Police - excessive force on this week's news
Discussion
The problem is you need to unpick and structure the behaviour against the reference points I have spoken about. That's what any investigator will do. No surprise no one has attempted to do that because it leads to a clear route where there could be justification.
Surprisingly, they won't just sit there and go, "Well, that's wrong because it's wrong" and repeat ad nauseum as if that means much.
Surprisingly, they won't just sit there and go, "Well, that's wrong because it's wrong" and repeat ad nauseum as if that means much.
Bigends said:
it could now be me on the other end of that non payment dispute with the station staff, and should I wish to have a row argue the toss with them - I wouldnt expect this treatment.
Plus the ABHs (whenever they were and the circumstances) and it may depend how you behaved prior to the filming. WinstonWolf said:
Some officers seem to get it, others don't 
Indeed. Glad to have heard it too as the unpliable, dogmatic and cold in-human attitude of some here has been darkly enlightening. That sort of entrenched approach may make me question things more rather than naturally supporting the 'good guys' as I feel we should be grateful to them for protecting society - often at personal risk to themselves. No winners here sadly...Ken Figenus said:
Indeed. Glad to have heard it too as the unpliable, dogmatic and cold in-human attitude of some here has been darkly enlightening. That sort of entrenched approach may make me question things more rather than naturally supporting the 'good guys' as I feel we should be grateful to them for protecting society - often at personal risk to themselves. No winners here sadly...
So officers explaining use of force to people who refuse to understand it and who explain that the officer is just as likely to be able to justify it than not is 'in-human'?Also you dont like officers taking into account all possibilities rather than taking everything on face value without knowing all of the facts?
Rather you than me.....
Mk3Spitfire said:
Except he's already explained that's not how it works. The CPS would have made the decision to charge. Not the police. So if you want to hold a grudge...hold it with those responsible for your unlucky situation.
What are you on about?He's wrong. If an upstart rookie makes an arrest and then tells the custody officer the details, charges will be made if all sounds 'correct;. Then the ball starts rolling. So, a man's fate initially depends on what is said at the custody suite.
As for my unlucky situation some 20 years ago, I did hold them responsible and it was the arresting officers and most of the officers in the custody suite that were shown to be covering their tracks after the unlawful arrest. I don't hold a grudge though. I think the police do a decent job in hard times but some of them are just jumped up idiots like the fool on the video. He's lucky the guy didn't defend himself.
Boosted LS1 said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
Except he's already explained that's not how it works. The CPS would have made the decision to charge. Not the police. So if you want to hold a grudge...hold it with those responsible for your unlucky situation.
What are you on about?He's wrong. If an upstart rookie makes an arrest and then tells the custody officer the details, charges will be made if all sounds 'correct;. Then the ball starts rolling. So, a man's fate initially depends on what is said at the custody suite.
As for my unlucky situation some 20 years ago, I did hold them responsible and it was the arresting officers and most of the officers in the custody suite that were shown to be covering their tracks after the unlawful arrest. I don't hold a grudge though. I think the police do a decent job in hard times but some of them are just jumped up idiots like the fool on the video. He's lucky the guy didn't defend himself.
ETA...you are completely wrong by the way.
t then it'll happen. Are you going to tell me it's never happened that way?Mk3Spitfire said:
Ah, ok. The police must have decided to make a charging decision themselves that day.
ETA...you are completely wrong by the way.
How many times has Derek Smith talked about how the Police used to run their own prosecutions and bemoaned the CPS taking over?ETA...you are completely wrong by the way.
Just asking
I was going to talk about the internal, subjective and extremely important element of using force and how that's been placed in statute (S.76), but I think I'd have greater luck making a brick wall understand than some of the 'it's wrong because it's wrong' experts.
If that's not clear enough, speculating an improbable event will occur based on nothing specific is stupid.
ABH requires CPS advice. The CPS advice will come from someone either on the phone (or in sent as documents to be reviewed 'slow time') who'll make a decision. They could easily be at the other side of the country. That doesn't stop Boosted from ploughing on with his make-it-up-as-he-goes-along suggestion there'll be some conspiracy charge forthcoming over a pretty low-level matter that has received a small amount of publicity.
Boosted LS1 said:
He's wrong. If an upstart rookie makes an arrest and then tells the custody officer the details, charges will be made if all sounds 'correct
Nothing like repeating the same rubbish when it's been clearly explained why it's rubbish. Boosted LS1 said:
It's happened in the past and will happen again. It's a shame that you're so blinkered.
Aeroplanes have crashed before and will crash again. You just have to be pretty stupid to think that your next plane journey will be one that will crash. It takes similar flawed thinking to assume the police / CPS will magically conspire to charge someone because an incident has received some publicity. If that's not clear enough, speculating an improbable event will occur based on nothing specific is stupid.
Tango13 said:
How many times has Derek Smith talked about how the Police used to run their own prosecutions and bemoaned the CPS taking over?
Pros and cons to each. ABH requires CPS advice. The CPS advice will come from someone either on the phone (or in sent as documents to be reviewed 'slow time') who'll make a decision. They could easily be at the other side of the country. That doesn't stop Boosted from ploughing on with his make-it-up-as-he-goes-along suggestion there'll be some conspiracy charge forthcoming over a pretty low-level matter that has received a small amount of publicity.
Tango13 said:
How many times has Derek Smith talked about how the Police used to run their own prosecutions and bemoaned the CPS taking over?
Just asking
How many times has Derek Smith said the the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, 1984 was the best thing that happened to the police service? It was a remarkably successful bit of legislation. It had its faults, but I think there's few new laws that have had so few.Just asking
That it was not funded is hardly the fault of the legislation.
The downsides of the PACE act include delay. Another is that when you prosecute your own offences, you only go to court once without sufficient evidence.
hora said:
Any updates on this story yet?
The PC is currently suspended from street duties. The assaults were minor when the customer pushed past station staff. The young cop with him only had a matter of weeks service in and was put in a very difficult position. I have a mate in BTP -also horrified when he saw the video.Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 3rd May 17:16
Rovinghawk said:
If he's not able to do the job properly then he shouldn't be doing the job.
Difficult one as you are told not to be a hero/go in gung ho. Saying that if he had been more pro active/acted with common sense it wouldn't have left his colleague hanging and flailing.What would you have done? I know what I'd have done but then I've got a lot of life experience. This chap might be in his early 20's.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff