Thames Valley Police sack officer who attacked cyclist with baton

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me". Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me". Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?

It may have been in relation to your quote

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.

[emphasis mine]
 

..and why are you quoting words that didn't appear in that post ?

fukawitribe wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me". Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?

It may have been in relation to your quote

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.

[emphasis mine]
 

..and why are you quoting words that didn't appear in that post ?

Is English your first language?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Reality is copper is probably bigger and harder and you will end up with mace in your face, 2 other coppers putting their knees in your back and being dragged away shouting "you're hurting me". Given what the deal with most days, pretty sure your average road cyclist is no problem.

Which part of my post led you to believe that this in some way about ‘winning’ or ‘escaping’?

It may have been in relation to your quote

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.

[emphasis mine]
 

..and why are you quoting words that didn't appear in that post ?

Is English your first language?

Yes, you ? In relation to which part of my reply ? If it's the former, then IMO the inference was that you wouldn't get the chance to do what you think. It it's the latter then it looks like quotes rather than concepts, which is possible ("I'll hit him and i'm not thinking about getting away") but not very clearly put forth - again IMO. I'm guessing from your reply that you saying along those lines, yes ?

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It always amuses me that so many of us are 'programmed' to obey the state, to such an extent that we just stand and let the police kick the shit out of us.  I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.  If in doubt, apply the Waterfield Test.  If the officer's actions fail that test, then you are entitled to resist.

Many thanks for that, I'd never heard of the Waterfield test before, highly illuminating.  Basically, a policeman's powers are limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Waterfield

burtthebike wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

It always amuses me that so many of us are 'programmed' to obey the state, to such an extent that we just stand and let the police kick the shit out of us.  I'm all for adhering to the law, but sorry: a copper who hits me with his baton, is getting a sore face.  If in doubt, apply the Waterfield Test.  If the officer's actions fail that test, then you are entitled to resist.

Many thanks for that, I'd never heard of the Waterfield test before, highly illuminating.  Basically, a policeman's powers are limited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Waterfield

Indeed they are - although you wouldn't know it from the response to my post on this and another thread. We are so indoctrinated into obeying the state and its representatives, that the mere idea of resisting is heresy.   Take one good example: you're protesting an unpopular government policy, and the police don't want you there.  So they arrest you.  'Don't resist!' cry the apologists!  'You'll have your day in court!'

Well, you might.  But any damages you receive won't come from the people who decided to nick you to stop you doing something awkward but not illegal.  They'll come from the public purse, and public policy is currently to limit that expenditure.  There have been several cases where juries have awarded 'exemplary damages' in cases involving wrongful arrest, false imprisonment, assault as well as malicious prosecution with more than a whiff of racism about the state's case.  The issue really got its day in court (ho, ho..) in Thompson and Another v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (Hsu v Same - (1997) Times, 20 February).  Two defendants - one had been assaulted in custody, and false evidence was used against her in court.  She was awarded £51,500 in damages, of which £51,000 were 'exemplary'.  The second defendant was racially and physically abused by police when they effected entry to his house to arrest him.  He was awarded £220,000 in damages, with £200,000 of that being 'exemplary'.  The Court of Appeal held that the judge should direct the jury that '... damages, save in exceptional circumstances, should be awarded only as compensation and in line with a scale which keeps the damages proportionate with those payable in personal injury cases'.   Then came Hill v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1998] Lexis Citation 1463, where damages of £45,600 were awarded for wrongful arrest, falsqe imprisonment, malicious prosecution and assault.   

Make no mistake: the English judicial system is completely riven with corruption, just as is the political establishment (anyone who watched the Alliston case and who still doubts this, sod off to New York and buy a bridge...).  Alas, getting rich after you've been wrongfully nicked and roughed up in a cell, is a US phenomenon.  It doesn't happen here.  

But anyway ... in the meantime, the police's aims have been satisfied: you've been taken out of circulation. 

I'm not anti-police.  I am anti abuse of power, and such abuse is endemic in the English police (I'm sure Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland have similar problems, but I know little of what goes on there).

zero_trooper wrote:

A strange tale. I can only think that there was an independent witness, who wasn't willing to give evidence in court, but would to a misconduct hearing. If that was the case then the 'police' did well.

Alternatively, the victim refused to make a complaint of assault.

I find it a little hard to believe that the cyclist was being asked to stop just for the hell of it.

I was thinking that it was most likely that the cyclist was carrying out a maneuver or activity that was not legal so could not make a full complaint without risking a record themselves. As a result the police officer was dealt with via a tribunal instead.

Obviously the police officer used excessive force and desserved to be dealt with

ClubSmed wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

A strange tale. I can only think that there was an independent witness, who wasn't willing to give evidence in court, but would to a misconduct hearing. If that was the case then the 'police' did well.

Alternatively, the victim refused to make a complaint of assault.

I find it a little hard to believe that the cyclist was being asked to stop just for the hell of it.

I was thinking that it was most likely that the cyclist was carrying out a maneuver or activity that was not legal so could not make a full complaint without risking a record themselves. As a result the police officer was dealt with via a tribunal instead.

Obviously the police officer used excessive force and desserved to be dealt with

If the only evidence against the cyclist was from the assaulting police officer, I doubt the CPS would consider it in the public interest to pursue the cyclist. 

Also, whether a victim pursues or makes a complaint is a purely evidential issue. It is not legally required in order to prosecute, but reality dictates that if the victim doesn't give supportive evidence then the chance of a conviction obviously drops massively. 

There are different standards of proof in terms of criminal liability vs an internal disciplinary hearing (beyond reasonable doubt vs, I assume, balance of probabilities), so that may be one explanation for a lack of arrest and prosecution. 

Personally though, I'm amazed the disciplinary hearing would be so categoric about the misleading statement he gave unless they had very clear evidence, so I wonder whether there was CCTV footage. If so, a lack of prosecution becomes even more questionable.  

gw42 wrote:

ClubSmed wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

A strange tale. I can only think that there was an independent witness, who wasn't willing to give evidence in court, but would to a misconduct hearing. If that was the case then the 'police' did well.

Alternatively, the victim refused to make a complaint of assault.

I find it a little hard to believe that the cyclist was being asked to stop just for the hell of it.

I was thinking that it was most likely that the cyclist was carrying out a maneuver or activity that was not legal so could not make a full complaint without risking a record themselves. As a result the police officer was dealt with via a tribunal instead.

Obviously the police officer used excessive force and desserved to be dealt with

If the only evidence against the cyclist was from the assaulting police officer, I doubt the CPS would consider it in the public interest to pursue the cyclist. 

Also, whether a victim pursues or makes a complaint is a purely evidential issue. It is not legally required in order to prosecute, but reality dictates that if the victim doesn't give supportive evidence then the chance of a conviction obviously drops massively. 

There are different standards of proof in terms of criminal liability vs an internal disciplinary hearing (beyond reasonable doubt vs, I assume, balance of probabilities), so that may be one explanation for a lack of arrest and prosecution. 

Personally though, I'm amazed the disciplinary hearing would be so categoric about the misleading statement he gave unless they had very clear evidence, so I wonder whether there was CCTV footage. If so, a lack of prosecution becomes even more questionable.  

If the only evidence against the cyclist was from the assaulting police officer, I doubt the CPS would consider it in the public interest to pursue the cyclist. - IIRC complaints against the police are normally dealt with after any court case involving the complainant. In this case the police case/evidence appears to be so undermined that it never went to court.

Also, whether a victim pursues or makes a complaint is a purely evidential issue. It is not legally required in order to prosecute, but reality dictates that if the victim doesn't give supportive evidence then the chance of a conviction obviously drops massively. - agree

There are different standards of proof in terms of criminal liability vs an internal disciplinary hearing (beyond reasonable doubt vs, I assume, balance of probabilities), so that may be one explanation for a lack of arrest and prosecution. - agree, an internal disciplinary may have been the easiest option for a positive result e.g. dismissal.

Personally though, I'm amazed the disciplinary hearing would be so categoric about the misleading statement he gave unless they had very clear evidence, so I wonder whether there was CCTV footage. If so, a lack of prosecution becomes even more questionable. - not so sure. If you 'Streetview' the location, it looks pretty well to do (IMO) Maybe a credible witness out in their garden saw and heard what happened, was bothered enough to tell the police, but was unwilling to attend court.

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Bugger that!

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Bugger that!

Yeah, jokes about rape are hilarious...

HalfWheeler wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Bugger that!

Yeah, jokes about rape are hilarious...

Sodomy/buggery does not imply rape, and neither did the posts you're being sarcastic about but, y'know, apart from that... spot on!

seven wrote:

HalfWheeler wrote:

Jitensha Oni wrote:

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

Is it too soon for a jail sodomy request?

Bugger that!

Yeah, jokes about rape are hilarious...

Sodomy/buggery does not imply rape

It does since 2003.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

seven wrote:

Sodomy/buggery does not imply rape

It does since 2003.

If you're talking about the Sexual Offences Act, no, it doesn't. Rape is only implied where the act is non-consensual which is, if you stop for a second to think about it, blindingly f***ing obvious.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

public order offence (swearing), ABH, perverting the course of justice, breaking oath/attestation, anything else, pile of excrement should be inside so he can have a nice long think about what a cnut he's been.

Police did the bare minimum, basically pretending to mete out justice but actually not, they had no choice but to sack him.

And a private prosecution would 'not be in the public interest' no doubt.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Police did the bare minimum ... they had no choice but to sack him.

I thought that sick leave plus full pension was the MO.