Policeman guilty of assault

I don't buy that. If he'd have struck the spitter, and said he did it to attempt to ensure he didn't spit again - that would be one thing. But when the hazard is in the back of a van, and behind a closed van door - it's rather hard to see the clear and present danger - then opening the van door again, and hitting him more than once - then the copper wasn't doing it because he was in danger, it rather sounds like he was doing it for revenge.

In those circumstances, it's no bloody wonder he was found guilty, he was also guilty of being bloody stupid. Ask yourself this - what would you imagine the police would do, if those circumstances were part of a proper police complaint, only the person opening the van door again, and walloping the guy in the van a few times for good measure, wasn't a copper?

I take your point TGR, it is understandable that due to the stress of the situation, one might lash out even after one would expect he had time to think.

The only thing is, the assailant was in custody, and the officer had a duty of care he neglected.

I have been assaulted several times by police officers over my lifetime, three particular times completely without cause.

They are just human beings, but in the same way I have been trained to contain situations they are trained to do so, and keep a cool head. Suggesting society is going to hell in a handcart merely because an officer has been found guilty of a crime it seems clear he committed is ridiculous.

The premeditation is the real key to it. Really ought to have exercised self control, and it really has to be asked what he may do behind closed doors.

Perhaps he is not a bad fella, but he is not up to snuff as an officer of the law.

Neil,

You typed 'i don't buy that' but as far as i can see you actually agree with me to some extent.

Highlandlandsflyer,

I am not being argumentative, just stating a point that the 'red mist' may have been down when the incident happened. Training will help prevent the 'red mist' but will never totally prevent it. I am not trying to justify what the officer did, i am trying to explain what 'might' have happened and the report gives no indication as to the time frame involved between the spit and the assault.

You have made the point that Police officers are human beings which is the point I have been trying to make.

I still hold the view that if someone did this to you, would you hold the moral high ground and turn the other cheek?

Was John Prescott right or wrong?

Richard

OK, I will bite.

I have not only been spat on, I have had objects thrown at me and been punched, kicked, bitten and all sorts of other 'assaults'. This was by psychiatric patients or adults with extreme challenging behaviour.

I went into the work with my eyes open, and had the required training. My response was always professional regardless of my emotional state. Thanks to discipline, and realising I was not under serious threat as I had the ability to control the situation as part of a trained team.

One time I went to collect one of my employers from a day centre and he ran out and blind sided me with an impressive right hook. I was concussed by smacking my head on the kerb and as I regained my awareness he was being pinned down by the day centre staff.

If I were alone and saw him coming at me, as happened on many other occasions, I would have handled it.

As a police officer you are trained to deal with violence, there is never an excuse to go beyond an instinctive response. It may indeed be human to feel like doing it, but it is illegal to go ahead and take one's anger out on someone under one's care.

John Prescott responded to an attack instantly. Not only was he within his rights, he was totally justified.

I replied with "I don't buy that" to the bit I emboldened - ie it was a normal human reaction. If he'd have done it immediately, I'd buy it. But to shut the guy in the van, wipe off the spit, then open the van and launch himself at the guy and hit him more than once?

That's not just defence, that's not just instinct, that's retribution. And IMO, that's why he was found guilty. Because there was a pregnant pause in proceedings, and because he hit the guy more than once.



The two-jags thing was different - he reacted instantaneously. If that had happened the egg-thrower cuffed and walked, then two-jags turned around, got free of his handlers (yes, just like in the movies...) and had a pop at the egg-thrower? Quite a different situation.

You have only to open your eyes to see society is heading for meltdown; not in my time admittedly but inevitably?

Definitely...

The Middle East had the most advanced civilisation in the world at a time when our ancestors were grubbing around in mud huts, dressing in animal skins and mislaying divers personal belongings and misgotten gains for future metal detector fans; look at the state they're in today!

Get with it Stevo, the ancients in Britain were much more advanced than previously thought according to modern findings.

I don't see anything to rival the library of Ephesus in this country...

...the Romans had central heating; we had wattle and daub!

Exactly which part of the Middle East were these in????