Internet troll sentenced to 18 weeks in jail.

Al Vallario said:
Is this a question leading to some tirade about me being some objectionable, heartless nihilist? ;)
Click to expand...

No, not at all, it is more to do with how different most people's perception changes after having kids. I was very anti-police and outspoken on 'freedom of speech' and various other topics that might mean I would be described as 'left-wing' or 'tree-hugging' up until my late twenties. Then I had kids and faced the reality of the world when you have to protect, raise and nurture your kids - not only keeping them healthy but also teaching them the difference between right and wrong.

My opinions are very different now in so many ways, and had either of my daughter's died (for whatever reason) and someone had done something comparable I may well have been shouting for an even longer custodial sentence, that is, if I didn't just go round and beat the living **** out of him instead.

Point being that many people feel that when it comes to children, sentences should be more stringent than if the equivalent crime was committed against an adult or involved adults. Society as a whole (and I think I can make this generalisation) considers crime involving children to be far more serious than crime involving adults, and I think this is right and proper, they are the most vulnerable section of society. And if someone says something nasty or unpleasant about someone's dead child, I think the majority of parents would not think that a custodial sentence is too harsh.

Of course you could argue that that's because parents are over emotive about this, but ask yourself this... how do we determine sentencing? Ultimately, it comes down to the public perception of the seriousness of the crime, and you can guarantee that if there is repeated public outcry about 'too short' or 'too long' prison sentences for some types of crimes, the sentences will ultimately be altered. So, if the majority of parents believe that this type of 'crime' warrants a custodial sentence then that is a fair punishment, because that is what people believe is a just punishment for the crime.

So, before saying that a custodial sentence is unfair in this case maybe it's worth canvassing say 1000 parents and seeing how many thought it was too harsh or too lenient... If more than half think it's too harsh then I stand corrected, but I imagine it would be the other way around...
 
Al Vallario said:
As much as I hate to bring the subject into discussion, I think Jean Charles de Menezes would beg to differ on this point.
Click to expand...

Bad example. Where suspected terrorism comes into the fray, then safe guarding the public at large has to come first. With all the hindsight we have now its easy to be an armchair police chief and say we shoul dhave done x, y and z. At the time when he got shot they were told this guy was a suspected terrorist. Now if the intelligence was wrong its not the fault of the man who pulled the trigger its the fault of the man who gave him the information that made him take the desicion to pull the trigger.

What if he was a terrorist and he blew that tube up and murderd a few 100 people. Woul dyou be saying the same things then ?
 
Robbo said:
When armed police tell you to stop and you run, you're asking for it. It's as simple as that.
Click to expand...

lol, no one told him to stop though.

Al Vallario said:
Are you talking about the same man? He was never told to stop, and he never ran from officers? :confused:
Click to expand...

Exactly. This is one of he main issues with the police. They walked up to him, executed him from almost point blank range in the head, and then unloaded a further 7 or so shots into him, with no warning.

As soon as it happened, they covered up all the CCTV, tried to prevent any external investigation, and repeatedly lied to the press, leaving a trail of spin that meant when the investigation happened, people had already been told the lies that he both ran from the police and was shouted at to stop running and in any way informed the police were trying to stop him.

Then when the results do come out, they have been delayed enough that people have let the original lies go as the truth for so long, they think its what actually happened and haven't bothered to check what actually happened that day, the day the police murdered someone out of gross incompetency, covered it up, and got away with it both the murder and subsequent white wash cover up.
 
Fair enough, but you can't start branding the entire police force as evil based on the actions of a few. It doesn't work that way, and it never will.
 
Robbo said:
Fair enough, but you can't start branding the entire police force as evil based on the actions of a few. It doesn't work that way, and it never will.
Click to expand...

It was covered up and the investigation was restricted, delayed and tried to be prevented from those right at the top. The whole police force was shown up to be being run by criminals, either criminally incompetent or corrupt.

See also the death of Ian Tomlinson
 
hurfdurf said:
It was covered up and the investigation was restricted, delayed and tried to be prevented from those right at the top. The whole police force was shown up to be being run by criminals, either criminally incompetent or corrupt.
Click to expand...

I'm not going down this road. Needless to say, I don't agree.
 
Al Vallario said:
How are you taken into police custody? Under duress, with the threat of violence. It may be explicit — e.g. "You will be tasered!", "We will let the dog on you!", "You will be shot if you do not put the gun down!" — or implicit, but the threat is always there.

Without the threat of violence the police wouldn't be able to arrest many people.

I am fortunate to have not had any dealings with the police in my life.
Click to expand...

Honestly, it's not like that in most cases. It's "procedural", in my experience.
I was a naughty boy, knew I'd been a naughty boy, police came for me, I went with them. Very un-dramatic. But I understood that I was going with them - the manner of said journey was up to me :)

I'd bet the majority of people go willingly, and therefore un-dramatically. It's the slow and steady wheels of state, not cops 'n' robbers.
 
hurfdurf said:
Exactly. This is one of he main issues with the police. They walked up to him, executed him from almost point blank range in the head, and then unloaded a further 7 or so shots into him, with no warning.
Click to expand...

Because the intelligence they were operating on had him marked as a potential suicide bomber. Or do you think the the officers in question just wanted to kill someone for giggles?
 
Al Vallario said:
Jean Charles de Menezes is one particularly extreme case that contradicts that statement. Being shot multiple times in the head is, I think it's fair to say, quite violent, and he neither resisted arrest nor gave the officers involved any good reason to open fire on him.
Click to expand...

And you are basing your view of the police on an incredibly rare incident? As a matter of interest how do you think the police should stop a potential suicide bomber?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom