Policeman guilty of assault

I'd like to think i'm a reasonable person, not prone to violence but if someone spat in my face they would get hit. Repeatedly.

firedfromthecircus":36e59juu said:

highlandsflyer":36e59juu said:

Spitting is amongst the least of all physical attacks.

Click to expand...

But while not very physical it is far more disgusting than a punch in the mouth!

I'm in agreement with those who say the world has gone mad. :evil:

If two innocent men were walking down the street and one spat in the others mouth, the spitter would deserve a punch in the mouth from the spittee. No question.

This situation is not as open as that one. The policeman is trying to do his job and gets a mouth of gob for his trouble. While the guy being arrested has rights he broke the contract by gobbing at the arresting officer. I cannot stand police brutality, but no-one in any profession should have to tolerate being gobbed on. :x

Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether people are missing the point on this deliberately, or simply not recognised. From what I read, the police officer was more likely found guilty, not simply because he responded to being assaulted (which being spat on, is) with force, per se - but what would be perceived as excessive force.

Had he just instinctively lashed out back, once, then held himself in check, it may well have been a different outcome. But like it or not, the law doesn't just allow people to go bat-shit crazy once they've been assaulted. Repeatedly striking somebody or beating the crap out of them afterwards, isn't likely going to be accepted. An instinctive response - eg lashing out, striking once, or something proportionate may well be accepted purely as a natural reaction, or self-defence type situation.

But you don't get a free hand - that's why in analogous situations, people have been prosecuted for shooting burglars when they were running away - the law wouldn't see that as a proportionate response, that you were doing so because it was necessary to defend yourself - after all, if somebody is running away, you're no longer at threat.

There may well be situations that are good evidence that the world is going mad, but I'm not convinced this is one. Reading the article, it seems as if this coppers colleague, there at the time, had opined that he'd gone over the top.

tintin40":36e59juu said:

i agree the policeman shouldn't have done it.
But didn't a certain John Prescot punch an egg thrower and get away with it. Spitting is much worse than egg throwing.
Who knows what germs he could given the policeman?

The policeman should have just got a written warning on his police record.

Click to expand...

Fair point about two-jags - many were arguing he should have faced assault at the time - but didn't he only land one punch? It was probably helped by handlers being on the scene, and not letting anything go further.

My take is that the law may well tolerate you instinctively fighting back, but not beating the crap outta somebody, or inflicting revenge. Natural reaction, possibly - wading in and going further - well that likely does put you at risk of being found guilty - and I'm not aghast with that - I think I'm loosely in favour.

If somebody - whether doing their job, or otherwise - is spat on, has something thrown at them, or struck - if they respond with merely the same kind of force, either by instinct, or fearing they need to defend themselves, I'm good with that. If they then decide to inflict revenge and beat the crap out of somebody - well that's gone beyond mere defence and initial instinctive response.

swannymere":36e59juu said:

I'd like to think i'm a reasonable person, not prone to violence but if someone spat in my face they would get hit. Repeatedly.

Click to expand...

And the repeatedly bit may, hypothetically see you found guilty, too.

Only just read the story in the link...

...I think the pertinent point is his colleague giving evidence against him; easiest thing in the world to 'not see' the incident.

I miss the good old days when retribution was swift and effective; don't bother castigating me for it either, I grew up in a better world than I live in today!

We_are_Stevo":17ixx1gm said:

Only just read the story in the link...

...I think the pertinent point is his colleague giving evidence against him; easiest thing in the world to 'not see' the incident.

I miss the good old days when retribution was swift and effective; don't bother castigating me for it either, I grew up in a better world than I live in today!

Click to expand...

Well I kinda see it - to my mind, there's a difference between a short, sharp, shock, an beating the crap outta somebody though.

Do I miss the days when a police officer might give a clip around the ear of some ne'er-do-well - absolutely. That said, do I think it's the same as being okay with beatings? Absolutely not.

There is a difference. A parent giving a child a short, sharp, shock of a slap on the hand or leg, when a child has done something that really needs correcting - in my mind, never did me any harm - and I don't look back and think my parents were abusers or assaulting me. Do I think it's right, though, for somebody to turn something like that into more of a beating with belts, slippers, straps et al - well that's where I think the line should be drawn.

Same for the police, really - I've no issue with a police officer - whether they truly should be able to rise above it, or not - in instinctively reacting - but I think there's a line that's easily crossed with that sort of acceptance - I'm not buying that beatings, or "the accused" falling down the stairs FOUR times is ever really on. I also think that some get more than their taste for power - look at that situation with the guy during the riots, where apparently he wasn't "moving on" with the swiftness that one of the police officers would tolerate.

I guess that's the problem - where, in my opinion, at least, reasonable, minor use of force - and not abused, could make all the sense in the world, there's a heap of cases where idiots, thugs, or others with "authority" go too far, or feel empowered to be able to go to far.

All that said, there's a whole big group of people who's job it is to interact with people from all parts of society, that are slowly but surely being undermined and feeling lack of protection or support from their employers when in situations with violent or unpredictable people. The problem is, the ones that go too far, like this copper, it's those people that are the ones who are undermining and giving wings and more leniency and consideration to some of the utter low-lifes they have to deal with.

Afternoon all,

Just to muddy the waters - the police office was spat at and the sputum went into the police officer's mouth. In all honesty, which one of you would not react badly to this. I have been spat at and on and it is not a pleasant experience - i think it is totally disgusting and, as per a post above, i would rather be punched than spat on. As yet, I have never had sputum in my mouth and I hope that never happens.

I have experience of a female who was spat at by a drunk male, the sputum went into her mouth and she was visibly distressed - the male did this deliberately and he was sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year - not long enough!

In conclusion, my mad thought is that if the Court finds this officer's reaction excessive, the officer should be given the opportunity to spit in the mouth of the judge and see what reaction is. I honestly think that perhaps the outcome would be different.

Richard

The bottom line is...

"The Police Force is drawn from Society, therefore Society gets the Police Force it deserves."

I am not condoning gratuitous violence and I am not promoting summary justice but i would ask the question -

If someone spat in your mouth, what would your reaction be?

You would have to be a bigger man than me to 'rise above it'.

Richard

TGR":2yjfg9bl said:

I am not condoning gratuitous violence and I am not promoting summary justice but i would ask the question -

If someone spat in your mouth, what would your reaction be?

You would have to be a bigger man than me to 'rise above it'.

Richard

Click to expand...

There is a difference between somebody who just does something instinctive - like lashing out and punching somebody after being spat on, to going mad and repeatedly hitting somebody. The first could be seen as give and take - the latter looks like more like retribution and revenge.

Had the police officer just hit him once - and assuming hadn't done any real serious damage, he may not have been found guilty - perhaps not even prosecuted - who's to say. But repeated blows looks like a beating, not simply responding in kind.

Now whether you, or anybody else feels like you would beat somebody to a bloody pulp, for spitting on you - whether it got in your mouth, or otherwise, be under no illusions - the justice system will unlikely support you in doing so, more the reverse - you'll likely face prosecution and conviction for it. Some may say they don't care, they'll do what they like and let the cards fall where they may...

I re-read the report and note that the offence was Common Assault and not AOABH which would mean the the injured party suffered minimal injury (if any injury at all). It mentions 2 punches which is not 'repeatedly hitting' IMHO. Interestingly, the spitter would be convicted of the same offence for spitting in the officer's mouth and if he spat on the uniform, a prosecution for Criminal Damage may have resulted. The sentence for the CD would probably be worse than for the assault!

Thanks for the advice on the Criminal Justice system, i have to presume that you have faith in it, personally i don't.

Richard

TGR":3vycq75q said:

Thanks for the advice on the Criminal Justice system, i have to presume that you have faith in it, personally i don't.

Click to expand...

I completely agree, and that is where the madness lies. More and more 'ordinary' people like us are losing our faith in the justice system and that is the road to ruin. :cry:
Or reform. :?

It seems the ruin may come first. :cry: