If a police officer arrested you like Wayne Couzens?

[faithfulbird20]

Unfortunately it's taken losing Sarah to such a horrific crime to ask such a question. But what are we supposed to do. Someone arrests you off duty and you don't know whether u can trust them due to this case. What would you do? Ring 999 and say I'm being arrested by so and so but I don't know if he's on duty or if he's dodgy please can you log it somewhere. I just want to know if I'm definitely being taken to the police station I feel unsafe. There should be some sort of law. But what could you do? You've got no chance. No chance of safety. It's scary.

@NiceGerbil

I'm really interested in which area of London Felix works in. Not outing as so many officers in London.

Where they patrol on foot (alone?) not infrequently.

And it's not uncommon for people to go up and ask him to do a stop AND search on random other people about.

Fascinating.

I don't work in London or anywhere near. And yes, we tend to be single crewed in response cars.

I think I thought you were met because with the infiltration of green groups.

Your comments gave me the impression that you were, but they were a totally separate dept or something.

Thanks for clearing up that you're not met. I have always lived in London so only know met. SE her murderer was met of course. It's interesting to hear about other forces but the met are a different kettle of fish in so many ways, I don't think what other areas are like should be applied across the board IE applied to met.

Anyway had a little look back.

Re the comment just now about victim blaming.

There was a post about this woman's murder. Excerpts from media about it:

'Police apologise to family of domestic abuse victim, 34, who they said should have 'used her legs' to escape partner before he killed her'
'Suzanne Van Hagen, 34, was murdered by abusive partner John Worton in 2013
Police initially told family it was murder but told the press it was drugs overdose
Family battled to reveal the truth and 2017 review showed evidence was missed
A 2019 inquiry found marks on her neck were as a result of violence from Worton
Now West Midlands Police Chief Sir David Thompson has apologised for failings'.

Your response was to say essentially. Nothing about terrible etc.
Just. Don't forget it's difficult for us when it comes to DV!... I've had victims attack me. (Usually being women).

When it's put like that. Can you see why your response might well attract criticism? Or do you see your response as AOK?

(Posts in question below)

'11:05VladmirsPoutine

I was just reading about the tragic case of Suzanne Van Hagen - police were called multiple times to the flat she shared with her abusive partner. On one occasion they were rang after she'd been attacked by her abusive partner and they instead arrested her because they found weed belonging to her abuser (who was left to go free). This was all many years ago but demonstrates the core of policing.'

Your response was
'11:31Felix125

Yes, horrendous

But, bare in mind that what we get called to and what we are presented with at the address can be two completely different things.

It happens quite a few times that we have ended up arresting the initial caller because it transpires that they have been the aggressor.

I have also been attacked by a victim whilst I have been arresting the perpetrator on numerous occasions too.'

Oh and

You have to establish who the victim is first.

Yeeessss... In the case cited in the post you were replying too.

It can't have been tricky because it was the one who was dead.

I can't understand why you think your post is relevant in any way to the post your response was about.

I said it was horrendous - if you want me to use terrible as well, I will

I was answering the query in the paragraph - seemingly asking why they had arrested her - despite finding cannabis belonging to him in the flat. Seems a very bizarre thing to have done, to arrest her and not him when the drugs belong to him.

My point was that when police arrived on that occasion - it appears that another offence had occurred/was occurring that trumped the possession of cannabis.

Hence "...what we get called to and what we are presented with at the address can be two completely different things...."

The overall picture transpires that she was a victim of DV over many years which resulted in her murder. This is horrendous and a failing of the police as was stated in the article and I'm not trying to say otherwise.

".....Your response was to say essentially. Nothing about terrible etc.
Just. Don't forget it's difficult for us when it comes to DV!... I've had victims attack me. (Usually being women)...."

I never said that the person who attacked me was - 'usually a woman'

You have to establish who the victim is first.
Yeeessss... In the case cited in the post you were replying too.
It can't have been tricky because it was the one who was dead.

She wasn't dead in this post - as she was arrested

You don't accept that DV victims. That the police are called. Are generally women?

That's your experience? Really? It's 50/50 or predominantly male victims? That are in situations where they or a neighbour etc calls 999?

Interesting. I'm sure stats say otherwise but maybe you have more recent figures?

And by the way.

Yes that's horrendous BUT...
What about me? What about what the police go through?

About a case where a woman was murdered, the force involved apologised and admitted failings?

Ok then.

The post opened with tragic case. Of course it was about her being murdered because police were hopeless.

One example was given of police behaviour and you focussed only on that in your reply.

@NiceGerbil

You don't accept that DV victims. That the police are called. Are generally women?

That's your experience? Really? It's 50/50 or predominantly male victims? That are in situations where they or a neighbour etc calls 999?

Interesting. I'm sure stats say otherwise but maybe you have more recent figures?

And by the way.

Yes that's horrendous BUT...
What about me? What about what the police go through?

About a case where a woman was murdered, the force involved apologised and admitted failings?

Ok then.

I don't quite follow you here

I haven't said its 50/50 or predominately male victims
And yes, statistics show that the victims of DV are predominately women - I haven't tried to say otherwise. And I haven't tried to deny that they were failings - in fact i acknowledged that very point.

And its not a case of 'what about me'

I'm merely answer the point raised as to why the female was arrested when the police found cannabis at the flat belonging to him.

And yes, my reply was focused on the one example given of police behaviour - because that was the example given. I don't quite follow you on this?

The opening line of tragedy didn't clue you in? And 'one example'.

Did you already know about this murder or Google it before you answered?

'It happens quite a few times that we have ended up arresting the initial caller because it transpires that they have been the aggressor.

I have also been attacked by a victim whilst I have been arresting the perpetrator on numerous occasions too.'

'And yes, statistics show that the victims of DV are predominately women - I haven't tried to say otherwise'.

That's contradictory.

The caller is unlikely to be the aggressor. A neighbour etc who calls is unlikely to be the aggressor.

Therefore in general.
If you find out the caller is actually the aggressor
Or are attacked by the victim

The likehood is that it's the woman. Who turned out to be the attacker, or who attacked you.

The fundamental problem here is that Felix125, by her own account, doesn't appear to believe the victims of VAWG. He clearly turns up at DV incidents with the mindset that the 'victim' could be lying. Of course it's a possibility, but a very small one, that diminishes further when it comes to the gruelling practicalities of pursuing a false rape allegation, witness statements, going to court, etc etc.

And you can be 100% sure that he doesn't turn up at the house of a burglary victim with the attitude 'are you sure you owned a telly'? He doesn't (to give a cognate for the example he gave upthread) arrive at a fraud victim's house and give them three points for the tread on their tyres.

You can also be fucking certain that he doesn't say to a (straight) man who claims he's been raped - are you sure you're not making this up to get him into trouble?

It's only women who have been assaulted by men who get this special treatment. It is deep-seated institutional misogyny and it is disgusting.

@NiceGerbil

'It happens quite a few times that we have ended up arresting the initial caller because it transpires that they have been the aggressor.

I have also been attacked by a victim whilst I have been arresting the perpetrator on numerous occasions too.'

'And yes, statistics show that the victims of DV are predominately women - I haven't tried to say otherwise'.

That's contradictory.

The caller is unlikely to be the aggressor. A neighbour etc who calls is unlikely to be the aggressor.

Therefore in general.
If you find out the caller is actually the aggressor
Or are attacked by the victim

The likehood is that it's the woman. Who turned out to be the attacker, or who attacked you.

Whats contradictory?

Not very often - but it does happen quite a few times. So say 1 in 100 cases of calls to service for any reason might fit into this. You extrapolate this out over a number a years, then by definition it will have happened quite a few times by actual number.

And you can't just generalise things to conclude that the likelihood it was a woman. Every incident will be different.

@thedancingbear

The fundamental problem here is that Felix125, by her own account, doesn't appear to believe the victims of VAWG. He clearly turns up at DV incidents with the mindset that the 'victim' could be lying. Of course it's a possibility, but a very small one, that diminishes further when it comes to the gruelling practicalities of pursuing a false rape allegation, witness statements, going to court, etc etc.

And you can be 100% sure that he doesn't turn up at the house of a burglary victim with the attitude 'are you sure you owned a telly'? He doesn't (to give a cognate for the example he gave upthread) arrive at a fraud victim's house and give them three points for the tread on their tyres.

You can also be fucking certain that he doesn't say to a (straight) man who claims he's been raped - are you sure you're not making this up to get him into trouble?

It's only women who have been assaulted by men who get this special treatment. It is deep-seated institutional misogyny and it is disgusting.

Where I have said I don't believe victims?

You have to first establish who that victim is. So we take the initial call as a starting point. When we arrive, generally it will be as its has been stated on the call - but sometimes is doesn't play out like that. That's all I'm saying. Don't try and state that i only deal in absolutes.

I'll give you a common example we get on nights. Male phones police stating a DV incident at the address as he is being refused entry to the home and the same thing happened the previous night. She is in the house with the kids and he's not happy and quoted that this is harassment/coercive behaviour. On our arrival, it transpires that he has come back from a night out drunk and she is refusing him entry due to his intoxicated state. She is sober, calm and the children are well looked after and asleep. So he is the initial caller and the initial victim - but on our arrival it quickly transpires that she is more the victim here and we deal with it as such.

I turn up at house burglaries and investigate it. And you can be 100% certain I will ask questions when they say they have had a 70inch TV stolen via a small window. Or they state that the burglar has stolen a top of the range car, but the victim can't give me any reg, documentation etc for it and doesn't have two pennies to rub together - or they claim that they have broken a window to get in, which has obviously been damage for a long time (dusty cobwebs across the damage, no signs of broken glass on the floor). Or should i just believe the victims here? Crime it and allow them to claim on the insurance?

And for rapes as a first responder - its not up to me to challenge the account of the victim. I'm purely there to obtain their initial account and recover evidence (clothing, medical samples etc), identify the scene etc.

The police work from a standpoint of believing the victims account for rapes and sexual assaults from the off - so we don't lose potential opportunities to gather evidence. And we do this for victims/survivors regardless of gender

The challenges beyond that form part of the investigation later, before it gets presented to CPS. From an investigation point of view, we can not ignore evidence which appears to contradict what the victim has said to us. Or do you say that this should be ignored?

I do think its a different situation re funding in the UK versus the USA. In the UK, lack of officers etc means that they are often by themselves rather than as part of a pair. Apart from the argument that 2 officers can police each others behaviour (which does rely on them not both being bad) it also means that if a police officer encounters anything dangerous they need to call for back up. Which makes whistleblowing on colleagues/reporting sexual harassment etc potentially harder because if you annoy your colleagues they might not come as quickly (or at all). So while I have been quite critical of the police I can understand why (for example) a female police officer might be reluctant to report a colleagues harassment of her if she is later going to be out by herself relying on that persons friends to come and stop her getting beaten up if it all goes south.
Less money also means less resources to carry out background checks.
Having lived in much poorer countries lower wages/career progression for the police also = even more corruption.
Not saying the culture in many police forces doesn't need to change urgently - just saying that in this case cutting numbers of funding could be counterproductive.

In the examples that came to your mind where quite a few victims turned out to be the aggressor, and the the one who attacked you?

What sex were the ones who claimed to be victims but weren't
And what was the sex of the victim who attacked you?

Let's go back to the specific examples that came to mind when you wrote your post.

'apalledandshocked

I do think its a different situation re funding in the UK versus the USA. In the UK, lack of officers etc means that they are often by themselves rather than as part of a pair'

In my decades of experience with the met.

Outside of high profile Central London type areas.

Foot patrols are practically never seen. Car patrols are very rare.

They have always been in pairs for maybe 35 years.

Or more often loads in a van, doing 1000 with lights going - responding not patrolling, or in helicopters.

@NiceGerbil

In the examples that came to your mind where quite a few victims turned out to be the aggressor, and the the one who attacked you?

What sex were the ones who claimed to be victims but weren't
And what was the sex of the victim who attacked you?

Let's go back to the specific examples that came to mind when you wrote your post.

I would say it was a fair mix of male to female 50/50

I have been attacked by males, I have been attacked be females.
I have been lied to by males, I have been lied to by females.

Wayne Couzens is a rarity and hopefully any male officers that harbour fantasies about doing the same as Wayne (which I doubt) will see this case and realise that there ain’t a hope in hell of getting away with this.

I just don’t like the sound of many male officers that work in the MET full stop, the female officers are too scared to report sexual harassment from their fellow male colleagues incase they get themselves into issues whereby they need help, and the men won’t come, that is utterly diabolical to me and all those officers with that mentality need sacked immediately regardless of them having had a verbal warning, or a written warning, or even suspension with full pay, which is just a fucking holiday let’s face it, it boils my blood.

The Met needs a complete overhaul, I’m beginning to think that the Met attracts misogynistic, homophobic and racist men for the very fact they are all these horrible things, I know police are just human but I expect them to be 100% nice and professional at all times when dealing with folks.

Interesting.

Your experience is that when you respond to a call about DV. In the examples that came to your head in the thread about a murder of a woman where the police admitted and apologised for multiple failings. And one example was where they were called to the home and arrested her for possession when the cannabis was his.

Your mind immediately went to examples in your experience attending DV reports.

Where you had been attacked by the victim / the victim turned out to the the aggressor. And those people have been 50% male 50% female. In DV an equal split in the sexes as women lie/ attack police officers as much as men.

Very interesting.

I'm also still not sure why your brain went to that, when what the police did in the case of the murdered women who had been subject to a catalogue of police failings, and the cannabis arrest was used as an example. Which indicates that it was one of the failings the police presumably acknowledged.

That was in response to Felix last post. Sorry not clear.

HateJudgemental- yes.

nice and kind might be for me just professional. But yes.

The quote was in response to the post by VladmirsPoutine.

And it doesn't say in her quote that the female was arrested for possession. It merely says she was arrested, If they have found cannabis belonging to him, then why have they arrested her? How is that going to get past a custody seargeant? Far easier to arrest him and charge him as you know its his.

My response to that quote is the fact that if it has been established that he is the owner of the cannabis, then he should have been the one who was arrested. Fairly minor crime, but a crime nonetheless which he can be arrested for - and you can take positive action.

Now for some reason, she was arrested. Now, bear in mind I wasn't there and know nothing about the case other than this quoted example. So, why was she arrested? Was there another offence which has come to light or occurred at the address which was more significant than a simple possession? Does this offence pose a greater threat, harm or risk to other persons present? Was that arrest therefore necessary?

I'm merely pointing out that - sometimes - what we get called to and what presents when we get there are two different things.

And yes, my mind will go to my past experiences. Its the way people's minds work. Especially if your talking about a DV case, then my mind will go to DV cases I've been at. And I wasn't the one who brought the example up in the first place. And I can only assume it was brought up on a discussion forum to prompt a discussion on it.

As I said before, I'm merely pointing out that - sometimes - what we get called to and what presents when we get there are two different things.

And don't spin this either by saying that - just because my experiences in such cases are 50/50 - then you can equate that to the national figures of domestic abuse? I know they are significantly higher female victims of DV than male and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.

I know the stats thanks.

Your experience that with dv when you've been attacked by the victim, they were 50/50. And where the victim lied and were actually the aggressor. Also 50/50.

It's also interesting that in an example of police failure in a DV case where the woman was eventually murdered. You don't say yeah they fucked up.

But to explain why there could well be more to it than meets the eye and sounds unlikely that it happened as reported.

Fair enough.

@NiceGerbil

I know the stats thanks.

Your experience that with dv when you've been attacked by the victim, they were 50/50. And where the victim lied and were actually the aggressor. Also 50/50.

It's also interesting that in an example of police failure in a DV case where the woman was eventually murdered. You don't say yeah they fucked up.

But to explain why there could well be more to it than meets the eye and sounds unlikely that it happened as reported.

Fair enough.

Yes - I have said that there failings, I haven't said otherwise.

But you have to take each call on its own grounds. You can't just always assume that the same person will necessarily be the victim.