mr henderson
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 04:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
I believe we are a 'hairs breadth' from this country becoming a Police state.
We are all entitled to our beliefs, even though in real police states people can be "disappeared" in the middle of the night for
holding the wrong ones
quote:
Originally posted by JAG
The only way to deal with the problem is to engage them (terrorists) and discuss their problems and work towards solving them.
The problem that many terrorists have is that the people they are trying to terrorise exist. Talking isn't going to solve that problem
John
[Edited on 2/12/08 by mr henderson]
|
|
|
|
|
britishtrident
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 04:42 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Which brings me on to the subject of that ex-squaddie who was allegedly beaten-up by officers and it was caught on camera.
The TV and press reported that one officer repeatedly punched the guy while others 'restrained' him. That's absolutely not what I
saw!
There were 3 officers - one had successfully placed his right arm behind his back. Another was struggling to get the left arm behind his back because
he was resisting. The third officer then punched the guy several times on the tricep / bicep area to weaken the muscle. The guy was then restrained
and handcuffed.
Absolutely text-book stuff and AS PER TRAINING!
So, it's not pretty to watch and ust because the general public at large doesn't llike the look of it, 3 cops are now facing prosecution.
What the hell for?
Certainly can't be for the manner of arrest!
Maybe there is dubiety surrounding the REASON for arrest (had he committed an arrest-able offence or not). I'e no idea, but the media
aren't raising that particular issue - they're just going on about the punches!
I can only hope the cops should get long jail terms in the served general prison population --- what I saw on video was sadistic, brutal and went
far beyond any reasonable force required to simply restrain the squadie, many people in this country think the police in this country are out of
control.
On two occasions I have witnessed unprovoked assaults by the Police on parties I had no connection with, .
In the first case while working on my car I with a friend I saw a large burley officer deliberately provoke two 12 year old boys wearing football
colours by standing then leaning a against a wall tapping the backs of thier legs wall with his trunchon untill they could take no more and tried to
get away. -- only to be brought to the ground by using truly excessive violence and JUMPED on by FIVE other PC who had being hiding around the
corner of the building waiting for the lads to break.
I would have made an official complaint by I was 19 and was frightened of the trouble it would bring.
In one case I was a witness in a case in the Sherff Court where the sheriff stated the police evidence was a well rehearsed fabrication. In that
case two cops in a panda saw two 19 year old lads again in football shirts (a major european match had just finished and the boys had been watching
it in the local pub) with their girl friends making their way through a leafy well healed Glasgow suburb. Thinking they didn't belong there the
two cops stopped them and tried to provoke trouble by making the lads turn back and called their girlfriends prostitutes. They then assaulted the
lads in the driveway of a house where one of the boys had tried to get help.
Lets make this clear these boys were beaten to pulp I saw them and I saw the blood SOAKED clothing, the Fiscal tried to claim the PCs had been
assaulted but produced no medical or photographic evidence and no evidence of blood stained clothing.
What saved these lads was the highly respectable well healed street in which the assault took was the street in which they lived --- one of the
lads was the son of a former old firm player hence the football shirt. I wasn't the only defence witness several people from the street saw
what happened and as were able to bear witness. Also luckily the father's of the lads and girls were well healed enough to hire Glasgows best
defense lawyers who exposed the police lies for what they were.
I later learned the Police I had tried to make it appear the lads had been stopped in connection with a complaint by the public which occurred 30
minutes AFTER the the part of the incident I witnessed at a time when the lads were in custody. In fact in the time frame between half an hour
before the end of the match and the lads being beaten up the police office concerned had received no calls from the public.
I strongly suspect in both cases the assaults took place because the boys and lads were wearing Celtic football colours --- least anybody think I am
biased I will point out my football and religious allegiance lies on the other side of that which divides my city.
[Edited on 2/12/08 by britishtrident]
[I] What use our work, Bennet, if we cannot care for those we love? .
― From BBC TV/Amazon's Ripper Street.
[/I]
|
|
|
woodster
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 04:55 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
quote:
Originally posted by woodster
A shoot to kill policy at the MET
It is (and always has been) a shoot to stop policy - not kill... there is an accepted logic that 'stopping' may result in
'killing'. Hence the popular misconception!
In the case of the firearms guys on the train that day - if they truly believed that they were dealing with a man who was strapped with explosives and
was about to detonate, then shooting him repeatedly in the head (as unpalatable as that sounds) is pretty much the only sure-fire (no pun intended)
was of 'stopping' him!
fair enough but if i read it right the poor sod on the train was wearing a light jacket and wasn't carrying a bag or rucksack
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 05:04 PM |
|
|
Sorry Woodster, but I didn't realise it said in the Terrorists Handbook that explosive devices MUST be carried in rucksacks, or worn under heavy
jackets!
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 05:16 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
On two occasions I have witnessed unprovoked assaults by the Police on parties I had no connection with.
I would have made an official complaint but I was 19 and was frightened of the trouble it would bring.
Lets make this clear these boys were beaten to pulp.
British Trident...
What you have described is plainly wrong and those responsible deserve full punishment... however, I'm shocked that you didn't do the
right thing and speak up.
19 or not... you were a grown man! Your call I suppose!
Edmund Burke said, The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. I agree completely.
As for the CCTV clip... utter nonsense (in my humble opinion)! Sure - be outraged IF it transpires that he was WRONGLY arrested - for then, and only
then, the use of force would be unnecessary and a crime of assault would be committed. Now as it stands - there is only condemnation of the method of
arrest.
Watch the clip again. He refused to give up his arm for handcuffing - striking the major muscle group in the limb area to effect release is a TAUGHT
technique. As I said before - it's not pretty, but it is effective (and worked in this case!).
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 06:00 PM |
|
|
Some many people to quote, so little motivation to do it!
BT, im guessing (from your knowledge of old cars) that 19 was a long time ago for you! Things have changed, police assaults are rare.
I would also agree with the poster above, that the recent incident of the 3 cops punching a chap was absolutely acceptable to me. He was resisting
arrest, the punches served to deaden his arm which helps to get him cuffed.
Re Jean Charles, i feel that the police at the scene werent totally at fault for the death. Previous inquests/trials have pinpointed a catalogue of
mistakes. That bird who was in command should take the rap, the buck stops at the boss. If my employees kill someone it falls at my feet.
If the jury cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing, why bother with an inquest at all? It clearly wasnt lawful as there is no law that allows
summary exectution, so the verdict must be open.
I believe it was unlawful killing.
|
|
|
theconrodkid
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 06:05 PM |
|
|
ah harry stanley,well known (to plod) armed bank robber
who cares who wins
pass the pork pies
|
|
|
caber
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:04 PM |
|
|
If Demenezes had been a bomber and was holding a detonation device in his hand shooting him would have resulted in an explosion! IMHO the police were
in complete cowboys and indians mode on that shout.
What is the point in a Jury trial if the obvious verdict is dissallowed. i would not be happy with that instruction if I was on the jury.
Caber
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:29 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
If Demenezes had been a bomber and was holding a detonation device in his hand shooting him would have resulted in an explosion! IMHO the police were
in complete cowboys and indians mode on that shout.
What is the point in a Jury trial if the obvious verdict is dissallowed. i would not be happy with that instruction if I was on the jury.
Caber
So not shooting a suicide bomber is better than shooting him? I would have thought that most suicide bombers would be planning to set their bomb off
where it would kill the most people. Not shooting them sounds like taking a hell of a chance to me.
John
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:31 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by caber
If Demenezes had been a bomber and was holding a detonation device in his hand shooting him would have resulted in an explosion!.
Not necessarily the case... it is widely acknowledged that a headshot is the 'securest way of disabling someone who may have a suicide device
and may try to detonate it'. What are you suggesting was the alternative if, as you say, he had been a bomber? Leave him just to get on with
it?
Maybe better to take the chance of preventing the inevitable, no?
quote:
Originally posted by caber
What is the point in a Jury trial if the obvious verdict is dissallowed. i would not be happy with that instruction if I was on the jury.
It's not a trial... it's an inquest - completely different. Also, by the manner in which you state the 'obvious verdict',
then you would not have been permitted to sit on the jury as you've already made your mind up (despite not being aware of ALL the facts).
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
(despite not being aware of ALL the facts).
a fair amount of fact has been reported in the papers.
But, if it does require full facts to form a verdict, then surely the jury, who have heard ALL the facts, should be allowed a free hand to decide a
verdict?
|
|
|
BenB
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:33 PM |
|
|
Surely the whole point in both this case and the one of the squaddie is if the police want to stop you and ask you questions
YOU LET THEM
If the squaddie had said "of course officer, you are arresting the wrong person but here are my wrists for your hand-cuffs please don't do
them too tight"
that wouldn't have happened.
Depending on who you believe, John CdeM stood up (fearing that it was re his over-stayed visa) resulting in the police holding him down an capping
him. IF this was the case he should have taken a chill pill. If it really is that he did nothing and was executed that that's ridiculous.
However I can't help but feel he should have followed the Chris Rock advice:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SwfTustpG8g
Quality
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
(despite not being aware of ALL the facts).
a fair amount of fact has been reported in the papers.
But, if it does require full facts to form a verdict, then surely the jury, who have heard ALL the facts, should be allowed a free hand to decide a
verdict?
Not really, they have to decide on a verdict that falls within the law. That's why the coroner (in this case a distinguished judge) directs
them
John
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:42 PM |
|
|
Crikey... me and Mr H agreeing (sort of) on something - whatever next!?
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Crikey... me and Mr H agreeing (sort of) on something - whatever next!?
maybe you'll be right next time! lol
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:46 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Not really, they have to decide on a verdict that falls within the law. That's why the coroner (in this case a distinguished judge) directs
them
John
Do you mean in general, or are you implying that an unlawful killing verdict would be unlawful itself in this instance?
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:47 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
Crikey... me and Mr H agreeing (sort of) on something - whatever next!?
maybe you'll be right next time! lol
Who knows... maybe!
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:57 PM |
|
|
quote:
By the judge
But in narrowing down the choice of verdict, he added: "All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to
you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime - murder or manslaughter."
quote:
From wikipedia
In English law unlawful killing is a verdict that can be returned by an inquest in England and Wales. The verdict means that a death was caused by
another person, without lawful excuse and in breach of the criminal law, in other words homicide. This includes murder, manslaughter, infanticide and
causing death by dangerous driving. It is important that the inquest does not name any individual person as responsible.[1] A verdict of unlawful
killing generally leads to a Police investigation, with the aim of gathering sufficient evidence to identify, charge and prosecute the culprit(s).
The appropriate standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt. If this standard is not met, a verdict of accidental
death or death by misadventure should be considered on the balance of probabilities.[1]
It seems that because there was the possibility of it being justified, ie if he was a bomber, it has been tipped over the threshold of unlawful
killing. There are many similar cases where unlawful killing has been allowed even though similar circumstances, ie friendly fire incidents etc.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 07:58 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by mr henderson
Not really, they have to decide on a verdict that falls within the law. That's why the coroner (in this case a distinguished judge) directs
them
John
Do you mean in general, or are you implying that an unlawful killing verdict would be unlawful itself in this instance?
I'm not saying that, it's not my place to, it's the place of the coroner, and as I understand it, that's what he is doing.
However, if you want my opinion (and why wouldn't you) then it's that the whole thing was a tragic accident.
John
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 08:05 PM |
|
|
Bit of overlapping post stuff there.
Anyway, I read that wikipedia article earlier, and my interpretation of it was that there was no way the case in question could be considered unlawful
killing.
It would also seem to me that friendly fire incidents could not be called unlawful killing either, but I do know that many coroners are actual doctors
(real doctors ie medical) rather than lawyers, and as there is nothing much likely to come of it maybe they let those verdicts stand
John
|
|
|
JoelP
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 08:16 PM |
|
|
id agree a tragic accident but im not impressed with the competence of the command/control on the day. I can accept the radios not working, though
surely someone would've seen that coming? My main problem is firstly the failure to identify him promptly (or indeed at all), and the
communications errors that lead to the armed officers at the scene thinking he had been positively ID'd as a terrorist.
I think about JCM often because like me he was just a tradesman heading out to earn a living, and i dont like the idea that police can F%%% up that
badly and make out its just bad luck. I'll repeat, its a F*** UP of the highest order.
|
|
|
mr henderson
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 08:24 PM |
|
|
But bad luck is exactly what it is. None of the people involved knew him, wanted him dead, planned to kill him, were going to benefit in any way from
his death as the person that he was in reality.
They all knew him as a terrorist who was on his way to kill as many people as he could. That knowledge was wrong, it was a mistake, it was maybe
sloppy and clumsy, but never-the-less that was the knowledge that they were operating on. To try to consider any of them culpable would just be crazy.
Incompetent, maybe, but not culpable.
What the noisy police haters want is for the people involved to be considered criminals. Now they may, or may not, be very stupid, but criminals they
are not.
John
|
|
|
scootz
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 08:25 PM |
|
|
Succinctly put!
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 08:35 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by scootz
The TV and press reported that one officer repeatedly punched the guy while others 'restrained' him. That's absolutely not what I
saw!
There were 3 officers - one had successfully placed his right arm behind his back. Another was struggling to get the left arm behind his back because
he was resisting. The third officer then punched the guy several times on the tricep / bicep area to weaken the muscle. The guy was then restrained
and handcuffed.
Absolutely text-book stuff and AS PER TRAINING!
So you are saying police officers are actually trained to deliberately and repeatedly scrape someone's face along tarmac? Which text book is
that written in?
[Edited on 2/12/08 by MikeRJ]
|
|
|
richard thomas
|
| posted on 2/12/08 at 08:39 PM |
|
|
I, for one, am quite prepared for me and my family to run the very real personal risk of being caught in a terrorist strike in this great country of
ours so as not to have to put the authorities in an uncomfortable decision making position whereby they might very occasionally make tragic
mistakes.
Not.
|
|
|
