bad decisions get made. Be strong enough to say no, this is your problem, you are judging me not on what im saying but by some guess on what type of person you may think I could be.
Those who shout reasonable doubt ironically never give that benefit to those who express a different opinion. The lack of self awareness is killing debate and common sense.

 

[hilts]

Because none of us were in the courtroom so don’t know for certain what evidence or mitigation was offered.

Maybe worded it badly though, as it’s more the insinuation that they “got away with it” because of their race that I take exception to. If that really was the case, then the previous guilty verdicts presumably wouldn’t have happened.

I will take worded badly:-) every jury is different but you can get consecutive good or bad jurors. What happened previously is not relevant. Like others I have seen the video, I have read what led to it and I cant think of one acceptable reason behind the self defense angle. Oddly enough those who state we didnt hear the evidence havent managed to even give one example of how that decision could have been arrived at.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Mental outcome.

 

[Ric]

Oddly enough those who state we didnt hear the evidence havent managed to even give one example of how that decision could have been arrived at.

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not trying to justify the decision. Just saying that you have to accept it. Unless, like Starmer, you’re happy to do away with juries in some cases.

 

[bert38]

I get all that but let's be honest here you know they are guilty, I know they are guilty and anyone with no bias knows they are guilty. You don't have to be a racist shitbag to come to this conclusion. Its not a good day for justice in this country. Unless someone can give a credible reason for that verdict then posters defending it via demographic accusations are part of the problem.

I completely understand what you are saying-I’m not trying to be awkward but I didn’t say i know they are guilty, I said in that post you can see the younger one assaults the officer-he punches him numerous times, the other one resists arrest and assaults officers. But they weren’t found guilty because members of the jury came to that conclusion-it’s conjecture but it’s likely this was due to the defence arguing ‘an honestly held belief’ by the defendants that they were being attacked. I think it’s nonsense but if that is true, it was enough to create an element of doubt-and that’s all it takes.

I don’t agree with the decision but I can also support the decision because that’s our justice system-it’s flawed but better than many alternatives.

My real concern, aside from the political opportunism that comes with this decision is ultimately it’s police that will suffer. It may be hyperbole but it could be open season for increasing violence against officers.

 

[hilts]

Can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not trying to justify the decision. Just saying that you have to accept it. Unless, like Starmer, you’re happy to do away with juries in some cases.

I agree we have to accept it, we are just debating the verdict on a forum. Anyhow for me its run its course. I made a post about how/why people discuss the way they do on here and its a shame, have a good weekend fella.

Least Arsenal lost:-)

 

[stonerblue]

Twenty years ago i got nicked for 'assaulting' a copper in the middle of Bury. Within seconds i was face down in the street with 4 coppers holding me down and cuffing me. Luckily i didn't get shot in the head but i did get a busted wrist.
They carted me off to the copshop where i calmly (and soberly) told them what had happened. After a couple of hours in the cells i was 'interviewed'. At the end, the copper turned off the tape and we had an informal chat. The copper then told me they had found class a drugs in my wallet and i really should be arrested for that as well. He then turned round and said i was being let off with no charges for that or the cop 'assault' because the cop in question was a wanker and nobody liked him.
Managed to make the pub for last orders.