Random breath tests!

dacouch

[QUOTE=cord123;53864383

As for the whole Ian Tomlinson thing, yes it was unfortunate but if you look at the footage he had been told to move many times before yet didnt.... it was an unfortunate outcome, but had it been a 17 year old with a bandana round his face doing exactly the same I wonder if you would feel the same?
[/QUOTE]

That's not a very accurate description of what happened, the guy was a newspaper vendor on his way home. He was attacked by the police officer and it would have been brushed under the carpet had it not been caught on film.

The manslaughter trial of the police officer involved starts today, so we what happened will be reported in the media.

Call it a lucky guess but police normally don't get found guilty in these sort of cases.

cord123

dacouch wrote: »

That's not a very accurate description of what happened, the guy was a newspaper vendor on his way home. He was attacked by the police officer and it would have been brushed under the carpet had it not been caught on film.

The manslaughter trial of the police officer involved starts today, so we what happened will be reported in the media.

Call it a lucky guess but police normally don't get found guilty in these sort of cases.

I think you will find he was asked to go a different way.... he was being difficult in that he wouldnt leave the area.


I also think that a lot of the time police officers are thrown under the bus by their superiors and used as scapegoats.... I know of two instances this has happened in the lat 18 months...


tbh I dont get why soldiers are seen as heroes, same with the fire brigade and the police seen as scum... In the last set of shifts my husband had to deal with 3 dead bodies, one of which was a young child.... surely he should get some credit for his service too??

dacouch

cord123 wrote: »

I think you will find he was asked to go a different way.... he was being difficult in that he wouldnt leave the area.

tbh I dont get why soldiers are seen as heroes, same with the fire brigade and the police seen as scum... In the last set of shifts my husband had to deal with 3 dead bodies, one of which was a young child.... surely he should get some credit for his service too??

If he was asked to leave the area, then video shows him walking away from the police when he is attacked from behind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ

A lot of the public don't hold the Police in the same esteem as the other emergency services as they have had dealings with them and experienced their bullish attitude to the public.

I've had a few dealings with the police whereby I had done nothing wrong and been treated like a piece of dirt and threatened with arrest for no reason.

My experiences are pretty common with my peer group.

I've also had dealings with police officers where they have been very efficient and polite. This is what you would expect of a professional service whose job is to uphold the law and protect the public.

Unfortunately the bad experiences are what people remember and people who experience it tar the whole force.

The miss information the police often give out when a major incident such as after Mark Duggan and Jean Charles de Menezes etc etc do not inspire confidence in the public. How can a service whose raison d'etre is to investigate not be able to gather simple information after such an incident. Tell the media that someone who has lost their life was armed when they were not to try and appease public opinion.

If the police superiors had handled Mark Dugan in a different way there would have been no riots.

I happened to be caught up in the riots on my way home from work, the police in Clapham Junction stood and watched. The police station was 200m from the riots.

I walked home from Clapham Junction, the only people walking / driving towards Clapham Junction were people on there way to riot. It did not occur to the police to simply turn the people away when they were on there way.

lazer

Honeydog wrote: »

Unmarked.

So how did they get you to stop? Were they inside their car or outside?

Genuine question.

They were outside the car with the red light thing waving it to get me to stop.

cord123

dacouch wrote: »

If he was asked to leave the area, then video shows him walking away from the police when he is attacked from behind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ

A lot of the public don't hold the Police in the same esteem as the other emergency services as they have had dealings with them and experienced their bullish attitude to the public.

I've had a few dealings with the police whereby I had done nothing wrong and been treated like a piece of dirt and threatened with arrest for no reason.

My experiences are pretty common with my peer group.

I've also had dealings with police officers where they have been very efficient and polite. This is what you would expect of a professional service whose job is to uphold the law and protect the public.

Unfortunately the bad experiences are what people remember and people who experience it tar the whole force.

The miss information the police often give out when a major incident such as after Mark Duggan and Jean Charles de Menezes etc etc do not inspire confidence in the public. How can a service whose raison d'etre is to investigate not be able to gather simple information after such an incident. Tell the media that someone who has lost their life was armed when they were not to try and appease public opinion.

If the police superiors had handled Mark Dugan in a different way there would have been no riots.

I happened to be caught up in the riots on my way home from work, the police in Clapham Junction stood and watched. The police station was 200m from the riots.

I walked home from Clapham Junction, the only people walking / driving towards Clapham Junction were people on there way to riot. It did not occur to the police to simply turn the people away when they were on there way.

How should they have handled the Dugan incident? He had a gun and therefore was planning on using it at some point....the risk he took didnt pay off for him.


How many of those officers in that station were riot trained or do you just expect them to grab a baton and go out there? I fully believe that all officers should be riot trained, but this isnt their fault that they arent and I would not expect them to risk themselves if they havent been.


I think a lot of this is ifs and maybes and no doubt this will be handled differently if and when it happens again. People forget uniformed police are only going on what they are told, many of them dont agree with descions made higher up, often by people who have never been in taht situation, but as they have families at home they have to put up and shut up in order to keep their jobs.


Can they strike to get heard like many others? No.


As for their bullish behaviour, I can accept that some police think they are above everyone else, and my husband is the first to admit that he works with people like this, but have you never been into asda and dealt with a jobsworth? You get them everywhere....


Also, although not right, take a moment to think what they have done already that day. My friend (pc in police) went to a suspicious death of a 2 year old and then had to go to a crash and then carry on with her shift.... you try not to let that affect you.... you are a better person than me.

dacouch

cord123 wrote: »

How should they have handled the Dugan incident? He had a gun and therefore was planning on using it at some point....the risk he took didnt pay off for him.


How many of those officers in that station were riot trained or do you just expect them to grab a baton and go out there? I fully believe that all officers should be riot trained, but this isnt their fault that they arent and I would not expect them to risk themselves if they havent been.

He was not carrying a gun though, the police initially said he was armed and that he had fired at police. Both of these were later revealed to be wrong see my previous post about police miss information to the media after these types of event.

The 30 officers involved in the incident are refusing to be interviewed by the IPCC. They will only submit written statements.

For someone whose job it is to uphold the law, what sort of example do you think that sets to the public. Police involved in these incidents are officially allowed to get their stories straight and are not interogated by the official investigators. This is in direct opposition to how the police would investigate the public

Could 30 police officers not have arrested an unarmed man without killing him. Even if they thought he may be armed they could have tazered him etc

With regard to how many were riot trained, it would not have made any difference, there were a handful of people gathering which normal police could have moved on.

It was well known to everyone eg police, traders and the public etc etc that there would be a riot at Clapham Junction. There were young kids eg 13 or so on my bus heading to Clapham Junction who were on there way there. The police just set up a road block with 2 police officers about 100m on the roads approaching where the riot was due to happen. They let people who wanted to riot walk past the road blocks.

Trebor16

dacouch wrote: »

The 30 officers involved in the incident are refusing to be interviewed by the IPCC. They will only submit written statements.

As they are witnesses then why should they be subjected to an interview? When members of the public are witnesses to incidents they have statements taken from them and they are not interviewed.

dacouch wrote:

For someone whose job it is to uphold the law, what sort of example do you think that sets to the public. Police involved in these incidents are officially allowed to get their stories straight and are not interogated by the official investigators. This is in direct opposition to how the police would investigate the public

It's no different to how the public are treated. A suspect will be interviewed. Witnesses give statements. Police officers who are witnesses give statements but if an officer is subject to a complaint or is a suspect they will be interviewed. Why do you think that police officers who witness incidents should be subjected to different treatment to a member of the public in similar circumstances?

cord123

Trebor16 wrote: »

As they are witnesses then why should they be subjected to an interview? When members of the public are witnesses to incidents they have statements taken from them and they are not interviewed.




It's no different to how the public are treated. A suspect will be interviewed. Witnesses give statements. Police officers who are witnesses give statements but if an officer is subject to a complaint or is a suspect they will be interviewed. Why do you think that police officers who witness incidents whould be subjected to different treatment to a member of the public in similar circumstances?

Exactly.
If they also had information that he had a gun, do you want them to go up and politely ask him to give it. You honestly cant think that they strolled up and shot him. There was obviously a sequence of events that lead to that.
If they had intelligence that he had a gun that is what they go with.... or do you expect them to give him the benefit of the doubt?
A gun was found nearby so short of if falling out of the sky, it got there somehow.
Who told you that the police said shots were fired...the papers any chance????

dacouch

cord123 wrote: »

Exactly.
If they also had information that he had a gun, do you want them to go up and politely ask him to give it. You honestly cant think that they strolled up and shot him. There was obviously a sequence of events that lead to that.
If they had intelligence that he had a gun that is what they go with.... or do you expect them to give him the benefit of the doubt?
A gun was found nearby so short of if falling out of the sky, it got there somehow.
Who told you that the police said shots were fired...the papers any chance????

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17514972

A gun was found 14 feet away, the other side of a fence with no dna from Mark Duggan on it.

Ennui_2

Removed in case anybody I know works out I actually submitted on this thread.