|
Julio Cruz posted:the Met armed police throwing their toys out of the pram because someone was held to account for shooting an unarmed man is darkly hilarious It's not that someone is being held to account, it's that the CPS is apparently ignoring their own guidance on what to prosecute for some reason.
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
Oh did they forget to prosecute Kaba's corpse?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:28
|
|
|
He must be posthumously held accountable for giving that poor officer PTSD. Get Roko's basilisk on it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:33
|
|
|
Rugz posted:It's not that someone is being held to account, it's that the CPS is apparently ignoring their own guidance on what to prosecute for some reason. the CPS guidance being, presumably, “don’t worry if you shoot dead an unarmed man we’ll cover for you”?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:37
|
|
|
As the police are involved in the vast majority of prosecutions I think they should also be the subject of almost all prosecutions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
The person on the radio said the police have the exact same right to shoot people as we, the people, do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:39
|
|
|
Lovely clip of state broadcaster espousing fashy anti-NHS gammon soundbites and getting completely dismantled by someone who actually has a loving clue. You love to see it https://twitter.com/PhilipProudfoot/status/1706193386292543864?t=DElYU6DkyloyfW4TG17cPw&s=19
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:40
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:the CPS guidance being, presumably, “don’t worry if you shoot dead an unarmed man we’ll cover for you”? No, the guidance that prosecution needs to have a reasonable chance of conviction. Based on their published statement on decision to prosecute it reads far more like they didn't want the political blowback of not choosing to prosecute despite not having a convincing case and are offloading the fallout onto the judicial system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 15:57
|
|
|
I don't really see how refusing to prosecute the guy is better than attempting and failing. I also highly doubt that the police have some principled commitment to prosecution standards, they're throwing a tantrum because one of them is facing mild consequences for killing a man.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't really see how refusing to prosecute the guy is better than attempting and failing. Wasting the court's time and needlessly upending the life of a citizen for political reasons? The CPS have guidelines about what certainty they should have of obtaining a conviction, presumably you think they should do away with that requirement since refusing to prosecute isn't better than attempting and failing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:07
|
|
|
Rugz posted:No, the guidance that prosecution needs to have a reasonable chance of conviction. Based on their published statement on decision to prosecute it reads far more like they didn't want the political blowback of not choosing to prosecute despite not having a convincing case and are offloading the fallout onto the judicial system. This is something that comes up regularly, not just when it comes to police prosecuting crimes but most elements of the public sector that interact with the court system. There is a huge fear in making a decision one way or another. Don't prosecute someone because the case is a shambles? The result is that the family of the victim (or the victim themselves) might take a case against the police or other organisational body. I have heard it said that in such a situation, the conventional wisdom is that even if you have a bad case, you go ahead and prosecute. If the case results in a conviction, you get all the credit for a conviction (even if you had loads of doubts that it would work in the end.) If you bring the case and a judge throws it out? You can still go to the family and say "I'm sorry that no one has been found guilty of your loved one being killed. We tried, but well, you saw what that unelected woke Judge did." In this case, you are getting the rare situation where the Defendent is part of a group that has enough politicial power that they can push back and try and make arguments about should cases be brought if the evidence doesn't meet some unimaginably high threshold*. * = I am sure that the same principle would not be argued by the same group if it was being applied to a supply of drugs charge.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:10
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Wasting the court's time and needlessly upending the life of a citizen for political reasons? The CPS have guidelines about what certainty they should have of obtaining a conviction, presumably you think they should do away with that requirement since refusing to prosecute isn't better than attempting and failing? I don't think that police count as just "citizens" and I think that given their historical institutional immunity to consequences for killing people, they should absolutely be prosecuted for it as a matter of course. Because the alternative is that they keep killing people and keep getting away with it, and we have an excellent example of where that leads on the other side of the atlantic. The police are the sanctioned hands of state violence, their relationship to other people is not one of equals, they are an inherent threat and if they don't want to be treated like that they shouldn't be police. The courts prosecute all sorts of stupid shite directly because the police harass people for pointless things, to suggest that prosecuting a cop who kills someone is a "waste of the court's time" is absurd, there are few things that courts should devote more attention to than prosecuting state killers. Drop a few shoplifting charges if you're so desperate for time to do it in. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:11
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Wasting the court's time and needlessly upending the life of a citizen for political reasons? The CPS have guidelines about what certainty they should have of obtaining a conviction, presumably you think they should do away with that requirement since refusing to prosecute isn't better than attempting and failing? how about "upending the life of a citizen" because they killed someone
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't think that police count as just "citizens" and I think that given their historical institutional immunity to consequences for killing people, they should absolutely be prosecuted for it as a matter of course. Because the alternative is that they keep killing people and keep getting away with it, and we have an excellent example of where that leads on the other side of the atlantic. Why? What is the purpose of bodies such as the IOPC if every police interaction defaults to a trial? Funny you mention the other side of the atlantic since the entire ACAB rhetoric that seems to be seeping through is an American import. What you seem to be advocating is an overuse of the judiciary to govern police in some sort of attempt to make amends for previous cases. So I ask you how many not guilty verdicts would you like to see returned before the UK police are free to do their jobs? Keep killing people and getting away with it? Mark Duggan - Lawful Killing Dean Joseph - Lawful Killing James Fox - Lawful Killing Richard Davies - Lawful Killing Jermaine Baker - Lawful Killing James Wilson - Lawful Killing William Smith - Lawful Killing Josh Pit - Lawful Killing Yassar Yaqub - Lawful Killing Richard Cottier - Lawful Killing Sean Fitzgerald - Under investigation Anthony Grainger - Police found at fault Sorry but a 'Look at the US it's a slippery slope' argument doesn't wash.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:28
|
|
|
People getting upset about ACAB give off the same vibes as people who get upset if someone complains about ‘men’ or ‘white people’
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:31
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:the Met armed police throwing their toys out of the pram because someone was held to account for shooting an unarmed man is darkly hilarious Also hilarious is their threat to stop shooting people I haven't had cause to deliver such a monotone "oh noooo" for a long time
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:32
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Why? What is the purpose of bodies such as the IOPC if every police interaction defaults to a trial? Funny you mention the other side of the atlantic since the entire ACAB rhetoric that seems to be seeping through is an American import. What you seem to be advocating is an overuse of the judiciary to govern police in some sort of attempt to make amends for previous cases. So I ask you how many not guilty verdicts would you like to see returned before the UK police are free to do their jobs? I would suggest that the police regulartory bodies don't have a point except to make excuses for the police. And that whatever changes are necessary should be made so that police are not able to get away with killing people. The americans also frequently fail to convict their cops of killing people even when they very clearly should. So I don't see what that is supposed to prove. Institutional failure to prosecute effectively, lovely people on the juries, there are explanations for why those outcomes happen and I really do not see what difference that makes. If you think the outcome of the judicial system is incorrect you don't just have to say "oh well I guess it must be right because it's what came out at the end" as if the process is somehow unimpeachable. I have very little respect for it to begin with so it failing to prosecute its own agents is neither surprising nor a problem for my position. I want to see every cop who kills someone off the force permanently at the very least, and the vast majority of them should be in prison. That is what I judge to be an acceptable outcome. The only question is how we get there. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
Funny how that one guy that wasn't lawful killing on that list happens to be white.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would suggest that the police regulartory bodies don't have a point except to make excuses for the police. And that whatever changes are necessary should be made so that police are not able to get away with killing people. Do you consider returned verdicts of 'Lawful killing' to be where they have 'got away with it'? OwlFancier posted:Institutional failure to prosecute effectively, lovely people on the juries, there are explanations for why those outcomes happen and I really do not see what difference that makes. If you think the outcome of the judicial system is incorrect you don't just have to say "oh well I guess it must be right because it's what came out at the end" as if the process is somehow unimpeachable. So you just want your way, and if the outcome is not the one you desire then it is the system that is broken? Police exonerated? Incompetent jury. Lack or evidence? Incompetent prosecutors. Rugz fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:38
|
|
|
I don't consider it to be exonerating. Because I don't trust the judicial system to be capable of prosecuting the police properly or the juries to be capable of deciding correctly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Do you consider returned verdicts of 'Lawful killing' to be where they have 'got away with it'? "it" = killing "got away with" = lawful. They literally got away, got away from the courthouse with a little certificate that said "what you done gone did was fine" How could it be anything different?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:40
|
|
|
Microplastics posted:"it" = killing Given that killing people is not inherently a crime I see not more reason to gripe about someone getting away with 'it' than griping about someone getting away with brushing their teeth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:41
|
|
|
Also that, "you killed a guy and it was good that you did" It is giving legal assent to the police killing people. I do not think it should be lawful for the police to kill people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
There's always the Ian Tomlinson option, just chuck the pathology reports or whatever to a friendly third party who can reliably sit on them until a statutory deadline expires, then its noones fault, easy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
History Comes Inside! posted:People getting upset about ACAB give off the same vibes as people who get upset if someone complains about ‘men’ or ‘white people’ The number of people shot by British police annually is in single figures. The most people killed in a single year in the last two decades was 2016, when there were six fatal shootings. The average is 3. For a two-year period in 2013 and 2014, there were zero. In the USA last year there were 1,176 police killings. Police conduct is not even remotely comparable between the two countries. Rugz is absolutely correct that importing stereotypes of US cowboys is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also that, "you killed a guy and it was good that you did" What is your opinion on the legality of killing someone in self defence as a private citizen?
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:43
|
|
|
Situationally defensible. But as I said, I do not think police should count as private citizens. It is absurd to me to suggest that they are on equal footing with people who are not given proactive license to do violence to other people by the state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
Rugz posted:What is your opinion on the legality of killing someone in self defence as a private citizen? There's a faster way to get to the point here, just ask us about hanging tories and landlords and oil execs
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Situationally defensible. But as I said, I do not think police should count as private citizens. So a private citizen has more legal powers than a police officer to prevent loss of life? Assailant advances on private citizen with intent to kill - Situationally justified killing Assailant advances on police officer with intent to kill - Guilty
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:46
|
|
|
Rugz posted:So a private citizen has more legal powers than a police officer to prevent loss of life? Random people on the street should be expected to have less capability to prevent loss of life than police officers. Otherwise what is the point of police officers? The police signed up for the responsibility of dealing with potentially violent people and should be trained to limit the harm to everybody involved. If they aren't capable of doing that then why have them? Random people on the street are perfectly capable of killing other people accidentally or intentionally if we for some reason had a need to do that. If a random person fails to preserve a life through incompetence, that's unfortunate but random people cannot be expected to know how best to respond in all cases. If a trained surgeon fails to preserve a life due to incompetence in the course of their professional duties, that's medical malpractice. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
Charoclere posted:Police conduct is not even remotely comparable between the two countries. Rugz is absolutely correct that importing stereotypes of US cowboys is ridiculous. ACAB isn't just about the murder rate, it's about the general institutions of police and their role in upholding an unjust system. it's perfectly valid to call someone a bastard even if they aren't as murderous/don't have as much expensive army gear as other bastards
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:51
|
|
|
Charoclere posted:The number of people shot by British police annually is in single figures. The most people killed in a single year in the last two decades was 2016, when there were six fatal shootings. The average is 3. For a two-year period in 2013 and 2014, there were zero. In the USA last year there were 1,176 police killings. Good thing that shooting people is the only objectionable thing the police could ever possibly do then, glad to hear all their other behaviour is totally above board and beyond reproach.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Rugz posted:Funny you mention the other side of the atlantic since the entire ACAB rhetoric that seems to be seeping through is an American import. 'all coppers are bastards' is an english invention
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:54
|
|
|
Fundamentally I do not view the idea of state trained and sanctioned killers as legitimate. Police killing people should be considered a failure, not their intended function. And that extends to a lot of other things that the police do as well. Police should have less power, less freedom to exercise their powers, and a greater emphasis on responsibility to the people around them commensurate to the power they do have.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Random people on the street should be expected to have less capability to prevent loss of life than police officers. Otherwise what is the point of police officers? So the people with less capability to do something have more legal grounds to actually do it then? Your assertion seems to be that there is a level of training that can be provided to a police officer that means killing will never be required. Given that you think their training should inform the level of scrutiny they are under but also that any killing by an officer should result in them being fired at the very least and preferably jailed, add into that the fact that if a jury were to find no grounds to convict them you would seemingly be happy to declare the jury to be a bunch of idiots and lock them up anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
Broadly correct.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
Charoclere posted:Police conduct is not even remotely comparable between the two countries. Rugz is absolutely correct that importing stereotypes of US cowboys is ridiculous. In the UK, armed police are in the vast minority, and need clearance from operational command to fire in limited circumstances (even tasers apparently). So in the US a wrongful killing is pretty much down to the individual officer; but in the UK there's also the additional operational layer of why was an armed cop deployed there, why were they given clearance to fire beforehand, what intel was command acting on etc. It's really not the same thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Rugz posted:So the people with less capability to do something have more legal grounds to actually do it then? this is true of many things. for example, someone who is trained as a boxer who injures someone in a fight by punching them is prosecuted under assault with a weapon (striking with a trained fist) because they are more capable than an average person. It is not onerous that trained police should be held to a higher standard with greater conditions of accountability for their actions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:01
|
|
|
Oh no, the pigs are being held responsible for their action, it's so unfair! Have the filth tried not being institutionally racist and misogynist? With ⅓ of Met officers suspended you'd think they have the time to consider it. Honestly, unless you're either a cretin or a person of wealth/power I cannot begin to imagine why you'd be so desperate to defend the police. It's a bunch of jumped up thugs whose literal job is to protect the status quo and people's property "rights". Sorry, thugs AND rapists forkboy84 fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Sep 25, 2023 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 02:28 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Broadly correct. Ok, so when someone dies in a hospital we fire the doctor and lock them up? Given that the only valid conclusion for death by cop is professional incompetence I assume that the same rationale applies to the medical profession? They are trained to save lives therefore the only way a life could not be saved is through dereliction of duty on the part of the medical professional. kecske posted:this is true of many things. for example, someone who is trained as a boxer who injures someone in a fight by punching them is prosecuted under assault with a weapon (striking with a trained fist) because they are more capable than an average person. It is not onerous that trained police should be held to a higher standard with greater conditions of accountability for their actions. That is different because the context is a professional should be more aware of the capability of their fists. This is not a question in the case of killing in self defence because the argument is not whether or not the person intended to kill or had sufficient training to be sufficiently deadly with a weapon, but whether they were justified in thinking they had to kill.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2023 17:03
|
|