You typed 'i don't buy that' but as far as i can see you actually agree with me to some extent.
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.
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?
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.
This page intentionally left blank