The emergence of police brutality and where we are headed

[Nozzle]

Geezus, I dread to think where you dug that **** up. People have different opinions - yours is that the police and state are bad for society, they're dishonest and that they go harrasing innocent people for kicks. My opinion is different to that, that's what makes it debate. You tell me how you see, I tell you how I see it and that's that. Frying Pans not included. You don't like my view? Sure, fair enough no problem.

Nozzle

 

[HawkEye244]

Dork Lard, I'm capable of making my own judgement I don't need spin. You're right, I'm not black and none of my cars are BMWs, though German never the less. My trouble with the law goes as far as being pulled off the road for speeding. I did it, I was guilty, I spoke to the officer with respect, and I paid my debt to society. I wonder if I'd buzzed a camera in his face having been pulled over perhaps that might have been seen as a catlyst for some further charges? I don't need to try to find out, there was no need to be on the attack with a camera in his mush.

Nozzle

What debt to society, what actual harm loss or injury did you cause society by going faster than what was deemed acceptable by some court somewhere ? You sound like a bit of a bumboy in all honesty, they have a name for people like you they are called flight attendants

 

[HawkEye244]

Geezus, I dread to think where you dug that **** up. People have different opinions - yours is that the police and state are bad for society, they're dishonest and that they go harrasing innocent people for kicks. My opinion is different to that, that's what makes it debate. You tell me how you see, I tell you how I see it and that's that. Frying Pans not included. You don't like my view? Sure, fair enough no problem.

Nozzle

Your problem is you can't see both sides of the argument. The fact I didn't take a side makes you angry which brings out the conformist in people like you who love to believe the best about authority, that it is whiter than white and can't possibly be as corrupt and cruel as some have experienced it as.

 

[LastMagicBean]

Nurse, NURSE.

 

[Nozzle]

As of you typing the phrase "...people like you..." I am withdrawing from the debate. You have no idea about who I am or what I do and yet have pigeon-holed me based on prejudice. Any further balance I bring to your debate you will immediately dismiss.

Nozzle

 

[blightymam]

Personally I think it's a sign of the times, people videoing everything on their phones. Doesn't have to mean that they are guilty!
About 18 years ago, before phone video cameras, my mate, a fellow press photographer got arrested right next to me for stepping one foot off the pavement to take a photo at an animal rights protest in Sussex, against the coppers wishes. Not only was he arrested, he was manhandled very badly (he did not resist arrest in any way and showed his press card) and also spent 9hrs in the cell with me waiting outside to give him a lift back to his car. We didn't know until later that an animal rights activist was so fed up with the police that she started recording them, and luckily for my mate she videoed the whole arrest. Tape was given to the cops as evidence and the evidence was tampered with by the police to cut out the rough handling by the cops. Again, luckily the animal rights activist had kept a copy and finally the case was thrown out of court as the police were trying to press charges. The police faced no discipline for tampering with evidence and my mate had a right nightmare for months over this and all the stress and frustration it caused when he did nothing wrong. One foot off a pavement did not warrant what happened to him. I wonder if the cops, if they knew they were being filmed, would've acted differently?

I am all for videoing the police, same rule applies, if they've nothing to hide then they shouldn't mind! If they are professional then having a phone camera videoing them should not make any difference. The policeman in the video was not professional.

 

[gasbanni]

Knock at the door ...." I'm detective so and so I understand you know ***** ******* ?"

"Who ?"

" You were dah de dah de dah "

"Oh you mean *** "

"Can I come in ?"

"Sure, do you want a coffee ?"

" Yes please "

Told him the truth about what I knew which really was nothing I really didn't know or suspect anything.

In the video the householder was been obstructive in my opinion ! What was the problem letting them in to look for a criminal ?

 

[Doggit]

Actually, going back to the OP, whilst the occupant of the house was being questionably cautious, and possibly to the point of being obstructive, I think the police may well have overstepped their powers. Having had a quick read of section 17 of the Police and Criminal act 1984, they would have had a right of entry if they had "known" the suspect was on the property, but no right to check if he "might" have been there.

Except for the purpose specified in paragraph (e) of subsection (1) above, the powers of entry and search conferred by this section—

(a)are only exercisable if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the person whom he is seeking is on the premises; and -----