Assault on the young fan at dingles

[parajack]

12 minutes ago, Steelman said:

 

And?

Need to be a bit more rational mate,there is no 'instant dismissal' anymore in Employment law,..incident s have to be investigated,pending a disciplinary hearing.(IF its decided,after investigation,it warrants it)Sometimes that can be with a suspension(on full pay) but as in this case,not always.

 

Seems pretty common to place people on such duties with Five OH.....Or would you rather he went on paid holiday?(suspension)  

[Devonstrix]

25 minutes ago, soldierboyblue said:

I agree with what you say - but he should be put through the system if he is guilty and not just internal disciplinary proceedings. 
 

Not sure you understand the system mate. It’s the (Jury) system that decides if he is guilty or not and not mob (twatter) justice. If there are no obvious circumstances outside of the ten second video, justifying his actions he will almost certainly be charged with abh or wounding. A jury will decide on his guilt or otherwise,  having heard all the evidence, including the conduct of the victim and general mayhem that may or may not have been going on at the time. That’s the Jury system which has been operating in this country for hundreds of years in one form or another.  

 

[Lawrie Madden]

11 hours ago, LiamAP22D said:

Did they tie his feet up and drag him in purpose ? Or did he accidentally get caught up trying to give chase ? 

I notice you don't address my post ?

[Guest The Claw]

4 hours ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Do they arrest you then collect the evidence?  Surely, it's the other way around.

 

 

Yep

[Devonstrix]

The arrest is where there are reasonable grounds to suspect an offence has been committed and there are reasonable grounds to suspect a particular person or persons of it. There is then a detention period where the police can obtain evidence by questioning or by further enquiries. When there isnt enough to charge, the suspect is released on Police  bail pending further enquiries. 
 

You don’t necessarily gather all your evidence first before making an arrest. So for instance, if an allegation of rape is made and the suspect is in the vicinity or his whereabouts are known, the cops don’t think, hang on we'd better get more evidence first before we make an arrest. The suspect himself may well be a source of evidence, fibres, dna etc. So they make the arrest and hope that the evidence stacks up or the offender makes an admission. Otherwise, the clock is running and they have to release the prisoner on bail after 24 hours or more if certain authorities are granted. Same procedure whether it’s rape, other assault, burglary, robbery, car theft etc. 
 

Classically, in murder enquiries you might get several people hauled in on suspicion where there is very little evidence but the risk is too great NOT to arrest as they might dispose of evidence, abscond etc. Still happens today, but not as much as years ago when the 'round up the usual suspects' approach prevailed. 
 

There will be many football thugs who have been hauled in en masse when only one of their number actually did something wrong, pending examination of CCTV etc. 

 

Where there is no immediate need to make an arrest, then it would be normally be better to gather more evidence first. For instance in frauds and other offences where the delay in arresting would be unlikely to lead to a loss of evidence, or risk to the public. The cops,then gather their evidence in slow time and by the time the offender is arrested, he or she is bang to rights whether they go no comment or not. Just call me Moriarty. 

 

[poite]

On 05/08/2020 at 13:34, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

 

We have to hear his side of the events we only saw what was on that video, there might have been some lead up to the event, which merited his actions.

 

I'd be staggered if there's something in police conduct that says running up behind someone and smashing their skull in with a baton is merited in the following scenarios...

[Inspector Lestrade]

1 hour ago, poite said:

 

I'd be staggered if there's something in police conduct that says running up behind someone and smashing their skull in with a baton is merited in the following scenarios...

 

I never made that claim

[OzOwl]

On 05/08/2020 at 22:34, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

 

We have to hear his side of the events we only saw what was on that video, there might have been some lead up to the event, which merited his actions.

Hitler had a very valid reason for his actions..............IN HIS HEAD!

 

it was a brutal assault which warrants punishment, the person that did that is not a person fitting of the position of a Policeman.

Edited August 9, 2020 by OzOwl

[Inspector Lestrade]

14 minutes ago, OzOwl said:

Hitler had a very valid reason for his actions..............IN HIS HEAD!

 

it was a brutal assault which warrants punishment, the person that did that is not a person fitting of the position of a Policeman.

 

 Never said it wasn't

[OzOwl]

46 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

 Never said it wasn't

And I never said it was.

[Inspector Lestrade]

Just now, OzOwl said:

And I never said it was.

 

I never said you did

[Plonk]

It does seem very clear cut and does seem to be taking a long time to investigate. But to add some balance I know someone whose been on bail for over a year and told to expect a court date next year on a fairly straight forward case. Things just don’t run smoothly. If he was suspended as most seem to want he sits at home on full pay( employment laws) so surely better to have him doing something for his pay? 

[Lawrie Madden]

6 minutes ago, Plonk said:

It does seem very clear cut and does seem to be taking a long time to investigate. But to add some balance I know someone whose been on bail for over a year and told to expect a court date next year on a fairly straight forward case. Things just don’t run smoothly. If he was suspended as most seem to want he sits at home on full pay( employment laws) so surely better to have him doing something for his pay? 

I agree no matter my own feeling watching all the vids Sampson is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law 

Hopefully these other duties have him off the street though .

Having said that i feel that the Thin Blue Line will "!thicken" around Sampson and he won't face justice as a normal person would 

Edited August 9, 2020 by Lawrie Madden

[Plonk]

19 minutes ago, Lawrie Madden said:

I agree no matter my own feeling watching all the vids Sampson is still innocent until proven guilty in a court of law 

Hopefully these other duties have him off the street though .

Having said that i feel that the Thin Blue Line will "!thicken" around Sampson and he won't face justice as a normal person would 

Not saying they won’t pal. There’s a lot of human nature in the mix with things like this. They will be looking at lots of things we aren’t privy to. CCTV other witnesses etc. Not just that two minute video and things can look a lot different when you have a bigger picture. That’s all I’m saying. 
 

[Devonstrix]

Always best to wait and see what comes out in court before pontificating about someone's guilt in advance. This cop may well have just lost it and had a red mist moment, in which case he will feel the weight of the law when it comes to court. There may also be a lot more evidence than that selective piece of video has shown. I would imagine there would have been Police evidence gathering teams recording what was going on and some people will look very silly if it turns out that the officer was justified in his actions, when ALL THE EVIDENCE is seen/heard. 

[soldierboyblue]

4 hours ago, Devonstrix said:

Always best to wait and see what comes out in court before pontificating about someone's guilt in advance. This cop may well have just lost it and had a red mist moment, in which case he will feel the weight of the law when it comes to court. There may also be a lot more evidence than that selective piece of video has shown. I would imagine there would have been Police evidence gathering teams recording what was going on and some people will look very silly if it turns out that the officer was justified in his actions, when ALL THE EVIDENCE is seen/heard. 

No justification for the red area strike.

[Plonk]

1 hour ago, soldierboyblue said:

No justification for the red area strike.

There can be. Hard to see it in the clip that’s been circulated though. Plus there has to be a level of intent, again difficult to see from that clip, but intent is a very difficult of area of law to prove, without an admission.

[Guest The Claw]

5 hours ago, Plonk said:

There can be. Hard to see it in the clip that’s been circulated though. Plus there has to be a level of intent, again difficult to see from that clip, but intent is a very difficult of area of law to prove, without an admission.

Ha ha ha! 16 no weapon ( or he would have been nicked) hit over the head from the back, with the copper taking a run up to do it. Premeditated GBH with intent

[soldierboyblue]

5 hours ago, Plonk said:

There can be. Hard to see it in the clip that’s been circulated though. Plus there has to be a level of intent, again difficult to see from that clip, but intent is a very difficult of area of law to prove, without an admission.

I will revert you to the first post of mine on this topic - The only justification for a red area strike are:

 

If there is a direct threat to life, your's or someone else's.

 

Again show me the DIRECT threat to anyone's life and I will say it was justified.

[Plonk]

3 hours ago, soldierboyblue said:

I will revert you to the first post of mine on this topic - The only justification for a red area strike are:

 

If there is a direct threat to life, your's or someone else's.

 

Again show me the DIRECT threat to anyone's life and I will say it was justified.

Which is what I agreed with? You said “ no justifications for a red area strike”  I said there can be but can’t see it. I was trying to offer a bit of balance that red area strikes can be justified. Was it in this case? On what I’ve seen absolutely not. But I’ve seen one minute of what could have been a ten minute incident.