Compare and contrast the police's actions

[draco664]

So all this thread is is draco declaring that the UK is an oppressive regime compared to the US. Got it.

I have been won over by your fact-free rebuttal of your strawman argument. I was once blind, but now I can see.

[Rapscallion]

I shall graciously accept your admission of defeat.

Rapscallion

[siead_lietrathua]

i dunno, i'm kinda on the "arrest everyone until the story is all checked out" side of things. i mean, sure it was a home invasion situation, but what if it had been one of those random, misunderstanding tragedies? (someone trying to sneak in home late, for example)
IMHO if someone is willing to pick up a firearm and shoot at someone, to kill or to harm, they can deal with the inconvenience of police questioning. if you are already willing to end a life (whether you do or not), then you should be willing to deal with two days in a cell. cuz the other guy may be rest of his life under grass.

[guywithashovel]

I didn't see the differences in law as the stark difference. I saw the differences in attitude towards the victims.

Understand that in "their" eyes, the victims are probably those poor home invaders who got shot, and not the homeowners whose homes were broken into.

The UK isn't an "oppressive regime" for doing this---and I know no one flat out said that. If it isn't clear that the situation was self-defense, I can understand wanting to take those involved into custody while its investigated, but in this case, it should have been obviously self-defense. I dislike the attitude often shown toward people who want to defend themselves.

Then again, part of me enjoys poetic justice. I like turning on the news and seeing a story about someone trying to hold up a store only to have the clerk send them out on a stretcher. Several years ago, CNN ran a story about a Marine who got mugged by two guys, one who had a knife. The Marine fought back and killed one of the muggers and put the other in the hospital. No charges were filed against the Marine. I'm sure some people will look down their noses at me for it, but I actually liked that story.

[crashhelmet]

i dunno, i'm kinda on the "arrest everyone until the story is all checked out" side of things. i mean, sure it was a home invasion situation, but what if it had been one of those random, misunderstanding tragedies? (someone trying to sneak in home late, for example)
IMHO if someone is willing to pick up a firearm and shoot at someone, to kill or to harm, they can deal with the inconvenience of police questioning. if you are already willing to end a life (whether you do or not), then you should be willing to deal with two days in a cell. cuz the other guy may be rest of his life under grass.

That's how it works in Mexico. If there is any blood loss at all, all parties involved go to jail until the investigation is complete. If you get hit by a car, you're going to jail if their investigation isn't complete before you're discharged from the hospital.

[Zod]

but what if it had been one of those random, misunderstanding tragedies? (someone trying to sneak in home late, for example)

I'll always remember that Japanese tourist who, while in the US, wrote an address down wrong, went to the wrong house, and the home owner gunned him down without a second thought.

Nah, for my money the cops were looking for something to charge them with.

Drug dealing. One of the shot people said that they'd only gone to the farm house as they'd heard that it was used as a cannabis farm. Daft, but the police had to check it out, otherwise, if 6 months down the line they found out that the people there were drug barons after all, and the police had been told this but decided not to check it out, it'd be the end of the career of who ever made the call not to investigate.

[s_stabeler]

One guy shot in the hand, another in the arm. And it takes the cops 2 days of questioning to determine that it was reasonable?

Nah, for my money the cops were looking for something to charge them with.

actually, yes, that can be unreasonable according to the law over here. Specifically, if you set a trap for an intruder, rather than the intruder confronting you, it's not considered reasonable ( I'm not certain of the logic behind it, but i think it's something to do with the ideas that if you could set a trap for the burglars, you could also have set up something non-lethal. TYes, the robber was shot in the hand and arm, but it's where you are aiming that matters.)

So what probably happened is the robbers claimed "The crazy bastard jumped me!" and so the police had to investigate further. It would be complicated by the fact the robbers had fled. not to mention, exactly where & how the robbers were hit.( what angle the bullets went in at, etc.

so it's not actually simple, which explains why the homeowner was held for so long. Yes, it sucks for the homeowner. But it's the result of how the current guidelines on reasonable force in defending from a burglar are written. ( it's actually an improvement, BTW. before these guidelines were drawn up, the burglar needed to have a gun themselves.)

[Andara Bledin]

I'll always remember that Japanese tourist who, while in the US, wrote an address down wrong, went to the wrong house, and the home owner gunned him down without a second thought.

I remember that story, too. And another one that also showed up here about a guy who shot someone who came to their door because they were black.

However, three guys coming into a house through the basement, is a horse of an utterly different color.

Drug dealing. One of the shot people said that they'd only gone to the farm house as they'd heard that it was used as a cannabis farm.

Does it really take two days to check out whether a single-unit farm is growing marijuana?

Also, there was no mention of drugs in the articles I read.

And the homeowners were held for three days pending the investigation, despite the rule of UK law that unless it was a serious charge, and I cannot fathom how a shotgun loaded with bird shot and fired at the mid-section could be considered anything other than a dissuasive measure, they can be held for no more than 36 hours.

Considering that the homeowners were released on Wednesday (still longer than the 72-hour maximum limit), the same day that one of the burglars (more than one of which has a history of burglary charges) pled guilty to attempting to burgle their home, the idea that the Ferries were suspected of a drug offense goes out the window.

And, once the drug offense is off the table, one has to wonder, again, why they felt the need to arrest both parties when only one shot was fired and the husband admitted to being the one to pull the trigger.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

And, once the drug offense is off the table, one has to wonder, again, why they felt the need to arrest both parties when only one shot was fired and the husband admitted to being the one to pull the trigger.

Because it keeps the wife from potentially destroying or altering evidence?

I don't know.

So what probably happened is the robbers claimed "The crazy bastard jumped me!" and so the police had to investigate further.

What is there, exactly, to investigate in that case? What is there, other than the stories of the people involved which they have immediately, to look into to see which is being truthful?

[Zod]

I remember that story, too. And another one that also showed up here about a guy who shot someone who came to their door because they were black.

However, three guys coming into a house through the basement, is a horse of an utterly different color.

And the police should just take the word of the shooter that it was self defence? If the guy who shot the black chap had dragged the body inside, kicked his front door a bit, and then told the police "Guy forced his way into my house, said he was going to kill me, I was in geniune fear for my life and so defended my self" would / should the cops have taken him at his word?

Sometimes criminals lie.

Does it really take two days to check out whether a single-unit farm is growing marijuana?

Apparently so. Sometimes people, when storing contraband, hide it. Hardly playing fair, I know.

Also, there was no mention of drugs in the articles I read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...eads-high.html

If only the police had believed Mr. White when he said he was just a simple homeowner . . .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-2366996.html

[s_stabeler]

What is there, exactly, to investigate in that case? What is there, other than the stories of the people involved which they have immediately, to look into to see which is being truthful?

1) if you can't prove the homeowner used reasonable force, then they will assume the homeowner didn't.

2) I would assume by trying to reconstruct the crime.

[draco664]

1) if you can't prove the homeowner used reasonable force, then they will assume the homeowner didn't.

Do you honestly not see a problem with police assuming guilt if they cannot prove innocence? Because, seriously, it should be 100% the opposite.

[draco664]

Originally Posted by Andara Bledin

Does it really take two days to check out whether a single-unit farm is growing marijuana?

Apparently so. Sometimes people, when storing contraband, hide it. Hardly playing fair, I know.

If only the police possessed something that could detect drugs. Perhaps if they could find some creature with a good nose that could be trained to sniff it out. Something high-tech like that could really cut such searches down to merely hours. If only, eh?

Originally Posted by Andara Bledin


Also, there was no mention of drugs in the articles I read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...eads-high.html

If only the police had believed Mr. White when he said he was just a simple homeowner . . .

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...g-2366996.html

You do realise those articles refer to two different cases, don't you? And you note that the first article, which is about the case in question, mentioned drugs only in the way that there weren't any.

[Zod]

You do realise those articles refer to two different cases, don't you? And you note that the first article, which is about the case in question, mentioned drugs only in the way that there weren't any.

Yes : that's rather the point. The police only knew there were no drugs because they investigated.

[Canarr]

Do you honestly not see a problem with police assuming guilt if they cannot prove innocence? Because, seriously, it should be 100% the opposite.

Well, isn't that for the courts to decide, not the police?

If the police find someone in a situation of legally questionable content - say, just having shot someone, or broken into a home, or whatever - then, in my mind, they should absolutely arrest that person until they find out what, exactly, happened.

I mean, my car is my car, right? So, if I notice that I have locked my keys in the car, and, for whatever reason, deem it appropriate to break a window in order to retrieve the keys, then that's nobody's business but mine, right? However, if the police were to catch me in the act, and I didn't have license and registration on me to prove ownership of the car - prove my innocence, as it were - then I'd truly appreciate it if they took me into custody until such proof could be rendered. Because then I'd know that they'd take the same measures if someone were to actually steal my car.