Police brutality

[clapham_gull]

On tape it does...however at present the story only gives the sides of the story from the guy involved and the judge who presided over his appeal. Why did the initial court find him guilty......and we hav'nt heard the officers side.

Having re-read the story as instructed a big point for me is why the paramedics fealt the need to call the police about him (if it was him, dosnt make that clear)

Also says somthing like the cctv starts with the guy unsteady on his feet then the officers going at him.

So what happened before the video starts?

My whole point is not stating what they did to him is ok..its not, but there is more to this than what we can see and what we have heard. And that without knowing the whole story its not fair to label it an unprovoked assault.

One court says guilty, another says not.......who's right?

I would imagine the second which over ruled the decision of the first. That's generally how it works.

There is of course much more to this than we can see, but I would imagine the appeal court saw a whole lot more than both of us.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

One court says guilty, another says not.......who's right?

That the easy question to answer. Liverpool Crown Court.

Not just because it is the Crown Court's job to hear appeals against the decision of a panel of magistrates. But also because of the facts of the case. As the judge said about the police officers' stories, “...the statements contain untruths.”

 

[Questions]

Is the police training school still at Hendon ?

Ah the old face scraping manouver......

If a drunken assailant comes at you with sarcasm or a dangerous line in irony it is imperative he is brought to the ground as quickly as possible to have his face scraped on a gritty road surface.