Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2009-04-19 10:21:55
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

I think the relevant point here is that police are only allowed to use proportional force.

Pushing someone to the ground, who is walking casually away with their hands in their pockets, is not a use of proportional force. This means it is an illegal and unnecessary use of force by the officer, which means he is fully culpable for any consequences of his actions. Since those actions led to the unintentional and unpredictable death of the person he pushed, he is likely to be charged with manslaughter - which is why the CPS are looking into pursuing a manslaughter charge against him.
2009-04-19 10:25:37
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7005|UK

Bertster7 wrote:

I think the relevant point here is that police are only allowed to use proportional force.

Pushing someone to the ground, who is walking casually away with their hands in their pockets, is not a use of proportional force. This means it is an illegal and unnecessary use of force by the officer, which means he is fully culpable for any consequences of his actions. Since those actions led to the unintentional and unpredictable death of the person he pushed, he is likely to be charged with manslaughter - which is why the CPS are looking into pursuing a manslaughter charge against him.
Yeah im not saying the pushing was nessecary, im saying he could have been arrested. So I don't get what people are bitching about. I would happily take getting pushed over getting arrested.

If he had been arrested I guarantee that people would be bitching about the police unlawfully arresting him or something. The police lose either way.
2009-04-19 11:09:19
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6529|Éire

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I think the relevant point here is that police are only allowed to use proportional force.

Pushing someone to the ground, who is walking casually away with their hands in their pockets, is not a use of proportional force. This means it is an illegal and unnecessary use of force by the officer, which means he is fully culpable for any consequences of his actions. Since those actions led to the unintentional and unpredictable death of the person he pushed, he is likely to be charged with manslaughter - which is why the CPS are looking into pursuing a manslaughter charge against him.
Yeah im not saying the pushing was nessecary, im saying he could have been arrested. So I don't get what people are bitching about. I would happily take getting pushed over getting arrested.

If he had been arrested I guarantee that people would be bitching about the police unlawfully arresting him or something. The police lose either way.
Arrested for walking too slowly?
2009-04-19 11:45:03
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7005|UK

Braddock wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I think the relevant point here is that police are only allowed to use proportional force.

Pushing someone to the ground, who is walking casually away with their hands in their pockets, is not a use of proportional force. This means it is an illegal and unnecessary use of force by the officer, which means he is fully culpable for any consequences of his actions. Since those actions led to the unintentional and unpredictable death of the person he pushed, he is likely to be charged with manslaughter - which is why the CPS are looking into pursuing a manslaughter charge against him.
Yeah im not saying the pushing was nessecary, im saying he could have been arrested. So I don't get what people are bitching about. I would happily take getting pushed over getting arrested.

If he had been arrested I guarantee that people would be bitching about the police unlawfully arresting him or something. The police lose either way.
Arrested for walking too slowly?
Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
2009-04-19 11:50:15
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Vilham wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Yeah im not saying the pushing was nessecary, im saying he could have been arrested. So I don't get what people are bitching about. I would happily take getting pushed over getting arrested.

If he had been arrested I guarantee that people would be bitching about the police unlawfully arresting him or something. The police lose either way.
Arrested for walking too slowly?
Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
There is no such charge.

Police have no explicit right to give orders to members of the public.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-04-19 11:51:06)

2009-04-19 11:58:20
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7005|UK

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Arrested for walking too slowly?
Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
There is no such charge.

Police have no explicit right to give orders to members of the public.
Read section 12 of the public order act. Yes they do.

And I find it hilarious that you think they don't even without reading the act. If you were indeed correct there would be hundreds of legal cases against the police every day as the police regularly arrest people disobeying police orders after being warned. There are dozens of those police shows on TV that have members of the police force doing exactly that. I would have thought if they weren't allowed to someone might have picked up on it by now...

thats not to say he can be prosecuted but he can be arrested.

Last edited by Vilham (2009-04-19 12:06:24)

2009-04-19 12:10:24
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:


Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
There is no such charge.

Police have no explicit right to give orders to members of the public.
Read section 12 of the public order act. Yes they do.
Have you read the public order act?

They don't. They can lay out directions and rules for the participants in a protest to follow, which must be provided to the organisers prior to the event in writing. They can only introduce directions that are reasonably expected to result in bad stuff, loss of life, damage to property etc.

I find it extremely hard to believe that they would have been able to impose directions prohibiting walking away from officers too slowly.
2009-04-19 12:11:42
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7005|Cambridge (UK)

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:


Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
There is no such charge.

Police have no explicit right to give orders to members of the public.
Read section 12 of the public order act. Yes they do.

And I find it hilarious that you think they don't even without reading the act. If you were indeed correct there would be hundreds of legal cases against the police every day as the police regularly arrest people disobeying police orders after being warned. There are dozens of those police shows on TV that have members of the police force doing exactly that. I would have thought if they weren't allowed to someone might have picked up on it by now...

thats not to say he can be prosecuted but he can be arrested.
Whilst this is correct, what they don't have the power to do is to stop you going about your lawful business.

And, in this case, that is exactly what they were doing.
2009-04-19 12:15:31
Sorcerer0513
Member
+18|6781|Outer Space
Sorry, can i get clarification on this part:

Public Order Act wrote:

(7) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under subsection (4), (5) or (6).
Does this also apply to persons not taking part in demo/procession? Because subsections 4, 5 and 6 apply to persons taking part in demo/procession, is it assumed anyone on site is involved in said demo procession?

/me is a law noob.
2009-04-19 12:18:27
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7005|Cambridge (UK)

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

Sorry, can i get clarification on this part:

Public Order Act wrote:

(7) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under subsection (4), (5) or (6).
Does this also apply to persons not taking part in demo/procession? Because subsections 4, 5 and 6 apply to persons taking part in demo/procession, is it assumed anyone on site is involved in said demo procession?

/me is a law noob.
I'm no expert, but, imho, being a bystander, on his way home from work, is not "reasonable suspicion" of anything other than "being a bystander, on his way home from work".
2009-04-19 12:20:49
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

Sorry, can i get clarification on this part:

Public Order Act wrote:

(7) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under subsection (4), (5) or (6).
Does this also apply to persons not taking part in demo/procession? Because subsections 4, 5 and 6 apply to persons taking part in demo/procession, is it assumed anyone on site is involved in said demo procession?

/me is a law noob.
Technically, no, it does not.

It only applies to those taking part.

In practice, they can and will arrest anyone in the vicinity if they have reasonable cause - which would need to be under an existing law or under the terms of the directions laid out by a senior officer prior to the protest.
2009-04-19 12:28:46
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7005|UK

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

Sorry, can i get clarification on this part:

Public Order Act wrote:

(7) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under subsection (4), (5) or (6).
Does this also apply to persons not taking part in demo/procession? Because subsections 4, 5 and 6 apply to persons taking part in demo/procession, is it assumed anyone on site is involved in said demo procession?

/me is a law noob.
I'm no expert, but, imho, being a bystander, on his way home from work, is not "reasonable suspicion" of anything other than "being a bystander, on his way home from work".
I would say being 10 ft from a major protest makes it pretty hard to determine being a bystander. Infact he can bring forth no evidence that he was just a bystander. For all the legal system knows he was on his way to join the protest at that very moment. Doesn't mean he would be charged with anything, but he still could have been arrested.

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


There is no such charge.

Police have no explicit right to give orders to members of the public.
Read section 12 of the public order act. Yes they do.
Have you read the public order act?

They don't. They can lay out directions and rules for the participants in a protest to follow, which must be provided to the organisers prior to the event in writing. They can only introduce directions that are reasonably expected to result in bad stuff, loss of life, damage to property etc.

I find it extremely hard to believe that they would have been able to impose directions prohibiting walking away from officers too slowly.
That's exactly what they were doing. Introduction directions based on reasonably expectation of damage to property. Tomlinson refused to follow those directions, hence why he could have been arrested.
2009-04-19 12:43:27
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Read section 12 of the public order act. Yes they do.
Have you read the public order act?

They don't. They can lay out directions and rules for the participants in a protest to follow, which must be provided to the organisers prior to the event in writing. They can only introduce directions that are reasonably expected to result in bad stuff, loss of life, damage to property etc.

I find it extremely hard to believe that they would have been able to impose directions prohibiting walking away from officers too slowly.
That's exactly what they were doing. Introduction directions based on reasonably expectation of damage to property. Tomlinson refused to follow those directions, hence why he could have been arrested.
Have you read the directions?

Do they specifically include something relevant to this incident? Or to the other incidents - like the officer punching that girl in the face and then beating her to the ground with a baton?

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-04-19 12:50:30)

2009-04-19 17:24:34
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7005|Cambridge (UK)

Vilham wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Sorcerer0513 wrote:

Sorry, can i get clarification on this part:


Does this also apply to persons not taking part in demo/procession? Because subsections 4, 5 and 6 apply to persons taking part in demo/procession, is it assumed anyone on site is involved in said demo procession?

/me is a law noob.
I'm no expert, but, imho, being a bystander, on his way home from work, is not "reasonable suspicion" of anything other than "being a bystander, on his way home from work".
I would say being 10 ft from a major protest makes it pretty hard to determine being a bystander. Infact he can bring forth no evidence that he was just a bystander. For all the legal system knows he was on his way to join the protest at that very moment. Doesn't mean he would be charged with anything, but he still could have been arrested.
Well, I'm talking about the subject of the thread - Ian Tomlinson.

And, from what I can tell from the evidence I've seen, none of what you state applies to that specific case.
2009-04-20 04:48:35
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6529|Éire

Vilham wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Vilham wrote:


Yeah im not saying the pushing was nessecary, im saying he could have been arrested. So I don't get what people are bitching about. I would happily take getting pushed over getting arrested.

If he had been arrested I guarantee that people would be bitching about the police unlawfully arresting him or something. The police lose either way.
Arrested for walking too slowly?
Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
What police order did he disobey? To walk away? I think you'll find he was walking away or does Britain have laws regarding the speed at which someone must walk away when ordered by a police officer?

You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
2009-04-20 09:00:38
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7005|Cambridge (UK)

Braddock wrote:

You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
Indeed.

And they definitely do not have the power to illegally detain without arrest (i.e. 'kettling').
2009-04-20 09:05:09
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
Indeed.

And they definitely do not have the power to illegally detain without arrest (i.e. 'kettling').
They currently do actually (under review now).

Has been challenged in court and upheld as a legal tactic.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-04-20 09:05:31)

2009-04-20 09:07:22
Scorpion0x17
can detect anyone's visible post count...
+691|7005|Cambridge (UK)

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Braddock wrote:

You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
Indeed.

And they definitely do not have the power to illegally detain without arrest (i.e. 'kettling').
They currently do actually (under review now).

Has been challenged in court and upheld as a legal tactic.
Linky?
2009-04-20 09:20:27
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Indeed.

And they definitely do not have the power to illegally detain without arrest (i.e. 'kettling').
They currently do actually (under review now).

Has been challenged in court and upheld as a legal tactic.
Linky?
Hang on, I'll have a look for one....


...1st result when you Google "kettling":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … t-kettling

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-04-20 09:27:43)

2009-04-20 09:38:49
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7005|UK

Braddock wrote:

Vilham wrote:

Braddock wrote:


Arrested for walking too slowly?
Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
What police order did he disobey? To walk away? I think you'll find he was walking away or does Britain have laws regarding the speed at which someone must walk away when ordered by a police officer?

You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
I know they don't but if you break the law. Ie refusing to move when the police have set a condition on a rally they can arrest you. He was warned to move, he refused to do so at a reasonable speed and could have been arrested. You and Bert seem to think the police have zero discression, it would be lovely if the law included a walking speed limit but it doesn't, that gives the police leeway to decide if someone is purposely breaking the law.
2009-04-20 09:47:32
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Vilham wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Vilham wrote:


Arrested for disobeying a police order. It happens every single day in the UK so I don't know how your so suprised.
What police order did he disobey? To walk away? I think you'll find he was walking away or does Britain have laws regarding the speed at which someone must walk away when ordered by a police officer?

You seem to be under the illusion that the police have absolute authority over members of the public. They do not.
I know they don't but if you break the law. Ie refusing to move when the police have set a condition on a rally they can arrest you. He was warned to move, he refused to do so at a reasonable speed and could have been arrested. You and Bert seem to think the police have zero discression, it would be lovely if the law included a walking speed limit but it doesn't, that gives the police leeway to decide if someone is purposely breaking the law.
There are laws they can arrest you under. Lots of them (obstructing a police officer, affray, drunk and disorderly, violent disorder etc). They are what police use all the time to arrest people in these sorts of things.

They can't just tell you to do stuff and arrest you if you don't. There needs to be a proper charge. None of which could've been leveled at Tomlinson.
2009-04-20 09:52:57
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7005|UK
You are completely missing my point. If you don't meet the conditions the police put on a rally they CAN arrest you. Not meeting the conditions set IS breaking the law.
2009-04-20 09:58:53
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Vilham wrote:

You are completely missing my point. If you don't meet the conditions the police put on a rally they CAN arrest you. Not meeting the conditions set IS breaking the law.
Yes they can. I have already said this.

Technically though, those conditions only apply to those participating in the protest. But that's just semantics - what really matters is what the terms of the conditions were, I doubt very much that they included anything that would've allowed them to arrest him. I've been to a number of protests in the past and the organisers typically publish these police directions beforehand and often hand them out on fliers. I have never seen any conditions that would've allowed them to arrest Tomlinson.

If you think there were extra legal conditions imposed that would've applied to this case then find them.
2009-04-20 10:04:28
Vilham
Say wat!?
+580|7005|UK

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

You are completely missing my point. If you don't meet the conditions the police put on a rally they CAN arrest you. Not meeting the conditions set IS breaking the law.
Yes they can. I have already said this.

Technically though, those conditions only apply to those participating in the protest. But that's just semantics - what really matters is what the terms of the conditions were, I doubt very much that they included anything that would've allowed them to arrest him. I've been to a number of protests in the past and the organisers typically publish these police directions beforehand and often hand them out on fliers. I have never seen any conditions that would've allowed them to arrest Tomlinson.

If you think there were extra legal conditions imposed that would've applied to this case then find them.
So the fact that the police are forming a line across the street doesn't suggest to you at all that the closure of that road is one of the conditions? I guess the police were doing it for fun.
2009-04-20 10:37:08
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6821|SE London

Vilham wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

You are completely missing my point. If you don't meet the conditions the police put on a rally they CAN arrest you. Not meeting the conditions set IS breaking the law.
Yes they can. I have already said this.

Technically though, those conditions only apply to those participating in the protest. But that's just semantics - what really matters is what the terms of the conditions were, I doubt very much that they included anything that would've allowed them to arrest him. I've been to a number of protests in the past and the organisers typically publish these police directions beforehand and often hand them out on fliers. I have never seen any conditions that would've allowed them to arrest Tomlinson.

If you think there were extra legal conditions imposed that would've applied to this case then find them.
So the fact that the police are forming a line across the street doesn't suggest to you at all that the closure of that road is one of the conditions? I guess the police were doing it for fun.
It suggests nothing. They were forming a cordon. Means very little.

Unless you can find specific evidence that the written conditions the police issued for this event contained terms he was in breach of, then your case holds no water whatsoever - since you are relying on non-standard laws to prove your point, you should find out what they are and not just speculate wildly, that won't further your argument at all.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard