Police being morons again…

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Oil_Slick, Feb 20, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    The Police have a duty to investigate all offences, particularly when a person has died in suspicious circumstances. It is not up to them to decide whether a person is guilty or not, and - as the article mentions - a report has been forwarded to the CPS. THEY will decide what charges are brought, if any.

    More anti-Police, sensationalist bollix... :roll:
     

  2. "Police arrested Mr Singh on suspicion of murder and are now preparing to send a file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)."

    Heres a concept for the Farces of Law and Disorder…

    Question the guy first THEN arrest him if he's been naughty not arrest on sight.
     
  3. Due to the seriousness of the case he had to be arrested. Hopefully he will never appear in court, if he does I hope he gets a commendation. he has assisted both the police and public by removing another piece of thieving shit from this country.
     
  4. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    Your ignorance of the law speaks volumes. A person suspected of a serious crime of this nature HAS to be in arrest (and thus under caution) before ANY questions about his involvement, or suspected involement, in the alleged offence are put to him. He also has to be in arrest before any intimate samples in relation to that serious offence are taken from him.
     
  5. Oil Slick treats the Daily Mail as Gospel... I am somewhat more sceptical ;-)
     
  6. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    ...and as Asst. Ed so you should be. It's just a shame some of your brethren aren't as openminded! :oops:
     
  7. Contributor Mode

    SPB

    As I have said before, Police do not have to arrest a person to interview them either with or without caution. They only need to arrest to detain or to obtain refused samples..

    Over reaction again which is now accepted common practice, arrest everybody and seize every thing in sight.

    Nutty
     

  8. They're ya go! Nutty 'gets it'.
     
  9. I hope, but very much doubt, that the CPS will see this as no crime having been committed, a man defends himself against a convicted criminal who was given bail despite a violent past, and kills the attacker with his own knife, he should be up for a medal and compensation from whoever released him on bail despite being a danger. And judging by the photo of the victim, it was quite a fight.

    If the Daily Mail is being accurate with the truth.
     
  10. Contributor Mode

    SPB

    You do not have to arrest any person to interview them under caution nor do you need to arrest them if they will voluntary give any samples required of them.

    When did a law come in saying you have to cos if so the 1000 odd interviews I did under caution whilst a unattested private citizen, obtaining either a Conviction or Caution for over 90% of them must have been illegal. Strange neither the Police, CPS, Solicitor or Judge ever mentioned the fact.
     

  11. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/7253901.stm


    BBC details
     
  12. There's such a thing as fighting back too much. Any stab wound to the chest can be considered as an attempt to deprive someone of life, especially as if more immediate target areas may have presented themselves. The article fails to disclose what eye witnesses saw and what the time delay was between the altercation and the victim calling the police, if he did it at all. All of these things have to be investigated and it may be determined that Mr Singh acted in a way that was in excess of his right to defend himself under our current laws and that determination has to be made in a court of law.

    I don't see exactly what the police have done wrong here. You can't dismiss an evident crime on the basis that the guy who is dead wasn't all that great or that 'hanging isn't good enough for them', which is the Daily Mail reader's standard retort of choice.
     

  13. THis is without doubt one of the most stupid comments I've seen a grown up make this year.

    Hello!!!! If you are attacked with a deadly weapon you have a ight to defend yourself with deadly force. You are NOT required to make value judgements about how or where you stab the fvcker who's trying to stab you. He's trying to kill you, HOW can you fight back 'too much'?


    I take it you're the sort of person that thinks the Police should 'shoot to wound' armed robbers…
     
  14. Firstly Sgt P, ACAB.... :dwarf: (especially ones on desert islands.....)

    Thought that was the case (guidelines or rules?). I guess it relates to the admissibility of any evidence given by statement after caution, also his rights relating to any forensic evidence etc.

    So CPS lawyers will read the statements and reports, and decide if there is any case to answer. Without knowing their contents this is all conjecture, but like that ever stopped us...... :thumright:
    Murder? I doubt it, as malice aforethought would be hard to prove. Thats unless there is now a reduced grade of murder (like US law) requiring less forethought and not bringing your own shiv. Assault? I dont think Mr Singh struck the first blow so I am guessing affray at most. Hard to construct a case unless the force used could be considered assault in itself. Manslaughter? Possibly, depending if Mr Singh had the option of running away or ending the encounter otherwise, and if the knife was in both their hands when it stabbed Mr Kilroe. The CPS may also consider their chances of proving this in front of a jury, given the obvious problems of any case in the papers and subjudicy, and decide to save the public purse (you can but hope).

    However, as the slimy reggie bast*** rightly complains the title of the article itself is misleading as "Shopkeeper faces murder charge" is not quite as accurate as "detained on suspicion of murder and released". Surely if they were going to formally charge him he would likely have been remanded? The filth have a job to do and are forced to investigate, or else the deceaseds family will be bringing a civil case with ambulance chasing lawyers in tow (Brendan Fearon vs Tony Martin anyone?). Lets hope the subsequent lack of criminal proceedings makes this difficult.
     
  15. Oilslick and Nutty,you really neet to get over yourselves. In these circumstances the Police had no other option but to arrest-they find a blood covered man with a stabbed to death bloke...what else are they going to do? "oh it's okay we believe you Mr Singh,on your way".
    As sgtpepper says- the Police have a duty to investigate and contrary to what Nutty may say if you are going to question someone regarding an offence of possible murder - you arrest and follow the procedure. The Police have thanked
     
  16. Oilslick and Nutty,you really neet to get over yourselves. In these circumstances the Police had no other option but to arrest-they find a blood covered man with a stabbed to death bloke...what else are they going to do? "oh it's okay we believe you Mr Singh,on your way".
    As sgtpepper says- the Police have a duty to investigate and contrary to what Nutty may say if you are going to question someone regarding an offence of possible murder - you arrest and follow the procedure. The Police have thanked
     
  17. No. I'm the sort of person who understands how the law works, ass.

    Yes, you have a right to respond with proportional force, but what if this guy was knocked to the ground giving the victim a chance to get away and then stabbed? What if the victim, rather than stabbing him in the leg to incapacitate him, deliberately stabbed this man to kill him? Was the robber attempting to deprive the victim of his life or was he threatening him? Did the victim's injuries ensue only after he started struggling? Did the victim mean to stab him fatally? If he did, then why? Did he feel that his life was genuinely in danger?

    This is a little thing called legal process. It would be nice if we could just pat this man on the back and take his word for it, but if we did that with any other legal trial it would be described as a farce and an inadequate investigation. The police cannot cease to do their jobs properly just because we happen to admire the actions of the man in question, and admonish the dead guy.

    You can't have it both ways.
     
  18. Mr Singh. The reason they are referring it to the CPS is simply because the Police no longer have the authority to charge/take no further action,no matter what the offence! I dont think this is about the Police being morons but conducting a professional investigation into an unfortunate incident for all parties involved.
     
  19. So tell us Nutty, when do you make the decision to "arrest" someone as opposed to just cautioning and then questioning? Does it matter if you get to court having not arrested, merely questioned? Would have thought not, but you know better.
     

Share This Page