Those members of the Court of Public Opinion who are so willing to convict on a few fragmentary moments of video footage alone may find this and this instructive reading.
The point is that fragments of imperfect video are insufficient alone to reach a conclusion as to the true course of events.
Insufficient to reach a complete account of events. If one accepts that blocking the highway is a provocation which entitles J. Random motorist to use this degree of force, then of course the events prior to the video are relevant. But the punch is observable, and it would require a pretty impressive account in the third post to conclude that it did not take place.
The BBC at least is on your side - their first analysis of the incident is that "the footage shows" her swearing at the officer, but that he "apparently" struck her with the baton.
Hardly a call to lynch the police. Presumably the standard weasel-word boilerplate was inserted by a journalist under the mistaken belief that it is not an offence to swear at an officer, but that it is an offence for an officer to strike a protester with his hand and a baton (so they can't make that accusation). I think in fact the reverse is true - swearing at the police has very occasionally been prosecuted as a public order offence, and as you say there are any number of ways for him to legally justify his actions on the basis of verbal provocation.
Insufficient to reach a complete account of events. If one accepts that blocking the highway is a provocation which entitles J. Random motorist to use this degree of force, then of course the events prior to the video are relevant. But the punch is observable, and it would require a pretty impressive account in the third post to conclude that it did not take place.
The BBC at least is on your side - their first analysis of the incident is that "the footage shows" her swearing at the officer, but that he "apparently" struck her with the baton.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7998976.stm
Hardly a call to lynch the police. Presumably the standard weasel-word boilerplate was inserted by a journalist under the mistaken belief that it is not an offence to swear at an officer, but that it is an offence for an officer to strike a protester with his hand and a baton (so they can't make that accusation). I think in fact the reverse is true - swearing at the police has very occasionally been prosecuted as a public order offence, and as you say there are any number of ways for him to legally justify his actions on the basis of verbal provocation.
Reply
Leave a comment