Altercation at Terminal 2

[Metal Biker]

If MCR Airport releases footage of the Starbucks altercation (whereupon they are also seen to be the aggressor), i'd say their "poor me" narrative is as dead as a dodo.

 

[hilts]

If MCR Airport releases footage of the Starbucks altercation (whereupon they are also seen to be the aggressor), i'd say their "poor me" narrative is as dead as a dodo.

£5.95 for a Latte is a disgrace

 

[blueinsa]

You've got to laugh at their insincerity.

I'm impressed by it.

So much so I'm starting a go fund me page for them.

 

[maxwellblue]

I'm impressed by it.

So much so I'm starting a go fund me page for them.

Great stuff, let me have the link so I can ignore it

 

[bluwes]

On people who have just been tasered and are incapacitated?

But did the officer know that in such a fast moving situation.

 

[bluemc1]

I do think that as many people on here are able to articulate a defence that ignores the urge for mere retribution as a reason, suggests that he too will have a defence.

The speed that happened I think he’s got a great defence
His big problem will be if they think he was clear headed and knew full well that the lad had already been tasered and was defenceless

But I think the fact the cop had been punched into a daze twice, lost his glasses and got slammed to the ground plus all the screaming and shouting commotion that he didn’t know he had been tasered

He was pointing the taser at the lad for a second before kicking him but it didn’t go off, was someone saying on an earlier post that they are 2 uses only ?

Maybe he was trying to taser the lad himself but his taser didn’t work, might he have realised he’s out of charge or whatever it is and thought shit and booted him

 

[Turtlepath]

The law exists (UK law in this instance), its literally what Governs our behaviour. Like it or not, it exists and we as members of society must abide by the laws of the land in which we choose to reside.
Opinions also exist, we are all entitled to them no matter how outlandish other may view them.
Now, something being the law v often doesn't match my opinion, nor i would guess the majority opinion on the matter. For example - if a paedophile went near my child id 100% want to find them BEFORE the police did.
That however doesn't alter the fact that id be then charged with the crime of murder. Its just that id accept that as it would be my choice to ignore the law and handle it as i suspect most reasonable humans would.
My (rather laboured and waffling) point here being, its abundantly clear that both 'sides' here have broken the law. Its pretty much indisputable for either party to say otherwise. Therefore BOTH sides should face the individual consequences of that. To say otherwise is simply you offering your opinion, which is of course fine and may be something id agree with morally, but as explained its not the law, and to say that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is "an idiot" or as i've seen other comments in this thread, doesn't put anyone (the hypothetical poster) in a good light for believing that your/their opinion overrides the very law which gives you/their life in this country as you know it.
Therefore, given the above, id be surprised if a Judge reaches any outcome which doesn't involve seeing a custodial sentence for both 'sides'

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

But did the officer know that in such a fast moving situation.

tbh I thought he would have been cuffing him asap.

 

[bert38]

The law exists (UK law in this instance), its literally what Governs our behaviour. Like it or not, it exists and we as members of society must abide by the laws of the land in which we choose to reside.
Opinions also exist, we are all entitled to them no matter how outlandish other may view them.
Now, something being the law v often doesn't match my opinion, nor i would guess the majority opinion on the matter. For example - if a paedophile went near my child id 100% want to find them BEFORE the police did.
That however doesn't alter the fact that id be then charged with the crime of murder. Its just that id accept that as it would be my choice to ignore the law and handle it as i suspect most reasonable humans would.
My (rather laboured and waffling) point here being, its abundantly clear that both 'sides' here have broken the law. Its pretty much indisputable for either party to say otherwise. Therefore BOTH sides should face the individual consequences of that. To say otherwise is simply you offering your opinion, which is of course fine and may be something id agree with morally, but as explained its not the law, and to say that anyone who disagrees with your opinion is "an idiot" or as i've seen other comments in this thread, doesn't put anyone (the hypothetical poster) in a good light for believing that your/their opinion overrides the very law which gives you/their life in this country as you know it.
Therefore, given the above, id be surprised if a Judge reaches any outcome which doesn't involve seeing a custodial sentence for both 'sides'

Fair points but the law is a complicated animal, there is statue and case law to fall back on-whilst the two males conduct is undoubtedly criminal it is simply wrong to say without doubt that the officer’s is-and don’t forget we are only seeing cctv footage-we don’t hear the officers, we don’t hear the two males, and there is also body worn footage, previous police incidents, numerous witnesses; it’s a complex matter as u have repeatedly asserted.

 

[bluwes]

tbh I thought he would have been cuffing him asap.

Too busy protecting his weapon