Quote:
Originally Posted by cznTiburon
I think the problem with this is that you are basing your assumption that this is the most pertinent charge based on a media article. The exact wording on the CPS statement is: "As CPS officers were attempting to escort the man off the premises, he pulled away and grabbed hold of one of the officer’s duty belts and on to the handle of the member’s conducted energy weapon."
It is alluded to in the media that this offender was trying to disarm the member but nowhere in the CPS statement does it use that word. In reality if this guy has grabbed hold of the taser handle of the belt simply as a way to get away or effect the officers ability to arrest him or to try and get away then the mens rea to "disarm" would not be met. The charge of obstruction still fits as clearly this mans actions were such that the members couldn't do their job and when a guy grabs a taser handle, whether to disarm or to flee, force was used to gain control.
I understand the point you are getting at with this being on the surface a more appropriate charge, but without the facts of the case it could very well be that simple obstruction was a more suitable charge.
|
No I also noted that difference in the media article so I went and used the CPS press release quote.
I fully accept they might have thought it through and decided they did not have enough on intent to proceed with the specific charge of disarming.
But to be fair, neither of us can know which is why I said that is a question I need answered.