Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
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
vonhosen said:
The legal position is dependent on the facts, facts which include what happened before/after/outside of what is shown on the video.
Until we know that we can't say for sure.
Those investigating will have access to all that & can then make a judgement in relation to the law etc.
What don't those two clowns get about this?? There's every likelihood that the back story will be able to prove the reasons, on way or the other.Until we know that we can't say for sure.
Those investigating will have access to all that & can then make a judgement in relation to the law etc.
Greendubber said:
And around we go again.....
We are only going around because you're making it circular. Is it beyond you to enter into a debate and get to an answer? The questions I put to you were very straightforward, but all you can come back with is obfuscation. I'm making a genuine, genuine, attempt to get from you what you think the relevant law is so we can debate it. I've never looked at this bit of the law before, having nothing against the police, never come across them, and have no dog in the fight. But I've got an interest on both an intellectual level, and having done a bit of research, I think the PC has overstepped both a public perception mark, and a legal one. If I've missed something, I'll hold my hand up.
With that in mind, would you like to debate the legalities or not?
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
And around we go again.....
We are only going around because you're making it circular. Is it beyond you to enter into a debate and get to an answer? The questions I put to you were very straightforward, but all you can come back with is obfuscation. I'm making a genuine, genuine, attempt to get from you what you think the relevant law is so we can debate it. I've never looked at this bit of the law before, having nothing against the police, never come across them, and have no dog in the fight. But I've got an interest on both an intellectual level, and having done a bit of research, I think the PC has overstepped both a public perception mark, and a legal one. If I've missed something, I'll hold my hand up.
With that in mind, would you like to debate the legalities or not?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff