Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
vonhosen said:
IIRC the acquittal rate at Crown Court is about 20%.
And there's a different test for that. The fact it's gone to Court clearly shows that the CPS thinks there's a case to answer. For a conviction, the jury has to decide whether the case is beyond reasonable doubt. Being found innocent, doesn't mean he operated within the law. And whether he operated within the law is the point I'm interested in. Alpinestars said:
XCP said:
Things are decided 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. (Balance of probabilities is the civil court standard.) This is a criminal case.
Aren't you confusing the bar for the CPS vs a jury?You are the one who said the court decide on the balance of probabilities. That only applies in civil law.
XCP said:
Alpinestars said:
XCP said:
Things are decided 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. (Balance of probabilities is the civil court standard.) This is a criminal case.
Aren't you confusing the bar for the CPS vs a jury?You are the one who said the court decide on the balance of probabilities. That only applies in civil law.
Alpinestars said:
We should all bear in mind, that whilst a Court is likely to be given more evidence than we have, it's rarely 20:20, perfect information. Things are decided on the balance of probabilities. The first leg of which is the decision to prosecute, the test for which is that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, ie, that a jury with the correct advice about the law, is more likely than not to find the defendant guilty.
XCP said:
Alpinestars said:
We should all bear in mind, that whilst a Court is likely to be given more evidence than we have, it's rarely 20:20, perfect information. Things are decided on the balance of probabilities. The first leg of which is the decision to prosecute, the test for which is that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, ie, that a jury with the correct advice about the law, is more likely than not to find the defendant guilty.
1. I didn't say Court. You did.
2. A gating item to a conviction is that the CPS decides to prosecute. In order to do that, a test for the CPS is "would a jury be more likely than not to convict the defendant" A probability test. If a gating item is based on probability, so is the final conviction, no matter what the test is in Court.
It's a game of probabilities. Not an exact 100% science based on perfect information.
XCP said:
Can I suggest you read your first two sentences in the post I quoted?
Can I suggest you read what I posted in totality, ie, in context. There's a reason I didn't post sentence by sentence. But to summarise where we are, on the balance of probability, based on evidence presented to the CPS, plod broke the law. In Court, it's always possible the jury decides he's not guilty, not because on the balance of probabilities he didn't break the law, but because the Prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt (a higher bar), that he broke the law.
Alpinestars said:
Agreed to some extent but without regurgitating what I said ages ago, the fact he was not under arrest really limits the use of force to circumstances which look highly unlikely in this situation. And one of the things PCs on here were adamant about was that he was required to her out of the car. He wasn't.
I think it was the idea we couldn't 100% say for sure what had been said prior to the video i.e. arrest / detained for stop and search. poo at Paul's said:
As seems to be the case in so many of these dodgy copper cases, how on earth is this still going on? How have they not just sorted this and sacked him?
6 months isn't long for a criminal matter to reach its first hearing. See answer below, too. poo at Paul's said:
6 months on from something that would have had someone in a normal profession just walked off the premises, and we are still paying for this muppet.
In law the police cannot progress misconduct proceedings until criminal matters are concluded. La Liga said:
Alpinestars said:
Agreed to some extent but without regurgitating what I said ages ago, the fact he was not under arrest really limits the use of force to circumstances which look highly unlikely in this situation. And one of the things PCs on here were adamant about was that he was required to her out of the car. He wasn't.
I think it was the idea we couldn't 100% say for sure what had been said prior to the video i.e. arrest / detained for stop and search. Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
Alpinestars said:
Agreed to some extent but without regurgitating what I said ages ago, the fact he was not under arrest really limits the use of force to circumstances which look highly unlikely in this situation. And one of the things PCs on here were adamant about was that he was required to her out of the car. He wasn't.
I think it was the idea we couldn't 100% say for sure what had been said prior to the video i.e. arrest / detained for stop and search. La Liga said:
y interpretation was that it meant he wasn't taken to custody as opposed to potentially arrested, road side matters dealt with and then de-arrested when the necessity ceased etc.
The words used by the Met AFAIR was that the Met confirm be was not arrested. It was explicit. “On conclusion of the incident the officers identified that the driver was not the man in question and he was not arrested.
Alpinestars said:
XCP said:
Ok
So by 'Things' you mean decisions as to whether to charge. Apologies for not getting that point.
I can see why you guys struggle with the law. So by 'Things' you mean decisions as to whether to charge. Apologies for not getting that point.
It's also "a". Not "all". Vis a vis reasonable doubt.
Greendubber said:
I can think of a complaint made against someone I used to work with.
The short clip submitted be the 'victim' looked awful, the bigger picture and other evidence painted a very different picture. The officer in question was spot on in every way, had I judged him purely on that video I'd have been wrong about it which is why I'd rather wait it out and let a court decide.
That complaint went nowhere.
In this case it's not a complaint, it's a criminal charge. Since you are happy to think that police are allowed to act with impunity, it's likely you will never think a police officer can be guilty of anything.The short clip submitted be the 'victim' looked awful, the bigger picture and other evidence painted a very different picture. The officer in question was spot on in every way, had I judged him purely on that video I'd have been wrong about it which is why I'd rather wait it out and let a court decide.
That complaint went nowhere.
It's probably why you're quite proud of receiving so many personal complaints. 13 in one shift wasn't it?
Perhaps we should compile a league table of most complaints received in one shift as you appear so proud of it. XCP only boasts of 9 complaints - bit of an amateur really
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 17th March 06:51
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff