Due a police visit - help

Jim_Jupiter

I'm astounded by the bad advice given on here.

Firstly, if the police felt they had enough to arrest you they wouldn't book an appointment. Depending on who's dealing with the case and the force area etc you may have simply been asked to "volunteer" yourself to a station.

However, you've not, they've made an appointment to come see you. They've advised it may take a couple of hours which is why they refused a quick slot during your lunch break. It may take 10 minutes in the end, who knows?

What I've gathered though an allegation has been made against you (in fact you only think an allegation has been made against you) and so in line with policy and public expectations they are following it up. Just like you'd expect if you made an allegation, however ridiculous, against someone else.

You say your end of the events involve staring at this person a good few weeks ago. Whilst that could be, at a massive stretch be considered threatening and alarming behaviour, it's extremely doubtful. Most of us on here are inclined to believe you, (for a start people this afraid of the police aren't the ones to go around beating up kids), and as we're inclined to believe you then I'm sure the police will. Accept the fact an allegation may have been made, be calm, be polite and be co-operative. Be prepared to discuss your version of an event that may not even have took place, be prepared to sign a statement of what you say (the police will write the statement, you will sign it). ONLY sign this statement if you are comfortable with it. Get them to rewrite it 100 times if need be.
You may be cautioned at some point - this doesn't mean you have been arrested - but it is probably time to, as has been rightly said, down tools, ask them to leave and insist on a solicitor.

Without being a scaremonger if the allegation is that you assaulted a 15 year old boy, however ridiculous that is in your head, the police could arrest you at any time - you will be led away to whereever the nearest custody suite that has room is (even if its upwards of 50 miles away) and, once the police are prepared (could be a long time in a cell) you will be formally interviewed on tape. Obviously at this point you will have legal representation (and a prior meeting with the duty solicitor before the formal interview).

Another outcome is once this preliminary discussion is done with they could ask you to surrender yourself to a station at a future date. Again if this is asked, get legal representation.

I stress though it doesn't look it will go that far - the police want to follow up an investigation and IF its exactly as you say it then they will reach the same conclusions as us - a waste of time for all concerned.

And without knowing the true ins and outs of the entire situation nobody can say for sure what's happening, though to me, and to a lot of the others, it doesn't sound too serious.

Jim_Jupiter

Oh I just realised the meeting is done and dusted by now and my post wasn't neccessary!

Hope it went well OP, let us know what happened.

DVardysShadow

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Another police hater obviously!!!!

Most police haters do so because they have been on the wrong side of the law themselves (or their close family or friends have). If you don't break the law, then you will never get on the wrong side of the police.

Sorry, I think you are something of a naive fool. People do indeed sometimes get on the wrong side of the police without ever having been on the wrong side of the law.

Your misconceptions probably arise from thinking that the police are more or less the same as the law. Which is mistaken.

DVardysShadow

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

No I'm not a cop. But I know a few, and you would stuggle to find people more honest.

Old school coppers simply can't exist for long in the job any more, because the whole service is under constant scrutiny.

If I seem venomous, it's because most police haters do so because the police try and stop them from doing what they want to do, which is illegal. It's like people who get stopped for speeding, and come out with the line "shouldn't you be catching proper criminals". Well if that person had killed a child when they were speeding, then they would be a criminal. So by stopping them from speeding, they could be saving a childs life.

I don't think police haters are the problem so much as the police lovers and apologists such as yourself. If you think of the Tomlinson case, it was probably just one or 2 police lovers on the jury who got Harwood off something any ordinary person would have gone down for

Yorkie1

If there were just 1 or 2 "police lovers" then it would have been a conviction. 10 jurors can return a majority direction.

It would have been at least 3 of them - 25%.

Marie27lol

How did it go British Boy?

Good news I hope.
M

Penny-Pincher!!

No news yet? Hope all is okay.

PP
xx

adouglasmhor

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

It wasn't a crime. It was a probably unfounded allegation of a threat.

It won't be a crime until they feel they can charge you, not much to turn staring into threatening behaviour.

Jamie_Carter

43k_in_43m wrote: »

Jamie

I'm with you but you're not going to win against all those on here who know better. Those that haven't faced a gun or a knife and then worried about whether the level of self-defence they used was lawful.

Instead they're quite happy to sit here in judgement and with anonymity on their side digging up the odd case in hundreds of millions of police/public encounters.

Maybe just accepting that 'police are bad/keyboard warriors know better' is the way forward - hopefully they're never in a life threatening position where someone in uniform is prepared to risk their life to save them

And to the OP no-one on here can give any more advice than be pleasant, listen to what the officer says and answer the questions honestly. If you need more time or don't understand then ask and before you sign anything read it and read it again.

Very well said :T:T:T

They also forget how many police officers are killed in the line of duty.

Jamie_Carter

Cat501 wrote: »

1. Yes, roughly.

2. No, do you? Given that the cases mentioned are the ones we have actually heard about. Although it seems logical to surmise that rather a lot are involved in the "stop and search" statistics. Regardless, even if it IS a tiny minority, that doesn't make it in any way trivial.

I could give you a recent example of police bullying and unwarranted use of force which you will never read about in the newspapers or online but there seems little point.

The fact is that these days many people start squealing like a pig if a police officer even comes near them. And start claiming police brutality over a broken finger nail. Even what it was probably them who kicked off whilst resisting arrest.

Police are only allowed to use reasonable force. And any allegations that more than reasonable force has been used, has to be investigated. If too much force has been used, then these days it isn't swept under the carpet, because senior officers are too worried about the consequences if they are found at a later date to have covered it up.