Lee Rigby's killer wants compo
Discussion
La Liga said:
It's not black and white. Force has to be reasonable in the circumstances. If he's posing a threat / being violent then there's a risk of injury towards himself. That's the nature of the beast. There's a bit of 'because he's bad it's OK' thinking here which is clearly flawed.
The lack of police action is a very good indication that the force was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the police are looking at things from a purely criminal point of view and keep in mind the end goal of criminal proceeds is proving something beyond reasonable doubt. There's probably a lot more leeway for the police to use discretion given there's nearly zero public interest in seeing people restraining him get prosecuted (unless it's obvious they've gone way too far without justification).
The civil area of law (whichever it is) which will be raised here is on 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. 'is it more likely than not?' This is a lower threshold of proof and will be tested in a court. Whilst there's some overlap with the police criminal interest, it's no guarantee there is no case to answer in the civil side of things.
He decapitated an innocent man. On the balance of probabilities he's an asshole...The lack of police action is a very good indication that the force was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the police are looking at things from a purely criminal point of view and keep in mind the end goal of criminal proceeds is proving something beyond reasonable doubt. There's probably a lot more leeway for the police to use discretion given there's nearly zero public interest in seeing people restraining him get prosecuted (unless it's obvious they've gone way too far without justification).
The civil area of law (whichever it is) which will be raised here is on 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. 'is it more likely than not?' This is a lower threshold of proof and will be tested in a court. Whilst there's some overlap with the police criminal interest, it's no guarantee there is no case to answer in the civil side of things.
WinstonWolf said:
He decapitated an innocent man. On the balance of probabilities he's an asshole...
Yep - he is a proven murderous scumbag and therefore anytime he needs to be restrained those having to do the duty should assume their lives are at risk ergo no holds barred. If you feel your life is at risk you are, by law, free to use lethal force - any lawyers care to comment? Jinx said:
Yep - he is a proven murderous scumbag and therefore anytime he needs to be restrained those having to do the duty should assume their lives are at risk ergo no holds barred. If you feel your life is at risk you are, by law, free to use lethal force - any lawyers care to comment?
Lethal would be a shame, just continual pain for a very long time would do. V6Pushfit said:
The thing is, the b
d has won. He's achieved publicity as its been worldwide news for several days.
This is the problem with the system as it currently stands.d has won. He's achieved publicity as its been worldwide news for several days.And for all those talking about de-radicalising people like this, I wonder how many prisoners are themselves radicalised by the likes of this waste of oxygen.
La Liga said:
WinstonWolf said:
La Liga said:
It's not black and white. Force has to be reasonable in the circumstances. If he's posing a threat / being violent then there's a risk of injury towards himself. That's the nature of the beast. There's a bit of 'because he's bad it's OK' thinking here which is clearly flawed.
The lack of police action is a very good indication that the force was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the police are looking at things from a purely criminal point of view and keep in mind the end goal of criminal proceeds is proving something beyond reasonable doubt. There's probably a lot more leeway for the police to use discretion given there's nearly zero public interest in seeing people restraining him get prosecuted (unless it's obvious they've gone way too far without justification).
The civil area of law (whichever it is) which will be raised here is on 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. 'is it more likely than not?' This is a lower threshold of proof and will be tested in a court. Whilst there's some overlap with the police criminal interest, it's no guarantee there is no case to answer in the civil side of things.
He decapitated an innocent man. On the balance of probabilities he's an asshole...The lack of police action is a very good indication that the force was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the police are looking at things from a purely criminal point of view and keep in mind the end goal of criminal proceeds is proving something beyond reasonable doubt. There's probably a lot more leeway for the police to use discretion given there's nearly zero public interest in seeing people restraining him get prosecuted (unless it's obvious they've gone way too far without justification).
The civil area of law (whichever it is) which will be raised here is on 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. 'is it more likely than not?' This is a lower threshold of proof and will be tested in a court. Whilst there's some overlap with the police criminal interest, it's no guarantee there is no case to answer in the civil side of things.
What do you do when someone chooses not to be restrained, say "oh sorry mate, crack on"? Five officers were involved, do you think he was just wriggling a little?
WinstonWolf said:
La Liga said:
It's not black and white. Force has to be reasonable in the circumstances. If he's posing a threat / being violent then there's a risk of injury towards himself. That's the nature of the beast. There's a bit of 'because he's bad it's OK' thinking here which is clearly flawed.
The lack of police action is a very good indication that the force was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the police are looking at things from a purely criminal point of view and keep in mind the end goal of criminal proceeds is proving something beyond reasonable doubt. There's probably a lot more leeway for the police to use discretion given there's nearly zero public interest in seeing people restraining him get prosecuted (unless it's obvious they've gone way too far without justification).
The civil area of law (whichever it is) which will be raised here is on 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. 'is it more likely than not?' This is a lower threshold of proof and will be tested in a court. Whilst there's some overlap with the police criminal interest, it's no guarantee there is no case to answer in the civil side of things.
He decapitated an innocent man. On the balance of probabilities he's an asshole...The lack of police action is a very good indication that the force was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the police are looking at things from a purely criminal point of view and keep in mind the end goal of criminal proceeds is proving something beyond reasonable doubt. There's probably a lot more leeway for the police to use discretion given there's nearly zero public interest in seeing people restraining him get prosecuted (unless it's obvious they've gone way too far without justification).
The civil area of law (whichever it is) which will be raised here is on 'the balance of probabilities' i.e. 'is it more likely than not?' This is a lower threshold of proof and will be tested in a court. Whilst there's some overlap with the police criminal interest, it's no guarantee there is no case to answer in the civil side of things.
Jinx said:
Yep - he is a proven murderous scumbag and therefore anytime he needs to be restrained those having to do the duty should assume their lives are at risk ergo no holds barred. If you feel your life is at risk you are, by law, free to use lethal force - any lawyers care to comment?
Force ranging from the slightest to the most serious can be justified in the right circumstances. A default assumption like that is not valid, though. It's all about taking responsibility for your actions. You murder somebody you go down. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
When inside you kick off and have to be restrained. Whilst that happens you lose some teeth. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
No compo. Simple. Act like a c**t get treated like a c**t.
What is hard to understand about that?
When inside you kick off and have to be restrained. Whilst that happens you lose some teeth. You are responsible for your actions. You decided to put yourself in that position.
No compo. Simple. Act like a c**t get treated like a c**t.
What is hard to understand about that?
La Liga said:
I don't think he has been in this instance, but you've got to be pretty simple to see the inconsistency and implications of approving such actions.
or just leave him to the other inmates I'm sure there will be several lifers happy to have a go at his neck with a rusty nail Hooli said:
bonkbonk said:
WinstonWolf said:
They have basic human rights, until they choose to waive them by going to prison for murder.
What about Lee Rigby's 'ooman rights?
You do not waive all your human rights when you go to prisonWhat about Lee Rigby's 'ooman rights?
We should be more like them, is that what you want?
Or should we maintain a moral superiority?
oyster said:
Like ISIS, the Taliban and Al Qaeda do you mean?
We should be more like them, is that what you want?
Or should we maintain a moral superiority?
Is it morally right that someone who kicks off in prison has the chance of compensation when an accident occurs caused by prison officers doing their job?We should be more like them, is that what you want?
Or should we maintain a moral superiority?
If I start a fight on the street and lose my teeth, what am I (morally) entitled to?
wiggy001 said:
oyster said:
Like ISIS, the Taliban and Al Qaeda do you mean?
We should be more like them, is that what you want?
Or should we maintain a moral superiority?
Is it morally right that someone who kicks off in prison has the chance of compensation when an accident occurs caused by prison officers doing their job?We should be more like them, is that what you want?
Or should we maintain a moral superiority?
If I start a fight on the street and lose my teeth, what am I (morally) entitled to?
I hope that the MoJ defends this one to the hilt, whatever the cost (even if well over £20k), but I don't buy this jungle-law approach that some criminals should lose rights.
DrDeAtH said:
Let him loose in the exercise yard with some of the violent nutters that exist in our prison system.... A few missing teeth would be the least of his worries.....
Indeed, why should he get any form of 'special treatment' (segregation etc.) he did the crime and, rightly should serve his sentence as handed down by the legal system but I don't agree that he needs any form of protection.As for compensation, for what? It was his choice to make a fuss/put up a fight...
V6Pushfit said:
oyster said:
I don't buy this jungle-law approach that some criminals should lose rights.
In his case I personally don't give a toss what happens to him, and since he 'doesnt recognize UK Law' then imparting a bit of extrajudicial justice seems quid pro quo to me. wiggy001 said:
Is it morally right that someone who kicks off in prison has the chance of compensation when an accident occurs caused by prison officers doing their job?
If I start a fight on the street and lose my teeth, what am I (morally) entitled to?
If you started a fight with someone and I decided to wade in to stop you by, for example, hitting you over the head with a brick, then you would be at liberty to pursue me through the courts for compensation.If I start a fight on the street and lose my teeth, what am I (morally) entitled to?
That's how the law works
oyster said:
He'll only get compensation if the judge decides that the prison officers WEREN'T doing their job.
I hope that the MoJ defends this one to the hilt, whatever the cost (even if well over £20k), but I don't buy this jungle-law approach that some criminals should lose rights.
But it's already been decided the officers have no case to answer.I hope that the MoJ defends this one to the hilt, whatever the cost (even if well over £20k), but I don't buy this jungle-law approach that some criminals should lose rights.
As much as it pains me to say it in this case, I'm not advocating the loss of all rights for prisoners. But this should be a simple "did the officers do anything wrong?"
- Yes - reprimand/suspend/sack them, and if appropriate give them some kind of punishment (fine, community service, custodial sentence)
- No. End of.
And regardless of all this, I ask again what use the compensation is to the prisoner who is serving a whole-life tariff?
I would suggest any claim for compensation should be paid on a prisoner's release based on how the action is affecting them at that time.
In fact, compensation is general should only be used to compensate someone appropriately based on the effects of an action. His loss of teeth aren't going to affect his social life, getting a girlfriend or success in job interviews are they?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff