quote:

Originally posted by mizdemeanour:
well he isn't a defendant, and this isn't a criminal trial.

Sorry to be pedantic, he is the one being accused of doing something so in that context he is the defendant. Being a defendant does not necessarily imply "criminal trial" it is merely a term of the persons position as regards an accusation. Of course we should also bear in mind that were the accusations upheld then criminal charges could ensue.

quote:

presumably, disciplinary proceedings outside of the legal system are possible

Yep, depends on the outcome if a criminal act was committed it would be a legal matter. If only procedural then it would be internal disciplinary action.

quote:

its still only his claim (no evidence), and it might undermine his statement that she *did* get hold of him

I believe (but I could be wrong) that he merely stated that she grabbed for his crotch. I don't believe he actually stated she got hold of anything.

quote:

i don't think we can judge that. maybe it was the fit that caused the fall.

She did not deny resisting arrest which occurred at the top of the stairs. AFAIK the "fitting" claim only relates to her movements at the bottom of the stairs when the blows were delivered.

quote:

When I was at school we had a lad who was epileptic and I seen him taking fits on a fair few occasions - None of them match the way she acts when they are at the top/fall down the stairs. OK I'll concede that maybe there are different degrees of epilepsy (no idea and can't be bothered checking).

However, she still must provide evidence that she does have such a condition before that claim can even be considered. Until such a condition is diagnosed then considering the option really is idle conjecture.

[QUOTE]
there is nothing in the video evidence that *refutes* her story, anymore than there is to refute his.

But what is her story? It really is just that she was having a fit so she was not to blame - She doesn't claim to recall the actual event (due to the fit?) so there really is nothing on her side till she gets that medical diagnosis.

I also find her claim that she knew nothing about the punches till the court case dubious. Her defence lawyers would have had knowledge of this CCTV footage (through disclosure) and would/should have advised her of the contents. Is it not odd that they did not try to use this incident for at least mitigation?

I would conjecture that they didn't use the "fit" story (if they even knew of it) because they had no such medical diagnosis. It is most odd that her "fit" claim only seems to emerge later when "rights" campaigners become involved and obviously compensation may be an issue.

quote:

er, that was 'buff' as in attractive/ good looking...

not naked.....

Yeah, I know, but one can always try for a cheap thrill.

quote:

Originally posted by Joobs:
Sorry to be pedantic, he is the one being accused of doing something so in that context he is the defendant. Being a defendant does not necessarily imply "criminal trial" it is merely a term of the persons position as regards an accusation.

the point was that at this stage the case against him does not have to be proven to criminal standards. he will have to make his case, not simply wait to see if it can be shown to be false/incorrect.

quote:

OK I'll concede that maybe there are different degrees of epilepsy

there are different degrees and manifestations of epilepsy. it doesn't always present in the stereotypical form

quote:

However, she still must provide evidence that she does have such a condition before that claim can even be considered. Until such a condition is diagnosed then considering the option really is idle conjecture.

fits can occur other than through epilepsy. she will need to provide evidence of fits but not necessarily a *diagnosis* of anything.

quote:

But what is her story? It really is just that she was having a fit so she was not to blame - She doesn't claim to recall the actual event (due to the fit?) so there really is nothing on her side till she gets that medical diagnosis.

well she doesn't need a story. it doesn't really change anything as to whether she was or wasn't having a fit - the police couldn't necessarily be expected to recognise it. the question is was the force used in the punches necessary and reasonable on a subject who was already restrained by 3 officers.

quote:

Yeah, I know, but one can always try for a cheap thrill.

cheap??? why i oughta.....

aw, this is a crap fight. i'm not playing any more.

i'm off to the BB forum - there is a fight going on over 5 threads, 18 pages, involving half the forum, most of whom appear to have either slept with each other, or have multiple nics and may possibly be arguing with themselves....

quote:

Originally posted by mizdemeanour:
aw, this is a crap fight. i'm not playing any more.

i'm off to the BB forum - there is a fight going on over 5 threads, 18 pages, involving half the forum, most of whom appear to have either slept with each other, or have multiple nics and may possibly be arguing with themselves....

Rarely, ever visit those fora - populated (mainly) by the brain-dead (no offence to you) IMHO.

Anyway, my apologies for not replying to your previous post, I got sidetracked over the last few days on another fora/thread (Despatches) which involved a fair bit of bible reading and quotation and, coupled to a real life (hard to believe but it does actually exist, honest ), I just forgot to check back here.

Anyway, I don't think there really is too much more to say. Personally I doubt her case will be seen to have merit, you may well disagree. Either way we won't know who backed the winner till the outcome of the inquiry is known.

Think on, we can always argue about whether we agree with that verdict when it happens.