TGR":19sk86e2 said:Another 2p's worth
I do see a difference in "going into a cell and giving a kicking to" anyone and the reaction to someone spitting into you mouth, irrespective of whether the officer had to open a door to get to the spitter or not.
Consider a normal person's reaction to the spit - Police officers may receive training in relation to use of force etc. but at the end of the day, they are people and sometimes will react to provocation. Reacting may, in some circumstances, be wrong and it appears in this case, the Court has found the officer to be in the wrong.
I do understand that within the confines of the law, the officer is in the wrong - spitting in someone's mouth will not cause them any immediate harm and there is not a need to protect yourself from impending injury etc BUT what I have been trying to explain is that, in my opinion, the officer reacted in a normal human way.
Richard
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?