That court decision on the anti-mask law is a nice lesson in the rule of law.
Re the citi banker, here's a hypothetical line of defense...
1) Banker worked really late that night, and stumbled unwittingly into the crazy street action.
2) Police sprayed crowd with pepper spray and ordered them to disperse.
3) Banker was overcome and needed first aid, so he looked for water to wash his eyes.
4) Police instantly escalated the situation out of all proportion and busted him.
5) Under extreme pain and duress, the banker freaked out and tried to escape.
6) The banker has resources and can afford to mount a vigorous defense. His lawyers will gather all possible witnesses, video, cell phone records, and etc to document both his timeline and the police timeline that evening. They will focus in on police behavior against other citizens in that location to see if they can establish a pattern of misbehavior. If possible, they will turn the tables and put the police on trial.
Now consider the prosecutor's dilemma. There have already been over 4,000 arrests, and probably another 1,000 coming in the next week as police clean out the occupied university. It's a truly massive caseload involving hundreds of serious premeditated assaults where police and civilians were attacked with hammers, knives, sharpened metal rods, bricks, petrol bombs, acid, flaming arrows, etc.
And then along comes this piddly little case where three police tackled a confused banker, and he impulsively grabbed a short billy club and gave them a few light taps on their body armor. Are you serious? Give me a break!
I don't know how it works in HK, but around here the prosecutors are overloaded and have to ration their resources and pick their battles. I question whether this banker case ever goes to trial. |
