Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
I was very lucky I made a complaint before starting proceedings. We knew we would just get the 'no evidence of any wrongdoing' response so I wasnt really interested in making a complaint.
I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
Why do we need full facts before forming opinions on a forum. What is special about this policeman that people cant form an opinion based on what they see?
Has Putin been convicted in a court of law? But yet many on here KNOW he is an evil dictator. Same for Assad or any other leader we have helped topple.
We all critisized MPs during the expenses scandal yet only a handful of them were convicted of any wrongdoing.
You lot like to critisize May and the government for messing up the police service. Did you wait for all the evidence at an inquiry into her actions before boring us with your opinions?
Has Putin been convicted in a court of law? But yet many on here KNOW he is an evil dictator. Same for Assad or any other leader we have helped topple.
We all critisized MPs during the expenses scandal yet only a handful of them were convicted of any wrongdoing.
You lot like to critisize May and the government for messing up the police service. Did you wait for all the evidence at an inquiry into her actions before boring us with your opinions?
vonhosen said:
That's not what I've been observing in the main though, defence of the officer.
What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
And in the main, no one is disagreeing with that. Notwithstanding, this is a forum for debate, it's not a Court that will decide anyones fate. What there has been is a lot of opinions on the legal position of the PC. Unlikely that there are FACTS that are going to change the legal position. Therefore it's absolutely fair to discuss the legal position, and have a view on whether a) a driver is required to get out of a car when requested to do so by a PC, and b) was the use of force justified.What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 12:38
What I'm asking for is those who believes a) and or b), to state the relevant law, and be able to debate the relevance and nuances of that law. The law is a fact, the nuances might be dependent on the facts.
at least I'm not behaving like a t
t with a chipAlpinestars said:
vonhosen said:
That's not what I've been observing in the main though, defence of the officer.
What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
What I'm asking for is those who believes a) and or b), to state the relevant law, and be able to debate the relevance and nuances of that law. The law is a fact, the nuances might be dependent on the facts. What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 12:38
Greendubber said:
Already been done.
No it hasn't. S3 is the best we've got. Let's debate it without you throwing insults around and without generic "it's been done". Deal?Let's start with, is it S3 a person would normally rely on in these circumstances for the use of force?
And as far as requiring someone to get out of the car, which bit of law would require a driver to get out when asked to by a PC?
Alpinestars said:
No it hasn't. S3 is the best we've got. Let's debate it without you throwing insults around and without generic "it's been done". Deal?
Let's start with, is it S3 a person would normally rely on in these circumstances for the use of force?
And as far as requiring someone to get out of the car, which bit of law would require a driver to get out when asked to by a PC?
Yawn Let's start with, is it S3 a person would normally rely on in these circumstances for the use of force?
And as far as requiring someone to get out of the car, which bit of law would require a driver to get out when asked to by a PC?
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Already been done.
No it hasn't. S3 is the best we've got. Let's debate it without you throwing insults around and without generic "it's been done". Deal?Let's start with, is it S3 a person would normally rely on in these circumstances for the use of force?
And as far as requiring someone to get out of the car, which bit of law would require a driver to get out when asked to by a PC?
Alpinestars said:
vonhosen said:
That's not what I've been observing in the main though, defence of the officer.
What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
And in the main, no one is disagreeing with that. Notwithstanding, this is a forum for debate, it's not a Court that will decide anyones fate. What there has been is a lot of opinions on the legal position of the PC. Unlikely that there are FACTS that are going to change the legal position. Therefore it's absolutely fair to discuss the legal position, and have a view on whether a) a driver is required to get out of a car when requested to do so by a PC, and b) was the use of force justified.What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 12:38
What I'm asking for is those who believes a) and or b), to state the relevant law, and be able to debate the relevance and nuances of that law. The law is a fact, the nuances might be dependent on the facts.
Those investigating will have access to all that & can then make a judgement in relation to the law etc.
Then justice can be best served within the law.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 15:11
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff