Manchester Airport police assault trial | Man found guilty of assaulting two female police officers

[Chippy_boy]

I can’t think of any other alternatives, although who knows how AI may come to play a part in the justice system in the future.

Just read this, after posting my comment above.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Looking at what's currently going on in Epping, if this happens then God help us.
I can't understand why it's taking so long. It's all on video, they can't deny what they did, it should've been done and dusted in the time it takes to show the video
This is all about their lawyer trying to make a name for himself

I'm with you on this. Both on the consequences if (unthinkably) they get off, and the seemingly obvious guilt.

Of course people can argue self defence, but that argument falls flat in its face after seconds of video footage. Seems to me guilt of ABH is established after minutes or less. Perhaps the rest of the proceedings are more about determining aggregating or mitigating factors, and whether to throw the book at them .. or two books. I pray it's the latter.

 

[Bigga]

Please remember he was an armed officer under attack his main priority is to ensure that gun does not get taken.

I don't want to get back into this whole thing, but I have to ask the question; was the perp on his stomach and cuffed behind his back?

If so, where does 'ensuring the gun was not taken' justify a kick to the face when subdued? See that logic? You can say 'he lost his head' which I'd accept as a Human thing to do, but he's an officer in a job where he has to remain professional under duress and do only 'as much as necessary at the time' which he goes beyond with a downed, subdued perp.

 

[Bigga]

We’ve discussed this endlessly, use of force is subjective and based on an honestly held belief-and has to be necessary and proportionate and in accordance with the law.

The CPS decided the officer used appropriate force. The police aren’t on trial here.

This was a relentless, violent attack on police officers attempting to make arrests. There is no defence the defendants can reasonably raise-

That so much of the debate on social media focuses on the sex of the officer is pathetic.

I'm not going to ask any more questions after this as I know the officer isn't on trial, but the officer stands up from tackling the perp who is on the floor. He would only stand up if he knew the assailant was subdued on the floor, otherwise I'd assume he would stay on top of him until he was secured.

So, if he's secured and stands up, why would he see it as "justified" to kick him in the face after because his head moved (I wouldn't expect a taser to knock someone young out completely)? As I said before, I understand Human factor behind it, but the explanation of the action that played itself out, doesn't make logical sense to me.

So, taking out the emotion factor behind what happened and looking at this in isolation, are you still of the position of 'subjective justification' rather than a flashpoint?

Cheers.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

It amuses me no end to see the docks of courts filled with scruffs who, for their time in court, seem to have called in at the barbers for a haircut and M&S for a suit, shirt 'n tie!

And it's equally laughable the excuses they come out with for their villainous and criminal activity - I thought they were gonna kill me - I didn't know it was a woman. Hope the jury give 'em short shrift.

 

[Churchlawtonblue]

We’ve discussed this endlessly, use of force is subjective and based on an honestly held belief-and has to be necessary and proportionate and in accordance with the law.

The CPS decided the officer used appropriate force. The police aren’t on trial here.

This was a relentless, violent attack on police officers attempting to make arrests. There is no defence the defendants can reasonably raise-

That so much of the debate on social media focuses on the sex of the officer is pathetic.

This all day long, there is literally no justification for attacking three police officers. There are no mitigating factors, the accused is just making stuff up. I expect that will both get locked up for a long time, and if they dont, its further proof that our justice system isnt fit for purpose. What message would that send out, moral within the police would plummet.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't want to get back into this whole thing, but I have to ask the question; was the perp on his stomach and cuffed behind his back?

If so, where does 'ensuring the gun was not taken' justify a kick to the face when subdued? See that logic? You can say 'he lost his head' which I'd accept as a Human thing to do, but he's an officer in a job where he has to remain professional under duress and do only 'as much as necessary at the time' which he goes beyond with a downed, subdued perp.

The police are not on trial. Kick to the head or no kick to the head, justified or not justified, is irrelevant. That happened AFTER the ABH was committed by the defendants. It cannot affect the verdict. "We assaulted the police officers in advance because we expected to get kicked in the head later" - is not a solid defence, is it!

And I'd be extremely surprised - although I am not sure - if it can affect the sentence.

 

[bert38]

I'm not going to ask any more questions after this as I know the officer isn't on trial, but the officer stands up from tackling the perp who is on the floor. He would only stand up if he knew the assailant was subdued on the floor, otherwise I'd assume he would stay on top of him until he was secured.

So, if he's secured and stands up, why would he see it as "justified" to kick him in the face after because his head moved (I wouldn't expect a taser to knock someone young out completely)? As I said before, I understand Human factor behind it, but the explanation of the action that played itself out, doesn't make logical sense to me.

So, taking out the emotion factor behind what happened and looking at this in isolation, are you still of the position of 'subjective justification' rather than a flashpoint?

Cheers.

You make fair points-and i tried to have a balanced view from the beginning-but the use of force in law is an honestly held belief by the person (here the officer) using it-so it is entirely subjective.

Use of force by the police is also covered by legislation-under Pace, Criminal law act, ECHR and common law-it all has to be justified. And this was reviewed by CPS. Correctly we have checks and balances in this country because the lawful use of force has to be reasoned-but personally I am content that in all the circumstances the right decision was made regarding he officer.

I understand that the officer did not realise he had been tasered. And you have to consider whilst on the floor the officer is exposed-especially as he is carrying a firearm. He rightly gets up.

 

[Bigga]

The police are not on trial. Kick to the head or no kick to the head, justified or not justified, is irrelevant. That happened AFTER the ABH was committed by the defendants. It cannot affect the verdict. "We assaulted the police officers in advance because we expected to get kicked in the head later" - is not a solid defence, is it!

And I'd be extremely surprised - although I am not sure - if it can affect the sentence.

I've mentioned nothing about the trial as I think it's the correct decision.

My concern is whether an officer steps beyond their role under duress when an arrested person is secured. It, essentially, allows some to think they can get a dig in even when on cam and frame it as 'justified'.

We're not America (yet), but we see it all the time where police shoot/ kill people as they were 'in fear for their lives' when that is clearly not in evidence at times and it's accepted.

I don't want that here.

 

[Bigga]

You make fair points-and i tried to have a balanced view from the beginning-but the use of force in law is an honestly held belief by the person (here the officer) using it-so it is entirely subjective.

Use of force by the police is also covered by legislation-under Pace, Criminal law act, ECHR and common law-it all has to be justified. And this was reviewed by CPS. Correctly we have checks and balances in this country because the lawful use of force has to be reasoned-but personally I am content that in all the circumstances the right decision was made regarding he officer.

I understand that the officer did not realise he had been tasered. And you have to consider whilst on the floor the officer is exposed-especially as he is carrying a firearm. He rightly gets up.

Thanks for your response.

I understand it doesn't really address the situation as I ask it, but that's fine as you've replied. The greater context of my question, thus reasoning, is the one I answered above to Chippy.

 

[bert38]

I've mentioned nothing about the trial as I think it's the correct decision.

My concern is whether an officer steps beyond their role under duress when an arrested person is secured. It, essentially, allows some to think they can get a dig in even when on cam and frame it as 'justified'.

We're not America (yet), but we see it all the time where police shoot/ kill people as they were 'in fear for their lives' when that is clearly not in evidence at times and it's accepted.

I don't want that here.

Honestly you don't have that here-I would reiterate that the suspect wasn't secured..he had at that point assaulted numerous officers. In addition, the other male wasn't secured either. The officer had been punched numerous times to his head-he had to stop it all happening. He did.

This incident captured the interest of the entire country (many for the wrong reasons-either anti police or the usual people who simply dislike people for their skin colour) but above all this documented the violence police face every shift and the utter mayhem and chaos when it 'kicks off'. There have been numerous similar incidents recently where officers have been beaten whilst just trying to do their jobs.

Its impossible to train for the eventuality of being punched in the head numerous times.

There are much wider issues around modern policing-the erosion of pay/conditions such that the average cop on the fronline is very young and short of service but thats another matter. Politicians should be held to account for that.

 

[johnnytapia]

Fuck me, I thought it would be 5 years minimum, with the array of charges against him.
Assault on 4 people, and separately assault on 3 emergency workers.
No wonder some people consider that the law is an ass.

Now, if he’d have cut down a tree….

 

[Bigga]

Honestly you don't have that here-I would reiterate that the suspect wasn't secured..he had at that point assaulted numerous officers. In addition, the other male wasn't secured either. The officer had been punched numerous times to his head-he had to stop it all happening. He did.

This incident captured the interest of the entire country (many for the wrong reasons-either anti police or the usual people who simply dislike people for their skin colour) but above all this documented the violence police face every shift and the utter mayhem and chaos when it 'kicks off'. There have been numerous similar incidents recently where officers have been beaten whilst just trying to do their jobs.

Its impossible to train for the eventuality of being punched in the head numerous times.

There are much wider issues around modern policing-the erosion of pay/conditions such that the average cop on the fronline is very young and short of service but thats another matter. Politicians should be held to account for that.

Thanks again for the response.

I think, where the police are concerned (and I know this doesn't legislate for armed assailants) they should be trained for the physical possibilities to a high level and it be constant. To be honest, I don't know at what level this happens, but the original video I saw seemed all over the place to me.

Personally, I don't think any officer should be on the street if they are not, at least, black belt level in any of the fighting disciplines available. Just for their own safety!

 

[ganganvince]

I don't want to get back into this whole thing, but I have to ask the question; was the perp on his stomach and cuffed behind his back?

If so, where does 'ensuring the gun was not taken' justify a kick to the face when subdued? See that logic? You can say 'he lost his head' which I'd accept as a Human thing to do, but he's an officer in a job where he has to remain professional under duress and do only 'as much as necessary at the time' which he goes beyond with a downed, subdued perp.

There were 2 of them he needed to turn his back and assist in tackling the other.

 

[bert38]

Thanks again for the response.

I think, where the police are concerned (and I know this doesn't legislate for armed assailants) they should be trained for the physical possibilities to a high level and it be constant. To be honest, I don't know at what level this happens, but the original video I saw seemed all over the place to me.

Personally, I don't think any officer should be on the street if they are not, at least, black belt level in any of the fighting disciplines available. Just for their own safety!

Firearms officers are trained to a much higher level than response officers.

Officers are given UDT (unarmed defensive tactics) like pressure points and knee strikes-but when it unravels its very hard to use-mainly because in real life people don't stand still while you work out your move. UDT training is once or twice a year typically.

But expecting all frontline officers to be black belt in any fighting discipline is completely unrealistic-for starters most could never reach that level of attainment, so it would rule out most people-and what happens when they reach their forties for example and can't do it? do you just sack them off? But also the cost of training and refreshing would be astronomical. No amount of training would still prepare you for dealing with extreme violence (such as here) and coked up or violently deranged individuals intent on causing harm. Or those with knives. Part of the training for dealing with knives is actually to run away..because once you close the reactionary gap, you will get hurt.

Personally I think the officers were incredibly brave in this incident. It would have been terrifying.

 

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

Thanks again for the response.

I think, where the police are concerned (and I know this doesn't legislate for armed assailants) they should be trained for the physical possibilities to a high level and it be constant. To be honest, I don't know at what level this happens, but the original video I saw seemed all over the place to me.

Personally, I don't think any officer should be on the street if they are not, at least, black belt level in any of the fighting disciplines available. Just for their own safety!

And all the criminals train up to be black belts too? Every arrest will be like a Jackie Chan movie!

 

[stonerblue]

Looking at what's currently going on in Epping, if this happens then God help us.
I can't understand why it's taking so long. It's all on video, they can't deny what they did, it should've been done and dusted in the time it takes to show the video
This is all about their lawyer trying to make a name for himself

No, it's called the justice system and everyone is entitled yo a defence no matter how futile it may be.

 

[Corky]

And all the criminals train up to be black belts too? Every arrest will be like a Jackie Chan movie!

But they would look good when getting battered by someone twice their size, able to go through their Kata and make the right sounds, where as the likes of Usyk and Dubois would not be qualified.

 

[stonerblue]

They (the BBC) have turned into a truly revolting organisation haven't they. They get on the wrong side of the argument every fucking time. I can't bear to listen to them with their constant political preaching. And if you complain they just write back and tell you (in terms) to fuck off. 1 complaint in every 600 million is upheld. Shameful.

I would disband them immediately and save us all a fortune.

Mrs Brown's boys FFS.

Political preaching eh...

 

[Feed the Elk]

There were 2 of them he needed to turn his back and assist in tackling the other.

If I was the police officer in that situation I may have used extreme force because I may have been concerned that, with all the agitated onlookers, there may have been additional threats incoming. So in my opinion the level of force to securely incapacitate an offender was justified.

Plus, anyone attacking an armed officer with that level of vigour obviously has no respect for the law and I’d be concerned that the aggressors would do whatever it took to get their way.