Ah right OK.I'll just accept my lot, go and watch a nice warm story at the cinema and stop complaining.
I'll sleep well knowing that - hey! It's not like some countries where they have REAL violence, is it?!
Because that makes it OK.
(I'll sleep well knowing that - hey! It's not like some countries where they have REAL violence, is it?!
Because that makes it OK.
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:19,
archived)
complain all you want.People tend to listen more if you know what you're on about. I think considering that the police are people, and that people make errors in judgement, that they do rather well, considering. Compare the Met kills record with police in US cities. The british police do not have a habit of killing innocent people. Single errors by a single member of the work force do not define any other workforce, so why should it be so for the police?
I would suggest that the media have a lot to do with it, stirring up the moral outrage.
Compare and contrast:
Man pushes another man over. Man later dies of a heart attack. Murder? No, not even manslaughter.
Policeman pushes another man over. Man later dies of a heart attack. MURDER! FUCK THE POLICE.
I don't defend the police's actions in pushing people over, or hitting people with batons like they did, but to go accuse the police because a man had a heart attack after getting pushed over, is nonsense. Similar precedent in criminal law demonstrates that this sort of death cannot be considered as murder or homicide.
What should the police do when surrounded and outnumbered by a baying mob? Should they be completely chilled? Sit down and try to ignore them in they hope they go home quietly? As I say, I'm not defending the attacking of the "innocent" people, but the stresses of the situation need to be considered, and no amount of training of any humans will produce a police force who make 100% correct judgments at all times.
(I would suggest that the media have a lot to do with it, stirring up the moral outrage.
Compare and contrast:
Man pushes another man over. Man later dies of a heart attack. Murder? No, not even manslaughter.
Policeman pushes another man over. Man later dies of a heart attack. MURDER! FUCK THE POLICE.
I don't defend the police's actions in pushing people over, or hitting people with batons like they did, but to go accuse the police because a man had a heart attack after getting pushed over, is nonsense. Similar precedent in criminal law demonstrates that this sort of death cannot be considered as murder or homicide.
What should the police do when surrounded and outnumbered by a baying mob? Should they be completely chilled? Sit down and try to ignore them in they hope they go home quietly? As I say, I'm not defending the attacking of the "innocent" people, but the stresses of the situation need to be considered, and no amount of training of any humans will produce a police force who make 100% correct judgments at all times.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 15:43,
archived)
You mean abdominal bleeding, at least until the next post mortem is done.And that probably would be manslaughter.
(
Kamikaze Stoat £4.09,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:10,
archived)
depends, really, on the cause of death.if the bleeding is causally related to his heart attack, then manslaughter is a possibility, though a difficult one to make stick.
The causal link between a man falling over and having a heart attack is a bit tenuous, and precedents like "thin-skull".
I think it's quite clear that the policeman did not exert deadly force, so should not be culpable for his death. Thing like this happen regularly and they're not blown out of all reasonable proportion because the newspaper don't jump on it and make a big drama out of it.
(The causal link between a man falling over and having a heart attack is a bit tenuous, and precedents like "thin-skull".
I think it's quite clear that the policeman did not exert deadly force, so should not be culpable for his death. Thing like this happen regularly and they're not blown out of all reasonable proportion because the newspaper don't jump on it and make a big drama out of it.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:18,
archived)
Surely the question is why any force was used at all?There may well be a reason why he was shoved to the ground without warning and not arrested, I don't know.
( Kamikaze Stoat £4.09,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 16:51,
archived)
I know.I agree with that, it was wrong, but it was an error made by a human in a stressful situation. It wasn't a premeditated act of murder.
I'm not defending the policeman, I just think the reaction to it all is rather over the top.
(I'm not defending the policeman, I just think the reaction to it all is rather over the top.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 17:16,
archived)