doesnt make it always right. else they wouldnt keep changing it.
what a stupid comment he's in jail. If we all did that we'd all go to jail.
I've already said what he should of done, and therefore what I would of done. You speak for yourself.
na the plod don't beat people up
- Thread starter kevplumb
- Start date
doesnt make it always right. else they wouldnt keep changing it.
I've already said what he should of done, and therefore what I would of done. You speak for yourself.
Sponsored Links
Well...no-one has changed it, so we can work on the assumption that it is right.
...and no, we would all be in jail if there was CCTV footage of us doing it.
I have seen parents move disobedient children in the same way, which no-one seems to care about...why should we pay extra attention to this boozed up ****?
so its ok to throw people around and smash their head open as long as no one sees it. What a pleasant man you are.
If a parent threw their child against something and splits their head open and someone sees it, im sure they'd get a visit from the authorities.
Whatever she has done or whatever she is(neither of which we know and your assuming to help your argument) the police are not obliged to injure people "just because". There are ways of dealing people and this isn't it, hence why its an isolated incident. If it was normal practice then this wouldn't be news would it. We're not paying attention to the woman, we're paying attention the extermely over-zealous actions of one police officer who should of known better.
Sponsored Links
Oh no he's not...(agree it was a stupid comment though...!)
He was only in for 6 days
I wonder if a 'civilian' would get bail whilst appealing against an assault conviction?...
And why a hearing 'behind closed doors'?...
he's been prosecuted so he must have broke the law, and as someone said.........
There, have edited it...that better?
Anyway, like I was saying before i was so rudely interrupted,
I am not arguing that the crime of 'assault' shouldn't exist...as it is the law for a reason, however I don't see why it should be applied to this case. The girl fell on her face.
Anyway, like I was saying before i was so rudely interrupted,
I am not arguing that the crime of 'assault' shouldn't exist...as it is the law for a reason, however I don't see why it should be applied to this case. The girl fell on her face.
not without help she didn't
...this is where we disagree. In that case, if you see it as that black and white, she was detained, that is abduction, she was touched, that was assault...and that was just getting her out of the car.
Simply point is, the police have the legal authority to move someone, if she had gone willingly she wouldn't have hurt herself, she resisted and got hurt. Her own fault.
not without help she didn't
Yes, but 'gravity' cannot be charged in the Uk courts.
so what your saying is that for a person to be detained then assaulted by a uniformed officer who is supposed to represent the law is ok
by the way the same law that convicted him
your on cloud cuckoo land
man you make 2 short planks look like a computer
by the way the same law that convicted him
your on cloud cuckoo land
man you make 2 short planks look like a computer
Sponsored Links
