Compare and contrast the police's actions

[AdminAssistant]

prove my innocence, as it were -

And here is where the difference lies. One of the main tenets of the American justice system is "innocent until proven guilty." The onus is not on us to prove our innocence, but on the police and the courts to prove our guilt. They have the burden of proof. (And, yes, it is an ideal and it doesn't always work that way and corruption and blah blah blah.)

If someone shoots an intruder, I can see the police bringing that person in for questioning and maybe holding that person until they finish with the crime scene. But not arresting them. The police also aren't supposed to decide, "Well, we're in this house, might as well look for some drugs!"

[draco664]

Originally Posted by draco664
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?

You're confusing the investigation with the legal process.

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.

Yeah, and then what happens when the cops can't find what they need? In this case, they kept two people locked up beyond the time they should have been released. Even though only one of them pulled the trigger.

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.

Right, and once they've got you arrested, why bother with trying to prove you innocent? If they manage it, they've just wasted all that effort.

Look, I understand your point. I held it myself for a long time. It is an ideal that is often held by people who have never had a run in with police who have done their level best to pin something, anything, on them.

[Andara Bledin]

Yeah, and then what happens when the cops can't find what they need? In this case, they kept two people locked up beyond the time they should have been released. Even though only one of them pulled the trigger.

This is my biggest gripe.

They only had 24 hours - 36 if a police commissioner decided to extend it - for the crime committed.

But they held the couple in excess of 72 hours which is the absolute longest they're allowed to hold anyone and which requires a special court order to even be on the table, and I would be surprised and incredibly disappointed to learn that "drug offenses" would qualify as "a serious crime (for example, murder)," so even the 72 hours is twice as long as the court should have had them.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

Laws vary from place to place. In 2010 in my AO there was a rash of kick-in home invasion attempts. In 5 or more cases the invaders were shot and killed/wounded. I think in all cases the home being invaded were known buy houses by the LEOs and neighbors and was called out as so in the local paper's readers comment section. AFASIK no drug charges were brought and only the surviving invaders were charge with crimes. Was that right or not??? I'm of conflicting opinions on this: I'm not happy that drug dealers got away with their dealing and possession of firearms but the shooting of the invaders was good as they needed to be dealt with.

As to the OP, the LEOs took took too long to investigate the "crime" people can be out of jail while the investigation is on going even baring the suspects from the "crime" scene during the investigation. I can see holding them if they're a flight risk. But that's UK and they do things differently. Now for the guy in KY, While I don't blame him for shooting the guy it seems to me he kinda also ambushed him and I'm surprised he wasn't at least charged or closely investigated. All that being said in either case I don't think any charges should be brought, crooks have to learn that with a life of crime there also comes lethal risks.

[s_stabeler]

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

most of the time you would be right, however, this would be a slightly different. to wit: the act that creates criminal liability ( shooting the criminal) is admitted to. The person who shot the criminal asserts an affirmative defense (self-defense/castle doctrine it doesn't matter which.) therefore they have to prove the affirmative defense is applicable.

in short, what self-defense is saying is "yes I did ti but he was going to shoot me" (simplified, since self-defense is somewhat more nuanced) therefore presumption of innocence doesn't apply.

It is true that if it was unclear who fired the shot, then it is different.

As for the police taking too long, I will just point out that the article says the crown prosecution service said there wasn't enough evidence. that means the police could have sent the case file to the prosecutor within the correct time limit, and the prosecutor took a coupe days to get back to them. ( over here, the Crown prosecution Service is the one that gets to decide if a prosecution will be made, not the police)

[Andara Bledin]

As for the police taking too long, I will just point out that the article says the crown prosecution service said there wasn't enough evidence.

It's completely irrelevant as to which party took too long. There's a time limit on how long a person may be held without being charged, and that limit was not observed in any fashion.

^-.-^

[s_stabeler]

it's relevant in who needs to get criticized. If the reason the couple were held so long was because the prosecutor was slow in reviewing the case, then arguably, it is the prosecutor that should be criticized. If it was the police thta were slow, then they deserve criticism.

[Nekojin]

it's relevant in who needs to get criticized. If the reason the couple were held so long was because the prosecutor was slow in reviewing the case, then arguably, it is the prosecutor that should be criticized. If it was the police thta were slow, then they deserve criticism.

The police deserve criticism either way. They should know their durations, and should release people in a timely fashion. They don't get to pass the buck and blame someone else for the delay, when they hold the keys.

Other people may own a share of the blame, but you cannot absolve the police from guilt in this matter.

[Canarr]

If someone shoots an intruder, I can see the police bringing that person in for questioning and maybe holding that person until they finish with the crime scene. But not arresting them. The police also aren't supposed to decide, "Well, we're in this house, might as well look for some drugs!"

Where exactly is the difference between "holding someone until the crime scene is finished" and "arresting them"? Isn't it so that you actually need to arrest someone in order to hold them against their will - otherwise, they can just leave? Or is that Hollywood Law again?

Look, I'm not saying that the police holding someone longer than the maximum allowed to that is okay; if they did that, they clearly broke the law, and someone needs to pay for that, according to the law. But I do think there is a certain necessity in arresting people caught under suspicious circumstances, if there are multiple parties with conflicting stories concerning the actual events. Isn't that exactly why the police are allowed to hold someone on suspicion?

You're confusing the investigation with the legal process.

No, I don't think I am. Yes, the burden of proof is on the courts; yes, any suspect should be taken as innocent until proven guilty. However, if one party shot another party under suspicious circumstances, then there's a high probability that at least one party is guilty of something, right? So, in order to determine which party, if any, is guilty of anything, you kind of need them to stay in one place, where they can't fine-tune their stories and/or manipulate evidence, until you're able to figure out what exactly happened.

Yeah, and then what happens when the cops can't find what they need? In this case, they kept two people locked up beyond the time they should have been released. Even though only one of them pulled the trigger.

Again: no excuse made for locking people up beyond the legal time limit. That's wrong, and someone must be punished in order to uphold the integrity of the legal system. But I'm all for holding them in general and within the legal limits, until either party's guilt can be proven. Even if only one person pulled the trigger. After all, there's such a thing as conspiring to commit a crime, or aiding and abetting a criminal, right?

I mean, wasn't there a huge uproar after the Trayvon Martin shooting, when the police didn't arrest Zimmermann, but chose to believe his self-defense story and let him walk? So, should the police just believe every shooter's claim of self-defense, or should they maybe be given some options in figuring out whether or not that's actually true?

Right, and once they've got you arrested, why bother with trying to prove you innocent? If they manage it, they've just wasted all that effort.

Look, I understand your point. I held it myself for a long time. It is an ideal that is often held by people who have never had a run in with police who have done their level best to pin something, anything, on them.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity.

Yes, I know that there are corrupt cops, and lazy cops, and stupid cops. But I refuse to believe that all of them fall in one of these categories.

[AdminAssistant]

Where exactly is the difference between "holding someone until the crime scene is finished" and "arresting them"?

It's the difference between, "We need you to come to the station and give us a statement" and slapping cuffs on someone and tossing them in the back of a cop car like a criminal.

Imagine this scenario: I'm a woman, home alone. Man breaks into my house, starts to rob the place, comes after me, probably to rape me. I shoot him in self-defense. Now, obviously, this is a very traumatic experience. But you want the police to put cuffs on me and throw me in a holding cell with drunks, crooks, and who knows what else because....???

[Canarr]

Counter-question: why, exactly, would it be relevant what your gender is in this scenario? Should you have more right to shoot an intruder because you are a woman? Or should you be treated with more leniency than a man in your situation? Wasn't there a thread by Andara on this subject not too long ago?

A woman is just as capable of shooting someone in cold blood as a man is, and should be treated just the same.

My point is: someone was shot and is either dead or (seriously) injured. Someone else caused this. I believe that this someone can very well suffer through the unpleasantness of a night or two in jail until the police have investigated the situation to their content (or the maximum allowable time for holding a person is over), considering the other party is suffering through the unpleasantness of time in the hospital or grave.

Haven't we had heated discussions about people who claim self-defense without good cause? Like George Zimmermann and the guy who shot his black neighbor, then sat down for dinner? Should the police have just accepted their word for how it went down, because arresting them after they fricking shot someone might exacerbate a traumatic experience?

[Andara Bledin]

My point is: someone was shot and is either dead or (seriously) injured. Someone else caused this. I believe that this someone can very well suffer through the unpleasantness of a night or two in jail until the police have investigated the situation to their content (or the maximum allowable time for holding a person is over), considering the other party is suffering through the unpleasantness of time in the hospital or grave.

I don't really have any issue about holding the husband in the OP case. For up to 36 hours. I question the holding of the wife, but I supposed there is a small possibility tht more than one shot was fired. I don't even have a problem with them both being held for a full 36 hours. I do have a problem with it not only going beyond that 36 hours to over twice that time for no good reason. If they weren't charged with a crime, then they should have been released. They weren't. There is really no excuse for that. Not even "there might have been drugs," which is, honestly, pathetic.

Haven't we had heated discussions about people who claim self-defense without good cause? Like George Zimmermann and the guy who shot his black neighbor, then sat down for dinner? Should the police have just accepted their word for how it went down, because arresting them after they fricking shot someone might exacerbate a traumatic experience?

In the second case, the shooter didn't even put up any sort of defense, just an apathetic, "OMG, there was a black man at my door so I shot him!" He didn't even put in a claim about how having a black man on his porch was threatening, much less how it might have required any sort of defense beyond, say, shutting his door.

In the former, the cops did believe the story they were given and only reversed it because of public outcry. Again, it was a racial thing; only not necessarily on the part of the shooter, but as part of a massively unacceptable pattern from the police.

Zimmerman should have been held for at least as long as it took to get statements from all witnesses (which he wasn't), then released (because you don't charge someone with murder or manslaughter within a day of the act unless you have a really open and shut case, like with the guy who shot the man on his porch), and then arrested when they got to the point where they felt charges had a good chance of sticking (which they eventually, and reluctantly, did).

^-.-^

[draco664]

No, I don't think I am. Yes, the burden of proof is on the courts; yes, any suspect should be taken as innocent until proven guilty. However, if one party shot another party under suspicious circumstances, then there's a high probability that at least one party is guilty of something, right? So, in order to determine which party, if any, is guilty of anything, you kind of need them to stay in one place, where they can't fine-tune their stories and/or manipulate evidence, until you're able to figure out what exactly happened.

Right, and if, as was suggested, the cops should assume you guilty until they prove you innocent, you get the situation where they hold you for twice as long as the law dictates while searching for something, anything, to charge you with.

As in - "Aha! You admitted to shooting someone! You're nicked chum, possession of an illegal firearm! What? The gun was legal? Shit, well, maybe you shot the victims out of the house and dragged them inside! What? Of course I'm serious. What's that? The victims have admitted to breaking in on a tip off that there was money in the house? Bugger. Wait! That money would sure look nice sitting in an evidence bin. Damn, can't find it. Maybe there were drugs! No? Double damn. How about... What's that? We have to let them go becuase we've spent days tearing their lives apart and found diddly squat? Bugger that for a game of soldiers. I know it's the law, but no one cares if cops break it. Now, do you reckon we can dig up their backyard? If we're lucky we might find an old roman graveyard and we can charge them with 452 counts of murder."

And so on. I'm only surprised they didn't search the computer for child porn.

Or, as I suggested, cops should assume you innocent unless they find evidence you were guilty.

"Yes sir, I understand you called 999. Good decision. Now, you claim to have shot the intruder. With what gun? This one? Do you have a licence? You do? Excellent, can you show it to me? Thank you, this all seems in order. Now, can you show me where you were when the incident happened? I suppose I can understand why you'd be in your bedroom late at night - it would take quite the mental gymnastics of an absolute moron to think otherwise, eh? Now, if you don't mind, could you come down to the station and give a formal statement while we record the crime scene. Any time someone suffers a firearm injury, we are obliged to investigate thoroughly. An officer will remain here until you return to ensure no one else breaks in while you're out. Thank you for your cooperation."

[draco664]

I mean, wasn't there a huge uproar after the Trayvon Martin shooting, when the police didn't arrest Zimmermann, but chose to believe his self-defense story and let him walk? So, should the police just believe every shooter's claim of self-defense, or should they maybe be given some options in figuring out whether or not that's actually true?

Ok, you've got to be trolling. You're seriously comparing a case where a man shot and *injured* two intruders in his house with a case where a man chased a guy down the street and ended up *killing* him?

Because in one case, self-defense is actually quite believable (to the point where coming up with a scenario where it wasn't self-defense is quite difficult), whereas in the other, it is not. It is left as an exercise to the reader to figure out which is which.

Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained through stupidity.

Funny. I don't want malicious cops or stupid cops on the force. I know, picky, picky, picky...

Yes, I know that there are corrupt cops, and lazy cops, and stupid cops. But I refuse to believe that all of them fall in one of these categories.

The ones that don't cover for the ones that do. And that's reason enough to distrust them all.

[draco664]

My point is: someone was shot and is either dead or (seriously) injured. Someone else caused this. I believe that this someone can very well suffer through the unpleasantness of a night or two in jail until the police have investigated the situation to their content (or the maximum allowable time for holding a person is over), considering the other party is suffering through the unpleasantness of time in the hospital or grave.

Then it's interesting to note that one of the injured parties was discharged from hospital long before the husband and wife were out of police custody...