Main hun a convicted killer

[ellboy]

Originally Posted by Martin

I must agree ? Really ? I see the hun with his hands up because he doesn't want batoned.

His mate with the short trousers on has clearly got a look that says 'don't hit us'.

Innocent until proven guilty.

Not like you Martin to ignore a question.

What would you have done?

Again Innocent until proven guilty I 100% agree.

It is amazing how people can see a picture so differently.

I see a guy confronting a policemen.

While you see a guy defending himself.

[Martin]

Originally Posted by Tamster

BTW the picture above - I see the huns kinda saying 'don't hit us, calm doon !'. And i see the cop as waving the baton to disperse him. I do not see the cop hitting him. So I will not presume either that the cop hit him WITHOUT PROOF.

There lies the problem.

The picture is a split second of what probably occured over a period of about 40-60 seconds.

Eh.... I know that. That is EXACTLY why I am saying we cannot say for sure that he is guilty.

[

B]You make your judgement on one snapshot.[/b]

You are judging guilt from one snapshot. I am making NO judgement.

Do you really think the Police had time to pick out the odd innocent Hun and just baton the,.

No. I think I have made it as clear as day that I don't blame the police. You are simply ignoring my saying that.

If you watched ANy of the CCTv, you would see it was purely about staying alive in a situation like that.

I have watched plenty of it. Show where in my posts I criticise the police. You are once again being oversensitive about this. I made it cleat that I find the blame being directed towards the police laughable.

I make mines on 18 years of experience of dealing with similar situations.


If the guy was a Tim, the situation would be exactly the same BTW

[/quote]

Who is talking about the police in this thread ? Not me.

I am talking about this guy's guilt. Do you have any proof that he was rioting ?

[Martin]

Originally Posted by ellboy

Not like you Martin to ignore a question.

What would you have done?

Again Innocent until proven guilty I 100% agree.

It is amazing how people can see a picture so differently.

I see a guy confronting a policemen.

While you see a guy defending himself.

Someone else has already offered a plausible (but unproven) explanation of why he was there at that moment. I don't need to answer the question. Had you read the whole thread you would have seen there was already an answer to your question.

[buckfastceltic]

Ok then if the guy was innocent why did he decide to decend from the stairs and proceed towards the police? surely he would have stayed back as not to cause confrontation.

[Martin]

Originally Posted by buckfastceltic

Ok then if the guy was innocent why did he decide to decend from the stairs and proceed towards the police? surely he would have stayed back as not to cause confruntation.

No idea. It is very difficult to tell from a still photo what has lead to a situation (which is what you are asking). As Tamster points out above.

You said earlier that you accepted there was no proof, at this time, of him rioting. Do you take that photo as proof of him rioting ?

[buckfastceltic]

I see what you`re saying but there is a photo of him on the stairs beforehand, so why did he leave and decide to be there, the rest did not as there where a good few who stayed where they where.

[ellboy]

Originally Posted by Martin

Someone else has already offered a plausible (but unproven) explanation of why he was there at that moment. I don't need to answer the question. Had you read the whole thread you would have seen there was already an answer to your question.

But not fact as you say and also someone else offered this explanation not yourself.

Look Martin not trying to be judge and jury. Just trying to ask myself what I would have done if I was put in that situation.

I would have retreated not advanced as the picture depicts.

Anyhow your defence of the guy is comendable, correct and ethical.

Innocent til proven Guilty.

[Martin]

[quote=ellboy;525959]

But not fact as you say and also someone ese not yourselfe.

No I apply the same principle to both sides. And until there is proof either way a man is innocent.

Look Martin not trying to be judge and jury. just trying to ask myself what I would have done if I was pu in that situation.

I would have retreated not advanced as the picture depicts.

Anyhow your defence of the guy is comendable, correct and ethical.

Innocent til proven Guilty.

If any of us was up in court facing five years inside we would all demand that we were proven guilty before being sent down. Unless any of you are prepared to contradict that then you have no right to judge someone else without proof. End of.

[Martin]

Originally Posted by buckfastceltic

I see what you`re saying but there is a photo of him on the stairs beforehand, so why did he leave and decide to be there, the rest did not as there where a good few who stayed where they where.

No idea. I don't know, and you don't know. Until we know then we don't know if he is guilty.

[Fancy Pants]

Originally Posted by Celtic At H3art

You ever had a copper in your face for nothing? You ever had a copper stand up in court and say things about you that were toally untrue?
You ever had a copper try and set you up?

i have and let me tell you it was n,t nice

[Celtic At H3art]

Originally Posted by frumstaig

i have and let me tell you it was n,t nice

Nope it sure aint.

[ellboy]

[quote=Martin;525964]

Originally Posted by ellboy

No I apply the same principle to both sides. And until there is proof either way a man is innocent.



If any of us was up in court facing five years inside we would all demand that we were proven guilty before being sent down. Unless any of you are prepared to contradict that then you have no right to judge someone else without proof. End of.

Absolutely Correct.

However for me if there is a trial then exhibit A may very well be the Pictures published in the press.

[Martin]

[quote=ellboy;525975]

Originally Posted by Martin

Absolutely Correct.

However for me if there is a trial then exhibit A may very well be the Pictures published.

And no conviction would be won on that evidence alone.

[ellboy]

[quote=Martin;525985]

Originally Posted by ellboy

And no conviction would be won on that evidence alone.

Yep very true.

Although the coppers in question may be decent witnesses to coraborate the pictured evidence. I am sure if the police have enough evidence they will charge him or not if they dont.

[Martin]

[quote=ellboy;525990]

Originally Posted by Martin

Yep very true.

Although the coppers in question maybe be decent witnesses to coraborate the pictured evidence.

The hun also has two witnesses.