A question about Henry Nowak….

[CurlewKate]

Is there any actual evidence to support the suggestion that this completely awful event had anything to do with with “two tier policing” and was a hideous example of appalling policing and in particular, appalling first responding? It is unforgivable that the police didn’t check Nowak properly for injuries. But there was no weapon at the scene and the police were met with 4 people who had called them and were all telling the same story.They made assumptions which they would probably have made regardless of the ethnicity of the people involved. And in 999 cases out of 1000 the assumptions would have been right. The sort of judgement call the police have to make all the time. So it seems to me that it’s not about policy, it’s about incompetence.

Is this the Dr who saw all the medical evidence and opined that Henry, very sadly, would likely have died due to the nature of his injuries? If it isn’t, who gives a shit what a random comment on X thinks?!

They had handcuffed him before this i highly suggest you watch the actual video

But Henry was on their property.
The police call stated that he was dangerous, drunk and potentially armed.

They arrived ‘knowing’ that he was the perpetrator and potentially cause a lot of problems for them.

He was not speaking clearly (for obvious reasons) yet everyone else was speaking clearly, had their story straight and were in ‘shock’ out of fear of the ‘dangerous man’ on their property.

When a woman phones the police on her abusive DH, he is immediately taken away in handcuffs, even if she is lying.

It is what they are trained to do.

It’s absolutely disgusting and my heart breaks for Henry but I do think the police were acting in the way that they had been trained to do when faced with potentially dangerous perpetrators.

I don’t know why it is not part of the training to immediately check everyone for weapons and injuries but then I guess everyone was, it just wasn’t fast enough.

Have all of those asking why the police didn’t do x, y or z stopped to think that that’s what the investigation is for ?

Nobody apart from them truly knows why they did or didn’t do anything. The IOPC will do their investigation; and then there may well be answers available.

But without that, saying they definitely did treat him differently because he was white, or guessing why they acted in the way they did in the order they did, is just that - guesswork.

Why were they 'pandering to him' by allowing him to choose his meals? Because the police absolutely love all brown people and are in fact racist against white ones? That seems to be the opposite of the reputation of the police up until extremely recently?

Who said he was armed?
The call handler asks many times were weapons involved and he was told no by killers brother.

The violence was the.fake turban pulled off.

I was catching up on Masterchef and eating dinner. But I have posted a couple of times-and will post again. What would you like me to expand on? Incidentally-it’s interesting that you think a suggestion that this incident is perhaps not appropriate for knee reactions is “provocative”…..

That’s their job to assess and they failed.

Given it was the last minutes before poor Henry’s death he’s hardly going to be physically capable is he.

The dying Henry was handcuffed in a weak state the killer wasn't at all.

I can't understand why people can't see that hypocrisy and difference and this one part of the mess that the family said hurt them..

Ie their boy was handcuffed for supposedly pulling a turban off and being racist. The murder suspect was not handcuffed.

Yep and the police training on not treating people the same.

He was lying on his side whilst he was getting handcuffed.

At first someone was trying to keep him sat up and you can hear them saying he had blood in his mouth.

But he kept slumping to the side and the person said he keeps slumping to his side, obviously because he was dying.

The woman officer said should we sit him up and the other police officer argued that he didn’t want him chocking on his blood which is why he said keep him on his side.

I don’t actually know the protocol, I’m assuming being kept on your side is the protocol because we put injured people in the recovery position.

So again, I can invite someone to my house, have my family there, kill them, my family tell the police “oh they’re the baddie” and I get off as the poor victim?

If im being assaulted by a violent man on my property and I called the police and have multiple witnesses saying they see it happen I would hope the police would come and detain him immediately for my safety while it got cleared up and not just turn up and just start initially accusing me and in 99.9% of cases this would be the correct and expected way for it to go. It bothers me now in the future this may not be the case.

Obviously not, because the murderer didn’t get off.

Of course they should be in jail. They perverted the course of justice (I think that’s what it’s called) But that’s nothing to do with “two tier” policing.

Get real Henry was dying. He was not a threat.

Yes at first.

You would say they broke into your home and you protected yourself.

It happens all of the time.

My friend was arrested because his ex invited him to her home and then called the police for attempted rape and DV.

He was handcuffed and taken to the police station.

They’re not going to assume that she was the one that was lying.

Fortunately, she had texts to prove that it was all a lie.

But when the police are called on someone acting ‘violently’, they will typically see them as the perpetrator and remove/arrest them to take them away from the ‘victim’.

I think some of his family was jailed wasn't they?

Nobody, not the killer or any of his family were assaulted, wee they?

No not for perverting the course of justice.

For murder

No. You can’t. Although there are plenty of defenders for people who have done exactly that.

He didn't get off. It was clearly his intent to get off, but once the police realised that Henry had been stabbed they realised they had been lied to. What the lies did do is succeed in temporarily making the police think Henry Novak was the aggressor such that he was handcuffed and not immediately given treatment. And that's also on the police for not assessing the situation with an open mind, being too willing to accept Henry Novak was the aggressor and not checking properly for stab wounds. Why they acted in this way isn't yet known. That's for the inquiry. Once the police realised Henry had been stabbed they gave first aid but this was after he was unconscious which is tragic. But they didn't known he had been stabbed and handcuff him anyway. Though they should have looked.

But the murderer is in prison now.

Your not understanding.

I think they’d have had to have… murdered him.

Accessory to murder, perhaps. But surely they can’t get sent down for murder having not murdered him.

Of course he was not a threat but the police arrived at the scene believing he was as they were called out because of him.

What do you expect them to do?
Not turn up when rang?
Not believe the apparent victim?