Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

Tell me how

tritium wrote: »

This is exactly the point. Anyone saying Mr Field should have just blocked her way really has no sense of what a knife can do to a human body in a split second. The video I posted earlier of the attack on a polish politician illustrates this also.

We all understand that, but there is a 'likelihood of occurrence' element and ladies wearing ball gowns, climate activist sashes, and telling people that they are there to protest for climate action leads to a virtually nil score in this element.

malinheader

Tell me how wrote: »

Wrong. Again.

I never said he had no right to intervene, I said he used disproportionate force.

Do you look at everyone you meet in the street as a would be attacker given you can't wait until it's too late?

No. I'm not silly. But if I seen someone acting suspicious,rushing up and trying to reach a person or persons which they shouldn't of been allowed to get near I would certainly think of them as a would be attacker. Wouldn't you.

Tell me how

malinheader wrote: »

No. I'm not silly. But if I seen someone acting suspicious,rushing up and trying to reach a person or persons which they shouldn't of been allowed to get near I would certainly think of them as a would be attacker. Wouldn't you.

Given the circumstance, would I think they were dangerous? No.
An inconvenience? Absolutely.

But, his reaction seemed to be born out of frustration more than fear. When he was marching her out, he said "Can you get this person out" Not anything like "I think they are armed" or "Call the police"

cj maxx

Can someone put up a poll . I think overwhelmingly it would be a justified ‘chucking out ‘

malinheader

Tell me how wrote: »

Given the circumstance, would I think they were dangerous? No.
An inconvenience? Absolutely.

But, his reaction seemed to be born out of frustration more than fear. When he was marching her out, he said "Can you get this person out" Not anything like "I think they are armed" or "Call the police"

Due to the terrorism attacks on mainland Europe over the last number of years have certainly made me more wary of people, and also the horrific acid attacks on people. I respect your views and you are entitled to your own opinions but I am still of the opinion that what he did was absolutely warranted .

tritium

Tell me how wrote: »

We all understand that, but there is a 'likelihood of occurrence' element and ladies wearing ball gowns, climate activist sashes, and telling people that they are there to protest for climate action leads to a virtually nil score in this element.

And yet it’s a lady in the example of Stephen Timms attacker. I assume if someone had stopped that attacker because theyd raised suspicion through their actions you’d also expect that they simply stood in front of her blocking her way and assumed that the 6 inch knife she was concealing posed no threat

Tell me how

cjmc wrote: »

Can someone put up a poll . I think overwhelmingly it would be a justified ‘chucking out ‘

I agree. But in the same way Peter Casey became President and won a seat in Europe going by poll results of Boards, it might not be a true reflection on the broader consensus.

Tell me how

tritium wrote: »

And yet it’s a lady in the example of Stephen Timms attacker. I assume if someone had stopped that attacker because theyd raised suspicion through their actions you’d also expect that they simply stood in front of her blocking her way and assumed that the 6 inch knife she was concealing posed no threat

You're assuming too much. It has nothing to do with gender. It depends on how the person appeared, and how they were stopped.

joe40

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The video supports that his actions were not excessive. At no stage did he strike or hit her and after he had the situation under control he just frog marched her out.

He apologized because in this politically correct society he more than likely came under pressure. In hindsight he should not have neither would convict him in a court of law.

It is interesting that the protester is unwilling to press charges but rather prefers the court of public opinion to try him. In the old West this would be the equivalent of a lynch mob

Bit of hyperbole there. People are entitled to have opinions on the actions of our elected representatives. There are plenty of different opinions on this incident.
Funny how public opinion only becomes a "lynch mob" when the opinion is one you don't share.
The public opinion surrounding the Maria Bailey case was very negative although no crime had been committed. I bet you weren't calling it a lynch mob.

Plumbthedepths

From reading several posts on this thread , several seen to be of the opinion that Field is phsyic and was aware of the protestors intention.

tritium

Tell me how wrote: »

You're assuming too much. It has nothing to do with gender. It depends on how the person appeared, and how they were stopped.

What do you think is an appropriate level of force to stop someone who may be concealing a weapon?

Do you think simply blocking there way is a good idea?

Faugheen

tritium wrote: »

What do you think is an appropriate level of force to stop someone who may be concealing a weapon?

Do you think simply blocking there way is a good idea?

His reaction wasn’t that of someone who was stopping someone who may have been concealing a weapon.

Where’s his attempt to disarm her? Literally nothing he did would have stopped her from producing the weapon.

tritium

Faugheen wrote: »

His reaction wasn’t that of someone who was stopping someone who may have been concealing a weapon.

Where’s his attempt to disarm her? Literally nothing he did would have stopped her from producing the weapon.

I think you need to watch the video again, in particular the seconds after the incident, notably where she moves her right arm and he pushes it forward and out of the way of his body, then clearly retains hold of that arm as he moves her away. You also need to be mindful that he’s a middle aged man rather than a trained security operative.


Would you like to answer the question I asked now?

Tell me how

tritium wrote: »

What do you think is an appropriate level of force to stop someone who may be concealing a weapon?

Do you think simply blocking there way is a good idea?

First Question - There is zero evidence supporting the idea that someone could have had an expectation that a weapon was being concealed given that;

• Protesters identified their purpose by voice.
• Protesters identified their purpose by wearing sash's with the words "Climate Protest" emblazoned on them.
• Protesters were wearing ball gowns which are hardly indicative of someone looking to go on the attack.
• Protester in question walked the long way around the room without any indication that they were going to attack someone.
• None of the other 300 guests in the room indicated any sense of panic.
• Mr Field, having taken hold of the protester did not suggest that the police should arrest them or that he thought they had a weapon.

Second question - Is hypothetical as there was no weapon. If there was, blocking their way might be best as grappling with them might encourage them to attack rather than to try to escape. But, absolutely, if someone saw an attacker with a weapon and tackled them as Mr Field did, I'd say well done for putting yourself in harms way to try to prevent someone else getting hurt.

Bass Reeves

Tell me how wrote: »

First Question - There is zero evidence supporting the idea that someone could have had an expectation that a weapon was being concealed given that;

• Protesters identified their purpose by voice.
• Protesters identified their purpose by wearing sash's with the words "Climate Protest" emblazoned on them.
• Protesters were wearing ball gowns which are hardly indicative of someone looking to go on the attack.
• Protester in question walked the long way around the room without any indication that they were going to attack someone.
• None of the other 300 guests in the room indicated any sense of panic.
• Mr Field, having taken hold of the protester did not suggest that the police should arrest them or that he thought they had a weapon.

Second question - Is hypothetical as there was no weapon. If there was, blocking their way might be best as grappling with them might encourage them to attack rather than to try to escape. But, absolutely, if someone saw an attacker with a weapon and tackled them as Mr Field did, I'd say well done for putting yourself in harms way to try to prevent someone else getting hurt.

All immaterial she was an uninvited guest. As an uninivited guest he was entitled to prevent her accessing the top tables. It would not be the first time an agent provocateur infiltrated an organisation. Even if he was not of that opinion while she was entitled to protest outside the function on the public highway and byways when she entered the function and especially the function room her right to protest was gone and he was entitled to prevent her accessing the top table. His actions were on the very low side of reasonable force.

gctest50

Tell me how wrote: »

.........

. But, absolutely, if someone saw an attacker with a weapon ........

He probably thought she had a knife in her right hand


Just like Roshonara Choudhry stabbed MP Stephen Timms as Spook_ie pointed out

Spook_ie wrote: »

He should have known she was no threat just like Stephen Timms MP knew that Roshonara Choudhry was no threat.

The MP told the court that when she came in she didn't sit down and continued walking towards him.

He said: "She looked friendly. She was smiling, if I remember rightly" before she "lunged at me with her right hand".

"I think I knew that I had been stabbed although I didn't feel anything and I can't recall actually seeing a knife but I think I said 'She has a knife' or words to that effect."

Source

Look at the way she is holding her (shiny silvery ) phone :

end of the road

tritium wrote: »

No charges against either of them actually

yes, however the poster mentioned her specifically in that particular part of his post, so field is irrelevant in terms of that part of his post.

tritium wrote: »

And if she’s armed he gets stabbed....

which grabbing her by the neck and shoving her up against a wall wouldn't have prevented as she would have been able to free up 1 arm.

tritium wrote: »

No people are jumping on ideological bandwagons.

no they are looking at the information and coming to the actual conclusion that he used excessive force and operated in a manner that did not and would not have neutralized a person who his supporters claim could have been this or that or could have been there to do this or that dispite there being plenty of information on show to show otherwise.

tritium wrote: »

The poster above just gave the UK perspective, do you really think a prosecution of Fields is likely against that standard?

that will be for the cps to ultimately decide but what the poster posted doesn't mean a prosecution isn't possible or likely.
in fact i would say that how he handled the situation may not pass the test given that if she was a threat, his methods would not have neutralized that threat. but that will be for the actual legal experts to make a decision on.

cj maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree. But in the same way Peter Casey became President and won a seat in Europe going by poll results of Boards, it might not be a true reflection on the broader consensus.

True , but I’d like to see a poll of boatdsies, it’s not like we’re sending/ keeping him out/to jail !

Tell me how

Bass Reeves wrote: »

All immaterial she was an uninvited guest. As an uninivited guest he was entitled to prevent her accessing the top tables. It would not be the first time an agent provocateur infiltrated an organisation. Even if he was not of that opinion while she was entitled to protest outside the function on the public highway and byways when she entered the function and especially the function room her right to protest was gone and he was entitled to prevent her accessing the top table. His actions were on the very low side of reasonable force.

This argument is so silly at this point not even Mr Field agrees with you.

Tell me how

gctest50 wrote: »

He probably thought she had a knife in her right hand

A - He never suggested he thought she had a knife in her hand.
B - Even if he did claim he thought that, was asking someone to simply "get this person out of here" what you'd expect rather than calling for police or warning others that they were armed?

gctest50

Tell me how wrote: »

A - He never suggested he thought she had a knife in her hand.

He is a lawyer, might be holding back

Tell me how wrote: »

B - Even if he did claim he thought that, was asking someone to simply "get this person out of here" what you'd expect rather than calling for police or warning others that they were armed?

What ? and cause panic ?

On the way out, he may have seen it was a phone


but :

Tell me how

gctest50 wrote: »

He is a lawyer, might be holding back





What ? and cause panic ?

Yeah, the first rule of apologising is to leave out some of your story so you can use it later. Doesn't sound at all made up when you do it that way.

If he was cool calm and collected enough to control the situation so well that he thought there was a knife there but walked her out as he did while not wanting to raise panic, then I think he is more robo-cop that MP/minister. But also, that he would definitely have asked for police to apprehend her in such a circumstance. As it was, he just walked her out of the room and let her off.

Oh yeah, if you though someone had a knife, would you try to hold their hand, or their neck?

Unless that video is of the protesters phone, it doesn't mean anything. I sat beside someone on the bus with a smart phone in a rubberisied case today? Are you saying I should have thrown them off it? Wow, I was lucky.

gctest50

Tell me how wrote: »

.......

. I sat beside someone on the bus with a smart phone in a rubberisied case today? Are you saying I should have thrown them off it? Wow, I was lucky.

Ah the old reductio-ad-boards-absudcr@p


If you were at an invite-only function and some gatecrashing looper wearing a sash went striding purposely towards the top table holding something that may be a weapon, you should go for it

smurfjed

IF a female protester rushed at my boss in my place of work, she would be shot and questions asked later, admittedly if it was a man, he would also be shot.

lawred2

smurfjed wrote: »

IF a female protester rushed at my boss in my place of work, she would be shot and questions asked later, admittedly if it was a man, he would also be shot.

Cool story

theres about as much chance of her being hurt by his actions as there was him being genuinely afraid of a threat from her

so why are both sides cranking up the overstatement

joe40

[Deleted User] wrote: »

theres about as much chance of her being hurt by his actions as there was him being genuinely afraid of a threat from her

so why are both sides cranking up the overstatement

Ok up to a point, but if he did not think there was a genuine threat then he over reacted. The only excuse would be if he thought there was an actual threat.
A lot of posters claiming that was his mindset although the mp himself never claimed that he thought there was an actual threat.

id imagine he was mightily annoyed at a self-righteous protestor and figured hed throw her out of the place.

not as many ppl as some might expect will have a problem with this

the rest is noise

joe40

[Deleted User] wrote: »

id imagine he was mightily annoyed at a self-righteous protestor and figured hed throw her out of the place.

not as many ppl as some might expect will have a problem with this

the rest is noise

Yeah I agree with that. I'm of the opinion he over reacted, others might think he did the right thing.

Fair enough, it was just all the talk here that she might have a weapon as if that was his motivation I found a bit silly.

At no time did he claim himself that he was worried about a weapon or risk of violence.
This whole thing will be forgotten soon though

joe40

joe40 wrote: »

Yeah I agree with that. I'm of the opinion he over reacted, others might think he did the right thing.

Fair enough, it was just all the talk here that she might have a weapon as if that was his motivation I found a bit silly.

At no time did he claim himself that he was worried about a weapon or risk of violence.
This whole thing will be forgotten soon though

in turn i agree with your angle that he did overreact and its not seemly behaviour from him.

ive no idea how its rumbling on tbh