"Hundreds" of Met Police armed response officers hand in the weapons after colleague charged with murder - Chris Kaba Shooting aftermath.

Stretch said:
The first case found there was a basis, so much so they were fired. The second case only looked for inconsistencies, which at best seems like a technicality. Unless they can provide a more evidence based justification, which is really what I’d like to see.
Click to expand...

Stretch said:
Right. But this ruling has said that to address the inconsistency they will assume they were all telling the truth about smelling weed rather than they all lied.

On what basis?
Click to expand...

You're just getting this backwards I think - the basis here is a fundamental assumption we have in our criminal justice system - you're presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
 
Key word being suspicion? I'm sure they were squeaky clean. :rolleyes:



You also made the comment: "Many “well respected” police officers are *****."

Really? How many Police Officers do you know? Personally.
 
dowie said:
You're just getting this backwards I think - the basis here is a fundamental assumption we have in our criminal justice system - you're presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

The initial case found them guilty.
 
Stretch said:
The initial case found them guilty.
Click to expand...

Yes, which was found to be incorrect and I'll quote again 'inconsistent and irrational'.

I'm sure I'm not alone here in thinking you seem to have a massive bias that's clouding any attempt at logical thought.
 
Stretch said:
Enough
Click to expand...

Well, that's a non-answer. How many? And how many are ***** as you so succinctly put in your throw away comment?

Just so that you know, there are over 170 000 Police Officers in the UK. How many is many? Seeing that you know enough.
 
Dis86 said:
Yes, which was found to be incorrect and I'll quote again 'inconsistent and irrational'.
Click to expand...

Those are just words. How do they refute the initial ruling. Why was it irrational and how does the inconstancy automatically assume they were telling the truth. Given they were initially proven to be liars.
 
Stretch said:
Those are just words. How do they refute the initial ruling. Why was it irrational and how does the inconstancy automatically assume they were telling the truth. Given they were initially proven to be liars.
Click to expand...

They weren't proven to be liars and you've already had it explained to you. The explanation is how it was irrational.
 
If I ever have to appeal something, I’ll be saying it was “irrational and inconsistent” your honour.

Case dismissed.

Yeah right!
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
Those are just words. How do they refute the initial ruling. Why was it irrational and how does the inconstancy automatically assume they were telling the truth. Given they were initially proven to be liars.
Click to expand...

Again, the presumption of innocence is pretty fundamental to our justice system. On what basis were they not telling the truth?
 
dowie said:
Again, the presumption of innocence is pretty fundamental to our justice system. On what basis were they not telling the truth?
Click to expand...

It’s an appeal.

It’s also not a criminal case.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
Doesn't matter - the same question still applies - on what basis were they not telling the truth?
Click to expand...

On the basis of the first hearing.

The appeal verdict hasn't provided enough information to justify why that's no longer valid.

Which comes back to my original point


Stretch said:
Are the details of this case in the public domain?

All we get is....

Their dismissal was overturned by the Police Appeals Tribunal, which found the panel's decision was "irrational" and "inconsistent".

Hugh Davies, representing Mr Clapham, said the officers had "every reason to suspect criminality" when they pulled Dos Santos over.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Clearly the answer to my question is no. There are no details.
 
Last edited:
Jfc...again your bias is showing.

Let's flip it. On what basis did the first investigation provide enough evidence that they were lying?
 
Dis86 said:
Jfc...again your bias is showing.

Let's flip it. On what basis did the first investigation provide enough evidence that they were lying?
Click to expand...

Maybe they didn't. But if the appeal judge thought that was the case, then they should say that and explain why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom