I said it wasn't 'crime of the century'.I will await the full evidence pack before taking a view on criminal liability.What is certain is that it was inappropriate, poorly judged and utterly abhorrent.
I had a notification I couldn't see, so looked at the ignored content and see TB quoted me.
When the police fail to prosecute and he isn't convicted, then that's the proof it was reasonable force.
So long as they don't get @Rasczak and his dodgy recollection as a witness to what happened.
And there you go again defending violent assault. No? Ok I'm bored of using your tactics of inventing things that happened to be outraged about.
He didn't throw her, and I'm very confident the police will agree it was reasonable force.
Meanwhile, still waiting to hear why my sex or age was relevant.
Imagine you are enjoying a nice barbecue with your friends and a pleasant afternoon out. Suddenly a bunch barge in where they weren't invited, shouting and kicking off because the entire world doesn't do exactly what they want it to...
What does age and sex have to with this? The female protestor shouldnt have been there and was ejected.
Too heavy handed? Remains to be seen what the law decides.
Can she be prosecuted too?
Imagine a bunch of louts deciding you weren't invited or entitled to be there and physically removing you.
It's perception and interpretation - i.e who is doing it.
None of us individually gets to decide what is reasonable or not, because there is a chance that what we consider reasonable, the majority or the law doesn't, even if we are convinced that it does.
What some people consider fun and entertaining, others may find loud and obnoxious.
The reason that there are laws and a legal system is to establish what is reasonable or not for all of us.
Someone was disappointed that middle aged men are supporting Field's actions...
is an important point here.
Entirely different situations and context. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or do you not see that the issue is not the use of force, but the level of force.
Trespass (on its own) is civil, not criminal. But there is a common law right to remove a trespasser using reasonable and proportionate force. It’s referred to as a lawful ejection. You don’t need pre-authorisation, anyone can do it on someone else’s behalf and long as you have an honest held belief that the person with lawful control (i.e the owner, or someone renting somewhere for a private event) of the premises would want them removed. And of course the level of force used should no more than required, with some margin for error.
It could probably have been handled better, but whether or not it was proportionate and justified remains arguable. But while ugly and unpleasant, I personally didn’t think it was terrible. She wasn’t injured from what I know, but the police can decide if it constitutes a lawful ejection.
Some think it was reasonable, some think it was an abhorrent and/or brutal assault. I'm sure we can let the law decide which of those is closest to the truth.