Police Dads Army
Discussion
La Liga said:
Even beyond the criminal context, the definition nearly always uses the word 'severe'. I don't think a non-custodial common assault quite meets that.
Everything's jolly, then. They only tickled him.La Liga said:
You are quite quick to dismiss their conclusion Cressida Dick didn't order anyone's death
Someone ordered it, surely? Police don't just kill someone on a whim, do they?La Liga said:
With your new-found faith in the IPCC, why didn't they recommend any action against the other officers present since it was so obvious they should have intervened? It'd only need to be on the balance of probabilities they should have done something.
As with acquitting the 2nd dude, I don't understand the reasoning.If I see anyone torturing a policeman should I just stand & watch, maybe assist slightly? I presume that your answer would be no.
Rovinghawk said:
Everything's jolly, then. They only tickled him.
If you're unable to comprehend the scale of assaults, then that's your problem. Since you're unable to figure out why people aren't ordered to be killed it's probably just a continuation of your ignorance. Rovinghawk said:
Someone ordered it, surely?
No. Go and read the report by your new found friends, the IPCC. Rovinghawk said:
As with acquitting the 2nd dude, I don't understand the reasoning.
He didn't commit a crime. The fact you can't see why is a good indication you can't see why the Sergeant's behaviour probably wasn't obviously unlawful to those present as opposed to a court which had all the information including the Sergeant's account (vital when it comes to justifying or not justifying force). Rovinghawk said:
If I see anyone torturing a policeman should I just stand & watch, maybe assist slightly? I presume that your answer would be no.
Well it is a life sentence crime. 
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
Someone ordered it, surely?
No. Go and read the report by your new found friends, the IPCC. Let's agree to differ in opinion as to acceptable behaviour.
Rovinghawk said:
La Liga said:
Rovinghawk said:
Someone ordered it, surely?
No. Go and read the report by your new found friends, the IPCC.Let's agree to differ in opinion as to acceptable behaviour.
Octoposse said:
Conceivable that it is (strictly speaking) true, although misleading. Crime is down, and forces moving to an NPT model and re-designating officers could be in the 3,800?
Although, if 3,800 is five times the original, then the total now is only four and a half thousand, which seems very low if you include the Met??
One of the reasons crime is down (apparently) is because theres now not enough officers to do proactive work which generates recorded crimes, for example take a drugs dog around a busy city centre night time economy and it might generate a couple of dozen crimes in one night for drugs possession. This doesn't happy any more because there simply isn't the resources to do it.Although, if 3,800 is five times the original, then the total now is only four and a half thousand, which seems very low if you include the Met??
Rovinghawk said:
Fine, nobody ordered it. It just happened.
I suspect that you are fully aware officers acted on information supplied to them. No one 'ordered' a kill, they followed their training and acted on the intel they were given. So come on Columbo, where in that situation is there an order to kill?Back on topic.
I have served in both the Military and the Police.
Would I go back and do it for free. The Military, probably yes, only because I had an unusual role that could be quite exciting at times and it took me to just about everywhere on the planet.
The Police, not a chance in hell. Life's too good for me to bother doing that again.
I have served in both the Military and the Police.
Would I go back and do it for free. The Military, probably yes, only because I had an unusual role that could be quite exciting at times and it took me to just about everywhere on the planet.
The Police, not a chance in hell. Life's too good for me to bother doing that again.
Rovinghawk said:
Nobody ordered a kill. Nobody is to blame. It was just a systemic error from which lessons will be learned.
Feel free to educate yourself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_11_0...Although that requires greater effort than remaining ignorant, so I think it unlikely.
Rovinghawk said:
These thing just happen.
I worked out that from and including Menezes, an innocent person is killed 0.0007692307692307692% of the times in firearms deployments. That excludes the millions of normal interactions armed officers have with the public; it's just specific armed deployments where the criteria is met. Perhaps we need your hindsight keyboard perfectionism to create the first bit of perfection in a complex human-run system over a large sample with so many variables and unknowns. Amazing that no one in the world has ever managed it. You'll be a rich man if you can achieve it.
La Liga said:
worked out that from and including Menezes, an innocent person is killed 0.0007692307692307692% of the times in firearms deployments. That excludes the millions of normal interactions armed officers have with the public; it's just specific armed deployments where the criteria is met.
Perhaps we need your hindsight keyboard perfectionism to create the first bit of perfection in a complex human-run system over a large sample with so many variables and unknowns. Amazing that no one in the world has ever managed it. You'll be a rich man if you can achieve it.
He'd still be bitter and twisted though.Perhaps we need your hindsight keyboard perfectionism to create the first bit of perfection in a complex human-run system over a large sample with so many variables and unknowns. Amazing that no one in the world has ever managed it. You'll be a rich man if you can achieve it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff