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

dowie · 5 Oct 2024 at 20:43

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.

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?

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.

Gepetto · 5 Oct 2024 at 20:44

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.

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:01

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.

The initial case found them guilty.

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:02

Gepetto said:
Key word being suspicion? I'm sure they were squeaky clean.

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

Really? How many Police Officers do you know? Personally.

Enough

Dis86 · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:05

Stretch said:
The initial case found them guilty.

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.

Gepetto · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:10

Stretch said:
Enough

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.

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:10

Dis86 said:
Yes, which was found to be incorrect and I'll quote again 'inconsistent and irrational'.

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.

Dis86 · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:12

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.

They weren't proven to be liars and you've already had it explained to you. The explanation is how it was irrational.

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:27

Dis86 said:
They weren't proven to be liars and you've already had it explained to you. The explanation is how it was irrational.

I must have missed that.

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:28

If I ever have to appeal something, I’ll be saying it was “irrational and inconsistent” your honour.

Case dismissed.

Yeah right!

dowie · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:48

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.

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

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:50

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

It’s an appeal.

It’s also not a criminal case.

Nathan · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:53

Stretch said:
The initial case found them guilty.

Not under a criminal review, it was a balance of probabilities. Completely different.

Gepetto · 5 Oct 2024 at 21:54

Stretch said:
I must have missed that.

Now, there's a surprise.

dowie · 5 Oct 2024 at 22:49

Stretch said:
It’s an appeal.

It’s also not a criminal case.

Doesn't matter - the same question still applies - on what basis were they not telling the truth?

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 22:50

dowie said:
Doesn't matter - the same question still applies - on what basis were they not telling the truth?

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...

Clearly the answer to my question is no. There are no details.

Dis86 · 5 Oct 2024 at 22:56

Jfc...again your bias is showing.

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

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 23:01

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?

Maybe they didn't. But if the appeal judge thought that was the case, then they should say that and explain why.

Dis86 · 5 Oct 2024 at 23:02

Stretch said:
Maybe they didn't. But if the appeal judge thought that was the case, then they should say that and explain why.

It's already been explained ffs! Repeatedly. How are you not grasping this?

Stretch · 5 Oct 2024 at 23:03

Dis86 said:
It's already been explained ffs! Repeatedly. How are you not grasping this?

You bar for explanation is clearly a lot lower than mine.