Truthinus Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 A message to all the bleedin hearts on here: The officer was cleared of assault.....FACT!!! Because he was cleared it does not make it Fact. Get over yourselves!Get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 It dont really matter what edited footage you come up with A little bit more about the police and edited footage in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/29/paranoid-anti-fun-police-protest-festivals Seventh paragraph down. Different case but interesting I think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truthinus Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 If he was that worried he should have arrested her....Oh he wouldn't have done that because it could be claimed as wrongful arrest, so he hits her instead and claims it was self defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Oh he wouldn't have done that because it could be claimed as wrongful arrest, so he hits her instead and claims it was self defence. a claim which cannot be proved to be anything else based on the evidence provided to the courts (including the one in the op) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Because he was cleared it does not make it Fact. Get over it. You really are Pathetic It is a fact that he was cleared of assault ! How thick does anyone have to be to not see that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truthinus Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 A little bit more about the police and edited footage in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/29/paranoid-anti-fun-police-protest-festivals Seventh paragraph down. Different case but interesting I think! Yes "interesting" ..... This Thursday a year will have passed since Ian Tomlinson died after a police assault at the G20 protests. No charges have been brought against the police; no one has been punished. Despite 300 official complaints about the policing of the protests on 1 April, and plenty of video and photographic evidence, no officer has faced serious disciplinary proceedings. Those who removed their identification numbers, beat up peaceful protesters and bystanders and then repeatedly lied about what had happened remain untroubled, either by the law or their superior officers. There has been no apology to Tomlinson's family..... (Bold emphasis mine) <snip> Last week at Isleworth crown court prosecutors abandoned a case brought against a protester, Jake Smith. Smith had been charged with violent disorder at a protest outside the Israeli embassy: the police accused him of throwing a stick at them, and produced video evidence that appeared to support them. Though Smith found some material on YouTube that told a different story, they stuck to their line, and denied that they had any more footage of the incident. Two days before the case was about to begin, the police admitted that they had a further seven and a half hours of video. What that showed was that another man had thrown the stick then run away; Smith, by contrast, had committed the traditional offence of having the crap beaten out of him by riot cops. <snip> Smith's lawyer maintains that the video evidence the Met had used was a "cut and paste job": a bit like the story they codded up about Ian Tomlinson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Classic Rock Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Please keep it friendly folks, challenge the comment, don't insult the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truthinus Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 You really are Pathetic It is a fact that he was cleared of assault ! How thick does anyone have to be to not see that ? As I said, being cleared does not have to mean that what actually happened isn't Fact. Now please stop calling me thick, or should I hit you with a stick? Get it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobydotcom Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 As I said, being cleared does not have to mean that what actually happened isn't Fact. Now please stop calling me thick, or should I hit you with a stick? Get it? if you find evidence to prove he was not acting in self-defence please pass it to the CPS as they have no seen anything of that nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 As I said, being cleared does not have to mean that what actually happened isn't Fact. Now please stop calling me thick, or should I hit you with a stick? Get it? I didnt call you thick I asked how thick someone had to be to not understand that if someone has been cleared of something, then that, having been done, is then a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.