Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Turned Out Nice Again

What Does It Take To Get A Copper Convicted Of Violence On The Job?

Recommended Posts

Quite a lot, it seems.

I can only think that this mother must have made a very poor witness:

Met policeman cleared after kicking mother tending to her child in hospital

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/22/met-police-warren-luke-cleared-kicking-mother-child-hospital

'In a video interview played to the jury, the mother said Luke had told her: “‘You’ve got to leave, you’ve got to leave’. I kept playing with my daughter and then I saw him moving towards me. He was kicking me and kicking me. He had one hand on my head. When I fell on the bed he grabbed my hair and banged my head. I was screaming. I couldn’t defend myself. My ex-husband ran in and shouted, ‘why are you kicking my wife?’”

...

Luke, who has been a police officer for six years, told the court that the mother’s behaviour had been “escalating” and he felt the child was at risk of injury. He said he had contemplated using a baton or CS gas but decided that that was not an option.

Instead, he told the court, he struck the mother repeatedly on her left bicep and then decided to try a different approach which he described as a “distraction strike” on the left side of the mother’s face, using his booted foot.

Luke told the court: “I did kick out at the left side of her face as trained to do. My footwear was a boot but it’s light.”'

The woman told the Guardian she needed plastic surgery following the incident and has been off work for more than a year recovering from her injuries.

...

Security staff at the hospital who witnessed the incident told the court they were appalled by it. Two police constables who also attended the incident gave evidence for the prosecution. Laura Riley, one of the officers, wept as she described the scene, and the officer Mary Clark described the incident as “just horrific”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to say really.

A Jury convicted that footballer of rape.

A Jury cleared this officer, despite two other officers giving evidence against him.

Our problem in both cases is that we were not in court, did not hear all the evidence and did not see the demeanour etc. of the witnesses and complainant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Difficult to say really.

A Jury convicted that footballer of rape.

A Jury cleared this officer, despite two other officers giving evidence against him.

Our problem in both cases is that we were not in court, did not hear all the evidence and did not see the demeanour etc. of the witnesses and complainant.

This is the main issue really, what you need to consider is the judge will sum up and spell out clearly to the Jury what it is they are convicting the person of and the points of law. Even though the defendant may have acted out side of normal moral grounds you need to be sure a crime has been committed.

While demeanour and reaction are explicitly mentioned to jurors, i.e. ignore them completely when coming to a decision, I can easily see that in this instance the alleged victims behaviour would be extremely relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Missing from the Guardian report (A paper that claims to give ALL the facts)

What happened that the Hospital staff wanted a Mother to leave? A very rare occurrence in my personal experience.

What did the Mother do that caused the staff to call for the Police.

Why did the Mother not leave when confronted by 3 Police Officers?

Basically, the OP question should be,

Just what does it take to get a newspaper to give an accurate account?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The charge was ABH...hardly above common assault.

And of course, we havent seen the facts...people were apparently appalled, the woman was unaware that she was asked to leave by staff attending the child, and they were sufficiently worried by her beviour to summon Police, 4 of whom turned up.

The angle of the story is the woman got a good kicking and needed plastic surgery.

plenty there to get ones blood boiling. As all articles in the news want to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as cynical about the media as anybody, especially of a rag like the Grauniad, but even just going on the defendant's testimony, I find it hard to imagine a situation where booting a woman in the face, in a hospital, in front of her sick child, was ever justifiable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as cynical about the media as anybody, especially of a rag like the Grauniad, but even just going on the defendant's testimony, I find it hard to imagine a situation where booting a woman in the face, in a hospital, in front of her sick child, was ever justifiable.

defence said the child, on life support was being dragged of the bed...according to the article.

I cant say how an ABH can lead to plastic surgery..GBH yes, but ABH..that would be a bruise, a small cut.

What is odd, is that it would seem the best action would be to let the Woman PCs do the work first if the perp was a woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as cynical about the media as anybody, especially of a rag like the Grauniad, but even just going on the defendant's testimony, I find it hard to imagine a situation where booting a woman in the face, in a hospital, in front of her sick child, was ever justifiable.

I'm as cynical about the media as anybody, especially of a rag like the Grauniad, but even just going on the defendant's testimony, I find it hard to imagine a situation where booting a woman in the face, in a hospital, in front of her sick child, was ever justifiable.

Exactly. It wasn't proportional. Four police officers could have easily manhandled her safely, unless she was armed, but we didn't see any report of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm as cynical about the media as anybody, especially of a rag like the Grauniad, but even just going on the defendant's testimony, I find it hard to imagine a situation where booting a woman in the face, in a hospital, in front of her sick child, was ever justifiable.

LOL..he apparently said he used "police tactics"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

English law has no general defence of superior orders and the conduct of every police officer has to be judged on the facts as they believed them to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law#Law_enforcement_by_police_officers

Yes, every Officer is a Citizen as any other, sworn to the Crown, and individually accountable....except the defence I was only obeying orders is consistently used and accepted by Juries all the time.

Juries should not accept this defence at all.

For example, a group of officers is sent to halt a line of protestors....a bit of argie bargie ensues and a protestor is punched..the officers hide behind the defence they were all ordered to halt the protestors, and in order to carry out the order, one of them punched out "in self defence".

In every walk of life we have the "i was obeying orders defence" and it takes the form of closing ranks, diverting enquiries and a system designed to allow such diversions where it suits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be that the other officers hung back and the lone officer did what he could to prevent the child being pulled off the life support.

still, a high kick to the face is pretty fancy stuff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a little amusing..."I kicked her in the face as a DISTRACTION technique" :)

I don't remember getting taught that one...

But yes also for her to be asked to leave and for 4 officers to be in attendance I imagine she was quite distressed and potentially her Behaviour was concerning.

Whatever happened to a cup of tea and a chat to calm people down?

P

It is further interesting that the mother gave video evidence, ie she didnt go to court...then we hear of the incident described as follows, but without reference to what part they were describing...the office attacking, or the womans behaviour that caused the incident:

Security staff at the hospital who witnessed the incident told the court they were appalled by it. Two police constables who also attended the incident gave evidence for the prosecution. Laura Riley, one of the officers, wept as she described the scene, and the officer Mary Clark described the incident as “just horrific”.

So, questions are raised that we cant answer because for legal reasons the mother cant be named, didnt attend court and the press release leaves so many questions unanswered...yet a Jury found the conduct reasonable.

very odd.

However, we are being bombarded currently with cases of Police doing truly despicable acts and getting away with it in the US..Maybe the press want to start a campaign over here, but the best they can find is a example like the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tellingly the hospital security staff felt that the incident was too serious for them to get physically involved.

Seems to me that the Press are kite flying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, every Officer is a Citizen as any other, sworn to the Crown, and individually accountable....except the defence I was only obeying orders is consistently used and accepted by Juries all the time.

Juries should not accept this defence at all.

For example, a group of officers is sent to halt a line of protestors....a bit of argie bargie ensues and a protestor is punched..the officers hide behind the defence they were all ordered to halt the protestors, and in order to carry out the order, one of them punched out "in self defence".

In every walk of life we have the "i was obeying orders defence" and it takes the form of closing ranks, diverting enquiries and a system designed to allow such diversions where it suits.

The "I was only following orders" defence didn't work at the Nuremberg Trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is further interesting that the mother gave video evidence, ie she didnt go to court...then we hear of the incident described as follows, but without reference to what part they were describing...the office attacking, or the womans behaviour that caused the incident:

Security staff at the hospital who witnessed the incident told the court they were appalled by it. Two police constables who also attended the incident gave evidence for the prosecution. Laura Riley, one of the officers, wept as she described the scene, and the officer Mary Clark described the incident as “just horrific”.

So, questions are raised that we cant answer because for legal reasons the mother cant be named, didnt attend court and the press release leaves so many questions unanswered...yet a Jury found the conduct reasonable.

very odd.

However, we are being bombarded currently with cases of Police doing truly despicable acts and getting away with it in the US..Maybe the press want to start a campaign over here, but the best they can find is a example like the above.

As you say that bit quoted still doesn't give the full picture. It doesn't say explicitly why the scene was horrific, I can imagine a scene where the women was wailing and gnashing and pulling a very sick child from their bed as being pretty horrific. It stops short of saying something along the lines of "it was horrific he kept kicking her and kicking her".

As for the boot in the face, can see plenty of scenarios along the lines of the said police officer has to man handle to women to the ground and then she starts attacking him at lower level, perfectly easy to see why a kick to the head might take place, not saying it's justified.

Plenty of police cover ups and covering their back, but unless you think that 12 independent jurors have been got at by the police then don't really see the issue here. If it doesn't get to court then fine I can see why people would be asking questions, it has been to court and tested on the evidence.

As for the plastic surgery, total red herring IMO. For a start it's called cosmetic surgery, no more than subsequent stitch of a scar would be my guess, anything more significant and it would be in the new report. While the terms making sound like total facial reconstruction plastic/cosmetic surgery is basically covers all sorts of mundane minor procedures, effectively anything none medial.

Believe me I'm not flag bearer for the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive googled a bit on this and it seems all the reports stem from the Guardian coverage.

Some reports add more gloss to the Guardian text to make it seem even worse.

One report said the woman had got into a serious argument with staff the day before...Knowing hospital staff deal with difficult patients all the time, actually calling the Police is a stepup to a situation they feel is now criminal and dangerous to deal with. And the woman came back the following day.

I am told it is her daughter in hospital, and I understand a parent wants to be with a child.

but the woman denied being told to leave, expressed shock when the police arrived and demanded she left, and she denied being abusive the day before.

She sounds like a right scrote.

still, as a post above suggested, its not the Police job to clear hospitals of violent clients, they are there to assist and prevent crime, first ascertain both sides, talk it through..not dive in and take over...they arent supposed to be bailiffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone remember how much grief James bond got for suggesting that in certain circumstances its OK for a bloke to hit a woman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently it was the Guardian she told about the 'Plastic surgery', year to recover etc.'

Sounds like classic "Poor me victimhood"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.