G20 attack cop, "comes forward"

[triggersbroom]

triggersbroom said:

mcdjl said:

The Black Flash said:

mcdjl said:

I know from experience that shoving some one can easily cause them to lose their balance (from both ends of it). As the shove isn't very clear on TV is it possible that the shove was a hurry up and not intended to floor the guy at all...he does certainly appear to be deliberately walking slowly/annoyingly. Hitting him with the batton was certainly a bit extreme.

There are two clips from two different angles. The shove is not a "hurry up" shove with the arm, it's a properly executed whole-body thrust from a low base, powered by the legs. It will be a technique he's been trained in for repelling people in a melee. Too forceful in that situation IMO.

Ah not seen the second clip, so i can't comment on that. If that is the case quite possibly too forceful. From what ive seen though he didnt look too ill immediately after as he appears to be mouthing off at the cops...who dont do anything- maybe they realised theyve gone too far already?

Well, if that had happened to me I would indeed be saying "why the fk did you hit me?" too. Mouthing off? Depends on you definition.

This is correct^^^^

[ExChrispy Porker]

If, just if, the man with his back to you was threatening to spit at you, perhaps had already done so, and was filling his mouth to do so, would that make the officer a disgrace?

There are lots of possible scenarios, it is pointless speculating, or prejudging, IMO.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

fesuvious said:

what? Does he spit sulphuric acid?

And exactly how does he threaten to spit whilst walking away with his back to you? Is his mouth on the back of his head?

No he can spit blood. You can walk talk and rake up stuff from your throat with your back turned. It then takes a quick head turn.

[mcdjl]

triggersbroom said:

What's wrong with this site? Quotes not working ^^^^^^ it's all wrong and confusing, cause I never said that.

Edited by triggersbroom on Thursday 9th April 19:58

Ay that was me siad that...dunno how it did that!

[Mr_annie_vxr]

fesuvious said:

sorry but thats clutching at straws, his body language was not threatening.

There was nothing to suggest threatening behaviour. If there had of been then id fully support the attitude of 'drop him, before he moves'.

Not on this one though.

And since when do the police face 'threats' of spitting? They'll either get spat on or they won't. No judgement could have been made because they couldn't see what he was doing.

Er. You asked about an unrelated scenario concerning someone facing away able to spit then you try and suggest I'm talking about this. Which I'm not. I've no idea what was said or done except that shown.

I've faced people threatening to spit at me a hell of a lot. Some have gone to do it others haven't. The fact you make a statement like that does reveal a lack if experience of violent people and situations. Something you should be gratefull for.

[skwdenyer]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

fesuvious said:

sorry but thats clutching at straws, his body language was not threatening.

There was nothing to suggest threatening behaviour. If there had of been then id fully support the attitude of 'drop him, before he moves'.

Not on this one though.

And since when do the police face 'threats' of spitting? They'll either get spat on or they won't. No judgement could have been made because they couldn't see what he was doing.

Er. You asked about an unrelated scenario concerning someone facing away able to spit then you try and suggest I'm talking about this. Which I'm not. I've no idea what was said or done except that shown.

I've faced people threatening to spit at me a hell of a lot. Some have gone to do it others haven't. The fact you make a statement like that does reveal a lack if experience of violent people and situations. Something you should be gratefull for.

I'm assuming that spitting is viewed as assault these days, presumably on (potential) medical grounds. In that case, and in a "heavy" situation such as the policing of these protests, if that is a known potential H&S hazard, surely officers should be equipped with visors? It is hardly unknown, after all, for protesters to spit, is it?

If you're suggesting that the alternative to adequate protective gear is to have officers violently assaulting individuals, that seems - to many of us, I think - on the face of it a little, err, "brash", don't you think?

[esselte]

skwdenyer said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

fesuvious said:

sorry but thats clutching at straws, his body language was not threatening.

There was nothing to suggest threatening behaviour. If there had of been then id fully support the attitude of 'drop him, before he moves'.

Not on this one though.

And since when do the police face 'threats' of spitting? They'll either get spat on or they won't. No judgement could have been made because they couldn't see what he was doing.

Er. You asked about an unrelated scenario concerning someone facing away able to spit then you try and suggest I'm talking about this. Which I'm not. I've no idea what was said or done except that shown.

I've faced people threatening to spit at me a hell of a lot. Some have gone to do it others haven't. The fact you make a statement like that does reveal a lack if experience of violent people and situations. Something you should be gratefull for.

I'm assuming that spitting is viewed as assault these days, presumably on (potential) medical grounds. In that case, and in a "heavy" situation such as the policing of these protests, if that is a known potential H&S hazard, surely officers should be equipped with visors? It is hardly unknown, after all, for protesters to spit, is it?

If you're suggesting that the alternative to adequate protective gear is to have officers violently assaulting individuals, that seems - to many of us, I think - on the face of it a little, err, "brash", don't you think?

If the guy was that much of a problem they why not just arrest him and get him out of the way...?

[ExChrispy Porker]

Let me be plain.
I am not suggesting this chap was spitting or was about to. I am saying that I have collected enough sputum in public order situations to fill a helmet, and contracting hepatitis and god knows what else, is a real issue.

Any officer will be very aware of that.

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face, whatever direction they were facing. Whether that applied in this case, I have no idea.

[skwdenyer]

ExChrispy Porker said:

Let me be plain.
I am not suggesting this chap was spitting or was about to. I am saying that I have collected enough sputum in public order situations to fill a helmet, and contracting hepatitis and god knows what else, is a real issue.

Any officer will be very aware of that.

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face, whatever direction they were facing. Whether that applied in this case, I have no idea.

I think my last post above still stands in that case. If the issue is a H&S one, ask for proper protective equipment. I'm afraid I'm going to stand my ground and say that IMHO to "deck someone" in that scenario is neither reasonable nor acceptable in a civilised society.

[esselte]

ExChrispy Porker said:

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face,

Is that valid for MoPs too chrispy?

[ExChrispy Porker]

skwdenyer said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Let me be plain.
I am not suggesting this chap was spitting or was about to. I am saying that I have collected enough sputum in public order situations to fill a helmet, and contracting hepatitis and god knows what else, is a real issue.

Any officer will be very aware of that.

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face, whatever direction they were facing. Whether that applied in this case, I have no idea.

I think my last post above still stands in that case. If the issue is a H&S one, ask for proper protective equipment. I'm afraid I'm going to stand my ground and say that IMHO to "deck someone" in that scenario is neither reasonable nor acceptable in a civilised society.

So in the seconds before he does it I ring the stores and ask for an umbrella?

Please try and be real. You have a second or two to react.

He is about to assault me, I assault him in a minor way to prevent it.

[esselte]

ExChrispy Porker said:

skwdenyer said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

Let me be plain.
I am not suggesting this chap was spitting or was about to. I am saying that I have collected enough sputum in public order situations to fill a helmet, and contracting hepatitis and god knows what else, is a real issue.

Any officer will be very aware of that.

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face, whatever direction they were facing. Whether that applied in this case, I have no idea.

I think my last post above still stands in that case. If the issue is a H&S one, ask for proper protective equipment. I'm afraid I'm going to stand my ground and say that IMHO to "deck someone" in that scenario is neither reasonable nor acceptable in a civilised society.

So in the seconds before he does it I ring the stores and ask for an umbrella?

Please try and be real. You have a second or two to react.

He is about to assault me, I assault him in a minor way to prevent it.

In the instane we are talking about the police knew they were going to do "crowd controll" so why could they not have been given the proper equipment when they were first deployed....

[paddyhasneeds]

ExChrispy Porker said:

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face, whatever direction they were facing. Whether that applied in this case, I have no idea.

So if you were called to an incident and found someone on the floor who'd been hit with a bloody big stick and the person who hit them said "I thought he was about to spit at me" you'd be OK with that?

Or is it just a "Just if it's a Police Officer thing?"

[ExChrispy Porker]

Who knows?
I am merely speculating on a scenario where I could see myself putting a man down, even though he had his back to me.
Other posters may not share my view, of course.

The fact that the kit does not protect the wearer makes this kind of defence more justified. Wearing a visor down means that in seconds you cannot see properly due to condensation, so that is not a great help either.

[ExChrispy Porker]

esselte said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face,

Is that valid for MoPs too chrispy?

Sounds reasonable to me.

[ExChrispy Porker]

paddyhasneeds said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face, whatever direction they were facing. Whether that applied in this case, I have no idea.

So if you were called to an incident and found someone on the floor who'd been hit with a bloody big stick and the person who hit them said "I thought he was about to spit at me" you'd be OK with that?

Or is it just a "Just if it's a Police Officer thing?"

Certainly not. The law of self defence applies to everyone. I would take all the evidence and circumstances into account and then ask the CPS. Which is what happens in all assault cases. Including the one under discussion.

[King Herald]

magpie215 said:

bazking69 said:

2. Why was he walking so close to a sweeping line of riot cops so casually. If I didn't want trouble I'd make sure I was well out of their way, even if it meant running.

Maybe he also had a rucksack with him and chose not to run with his back to the cops

Speaking of rucksacks, I collected my Brazilian work visa on Wednesday. It is amazing the lack of security at their London consulate, compared to the US Embassy. Wonder why?

[ExChrispy Porker]

King Herald said:

magpie215 said:

bazking69 said:

2. Why was he walking so close to a sweeping line of riot cops so casually. If I didn't want trouble I'd make sure I was well out of their way, even if it meant running.

Maybe he also had a rucksack with him and chose not to run with his back to the cops

Speaking of rucksacks, I collected my Brazilian work visa on Wednesday. It is amazing the lack of security at their London consulate, compared to the US Embassy. Wonder why?

Brazilians are popular. So I am told.

[skwdenyer]

ExChrispy Porker said:

paddyhasneeds said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face, whatever direction they were facing. Whether that applied in this case, I have no idea.

So if you were called to an incident and found someone on the floor who'd been hit with a bloody big stick and the person who hit them said "I thought he was about to spit at me" you'd be OK with that?

Or is it just a "Just if it's a Police Officer thing?"

Certainly not. The law of self defence applies to everyone. I would take all the evidence and circumstances into account and then ask the CPS. Which is what happens in all assault cases. Including the one under discussion.

I'll bear that in mind for the future. In fact, it would be terribly useful in a wide range of circumstances. I wasn't aware that assault was excusable on the grounds that "they looked like they were getting ready to spit at me" or even "they looked like they were getting ready to punch me". If it is, that opens a great deal of scope for random violence. The evidential burden is simple: "your honour, I honestly believed that he was about to spit at me".

Right, who wants to go out for a spot of "good old ultra-violence"?

[ExChrispy Porker]

skwdenyer said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

paddyhasneeds said:

ExChrispy Porker said:

In my view it is quite acceptable to deck someone if you believe they are about to spit in your face, whatever direction they were facing. Whether that applied in this case, I have no idea.

So if you were called to an incident and found someone on the floor who'd been hit with a bloody big stick and the person who hit them said "I thought he was about to spit at me" you'd be OK with that?

Or is it just a "Just if it's a Police Officer thing?"

Certainly not. The law of self defence applies to everyone. I would take all the evidence and circumstances into account and then ask the CPS. Which is what happens in all assault cases. Including the one under discussion.

I'll bear that in mind for the future. In fact, it would be terribly useful in a wide range of circumstances. I wasn't aware that assault was excusable on the grounds that "they looked like they were getting ready to spit at me" or even "they looked like they were getting ready to punch me". If it is, that opens a great deal of scope for random violence. The evidential burden is simple: "your honour, I honestly believed that he was about to spit at me".

Right, who wants to go out for a spot of "good old ultra-violence"?

I appreciate that you know nothing about the law in relation to self defence, so trust me on this one.
If someone is about to shoot at you, do you have to wait until he has done so before firing at him ? Think about that scenario, and then apply the principle of a preemptive strike to lesser degrees of force.

In short, if you have an honestly held , reasonable belief, that someone is about to assault you, you have the right to use reasonable force on them first in self defence.

I haven't got the time or inclination to look up caselaw on this but if you want to do your own research Lord Griffith in the case of Beckford v R would be as good an authority as any.