Is this what happens when people cannot rely on the Police.

you've got to be going some, as a Copper, to get a jury so cross with you that they send you down...like the POS PC Monk who killed Damien Atkinson and told jurors he could not remember if he had booted Atkinson in the head - PC Monk also f67king up in the use of his taser...Monk was the first Copper in about 35 years to be sent down over a death in custody / arrest.
Or the jury could have been influenced by BLM and they were afraid that it would all kick if if they had found him not guilty and they didn't want to be responsible for that. Atkinson was extremely violent as he had severe mental health issues. People like that have the strengh of ten men, as you would know if you had to deal with anyone like that. But you are another armchair expert.
 
There are bad apples in both groups. Due to entry controls, discipline, standards required, logic dictates there will be fewer in the the good side. But few things are perfect.

This is faced with the fact that the good side is expected to be whiter than new fallen snow, and as we know that ain't so.

So expect a sh*tstorm when the bad apple on the good side steps out of line.

This. I get that they're held to a higher standard. What annoys me is the hypocrisy involved when scrotes kick off because of what a cop did, and see their criminal activity as justified. You'd think out-virtuing the police would be the way to go but the temptation of free stuff for the criminally inclined is just too much for their weak morals, those same morals they expect in police under extremes of duress and provocation.
 
The insulate mongs have given Boris 10 days or they will unleash hell

Now if i do the typical left wing trick of removing all context and only focusing on a few specific words - that sounds very much like a threat to launch terrorist attacks.

I wonder if it can be made to stick
 
They might as well be called Insurrection Britain, it's all about the overthrow of a democratically elected government

At least the name would be more honest then
 

Allan74

Old-Salt
Or the jury could have been influenced by BLM and they were afraid that it would all kick if if they had found him not guilty and they didn't want to be responsible for that. Atkinson was extremely violent as he had severe mental health issues. People like that have the strengh of ten men, as you would know if you had to deal with anyone like that. But you are another armchair expert.
The point being if PC Monk had been honest about using the boot, the Jury, may well have given him the benefit of the doubt but a supposedly trained, experienced Police Officer standing up and trying to maintain that he could not recall if he kicked DA in the head doesn't look that credible when scientific evidence showed the lace print pattern on DAs head and the force required to imprint that pattern.

And applying the logic of accusing me of being an armchair expert, then surely you must have no time for jury trials when those selected also become instant experts when it comes to assessing evidence and the credibility of witnesses.

Would you like to see only the Police sit in judgement on the Police?
 
The point being if PC Monk had been honest about using the boot, the Jury, may well have given him the benefit of the doubt but a supposedly trained, experienced Police Officer standing up and trying to maintain that he could not recall if he kicked DA in the head doesn't look that credible when scientific evidence showed the lace print pattern on DAs head and the force required to imprint that pattern.

And applying the logic of accusing me of being an armchair expert, then surely you must have no time for jury trials when those selected also become instant experts when it comes to assessing evidence and the credibility of witnesses.

Would you like to see only the Police sit in judgement on the Police?

One of the first things i/we were taught was "Never lie, justify." Especially in what was termed a "dynamic struggle". If you crack someone across the head with your baton (not allowed), don't deny it happened. Explain that you were aiming for an arm but the scrote moved and copped one to his bonce.

I've been accused of all sorts and seen video of myself trying to arrest someone who didn't really want to be arrested. Sometimes it looks terrible, especially when shown in isolation, without context. If you explain what happened and why you made the decisions you did, there isn't much that can be done to you.

The above of course relies on being given a fair hearing.
 

Allan74

Old-Salt
By a retired police officer who’d been drinking resulting in the death of just another black man who was beaten to death.

Or

By a member of the public who wasn’t prepared to sit by and watch a crime being committed and was confronted by a sizeable looking lad wielding a baseball bat who wasn’t prepared to come quietly.

As I wasn’t there, and nor were the Mail or I assume any jurors, they and I will need to rely on the information as presented.

Also, imho it’s got precisely zero to do with being able to rely on the police as they don’t routinely camp out at the local Co Op waiting for it to be raided. Or you can spin it to say “you can’t rely on the police, even the retired ones not to take the opportunity to beat a black man to death when a thinly disguised excuse presents itself”.
Refreshinglybcynical.
 
The point being if PC Monk had been honest about using the boot, the Jury, may well have given him the benefit of the doubt but a supposedly trained, experienced Police Officer standing up and trying to maintain that he could not recall if he kicked DA in the head doesn't look that credible when scientific evidence showed the lace print pattern on DAs head and the force required to imprint that pattern.
And I suppose that the fact that such was the level of violence shown by Atkinson that the officers heart rate was going ten to the dozen, fearing for his own life and that of his partner that he couldn't quite recall the exact level of events that scientific evidence later proved. And the level of force is immaterial if it can be jusitified.

With hinsight the two officers should have just beat a very hasty retreat, some people would call it running away, and awaited reinforcements armed with full lengh shields and riot gear. By this time Atkinson would have probably killed his father and all the armchair experts would be 'tut tutting' about police cowardice.

However the officer stood his ground as he was worried not just for his rookie female partner but for the safety of Atkinson's elderly father who he was threatening to kill and who called police in the first case.

Would he have really have been found guilty if Atkinson's not been a famous former footballer who was black, the recent George Floyd trial were BLM were threatening to kick off if they didn't get the right result and the malign influence of BLM on the woke chattering class in the UK with 'taking the knee.'
 
I know we were taught to disengage if we thought the situation was too dangerous but it never occurred to me. Once things had kicked off it was on and i did what I could and mostly through instinct, there isn't much time to think. Most of the people i worked with were the same.

If it gets punchy you don't have time to stop and think about what the book says or if the person is having a bad or is in need of a mental health assessment.

When i joined my first plod job, the interview started with if i knew that i WOULD be spat on, punched, kicked and abused etc. Then it was if my family were aware of this. The selection and training (mostly) prepared us for reality and i can't remember any of my intake taking a backward step. We were prepared so i never occurred to us to "run away".

There were some useless twunts of course but not in my intake. The one person most people were worried about turned out to be very handy and willing.
 
The important thing i want to know and has been ignored by everyone is, was he a rap artists?
He may have missed his audition as it clashed with the date of his trial with Man U
 

Allan74

Old-Salt
And I suppose that the fact that such was the level of violence shown by Atkinson that the officers heart rate was going ten to the dozen, fearing for his own life and that of his partner that he couldn't quite recall the exact level of events that scientific evidence later proved. And the level of force is immaterial if it can be jusitified.

With hinsight the two officers should have just beat a very hasty retreat, some people would call it running away, and awaited reinforcements armed with full lengh shields and riot gear. By this time Atkinson would have probably killed his father and all the armchair experts would be 'tut tutting' about police cowardice.

However the officer stood his ground as he was worried not just for his rookie female partner but for the safety of Atkinson's elderly father who he was threatening to kill and who called police in the first case.

Would he have really have been found guilty if Atkinson's not been a famous former footballer who was black, the recent George Floyd trial were BLM were threatening to kick off if they didn't get the right result and the malign influence of BLM on the woke chattering class in the UK with 'taking the knee.'
The point being the Jury did not believe PC Monk when he said he could not recall what had happened...try making that defence as a Civilian and the Police and CPS won't let it go and neither will a jury.

Monk was found guilty, I reckon for being stupid and trying 'can't recall' as a defence. Maybe, and here I do agree with you, the Jury, just thought, after the 'I can't recall' bit, that the Police through Monk, have to be held accountable for their actions, especially in the current climate but if you're going to hit the Jury for convicting you'd better smash the officers who gathered evidence, the FSS who did their job and of course the CPS who took the case on.

Doesn't it occur to you, that Monk is the first copper in nearly 40 years to get jail over a death during arrest / in custody...it suggests to me that juries bend over backwards to give Coppers the benefit of the doubt in such cases.

Interesting point you mention about rookie partner, and the partner being female...are you saying female officers need extra protection or should not be on the streets dealing with potentially violent incidents?
 

Allan74

Old-Salt
One of the first things i/we were taught was "Never lie, justify." Especially in what was termed a "dynamic struggle". If you crack someone across the head with your baton (not allowed), don't deny it happened. Explain that you were aiming for an arm but the scrote moved and copped one to his bonce.

I've been accused of all sorts and seen video of myself trying to arrest someone who didn't really want to be arrested. Sometimes it looks terrible, especially when shown in isolation, without context. If you explain what happened and why you made the decisions you did, there isn't much that can be done to you.

The above of course relies on being given a fair hearing.
Is there any suggestion the officer did not get a fair hearing?
 
The above of course relies on being given a fair hearing.
If coppers cannot confer over note making then jurors should have separate rooms to retire to.
 
I thought that changed in the nineties when a judge stated that police should be encouraged to confer? Do you remember EPIC? Of course no officers confered prior to that. No siree Bob.
I am hardly likely to agree with the first part having had a judge in the 90s agree with the defence that I should be denied my original notes on a rape case, (at Maidstone as the ILCC trial was mistried due to a juror) after stating that we had all conferred at the scene of what was a most unusual call, the first responders had been the LFB and the suspect was destroying evidence as they had looked on.*
They do not even like you being in the same room when you write your notes.
Just read and refresh your memory from your original notes before you are called and be straight up when asked where and when they were made.

*Chummy got four years despite the defence getting three legs up.
 
In this Citizens Arrest, 9 people sat on him to stop him from escaping. The sad aspect being the bigger the perp, the more people will be determined that this criminal won't be getting up to fight them any time soon! So the perps own muscled physique killed him.
 
In this Citizens Arrest, 9 people sat on him to stop him from escaping. The sad aspect being the bigger the perp, the more people will be determined that this criminal won't be getting up to fight them any time soon! So the perps own muscled physique killed him.
He wasn't trying to escape when he was stamping on the head of the first to have a go.
 
Top