Attitudes towards the police

[Meekychuppet]

Of course that is why anti-terror laws were passed, particularly in America. In times of national emergency governments frequently pass laws that are supposedly to protect us. In reality they are disciplinary measures against the indigenous population. That is nothing new. I find it very difficult to accept any argument in favour of indefinite detention of terror suspects. It stinks of McCarthyism and Red Scare propaganda, and quite apart from any ideological and moral objections, can anyone look back and honestly suggest that it has worked?

Pappa has said a lot of what I think. The difference between the Uk's reaction to 7/7 and America's reaction to 9/11 is remarkable. We rebuilt our infrastructure and resumed normal service, to the point where one year later the country had put it to rest. America STILL thinks it is at war. The one thing USA seems incapable of doing is rebuilding WTC, which is a shame because that would have been a more powerful message than ANY military action. The undoing of America is it's insecurity and paranoia. It interferes all over the world because it is terrified that other countries might actually run themselves. It's made America a despised global bully.

[redunderthebed]

Yeah, except the police officer not only got away with murder, but also the inquiry was dragged out so that the statute of limitations expired, meaning that when the COPS ruled no murder trial would take place the family could not bring a case for common assault.

I repeat my previous statistic. In the UK 1000 people have died in police custody. Of those, zero prosecutions haver taken place as a result.

ZERO.

Don't tell me that the system has a few failures and that it can be fixed. It fucking stinks, and the police are untouchable.

Well firstly, we would need to know how many of those 1000 were suspicious deaths possibly involving police brutality, how many were through incompetence (not checking someone who dies by choking on his own vomit etc) and how many were clearly no one's fault...

In Australia there was a situation a few years back where there were very high numbers of Aboriginal deaths in custody. A Royal Commision was held, which examined the whole situation, found many systemic faults, police incompetence and some instances of police violence. It made recommendations, many of which were implemented, and the situation improved, with a substantial drop in the rate of deaths in custody. (Probably still a lot of room for improvenment still...)

This is an example of a rational process which, given the political will and some pushing from human rights campaigners, can actually make a situation better...

You imply the system in the UK is unfixable, and that the all powerful police are untouchable. You apparently have either given up, or are suggesting lashing out like the G20 anarchists. What was it the Bard said...?

"full of sound and fury, signifying nothing..."

Both the left and the right splutter, vent and curse, while the moderates quietly roll up their sleeves and achieve something...

Rubbish moderates achieve nothing substantial a wishy washy compromise here window dressing here and there is bugger all done on death in custody still happens Cameron Doomagee (sp?) died, after getting the shit kicked out of him by a police officer whilst in custody in Queensland. The left and right in their own way want to change society and spluttering venting and cursing are necessary to give those in power a fair swift kick up the arse.

The people in power will do nothing because the police are useful tool of the state and will pay off the moderates with endless enquiries and assorted bullshit that will do nothing about the police. I mean in Australia almost every single state has had a royal commission into police corruption and the alike and nothing much has change. The crooks have gone underground the brutality unpunished and business as usual.

Fuck the police.

[Coito ergo sum]

People who get arrested are not "100% innocent." He's wrong.

Actully, they are. In law at least (and that's the acid test). They are 100% innocent until convicted of the crime they were arrested for. You may disagree with that. If so, you are wrong.

No, actually, in law they are not 100% innocent. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before a conviction can occur. However, a person treated as 100% innocent of a crime could not, for example, be denied their liberty without being convicted. People arrested for crimes can, in fact, be held in jail and even many times denied bail altogether all the way up to trial.

If a person were treated as 100% innocent until convicted the police could not arrest them. However, they can. They find probable cause that the person is guilty of the crime and arrest the guy.

What we're talking about are degrees of proof. Probable cause of guilt vs. beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do courts issue arrest warrants against people they believe to be 100% innocent? No. The police believe the person to be guilty, so they swear an affidavit stating as much and then the court issues a warrant to arrest the person. The person is not CONVICTED until guilt is ultimately proven beyond a reasonable doubt. However, just as having a warrant issued for your arrest and even being convicted in court does not mean you are, in fact, guilty, being released or even acquitted doesn't mean your innocent.

I can't be arsed writing at length, so I'll just highlight the relevant point in your post.

That is certainly relevant, but not to whether a person arrested of a crime is, in fact, 100% innocent of that crime.

Being PRESUMED (more accurately "assumed") by the trier of fact and the court judging a criminal proceeding is not the same things as being "100% innocent." People who are arrested may be innocent, and may not be innocent, of the crime charged. They aren't in actuality 100% innocent and then somehow converted to guilty upon conviction. Even if they're found guilty, they may be innocent. Even if they are acquitted, they may be guilty.

[Cunt]

That is certainly relevant, but not to whether a person arrested of a crime is, in fact, 100% innocent of that crime.

Being PRESUMED (more accurately "assumed") by the trier of fact and the court judging a criminal proceeding is not the same things as being "100% innocent." People who are arrested may be innocent, and may not be innocent, of the crime charged. They aren't in actuality 100% innocent and then somehow converted to guilty upon conviction. Even if they're found guilty, they may be innocent. Even if they are acquitted, they may be guilty.

Hmm...I wonder why the judge went to such lengths to explain to us jurors that the accused WAS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? I think it was because 'guilty' doesn't happen until a certain stage in the process.

Also, your comment...

Even if they're found guilty, they may be innocent.

Should make anyone realize that the whole 'don't do anything to get arrested' treatment of this problem is a bit naive.

Anyone can be arrested. Even if they didn't do anything to get arrested (like being in the wrong place at the wrong time)

[Tigger]

That is certainly relevant, but not to whether a person arrested of a crime is, in fact, 100% innocent of that crime.

Being PRESUMED (more accurately "assumed") by the trier of fact and the court judging a criminal proceeding is not the same things as being "100% innocent." People who are arrested may be innocent, and may not be innocent, of the crime charged. They aren't in actuality 100% innocent and then somehow converted to guilty upon conviction. Even if they're found guilty, they may be innocent. Even if they are acquitted, they may be guilty.

Hmm...I wonder why the judge went to such lengths to explain to us jurors that the accused WAS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? I think it was because 'guilty' doesn't happen until a certain stage in the process.

Also, your comment...

Even if they're found guilty, they may be innocent.

Should make anyone realize that the whole 'don't do anything to get arrested' treatment of this problem is a bit naive.

Anyone can be arrested. Even if they didn't do anything to get arrested (like being in the wrong place at the wrong time)

I can't argue with the last sentence.
My experience of arrest is, well zero personally, but limited to seeing and hearing tales of drunk bastards (and known associates too) who, frankly in my opinion, deserve to be thrown around a bit if they are so out of it that they are aggressive - not accidentally killed, mind! I don't behave like that, never have, and anyone who does (and they may be found not guilty later) is certainly guilty at the time, no matter what the final legal outcome.

[Pappa]

Hmm...I wonder why the judge went to such lengths to explain to us jurors that the accused WAS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? I think it was because 'guilty' doesn't happen until a certain stage in the process.

They go to great lengths to impress the same upon jurors here, to the point where they make it clear that if there is any doubt in your mind, you have to find the defendant not guilty.

It's such a basic and fundamental principle of law I'm surprised we're even debating it.

[JimC]

Rubbish moderates achieve nothing substantial a wishy washy compromise here window dressing here and there is bugger all done on death in custody still happens Cameron Doomagee (sp?) died, after getting the shit kicked out of him by a police officer whilst in custody in Queensland. The left and right in their own way want to change society and spluttering venting and cursing are necessary to give those in power a fair swift kick up the arse.

The people in power will do nothing because the police are useful tool of the state and will pay off the moderates with endless enquiries and assorted bullshit that will do nothing about the police. I mean in Australia almost every single state has had a royal commission into police corruption and the alike and nothing much has change. The crooks have gone underground the brutality unpunished and business as usual.

Fuck the police.

I think you are misreading the concept of a moderate in political debates of this nature. The word "moderate" says nothing about motivation or passion for necessary change, it simply reflects something of the preferred methods. A moderate could be strongly convinced of the need to avert the horrendous numbers of deaths in custody in the past, but, instead of a frenzy of vituperative denunciations of the police, would work for a royal commission or a legal team to cause real changes in the legal framework, and police operations. And mark my words, things have changed, the number of aboriginal deaths in custody have decreased. Things may still be far from perfect, and there still may be tragedies and instances of injustice (and the Palm Island case appears to be one), but real improvements have occurred. As for police corruption, it will never be totally eliminated, but most States now have oversight bodies with more effective teeth than the past.

And guess what? The real changes did not involve people impotently shouting "fuck the police" from the sidelines...

[JimC]

Rubbish moderates achieve nothing substantial a wishy washy compromise here window dressing here and there is bugger all done on death in custody still happens Cameron Doomagee (sp?) died, after getting the shit kicked out of him by a police officer whilst in custody in Queensland. The left and right in their own way want to change society and spluttering venting and cursing are necessary to give those in power a fair swift kick up the arse.

The people in power will do nothing because the police are useful tool of the state and will pay off the moderates with endless enquiries and assorted bullshit that will do nothing about the police. I mean in Australia almost every single state has had a royal commission into police corruption and the alike and nothing much has change. The crooks have gone underground the brutality unpunished and business as usual.

Fuck the police.

I think you are misreading the concept of a moderate in political debates of this nature. The word "moderate" says nothing about motivation or passion for necessary change, it simply reflects something of the preferred methods. A moderate could be strongly convinced of the need to avert the horrendous numbers of deaths in custody in the past, but, instead of a frenzy of vituperative denunciations of the police, would work for a royal commission or a legal team to cause real changes in the legal framework, and police operations. And mark my words, things have changed, the number of aboriginal deaths in custody have decreased. Things may still be far from perfect, and there still may be tragedies and instances of injustice (and the Palm Island case appears to be one), but real improvements have occurred. As for police corruption, it will never be totally eliminated, but most States now have oversight bodies with more effective teeth than the past.

And guess what? The real changes did not involve people impotently shouting "fuck the police" from the sidelines...

[Feck]

Hmm...I wonder why the judge went to such lengths to explain to us jurors that the accused WAS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? I think it was because 'guilty' doesn't happen until a certain stage in the process.

They go to great lengths to impress the same upon jurors here, to the point where they make it clear that if there is any doubt in your mind, you have to find the defendant not guilty.

It's such a basic and fundamental principle of law I'm surprised we're even debating it.

There are 3 possible verdicts in Scottish law .

[Pappa]

There are 3 possible verdicts in Scottish law .

Even "not proven" is in effect the same as "not guilty" though.

[Feck]

There are 3 possible verdicts in Scottish law .

Even "not proven" is in effect the same as "not guilty" though.

I think you can be charged again for the same crime and it means evil bastards don't get off because the prosecution fuck up and get to go shouting their mouths off saying they are innocent .

[JimC]

There are 3 possible verdicts in Scottish law .

Even "not proven" is in effect the same as "not guilty" though.

Nah.

Means "we know the canny little bastard did it, but we can't fucking prove it..."

[Coito ergo sum]

That is certainly relevant, but not to whether a person arrested of a crime is, in fact, 100% innocent of that crime.

Being PRESUMED (more accurately "assumed") by the trier of fact and the court judging a criminal proceeding is not the same things as being "100% innocent." People who are arrested may be innocent, and may not be innocent, of the crime charged. They aren't in actuality 100% innocent and then somehow converted to guilty upon conviction. Even if they're found guilty, they may be innocent. Even if they are acquitted, they may be guilty.

Hmm...I wonder why the judge went to such lengths to explain to us jurors that the accused WAS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY? I think it was because 'guilty' doesn't happen until a certain stage in the process.

The point is, being innocent or guilty in fact/reality is not the same thing as being found guilty or not guilty in criminal court. A person is not 100% innocent just because they haven't been found by a jury to be not guilty. A person may never be arrested for their crime, and they are still guilty. And, nothing in the world prevents anyone from holding that opinion.


If you see a guy with my own eyes stab someone in the leg, you do not need to wait for the jury to come back to hold the belief that he stabbed someone. You can say who committed the crime. Or, maybe you think this is how it works:

Police: Cunt, this fellow here is suffering from a stab wound and he says Tom Jones did it and you saw it happen. Do you know who did it?
Cunt: I saw everything that happened. Tom Jones is 100% innocent, because that's what our system of jurisprudence requires.

Also, your comment...

Even if they're found guilty, they may be innocent.

Should make anyone realize that the whole 'don't do anything to get arrested' treatment of this problem is a bit naive.

Anyone can be arrested. Even if they didn't do anything to get arrested (like being in the wrong place at the wrong time)

I never said they couldn't be arrested, nor did I agree with any comment about "don't do anything to get arrested" (although, not committing crimes does go a long way to reduce the likelihood that one would get arrested - but, it doesn't eliminate the possibility).

[Coito ergo sum]

The friendly neighborhood po'-leece....sworn to serve and protect.... http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local ... 19.html?dr

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, police. Pay them like shit and hold them to a higher standard than the rest of the public. Nope, I don't see a problem there.