I'm surprised no one has mentioned the incident at Manchester Airport yet. Massive amount of discussion on the media.
Initially we have a report of a PC kicking a male on the floor around the head with a heated reaction from the media and the community on the street . Their legal rep is taking up the case for compo on behalf of the 'victims'.
As time goes on further footage is released of what appears to be an arrest which turns into a cage fight perpetrated by the 'victims' who seem to have absolutely no scruples about attacking the Police.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 28 Jul 24 at 13:23
|
|
Try that in the USA and see where it gets you…
|
It seems clear that something started on board the aircraft. POssibly involving a racial slur against the Mother of one of the young men who kicked off.
At some point the Police were involved and it seems the men initially presented as 'victims' went off like fireworks.
If the young man's head was kicked while the Police were at risk and needed to defend themselves then officer may well be OK and that's how it should be.
If however the officer was in red mist territory and doing a Mexican hat dance on the head of a man who was tasered and incapacitated he's up poo creek.
The worrying bit is how quickly Social Media half truths can set a town alight.
Chapeau to Andy Burnham for his conduct as Mayor.
|
>> Try that in the USA and see where it gets you…
>>
Yes, a cop in the USA shot dead a woman. She had called the police because she thought there was an intruder in their house. She then went to boil some water (not clear if it was to be a weapon or not) and the cop killed her.
The cop didn't have his bodyworn on. His partner did and reported him as he thought it wrong. The shooting cop has been sacked and charged with murder. The partner has apparently been ostracised.
They have a thing called qualified immunity there that protects govt. officials from the law - a mad thing. A man went to check on the welfare of his ex after a bad accident. Her current partner a govt official assaults him with a deadly weapon for no reason - there was no other interaction and the courts can't do anything about it.
|
The attack on the police was clearly unwarranted.
I notice the suspect really punches the female officers. Is it a misogynistic thing? They looked well targeted - is he a boxer?
I am sure the suspect will be found guilty of assaulting an emergency worker(s) and rightly so and I hope that they get the maximum sentence if found guilty.
The issue comes after he is tasered. He is on the floor and apparently incapacitated. Was that kick initiated after he was incapacitated - i.e. red mist or part of the process of incapacitating him. If the former than the officer did wrong and is likely to be punished. If the latter, then he did nothing wrong.
The second part and not getting a lot of media attention is suspect 2 is sitting on a bench, hands above his head - i.e. surrendered.
It appears that the same police officer goes up to him and gets him to stand before knocking him to the floor. The second suspect appears to have surrendered. Whilst some caution is clearly required, was the level of force used necessary?
A third point, the first video was provided by the suspects. The second video has been "leaked". On who's agenda? It looks like it is airport CCTV. If they have deliberately released it or passed it to the police who have then released it then that can't be right - there are enough instances of suspects requesting body worn video footage under GDPR and who have been refused until after a trial. So surely the authorities would not have released it in error?
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 28 Jul 24 at 13:51
|
Whatever the provocation and whatever went on before the incident there is no way that a police officer kicking and stamping on the head of a man lying on the ground who was posing no further threat can be acceptable or justified.
It’s as simple as that.
|
I don’t believe it is as simple as that.
You’re seeing it purely as a retaliatory strike.
What we don’t know is what was the perception of the guy doing the ‘kicking’? What was going on in his; well battered, head. What was his genuine belief at the time?
Sec 3 of the Criminal Law Act deals with the use of force and reasonableness. It revolves around what was the genuine perceived threat at the time and the proportionality of the response.
So if someone was waving about a piece of 1” tube in a threatening manner and it was mistaken for a shotgun with an appropriate response then the action can be justified.
Have a look at this guys analysis. He makes some interesting observations:
youtu.be/jw6cR53f2ag?si=wqwF4N5UtnPjqNtc
Ultimately if it’s simply a case of red mist and dishing out summary justice then he should face consequences.
|
A browse around this feature on Perceptual Distortion. It may give some insight into cognitive behaviours. Its an American feature but relates to high stress potential life threatening enviroments:
www.researchgate.net/publication/229920060_Police_officers%27_perceptual_distortions_during_lethal_force_situations_Informing_the_reasonableness_standard
|
Sec 3 of the Criminal Law Act deals with the use of force and reasonableness. It revolves around what was the genuine perceived threat at the time and the proportionality of the response.
Exactly. What is the genuine perceived threat of a man laying inertly on the ground? If two gangs were fighting that would be a criminal act. From the police that is unacceptable.
|
|
Totally unacceptable. He should have kept pulling the trigger on that Taser until the idiot was a gibbering wreck squirming in the contents of his evacuated bowels and bladder.
|
I think it's all going to go to VAR (and look where that's got football).
I understand the family have binned the TikTok lawyer and engaged someone else. Good luck with that; on the video evidence so far, and reported police injuries, minimum charges of GBH (possibly with intent) and if convicted near maximum sentence given the context.
Having now seen the context of the initially publicised event, I think I have considerably more sympathy for the suspended PC, but fear it may cost him his job.
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Sun 28 Jul 24 at 20:10
|
"Exactly. What is the genuine perceived threat of a man laying inertly on the ground? If two gangs were fighting that would be a criminal act. From the police that is unacceptable."
Having taken 10 to 12 punches to the head and fallen to the floor he will be in disorientation and in the mindset of fighting for his life??
Last edited by: Fullchat on Sun 28 Jul 24 at 20:06
|
That is a rather different argument. Temporary insanity following blows to the head?
|
The little scrote made a vicious assault on police officers. So he got a bit of afters, what of it? They're coppers, not trauma councillors.
I feel sorry for the police now, so many cameras being pointed at you in stressful and dangerous situations and an army of the professionaly outraged demanding your head if you step an inch out of line.
|
Currently we are seeing stuff dropping into public view out of sequence, and bits of story ditto.
Ultimately, some of it on both sides is serious enough to end up in court, let's see what juries make of it when it's all laid out in front of them
Andy Burnham earns my praise, he is doing a fine job over it
|
My views are probably unacceptable these days but assuming:
- the initial very violent assault on the police was largely unprovoked
- the police, despite training, are normal people with normal responses
- if put under excessive pressure may act unpredictably
- the kick to the head seemed deliberate and excessive
The "Sweeney" generation view would be that they deserved a good kicking for their assault on the police. Further punishment through the courts for the assault and probably custodial sentence. Police congratulated on a good "collar"!
The 2024 solution - court for the assault on the police. Police officer to be reprimanded and further training in anger management or similar. He should not lose his job over the incident.
The police should not have to operate where they are so concerned for public scrutiny of their actions it compromises their effectiveness, reduces their ability to recruit decent officers and inhibits those already in post from performing their duties to protect the public.
|
|
Depends whether you believe in the rule of law I guess.
|
|
Good job that copper wasn’t Harvey Keitel…
|
Escalation of force etc etc....The Officer had been subjected to an extreme assault or series of assaults. It appears that he had sustained injuries to his ribs. He was armed with a holstered side arm, he'd seen his back ap punched out, assitance may have been miles away. When he tazered the guy in blue, he had moments to react before blue bloke recovered from his Tazer, in the later (earlier) clip you see blue bloke appear to go for the Officer's weapon. He had a split second decision to incapacitate blue bloke, so he's in the "anything goes" situation and his deployed the kicks to the head. CJA and Home Office training allows latitude. There's also the hostile crowd....
Don't blame him, trouble is all the critics have 20/20 vision in hindsight and all the time in the world to come up with theories. I believe that the kicking was a last resort.
|
>>
>>
>> Don't blame him, trouble is all the critics have 20/20 vision in hindsight and all
>> the time in the world to come up with theories. I believe that the kicking
>> was a last resort.
>>
I agree with that. When you're on the receiving end of a vicious assault there just isn't time to measure your response to the Nth degree. You need to make sure that if your assailant goes down he stays down.
|
In the summer of 1976, I was 18 years old. I’d only been driving for a year. My then girlfriend lived about 12 miles out of town and one evening I had dropped her back at her parent’s house and was making my way home in my little car. It was old but totally legal. I wasn’t speeding and I hadn’t been drinking.
Two police cars pulled me over. One in front and one behind and four very shouty, foul mouthed and aggressive officers made me get out of the car. I had no idea why and when I tried to ask, they just set about me, dragging me up a dark alleyway and proceeded to punch and kick me violently even after I’d been knocked to the ground. I ended up black and blue with a broken tooth and broken ribs. I was young, innocent and very scared.
Almost as quickly as they started they stopped, and it turned out it was a case of mistaken identity as a car like mine had been reported leaving the scene of a violent crime and they had assumed I was the culprit.
Apparently, the real offender had just been caught elsewhere by another patrol and they realised their mistake.
They left me where I was with the parting words that if I made a complaint it would not go well for me and that I should basically go home and forget about it, or they’d make sure I regretted it. As in they had my reg number and knew who I was etc.
So perhaps you’ll forgive me if I don’t think much of the police. Little men with power syndrome.
Not comparing the Manchester situation with mine, but making out that the police are always the good guys is frankly preposterous.
I have never forgiven them or forgotten that incident and I still have a wonky tooth to remind me.
|
www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-airport-police-assault-trial-32006497
On trial in Liverpool. Their main defence seems to be they didn't know they were police officers and it was self defence.
|
>> www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/manchester-airport-police-assault-trial-32006497
>>
>> On trial in Liverpool. Their main defence seems to be they didn't know they were
>> police officers and it was self defence.
I doubt that's going to convince the jury but we don't have as full a view of the evidence as they do.
The length of time it took to come to a charging decision suggests it's not as clear cut as media etc coverage would have us believe.
|
>
>> The length of time it took to come to a charging decision suggests it's not
>> as clear cut as media etc coverage would have us believe.
>>
Perhaps down to the general delays within the legal system.
|
|
Well it seems the Jury decision is not as clear cut as we may be thinking. One Juror bailed out for a holiday commitment and Judge has sanctioned a majority verdict. And it so runs into another day.
|
>> Well it seems the Jury decision is not as clear cut as we may be
>> thinking. One Juror bailed out for a holiday commitment and Judge has sanctioned a majority
>> verdict. And it so runs into another day.
As suggested, it looks as though the facts are more complex than the headlines.
|
Mohammed Fahir Amaaz, 20, was charged with assaulting the Greater Manchester Police officers during the fracas on 23 July last year, with a video of the incident being widely shared on social media.
Following a three-week trial at Liverpool Crown Court, Amaaz was convicted of assaulting PC Lydia Ward, causing actual bodily harm, and the assault of emergency worker PC Ellie Cook.
The jury was unable to reach verdicts on allegations that Amaaz and his brother, Muhammad Ahmed, 26, assaulted PC Zachary Marsden causing actual bodily harm.
Amaaz was also found guilty of an earlier assault of a member of the public, Abdulkareem Ismaeil, at a Starbucks cafe in the airport's arrivals area earlier in the day.
(www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y9y37eyddo)
|
Crown reportedly seeking a re-trial.
Whether another jury would also be hung or acquit after seeing ALL the evidence is another question.
|
|
Amaaz remanded to custody, bail hearing on Thursday.
|
Clearly someone on the jury not convinced by what they saw and maybe swayed by the 'self defence' claims. Waters muddied by the theatre of defence.
What I saw was the male Officer being repeatedly pummeled to the back of the head. If that is not a continuous assault, well...................
|
|
Do I recall jury selection was quite a long, drawn-out affair. I wonder why?
|
Cherry picking? So to speak.
Runaway Lawyer
|
I’m very surprised they were convicted of anything.
They attended court in sombre suits, white shirts, ties, spectacles even. Surely such upstanding citizens wouldn’t lay a hand on anyone, and they had elderly relatives for whom they had to care
|
You're mellowing in your old age LL :))
Was it just me or did the main protagonist look like he'd either lost weight or his suit was too big as if he was trying to make a statement. And all the black tie stuff. Jeez!!
|
>> Do I recall jury selection was quite a long, drawn-out affair. I wonder why?
Does the UK system allow the defence to influence the jury to any significant extent?
That's a US thing from the films/TV.
|
The bloke who hit the female officers is convicted. He's probably going down for it.
The issue over which the jury failed to convict related to the male officer.
If his conduct was such as to persuade one or two, or perhaps ten, jury members he 'brought it upon himself,' which may be borne out by his hat dance stuff, I'm not surprised.
Would the sentence for the guilty party be longer if he'd bashed 3 officers rather than 2?
|
>> If his conduct was such as to persuade one or two, or perhaps ten, jury
>> members he 'brought it upon himself,' which may be borne out by his hat dance
>> stuff, I'm not surprised.
>>
>>
That was after the other chap had start windmilling though.
|
>> That was after the other chap had start windmilling though.
And that would be evident to the jury who nonetheless struggled to convict.
As ever, with those of us who only see what the media supplies, we don't have the same picture the jury did.
Brother #1 is likely to do gaol time for his conviction for assaulting the female officers. Would more time be added if guilty of thumping the bloke too? If answer is no then no point in wasting court's time with another go at convicting.
|
Brother 1 gave a passenger from the plane his mother was a "Glasgow Kiss". This is why the police were initially arresting brother 1.
For the benefit of Non-Scots
A Glasgow Kiss is a Scottish Term for a headbutt specifically on the nose.
The victim of the headbutt had apparently argued with the mother of the 2 accused on the flight back to Manchester.
|
|
Perhaps the mother can now be prosecuted for inciting violence?
|
>> Brother 1 gave a passenger from the plane his mother was a "Glasgow Kiss". This
>> is why the police were initially arresting brother 1.
Otherwise know as a Socihall St kiss?
All I'm saying is I trust the 12, or rather 11, good men and true.
|
>>
>> All I'm saying is I trust the 12, or rather 11, good men and true.
>>
>>
Given the judge's guidance on a majority verdict it could have been 9 to 2 for guilty.
Would you trust the 9 good men (persons) or the 2 good persons?
|
>> Given the judge's guidance on a majority verdict it could have been 9 to 2
>> for guilty.
>>
>> Would you trust the 9 good men (persons) or the 2 good persons?
Which brings us back to Andrew Malkinson, and to some extent Lucy Letby and whether majority verdicts, particularly after jurors have bailed out so less then 12, is acceptable.
|
>> Brother 1 gave a passenger from the plane his mother was a "Glasgow Kiss". This
>> is why the police were initially arresting brother 1.
Bro #1 was found guilty of that offence too.
|
Brother #1 is likely to do gaol time for his conviction for assaulting the female
>> officers. Would more time be added if guilty of thumping the bloke too? If answer
>> is no then no point in wasting court's time with another go at convicting.
>>
CPS might well add some more charges second time around, perhaps not totally unheard of.
|
Manchester Airport - legacylad
