Compare and contrast the police's actions

[Canarr]

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.

*sigh* Again: I do not condone holding someone for longer than the law allows. Actually, I rarely condone doing something the law prohibits, sonce that makes you a criminal. Do you think you could try reading my entire posts, not just the parts you can then valiantly disagree with?

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.

No, I'm not trolling. I am merely giving the other end of the extreme - much like you did with your example of the cops trying to maliciously pin a crime on the homeowner above, by the way.

Okay, maybe there's just difference in our understanding of the law and how it should operate at the root of our disagreement. German law - apparently, unlike US law - does not operate under the assumption that anyone unlawfully entering someone else's property can just be shot, no questions asked. Actually, a property owner discharging a legally owned shotgun at burglars may face charges of excessive self-defense later on if, say, the burglars turned out to be a couple of stupid kids on a dare, or a similarly low threat. He may be acquitted in court if the judge comes to the conclusion that he acted with reasonable force under the circumstances, but applying unreasonable force in self-defense - say, shooting someone who's unarmed - is a crime under German law.

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

Right... blanked condemnation of the entire law enforcement profession. Of course, without any reasoning or argument to back that up beyond, "Can't trust cops!" And *I* am the one trolling? Seriously?

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...

And they were then promptly arrested on burglary charges, per the law. What's the problem, there?

Again: I. Do. Not. Condone. Holding. Someone. For. Longer. Than. The. Law. Allows. Okay? Think we can agree on that? It's wrong that they did that. Wrong. But that doesn't mean that arresting/holding them in the first place cannot be right.

[draco664]

Originally Posted by draco664
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.

*sigh* Again: I do not condone holding someone for longer than the law allows. Actually, I rarely condone doing something the law prohibits, sonce that makes you a criminal. Do you think you could try reading my entire posts, not just the parts you can then valiantly disagree with?

Ok, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part. But the point I was trying to make was not that the police shouldn't hold you longer than the law allows (which we agree on), but that their investigation should not become a witch-hunt if the evidence they collect points towards innocence.

No, I'm not trolling. I am merely giving the other end of the extreme - much like you did with your example of the cops trying to maliciously pin a crime on the homeowner above, by the way.

I apologise for suggesting you were trolling. I really need to stop posting when I'm pissed off about other stuff going on in my life. Sorry.

However, the two scenarios really had little to do with each other, beyond both claiming self defence. One it was patently obvious, the other deserved some investigation. Yet the police in both instances got it wrong.

Okay, maybe there's just difference in our understanding of the law and how it should operate at the root of our disagreement. German law - apparently, unlike US law - does not operate under the assumption that anyone unlawfully entering someone else's property can just be shot, no questions asked. Actually, a property owner discharging a legally owned shotgun at burglars may face charges of excessive self-defense later on if, say, the burglars turned out to be a couple of stupid kids on a dare, or a similarly low threat. He may be acquitted in court if the judge comes to the conclusion that he acted with reasonable force under the circumstances, but applying unreasonable force in self-defense - say, shooting someone who's unarmed - is a crime under German law.

I didn't know that. Thank you.

Right... blanked condemnation of the entire law enforcement profession. Of course, without any reasoning or argument to back that up beyond, "Can't trust cops!" And *I* am the one trolling? Seriously?

Quoting your good self - " Do you think you could try reading my entire posts, not just the parts you can then valiantly disagree with?"

I said that since the good cops cover for the bad ones, you should distrust them.

Not - they're all bad.
Not - they're all corrupt.

As for examples, there's a good one that happened a couple of blocks from where I was living at the time - the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. The cops involved all covered for each other - the investigating officers allowed those involved to collaborate to get their stories straight before being interviewed.

The first inquest was sealed secret. After a public outcry, a second one was convened. Only, the coroner was instructed that he was not to return a verdict of unlawful killing.

But it's not just big headline grabbing events. Mundane things like

- drug stops. (Cop claims to smell weed in a moving car. Pulls it over, searches it with the aid of a dog. Doesn't find anything the first 3 searches, then shockingly finds an unburned joint. Judge tosses charges, but cop not disciplined)

- deleting dash cam footage (how often do you suppose the very footage that would show a cop's bad behaviour gets lost?)

- covering up pet killing

Look, policing is a tough job. I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it. And dealing with the all the crap they have to put up with would probably end up with me arrested.

But the fact that they break the law to cover for each other as a matter of course means that you cannot trust them.

Of course, that's not to say that police never turn on their own. Arresting a fellow cop is a sure-fire way to lose the protection of the thin blue line.

Originally Posted by Canarr
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.

Originally Posted by draco664
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...

And they were then promptly arrested on burglary charges, per the law. What's the problem, there?

Read through the whole conversation thread. You made the statement that because someone was in hospital with an injury, then the shooter shouldn't have anything to complain about by being in jail for a day or two. Thus, my point (which comes back to what we both agree on, that they were held too long) was that they were held longer than one of the injured parties was in hospital.

[Canarr]

Ok, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part. But the point I was trying to make was not that the police shouldn't hold you longer than the law allows (which we agree on), but that their investigation should not become a witch-hunt if the evidence they collect points towards innocence.

Well, we can agree on that, too. A witch-hunt should, in theory, never occur in a criminal investigation. Of course, I do realize that it happens - cops aren't immune to tunnel-vision any more than anyone else is.

I apologise for suggesting you were trolling. I really need to stop posting when I'm pissed off about other stuff going on in my life. Sorry.

However, the two scenarios really had little to do with each other, beyond both claiming self defence. One it was patently obvious, the other deserved some investigation. Yet the police in both instances got it wrong.

Apology accepted. Thank you. You do realize that reasonable behavior in a forum debate might result in the internet as we know it coming to an end?

And, yes, you are right: the cases are very dissimilar in their layout, but all involve a claim of self-defense, which is still my point: People who shoot other people should be investigated, no matter what they claim. After all, you kind of have to presume the innocence of the guy who was shot, as well, don't you?

I didn't know that. Thank you.

My pleasure. Admittedly, I don't know UK law on that matter, myself.

Quoting your good self - " Do you think you could try reading my entire posts, not just the parts you can then valiantly disagree with?"

I said that since the good cops cover for the bad ones, you should distrust them.

Not - they're all bad.
Not - they're all corrupt.

Well ,you *do* state that all "good" cops cover for the bad ones, so that's kind of a blanket condemnation right there. Still, I also shouldn't have accused you of trolling; my apologies for that.

Look, policing is a tough job. I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it. And dealing with the all the crap they have to put up with would probably end up with me arrested.

But the fact that they break the law to cover for each other as a matter of course means that you cannot trust them.

Of course, that's not to say that police never turn on their own. Arresting a fellow cop is a sure-fire way to lose the protection of the thin blue line.

Okay, that's an article about a pissing contest between two "rival" police departments; basically, a bunch of immature assholes wasting their working hours - and thus, taxpayer money - to play stupid pranks on one another. Crap like that drives up my blood pressure; it's not like there shouldn't be enough for the cops to do without shenanigans like that. However, I do seem to remember a story, also from Florida, about a female cop who was disciplined for (correctly) pulling over an off-duty cop who was speeding on the highway in order to get to his second job on time. That might be more in line with what you're trying to say here.

I get it: cops can be assholes, like everybody else. Unfortunately, they are usually in a position of power that they can easily abuse - like the guy pepperspraying the sit-in protesters at some college campus in the US. I just dislike it when they're all painted with the same brush, since the majority of them - like the majority of most professions - are fairly decent human beings.

Read through the whole conversation thread. You made the statement that because someone was in hospital with an injury, then the shooter shouldn't have anything to complain about by being in jail for a day or two. Thus, my point (which comes back to what we both agree on, that they were held too long) was that they were held longer than one of the injured parties was in hospital.

Well, frankly: to me, that shouldn't matter. If I fire a shotgun at someone, and he only ends up lightly injured, then I should still be held while the police process my claims - or until the law says I can't be held anymore, whatever happens first.

[draco664]

Apology accepted. Thank you. You do realize that reasonable behavior in a forum debate might result in the internet as we know it coming to an end?

Damn, it's always these unintended consequences that get me. I shall stop apologizing for my poor form forthwith and start browsing 4chan for the latest in juvenile internet insults.

Do you have a insult preference? Homophobic? Racist? Or would you prefer something classic, like Oscar Wilde or Disraeli?

[Canarr]

Something classic would be a nice change of pace, if you please.

[draco664]

Something classic would be a nice change of pace, if you please.

Righty-ho, how's about a paraphrased blend of Churchill and Hadas?

"You sir, are a sheep in sheep's clothing. I thank you for your post, which I shall waste no time reading."

[Canarr]

An excellent choice; I find Churchill always serves me well for slinging insults with an intellectual claim. Please, allow me to retort with a combination of Gandhi and Disraeli:

"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress, but Ignorance never settles a question!"

[HYHYBT]

I've always liked Mark Twain's "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying that I approved of it," the only trouble being it only works for dead people.