"My preconceptions of the police were pretty much that it was full of thick gung-ho sadists, who skirted the edge of the law in their dealing with the public. That sounds pretty much like what many of the commenters here think too. " Nah mate, sorry but it's the way I've seen the Met consistantly handle violent drunks of all shapes and sizes without resorting to several hard punches that actually influenced my opinion on this - my opinion basically being that he retaliated. If I'd not seen that so often, I may indeed believe the people on here who claim their experience makes them a better judge than amateurs. As I posted earlier: "I have seen numerous fights, almost weekly over 3 years in my previous job, none of which resulted in either police or door staff having to repeatedly punch their attackers..." Why does everyone disagreeing with the idea the officer MAY have used a bit too much aggression try to undermine the validity of the other person's opinion by using this tactic, I wonder? I read the thread about this in the Guardian's page too, and the same technique is applied there. Couldn't it just be possible that some of us have seen the same stuff, have the same experience of situations like this, and just drew different conclusions? But I actually do agree about the sub-judice issue, right or wrong that man shouldn't have to face trial by media... but then I think men accused of rape should have anonymity for the same reason, that's perhaps a rant for another time. However, since the film's in the public domain that is non-issue now. Interesting though that the police (as an entity) were quick enough to release very misleading details about Charles De Menezes, all that jumping over a barrier (which he didn't) and padded jackets, etc. Talk about "partial and incomplete information"! I have a friend in America who believed those details and accused me of being a "conspiracy theorist" - even when I sent her that famous shot of the dead man in his lightwieght denim jacket, lying inside the tube train he should never have been allowed to get on, if the suspicions about him were correct. My point being, I guess both sides can play at that game, trial by media and press release, when they choose. And judging someone without walking a mile in their shoes is surely the actual role of a justice system, making sure that special pleading isn't a get out clause. If someone posted on here that yon lassie was only drunk because she'd had a horrible life, I give it 0.253 seconds before that bleeding-heart nonsense got cried down - and rightly so IMO.