A policeman has been jailed for 8 months for hitting a student protestor with his riot shield, knocking out a tooth. Andrew Ott had tried the "I felt threatened" self defense gambit giving evidence he stated:
I believed he had done something wrong or was about to do something - I wanted to contain him.
I bring my shield around - I believe it was on my left arm - and momentum, and also the fact that I bring my shield around my body, I collided with him.
I struck him with the shield, yes. At that moment in time my threat assessment was high. He was a threat to me - I dealt with it as I saw fit.
I struck his upper body. If his head got hit, then it got hit - I didn't aim for his head. To get a chipped tooth from a shield like that - unlucky.
The observant among you will realize from the link that this occurred in London but it does have some lessons. The principal evidence which probably convinced the jury was the audio recording on a device he wore. While body cameras are being issued; at the time the available technology was fairly limited. It shows that an independent record of police on public encounters forms an important part of "watching the watchmen", even if it is audio only! Police videotapes to gather evidence against the protesters were also
used against Ott:
Audio recordings taken from a device worn by Ott captured the student as he accused the police officer of breaking his tooth, to which Ott responded, 'not me mate, you slipped on a metal fence'.
Video footage taken by a police photographer that night shows Mr Horner pointing towards his missing tooth and asking the camera man to 'get the number' of the officer detaining him.
Jurors heard that Ott was also taped threatening violence towards the crowds that had gathered and talking about 'getting' the protesters.
Speaking later to another officer about Mr Horner, Ott said: 'I've had enough of these c**. I just f**** hit him', the court heard.
Another important aspect to note is that the investigations of serious complaints against police are not carried out by an internal police department in England. Instead they are conducted, or at least overseen, by the
Independent Police Complaints Commission. They have their own investigators, usually seconded from police forces for a period of several years, or oversee investigations by a different police force. In this case, the Metropolitan Police passed on the complaint but that is part of the requirements of the IPCC
Two other police, tried for conspiracy with Ott for covering up the assault, were cleared of criminal charges but now face internal disciplinary hearings for gross misconduct (as does Ott) which could lead to all three being thrown out of the force. Again unlike the USA, in that event they will not be able to simply transfer to another area.