Discussion
I would have thought that, even though he has previous for shoplifting, that a presumption of innocence would include not taking the items from the homeless guy until it was established that they were stolen.
He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
spookly said:
I would have thought that, even though he has previous for shoplifting, that a presumption of innocence would include not taking the items from the homeless guy until it was established that they were stolen.
He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
Yes. He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
It's far more reasonable than detaining the bloke, walking him back into an area he is banned from, taking him through the shop and sitting him in the manager's office whilst enquiries are made.
spookly said:
I would have thought that, even though he has previous for shoplifting, that a presumption of innocence would include not taking the items from the homeless guy until it was established that they were stolen.
He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
If he hadn’t had taken them and they were stolen then evidence lost and no recovery for store. The officer did the least they could to get it sorted the right way going by how it’s reported. He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
People have no real idea about how officers have to work yet still complain and then complain to the media.
I’d guess the nurse asked for an explanation and got one from the officer and didn’t like what she got. Who knows what happened during that conversation but the police seem happy for her to view it yet she refuses. Pretty much sounds like she may have reacted slightly different than she’s explained to the media.
spookly said:
I would have thought that, even though he has previous for shoplifting, that a presumption of innocence would include not taking the items from the homeless guy until it was established that they were stolen.
He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
Apparently that is the sort of fascist state the trolls want, but they should be careful what they wish for.He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
Edited by 4x4Tyke on Wednesday 17th January 10:41
4x4Tyke said:
spookly said:
I would have thought that, even though he has previous for shoplifting, that a presumption of innocence would include not taking the items from the homeless guy until it was established that they were stolen.
He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
Apparently that is the sort of fascist state the trolls want, but [ur=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37601431]they should be careful what they wish for[/url].He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
Priceless
I stopped a guy a few days ago in the early hours of the morning, he was driving an Audi RS3. and was 100 or so miles away from where he stayed. He had previous and pending for stealing performance cars. The car wasn't registered or insured to him but he explained that he had not long bought it and was still waiting for the V5. Insurance wise he said it was on a trade policy but he didn't have a copy with him and it couldn't be checked at that time of the day.
There were some tools in the passenger footwell, screwdrivers, chisels, that sort of thing and also some gloves and a balaclava. The chap said he was doing a wood working nightclass at college and just kept the tools in the he car. I didn't even ask about gloves and balaclava cos it's properly cold this time of year.
On PNC the car wasn't shown as stolen but the keeper's address was about 10 miles away from where we were.
The chap swore on his child's life that he'd done nothing wrong, had turned over a new leaf and sorted his life out.
Luckily for him I done good policing and presumed his innocence - I mean it wouldn't be reasonable to keep him at the side of the road while a check was made with the RK or to detain him. I sent him on his way, didn't even bother with a HO/RT1 cos he'd said it was insured and his local station didn't have front desk so he'd have a 60 mile round trip. I thanked him for his time and apologised for delaying his journey.
Funny thing was, a few hours later the owner of the car reported it had been stolen. The car's still not been recovered and the boy driving it can't be traced.
Cat
The above events may not have actually taken place
There were some tools in the passenger footwell, screwdrivers, chisels, that sort of thing and also some gloves and a balaclava. The chap said he was doing a wood working nightclass at college and just kept the tools in the he car. I didn't even ask about gloves and balaclava cos it's properly cold this time of year.
On PNC the car wasn't shown as stolen but the keeper's address was about 10 miles away from where we were.
The chap swore on his child's life that he'd done nothing wrong, had turned over a new leaf and sorted his life out.
Luckily for him I done good policing and presumed his innocence - I mean it wouldn't be reasonable to keep him at the side of the road while a check was made with the RK or to detain him. I sent him on his way, didn't even bother with a HO/RT1 cos he'd said it was insured and his local station didn't have front desk so he'd have a 60 mile round trip. I thanked him for his time and apologised for delaying his journey.
Funny thing was, a few hours later the owner of the car reported it had been stolen. The car's still not been recovered and the boy driving it can't be traced.
Cat
The above events may not have actually taken place
spookly said:
I would have thought that, even though he has previous for shoplifting, that a presumption of innocence would include not taking the items from the homeless guy until it was established that they were stolen.
He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
Previous convictions alone do not provide grounds for a search/ seizing items.He could have reasonable grounds for detaining the homeless guy until he established that they were not stolen. But actually taking the stuff off him.... is that really reasonable?
Having 4 pairs of new, same type gloves, presumably with tags attatched, no receipt etc. etc. is a bit sus though.
Saying someone just gave him the gloves likewise (although given the homeless man's circumstances, possibly a bit more believable).
It was easy to check out - no harm done as far as I can see.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff