It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Police to probe 'woman assault'

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Solomons
 


What "constitutional right" is this you're on about?

I'm interested because I hear people bang on all the time about their "rights", but precious few actually know what their rights are.

I think the cop was heavy handed to an extent, but given the situation of him and a few chums litterally surrounded by hundreds of people, they probably felt quite threatened.

Add onto the fact there is a load of camera's there and I think you'll find that more than one protester would quite happily take a knock or two for the sake of a photo op, even if they have to jump in the officers face a few times to ellicit a response.




posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
being gobby constitutes a peaceful protest.



Actually, being gobby and swearing breaks the law, chap. Section 5, Public order Act to be precise. You are entitled to a warning or two before the Police can arrest you, but if you persist, then they can take action.

This woman clearly had a couple of verbal warnings for her "in your face" behaviour (which it was and you cannot quibble about it as she is quite clearly being confrontational) before she was struck.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Solomons
 


What "constitutional right" is this you're on about?

I'm interested because I hear people bang on all the time about their "rights", but precious few actually know what their rights are.

I think the cop was heavy handed to an extent, but given the situation of him and a few chums litterally surrounded by hundreds of people, they probably felt quite threatened.

Add onto the fact there is a load of camera's there and I think you'll find that more than one protester would quite happily take a knock or two for the sake of a photo op, even if they have to jump in the officers face a few times to ellicit a response.


So you are saying she deserved to be slapped?? If that was a ordinaryjoe who slapped her he would have been arrested on the spot and charged with assault.

It is no wonder many people in the UK as a whole do no trust the Police at all.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Actually, being gobby and swearing breaks the law, chap. Section 5, Public order Act to be precise.


no it doesn't, chap. section 5 states that a person may be gobby and swear in public where they can be reasonably sure that there wasn't "any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress".

given the cops were expecting trouble from protesters and warnings to that effect were issued widely, it is a reasonable assumption that "harrasment, alarm or distress" wouldn't have been caused.

a constable is then authorised to "arrest a person without warrant", not slap them in the mouth or batton them.

the police are authorised to arrest and detain, not administer justice, chap. a judge administers justice, chap.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:16 AM
link   
More footage of people being assaulted by the police as been posted on you tube:

Police Violence?

Better video clip of Officer assaulting a female

Both are shocking. How can some say this sort of action by the police should be allowed.



[edit on 15-4-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 


I never said he was right to hit her and there's no need to be quite so facescious with the overuse of the "chap". I was using it as a friendly term, such as "mate, "fella" or "dude". I was replying to your comment about "being gobby constitutes a peaceful protest", which it does not as is a blatant fallacy.

If the Policeman felt that he was the "person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress", then he can act upon it.

There is no "reasonable assumption that "harrasment, alarm or distress" wouldn't have been caused", because you cannot make an assumption like that.

If there is any person - be it an old biddy who has never swore in her life or a bunch of skin-heads who like the f-word - within earshot then the Police can take action. Even the Police can be the one's offended.

You DO NOT have the right to be aggressive, obusive or foul-mouthed in Public, end of story.


Originally posted by Laurauk
So you are saying she deserved to be slapped?? If that was a ordinaryjoe who slapped her he would have been arrested on the spot and charged with assault.

It is no wonder many people in the UK as a whole do no trust the Police at all.


No, I didn't say that at all, nice attempt to put words in my mouth there. And an "ordinary Joe" might be vindicated in giving someone a slap if they came up to him, grabbed him and shouted in his face.

Depends on the situation, doesn't it?

Although I doubt many "ordinary Joe's" will find themselves in the middle of hundreds of angry protesters aiming their grief towards him, so I'm not sure that it is easily comparable to this situation.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   
Please continue the discussion in the existing thread.

Thank you.

Thread closed.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join