Do you blame him or not, MP manhandles woman protester

gctest50 wrote: »

You have this in the UK



(7) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—

(a) that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action;

and

(b)that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.



10)In this section—

(a)“legitimate purpose” means—

(i)the purpose of self-defence under the common law, or

(ia)the purpose of defence of property under the common law, or

(ii)the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);

(b)references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and

(c)references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.

That won't apply because while it may be the law there, it is inconvenient to their argument.

So let's all keep pretending it was an assault.

Danzy wrote: »

That won't apply because while it may be the law there, it is inconvenient to their argument.

So let's all keep pretending it was an assault.

Correct if you browse through this thread a certain section started of that it was criminal assault and he should be hung drawn and quartered. Then it moved to that he had no legal right to get involved. From there it moved to just because nobody else moved he should not have reacted. Then it was he used excessive force and he should be charge with that.

Now most are of the line is that in there opinion he used excessive force. They are trying to use 20/20 hindsight as a reason why he should have either not got involved or just say ''sorry dear you cannot go up there'' as she storms past him.

There is absolutely no physical evidence that his actions were inappropiate or over the top. Neither is there legal evidence in the video that he used excessive force. At the end of the day if either were charge with an offence that they could be conviced of it would be the protestor

Danzy wrote: »

The Mansion House is choosing to not press charges. That is all, the police will not act in a case like this unless they do so.

You do not have to be a Lawyer to follow this but some understanding of the law and legal process is inevitable as one goes through life.

:rolleyes:

weldoninhio wrote: »

That happened in Iraq

Well done. Good input. No Americans around were there? I suspect the secret service took the afternoon off and left the president to the care of the locals.

tritium wrote: »

Not technically correct, the UK is one of a number of countries where private prosecution is possible

More generally, “pressing charges” is really just an Americanism that has crept in to language for the act of making a complaint to the police.

at great cost...

and private prosecution is definitely not what people are talking about here..

This incident has become known to the police. It is their job to investigate. They may or may not forward their findings to the CPS.

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

Most people realise that excessive behaviour can be carried out without striking or hitting someone. He forcibly pushed her against pillar, grabbed her by neck and then marched her out.

It wasn't attempted murder, it was excessive force.

lawred2 wrote: »

at great cost...

and private prosecution is definitely not what people are talking about here..

This incident has become known to the police. It is their job to investigate. They may or may not forward their findings to the CPS.

Your point was no one but the police get to press charges in the UK. It’s incorrect, both in a technical sense and also in terms of the colloquial usage if the phrase

tritium wrote: »

He used a relatively low level of force to control a situation where there was significant potential threat. Any less force would have the potential to expose him to considerable danger.

Really? How much danger were the other 300 people exposed to?

malinheader wrote: »

Danger that people like you always seem to think that the time to react or speak up against is after an attack or an atrocity has been committed instead of acting first.

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?

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 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"

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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 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 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

[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.

[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