These stupid cops thought they had found a man who had been harassing paramedics in the town centre but they were wrong and Afghanistan war hero Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall challenged them.
That’s a massive crime these days, claiming your innocence. Any challenge to these retarded government agents is put down with fists, truncheons, batons, Tazers and guns. The CCTV footage above caught these wankers at it. The shocking video captures images of brutality by three of Wigan’s cops. They beat-up Mr Mark Aspinal in the middle of a main street.
He was then arrested, bundled into a police van and driven away in custody. Later they charged him with assaulting them and hauled him before the town magistrates. Magistrates many of whom are equally as stupid as the uniformed accusers believed their lies and convicted Mr Aspinal of two counts of assault.
The ‘evidence’ presented and accepted by these half-witted functionaries was that Mr Aspinal was “behaving violently” and “issuing changes”. They meted out a three-month suspended prison sentence, 200 hours of community service and compensation to the criminal cops of £250.
Mr Aspinal did some more challenging this time in the Liverpool Crown Court where a Judge John Phipps who saw the video footage told the court “I am appalled at the level of violence shown here”. He went to say that he had “great concerns” and called into question the honesty of the officers involved saying, “I would go as far as to say the statement contain untruths”. Just why judges can’t use the phrase “You are a bunch of liars” I have no idea but good on him for exposing these cops for what they are.
The convictions were quashed by the Court and Mr Aspinals reputation restored. Greater Manchester Police say that the force’s Professional Standards Branch was investigating the conduct of officers on the Wigan division and the matter has also been voluntarily referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).
The cops who perpetrated these crimes are: PC Peter Lightfoot a Special Constable of 19-years who is also a van driver, PC Richard Kelsall and the third known only as Sergeant Russell.
What’s a special constable?
“The Special Constabulary is a force of trained volunteers who work with and support their local police. ‘Specials’, as special constables are known, come from all walks of life – they are teachers, taxi drivers, accountants and secretaries, or any number of other careers – and they all volunteer a minimum of four hours a week to their local police force, forming a vital link between the regular (full-time) police and the local community.” Taken from this police web site.
The Duck Shoot Opinion: These cops should be sacked and Mr Aspinal should get thousands in compensation. The body investigating police complaints should be genuinely independent and incidents should automatically go before a judge and jury. Where a member of the public is injured or killed by police the officer or officers should be suspended without pay until a court clears them. That would see a reduction in cops using illegal tactics and it would restore public faith in the police.
The IPCC is not independent at all it is police investigating police, it’s a joke.
Source:
Related posts:
- Police Brutality: UK Police Taser & Punch Unarmed Man The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has announced it is...
- Police Brutality: Essex Cops Use CS Gas Illegally Another instance of UK cops assaulting a member of the...
- Police Brutality: London G20 Assault Officer Charged Sergeant Delroy (Tony) Smellie is to appear in court on...
- British Police Brutality: £60,000 Compensation To Babar Ahmad So Why Is He Still In Jail? Five years of lies, cover-ups, 'lost' evidence and corruption by...
- Police Brutality: CS Gas Police Suspended People power is the cell phone video! Long may it...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
‘Joe’ is a typical cop who can’t take the truth. ALL the magistrates I have met throughout my life on a personal level have been dishonest. That of course doesn’t mean that they all are just that the ones I have met are.
Except for Stipendiary Magistrates who usually try a case alone ordinary magistrates have no deep knowledge of the law and are notoriously pro-police. Justice Phipps, the Judge, who overturned Mr Aspinal’s conviction and recommended that the police be investigated said and I quote ‘Where is this man of violence? I am shocked and appalled at the level of police violence shown here.’
The judge said he had ‘great concerns’ about the CCTV footage and questioned the truthfulness of the officers’ statements.
‘I would go as far as to say the statements contain untruths,’ he added. End of quote.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1090655/Arrest–assault-Judges-disgust-soldier-held-hit-times-POLICE.html#ixzz0XACZweQY
One judge is worth a thousand jumped up small-business-owner magistrates. The Judge called the cops liars just like you are a liar Joe. All future posts, on THIS subject, from you or your made up auto-egos using proxy servers will be deleted.
Comment deleted: Everything Joe said here has already been answered with reason and documented evidence. Joe one more bullshit, dishonest comment from you and you are banned. Joe is a cop, possibly even one of the cops in this case or a colleague of course, and he has resorted to invented respondents using proxy servers and anonymous emails to back his crazy rants. I challenge you Joe reveal to me alone who you really are.
The Judge did see the full footage without the Mirror’s commentary, threw out the charges against Mark Aspinal and now the cop thugs are on trial. Turn the volume down and use your eyes instead of your blinkered cop prejudices.
Use your brain will you Dave and stop repeating things that you know are not true. The arrest was completely lawful. It is the manner of the arrest that is subject to dispute. Was it an assault or reasonable force? That is what needs to be determined. Let’s not forget that during the struggle Aspinall can be seen sinking his teeth into one of the cop’s legs.
If it were you or I, how would you go about trying to arrest a 13/14 stone fit squaddie who is aggressive and does not want to be arrested? I don’t know how I would do it.
The edited video does not prove they are guilty. I would like to see the full footage without that silly woman commentating over it. As I’ve already said, I’m sure that the footage has been edited to help spin the story. Otherwise they would have shown it all.
Wayne we all know the answer that that. There is one justice the rich and powerful and shit justice for the rest of us.
I am pleased to hear that British justice has at last begun to move in this case. As to the incident being an assault it is clear to see on the video. The cops were holding him down and punching him. The trial will be conducted with a “presumption of innocence”, the legal instrument to try to ensure proper investigation and a fair trial, but anyone who watches the video, including you Joe the cop, can see they are guilty. The fact that a judge threw out the jumped up charges indicates to any fair minded person that it was was not a lawful arrest.
Jean Charles Menezes wasn’t afforded the luxury of the “presumption of innocence” and was executed by incompetent, lying, trigger happy cops and an even more incompetent management.
No “white wash” here Dave. The 3 cops will go on trial next July. I’m sure that they would rather have it sooner, not hanging over them for months on end.
This incident cannot be compared to the Jean Charles Menezes shooting in any way whatsoever. He was a genuinely innocent man who was tragically killed. “War hero” Mark Aspinall was lawfully arrested, resisted, and as a result had force used upon him ( whether this constitutes an assault is yet to be determined).
Aspinall’s arrest cannot be compared to 3 members of the public attacking one cop.
Thanks for your comment. In the scenario you suggest the whole matter would probably have been dealt with by now. When it’s the cops doing the crimes it takes months or years. By the time the ‘white wash’ appears the public have forgotten the incident. Possibly deliberate? Of course! (Jean Charles Menezes just one example.)
If it was a single police officer getting assaulted by three men from the general public I wondered what sentence they would receive.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/1082940_punch_cop_investigated_before
That is the link above featured in the equally biased, mirror style, Manc rag. It is tucked right at the bottom where it can barely be noticed. I’m surprised they even mentioned it as it goes against the general theme.
I’ve said it time and time again but I believe that there is so much more to this incident than has been reported so far. I look forward to the trial so we can settle the argument once and for all
It would be nice if you would share a link to Mr Aspinall’s ALLEGED misdemeanor so me and my readers could make up our own minds who is demonstrating the “pattern of behaviour”.
What’s the offense Joe? Challenging a coppers bad judgment. Those cops are going to court Joe. It was supposed to be July 15 but I can’t trace what happened that day. Yet.
Maybe things are changing in the UK. Just maybe these thugs in uniform are being brought to book. And do you know why Joe? Because of citizen journalists, camera phones and the cops thinking that they above the law. So far above the law that they’ve overdone it. In the past it was a good kicking inside the van or a police cell But now they are cocky they are doing where there a witnesses. So I would watch out when you are out on patrol Joe you’d better obey the law.
Oh yeah, I forget to mention it earlier. Mr Aspinall was arrested in Bolton for a similar incident 3 months before this one occured. On that occasion he received a fixed penalty notice. That would suggest a pattern of behaviour on his part that when drunk he becomes problematic and brings him to the attention of the police.
Dave, thanks for logging onto your computer at such an un-godly hour to air your opinions. I feel honoured and priviledged that you would do such a thing to share your views with me. Just because I do not want to be contacted via email or shout my name from the rooftops does not invalidate my opinion.
I have already stated that if the officers involved are proven in a court of law to have done wrong then they deserve to be punished. I have already mentioned the judge and the harsh words he has used towards the officers, but we must remember that 3 magistrates also saw the same cctv footage and convicted Aspinall (remember, he did sink his teeth into one of the officer’s legs). The discrepancy of the two contrasting verdicts given from the same incident is indeed puzzling.
Lots of people critisize magistrates as being too much in favour of the police but surely not to such an extent where they would convict a man of police assault who had been “brutally” and “unprovokedly” attacked by 3 officers.
As for the cctv footage, yes it is obviously a great indicator as to what happened but it cannot be solely relied on without other supporting evidence. As for editing it, of course this can distort the true story and I’m pretty confident that this was the reason the Sunday Mirror did it. They published a very sensationalised and biased account and the cctv footage they released was always going to maximise this. This is only what can be expected from such a downmarket rag tabloid.
For a man (or woman) with a big mouth you are pretty shy about who you are. Moral of the story, another flamer who hasn’t got the guts to publish a valid email address. He/she comes from Slough, Berkshire, England though.
The presumption of innocence is a principle I uphold and have quoted many times in this blog. The presumption of innocence does not, however, make you not guilty but it should ensure a properly investigated case and fair trial.
Mr Aspinal has been cleared by a judge. The cops have been censured, by a judge. Even if there are parts of the film edited for the benefit of publication the Judge would have seen the whole uncut version before making a decision.
The version of the video we see here shows unacceptable behaviour on the part of those police officers and the editing does not change that. I think it is you who is biased as you are ignoring the indisputable facts. Thank goodness the Judge didn’t.
Not a cop by any chance are you Joe?
Well well Mr Duck shoot, that is a very one sided article written without full knowledge of the facts. Is it just me or is this country full of narrow minded idiots who are quick to jump to the shout of the media? The Sunday Mirror cctv footage of this incident is clearly edited with that ridiculously hysterical woman acting as narrator and whipping the whole thing into a frenzy. You claim mistaken identity on the basis of what the Sunday Mirror has claimed but do we know this for a fact? No, not at all.
There are two sides to every story and I’m sure there is a lot more to this one than has been reported so far.
This incident has many similarities with the Toni Comer arrest a few years ago. That was another media storm after a cctv nasty with the officer, Pc Anthony Mulhall, subsequently cleared.
For your knowledge the IPCC is a completely separate body to the police and was set up for that reason. It contains people from all walks of life, not police officers.
As for the judge, he has made some strong comments about the officers but until we know the full story then we should wait and see. Maybe the officers have done wrong and deserve to be punished but I believe in innocent until proven guilty.
As for that rag the Sunday Mirror, it’s take on this story was well over the top and very sensationalised. It’s front page screamed “UNFORGIVABLE”. This was the same paper (daily mirror) that in 2004 ran the headline “VILE” accompanied by pictures of British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners. These pictures were later shown to be fakes with the paper having to apologise for it.
Moral of the story, don’t take everything at face value.