People get a grudge against an officer, find out badge id, somehow find out their name, find address...queue harassment.
sickening police violence
- Thread starter newbiejim
- Start date
People get a grudge against an officer, find out badge id, somehow find out their name, find address...queue harassment.
Then why are only a few officers doing it? surely the whole force would hide their identity if there was such a risk?
I've not heard of any such cases ever happening
Is it not against guidelines or even illegal to hide their id numbers?
No idea...You asked for a reason so I gave you a probable cause
There would be nothing stopping them taking their badges off once they are on the scene and putting them back on again when they are going back to the station for instance..So who knows.
But you would think it would be against some law or something for them to hide their badges...for their own safety if anything.
If not already it should be made illegal for an on duty officer to cover up his number, what good reason can they possbily have to hide it?
Their ID is what differentiates them from some thug dressed in a police costume going around assaulting people for "obstructing his duties".
Last edited:
That's just ridiculous! They're meant to be identifiable. Why do people insist on making things up!
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
If not already it should be made illegal for an on duty officer to cover up his number, what good reason can they possbily have to hide it?
Their ID is what differentiates them from some thug dressed in a police costume going around assaulting people for "obstructing his duties".
It isn't a balaclava. It is a flame proof head scarf for use in public order situations where imflammatory missiles are thrown and covers the moth and nose.
Whether missiles are thrown or not, we have to wear ours at all times.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
1) are the police even following guidelines that are correct in themselves? what if the guidelines are flawed?
2) innocent until proven guilty, these are the laws that protect the public.
Since when did Police become Judge, Jury and Executioner?
Then the police officer does not get done for anything and they review and change the guidelines.
Innocent till proven guilty yet the media and most people in here already think he's guilty. Even though he looks ill before that push and as such raises serious questions that he could very well have that haemorrhage before the push.
they aren't
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
Are the protest groups and lawyers jumping on the bandwagon following legal guidelines ?
And police who are accused.
Since 1977, when Judge Dredd hit the comic book stands.
In the real world there is no such thing.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
but that doesnt mean that the police force would escape culpability...
as a police officer then he is not part of the public, he is not being treated as such, i.e is he on bail or suchlike for manslaughter? Is he being done for assault, like the common man would be done? I dont believe he is, therefore you would have to say that operating otuside of the law, you cannot expect the same level of rights...
in many instances it appears that the police are choosing what form of punsihment to use to those who are potentially breaking the law. By choosing to dish out x punushment they are also choosing to forgo their ability to restrain, arrest, allow the courts to deal with any potential purpotrators.
If he acted within the guide lines, who and for what would you charge? The guidelines would be altered and someone may resign.
he will be treated exactly like the public. he has not been charged as at the moment there's no evidence to charge him with.
What?
I'm not the biggest fan of police but I was personally surprised how restraint the majority were considering the **** they had to endure that day. The footage I've seen of protesters came across more as hooliganism than protesting. I'm not saying what the very small minority done was right but tbh it was very understandable. It's a real shame a man died but it's quite obvious the officer's intention wasn't to cause death, even if he was out of order (hard to tell when we've only seen a snippet of the incident). As long as guidelines were followed then I really hope nothing more comes of this. It will be a sad day when officers need to think twice before instilling order. However the behaviour of the IPCC makes you think.
Whether the man meant to cause death is irrespective. If guidelines were not followed, he must be charged with manslaughter as would any member of the public who was not a police officer.
what?
Only if they can prove that that shove/push resulted in the injury. which everyone seems to be over looking. It could well of happened before and would explain why he is walking slow and looking dazed.
Yes before, that would be when they beat him up first time round?, as described by witnesses btw. Importantly he should not have pushed the man so violently, there is no way this force was appropriate.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,718
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Come on, be serious now and stop messing about - do you really think the 'push' was violent?
so not the officer in question, any videos or real evidence?
Do you know the guidelines and what is acceptable in those guidelines? I don't. As other police officers in this thread have said, they are allowed to use force.