Policeman guilty of assault

Mental.

Guy does something to warrant being arrested.
Guy spits in polis' mouth.
Polis puts the prick in his place (not well enough as it goes).
Polis is found guilty in court.

Should have truncheoned the wee prick to a pulp imo. At least make it worthwhile.

There's no way I'd be able to hold back in a situation like that. Back of the van, close the door and put the prick in his place. Stick your wishy washy restraint/ethics/society bullshit up your farter.

Mind you I did come out (ooer) as a drill sergeant in that test. I think they got me pretty well. What this country needs yadda yadda.
 
technodup":18t5g90p said:
Mental.

Guy does something to warrant being arrested.
Guy spits in polis' mouth.
Polis puts the prick in his place (not well enough as it goes).
Polis is found guilty in court.

Should have truncheoned the wee prick to a pulp imo. At least make it worthwhile.

There's no way I'd be able to hold back in a situation like that. Back of the van, close the door and put the prick in his place. Stick your wishy washy restraint/ethics/society bullshit up your farter.

Mind you I did come out (ooer) as a drill sergeant in that test. I think they got me pretty well. What this country needs yadda yadda.

How does the country need one set of scrotes to be replaced with another?
 
It's not like for like. A set of uniformed scrotes reacting to jakey scrotes who instigate is preferable to the scum having the upper hand.

I don't expect agreement with all the beards on here but that's never bothered me before.
 
technodup":2vptlrvd said:
It's not like for like. A set of uniformed scrotes reacting to jakey scrotes who instigate is preferable to the scum having the upper hand.

I don't expect agreement with all the beards on here but that's never bothered me before.

And that's the only way, state sponsored thugs to keep amateur thugs in check?

There's nothing at all in that huge middle you're occluding?

I've nothing against unusual viewpoints, but you could at least make competent ones, rather than reactionary.
 
I do chuckle when the old 'I pay my taxes' argument is pulled out, I'm sorry but it's meaningless bilge, Police Officers pay taxes too you know. Furthermore, I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone here but until such time as you've pulled on the uniform, taken beatings to protect complete strangers, and put the job before you or your own family then it is impossible for you to accurately judge the jobs pressures and thereby how to perfectly react in any given situation. Coppers on the frontline don't have the benefit of hindsight, that's all too easily forgotten by many.
 
retrocomeback":1xsr933e said:
I do chuckle when the old 'I pay my taxes' argument is pulled out, I'm sorry but it's meaningless bilge, Police Officers pay taxes too you know. Furthermore, I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone here but until such time as you've pulled on the uniform, taken beatings to protect complete strangers, and put the job before you or your own family then it is impossible for you to accurately judge the jobs pressures and thereby how to perfectly react in any given situation. Coppers on the frontline don't have the benefit of hindsight, that's all too easily forgotten by many.

Yes, yes, yes - and I chuckle with the whole "you shouldn't criticise unless you've done it yourself..." argument.

Like it or not, police are public servants, and taxpayers are entitled to pass comment.

As to the merits of this incident, from the details of the BBC news webpage, he shut the guy in the van, wiped off the spit, then decided to launch himself at the scrote. Given the explanation for the verdict (quoted earlier) from the details available I'm calling it as a decent verdict.
 
Another 2p (this is getting expensive),

I am not arguing that is it not a decent verdict. On the information presented it seems just.
I am, however, making the point that I find the spitting particulary offensive and the fact that police (polis) officers are human and sometimes the 'red mist' takes over.

Richard
 
TGR":1a9u36zk said:
Another 2p (this is getting expensive),

I am not arguing that is it not a decent verdict. On the information presented it seems just.
I am, however, making the point that I find the spitting particulary offensive and the fact that police (polis) officers are human and sometimes the 'red mist' takes over.

Richard

I too agree that spitting is disgusting and scummy. And I accept sometimes people react - if it was an immediate smack, back, then 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

But to wipe it off, open the van door, then launch himself at the scrote - well that's something else. As highlandsflyer said - what's the difference between that, and the odd copper, or three, decided to meter out their own justice in a cell kicking?
 
Neil":38udjvlr said:
I've nothing against unusual viewpoints, but you could at least make competent ones, rather than reactionary.
I'm all for proper punishment of offenders rather than the pussy crap we have now. Three strikes style, basic prisons, no luxuries, chemical castration for paedos, island jails, hanging, the lot.

More of that and less of the human rights bullshit would garner more respect/fear (doesn't matter which to me) of the authorities and the consequences and thereby reduce the number of wee scrotes thinking it's acceptable to spit in police's faces.

In the absence of proper and structured deterrents I'm happy to turn a blind eye when a polis fancies breaking some bones in the back of the van.

The criminal thought he'd get away with whatever he did, or thought that if he got caught the risk was worth the reward. And then he thought it appropriate once caught because he is a crap criminal to spit in a man's mouth. And then he thought it appropriate not to merely accept that he'd been a bad boy and take his (severe) comeuppance but chose to make an issue of it in the courts. What a ****.

And we're concentrating on the 'rights' of the criminal. :roll: I hope that for every case like this there are many more going unreported.
 
technodup":hv2a80jq said:
Neil":hv2a80jq said:
I've nothing against unusual viewpoints, but you could at least make competent ones, rather than reactionary.
I'm all for proper punishment of offenders rather than the pussy crap we have now. Three strikes style, basic prisons, no luxuries, chemical castration for paedos, island jails, hanging, the lot.

More of that and less of the human rights bullshit would garner more respect/fear (doesn't matter which to me) of the authorities and the consequences and thereby reduce the number of wee scrotes thinking it's acceptable to spit in police's faces.

In the absence of proper and structured deterrents I'm happy to turn a blind eye when a polis fancies breaking some bones in the back of the van.

The criminal thought he'd get away with whatever he did, or thought that if he got caught the risk was worth the reward. And then he thought it appropriate once caught because he is a crap criminal to spit in a man's mouth. And then he thought it appropriate not to merely accept that he'd been a bad boy and take his (severe) comeuppance but chose to make an issue of it in the courts. What a c*nt.

And we're concentrating on the 'rights' of the criminal. :roll: I hope that for every case like this there are many more going unreported.

It's a pointless argument - you suggest that more thuggish behaviour by "approved thugs" would be a deterrent? So where's the convincing argument, beyond power of assertion?

As to the spitter, I haven't defended him - buddy I think he's slime... (subtle reference, there) - all the same, there's something you miss in all this - the copper has just been proven to be a thug by his behaviour. That you, and perhaps others aren't concerned because of the target and provocation is one thing - but that is just hand-waving.
 
Back
Top