[monk_keys]

(Original post by t0ffee)
Well do as you be done by really - if you think 'I wouldn't like it to happen to me', and you acknowledge that everyone else thinks that, then really you should be saying 'It shouldn't happen at all'.

That's the worst idea ever.

If someone hit my sister I would want to break their legs. Therefore punishment for hitting someone is to have their legs broken. I wouldn't like to get a speeding fine if I break the speed limit. Therefore speeding should not be illegal.

[t0ffee]

(Original post by monk_keys)
That's the worst idea ever.

If someone hit my sister I would want to break their legs. Therefore punishment for hitting someone is to have their legs broken. I wouldn't like to get a speeding fine if I break the speed limit. Therefore speeding should not be illegal.

No If someone has clearly hit your sister, then you would like them to be prosecuted and found guilty of that. That's the allegorical statement.

It's not about 'would I like to be prosecuted for it if I did it' because no one wants to face the consequences of their crimes.

[ESPORTIVA]

British police arent that bad in my experience, some police genuinely care and want to help, im actually greatful that we have normal helpful police (in most cases), unlike the psychopaths in blue they have in the US

[monk_keys]

(Original post by t0ffee)
No If someone has clearly hit your sister, then you would like them to be prosecuted and found guilty of that. That's the allegorical statement.

Your point was that I would have a different perspective if it was closer to home.

My point is that I would have a different perspective, it would probably a less objective and therefore less just view.

As you said, the treatment we expect for ourselves doesn't always equate to what fair treatment for all would be.

Just because I wouldn't like it if my dad had died and the PC was found not guilty doesn't make it in any way the wrong judgement.

[Gary Barlow]

Weather i trust them depends on the circumstances. I do feel very uneasy about their power to protect each other. As with the PC Harwood case and others like it such as Mark Duggan's shooting, all it seems to take is the other officers present to come forward and say they saw nothing wrong and its impossible to prosecute them.
It's as if the court holds the words of accused police members above that of a non biased witness.

[rmpr97]

Nope, when you need them they do **** all.

When I was mugged I reported it, had to wait 20 mins to speak to someone in an empty station.

When I was talking to them, they officer started randomly ignoring me to talk about his promotion to his colleague.

Then it took them about two weeks to get back to me, and literally pressured me out of starting an investigation, they scared me out of by saying things like, they'd probably attack you if their gang member sees you etc.

I was appalled.

[Joe909]

(Original post by t0ffee)
Like the right to lie and cheat voters on whether you support the rise of tuition fees. Clegg should have been arrested for fraud.

AHAHHAAH. **** off Please. The conservatives are the majority, they get the major input. That is all irrelevant, Fees NEEDED to rise so that the quality of education offered by universities could increase. We don't have the right to free education, we're lucky that we only pay £9k instead of £35k in America. Please, be grateful for what you have phaggot.

[t0ffee]

(Original post by monk_keys)
Your point was that I would have a different perspective if it was closer to home.

My point is that I would have a different perspective, it would probably a less objective and therefore less just view.

As you said, the treatment we expect for ourselves doesn't always equate to what fair treatment for all would be.

Just because I wouldn't like it if my dad had died and the PC was found not guilty doesn't make it in any way the wrong judgement.

But it clearly was the wrong judgement lol, there is very little disagreement about that wherever you look. Just a typical police cover up. If it had been a member of public on member of public we all know what the result would have been.

[t0ffee]

(Original post by Joe909)
AHAHHAAH. **** off Please. The conservatives are the majority, they get the major input. That is all irrelevant, Fees NEEDED to rise so that the quality of education offered by universities could increase. We don't have the right to free education, we're lucky that we only pay £9k instead of £35k in America. Please, be grateful for what you have phaggot.

B1: It wasn't anything to do with that.

B2: We aren't lucky, they are just ****ing stupid.

[unclej]

(Original post by ESPORTIVA)
British police arent that bad in my experience, some police genuinely care and want to help, im actually greatful that we have normal helpful police (in most cases), unlike the psychopaths in blue they have in the US

i agree i am grateful that our police force are not as bad as americas an the developing world and im gratefull that i live in a society where you can criticise the police to an extent but that does not meen we should just accept their wrongs

[monk_keys]

(Original post by t0ffee)
But it clearly was the wrong judgement lol, there is very little disagreement about that wherever you look. Just a typical police cover up. If it had been a member of public on member of public we all know what the result would have been.

Well I disagree with you and the jury disagreed with you and to be honest most people wont have put 1/10 of the thought necessary into making a sound judgement.

Describe in what way a randomly selected jury, presented with all the relevant facts, have been manipulated by the police?

[Publius]

(Original post by internet tough guy)
Its very worrying news that this disgrace of a police officer was cleared, I knew he should've been found guilty, and now that his past record has come to light, well thats just adding insult to injury. You'd have to either be retarded or biased to argue that the guy used 'reasonable' force. Can't believe the jury bought this lie

What an absolute disgrace: attacking someone who is completely unaware, and thus incapable of bracing themselves always runs a risk of serious injury.

I don't understand how anyone could have a more complete case for manslaughter against them.

'Reasonable force' - what a joke.

[nexttime]

My experiences have actually been fairly negative - extreme excessive bureaucracy meaning a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt took more than 3 hours to give, and another time reporting an assault they just didn't seem interested - but i still wouldn't say i "don't trust them".

The ruling today does seem harsh, but this is not the last we will see of this: the family are taking it up in civil court and someone WILL get sued. I can accept that outcome.

[Gary Barlow]

"The jury, which took four days to reach its verdict, was not told that PC Harwood had been the subject of 10 disciplinary complaints in 12 years as an officer"


"PC Harwood resigned as a constable at the Metropolitan Police in 2001 and avoided disciplinary charges over the road-rage attack that could have seen him drummed out of the service. He had been accused of unlawful arrest, abuse of authority and discreditable conduct but the case against him was never heard."

Source
-The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-7960149.html

Why was the jury not made aware of this?

[TRS-T]

[monk_keys]

(Original post by Gary Barlow)
"The jury, which took four days to reach its verdict, was not told that PC Harwood had been the subject of 10 disciplinary complaints in 12 years as an officer"


"PC Harwood resigned as a constable at the Metropolitan Police in 2001 and avoided disciplinary charges over the road-rage attack that could have seen him drummed out of the service. He had been accused of unlawful arrest, abuse of authority and discreditable conduct but the case against him was never heard."

Source
-The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...t-7960149.html

Why was the jury not made aware of this?

Because it's not relevant. They saw what happened, anything else is just distortion of the facts.

[jacketpotato]

(Original post by Gary Barlow)
Why was the jury not made aware of this?

Because its completely irrelevant. In this country we convict by evidence, not by reputation - particularly as most of the complaints were never substantiated.

Its the same for all criminal trials. If you were tried for assaulting a man on Friday last week, the jury wouldn't be told that you were accused (but not convicted) of assault two years ago.

[Publius]

(Original post by monk_keys)
Because it's not relevant. They saw what happened, anything else is just distortion of the facts.

The weird thing is that the officer admitted to it being a mistake and something he should never have done - that he just panicked under stressful circumstances. Now this could only be believable if he had at least a fairly clean record; which he does not.

The fact that he did have a history of similar behaviour is therefore somewhat relevant is it not?

[monk_keys]

(Original post by Publius)
The weird thing is that the officer admitted to it being a mistake and something he should never have done - that he just panicked under stressful circumstances. Now this could only be believable if he had at least a fairly clean record; which he does not.

It's probably something his solicitor told him to say, it's not like he got off because he said it was a mistake.

[Publius]

(Original post by monk_keys)
It's probably something his solicitor told him to say, it's not like he got off because he said it was a mistake.

How else could that be justified as 'reasonable force' unless he was playing the i was intimidated by the crowds and panicked card.