the police have gone mad

[tatt]

why did they pay out money to this boy?

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/31/nbin131.xml

I bet if the same situation had occurred only the boy has smashed up someones car he would have still got his £4000 for what the policeman did and would have probably got a caution for smashing the car! So the justice in that would have been some poor fucker would have had his car smashed in and probably would have had to buy a new one, meanwhile the little shit gets £4000 for the privalage!(just an example by the way) makes me sick!

But if you allow coppers to give a 'clip round the ear' where doyou draw the line, when is it not acceptable?

Was it acceptable to stand on my BILs neck? To give him grazes down his arms? Bruises on his chest and a black eye?

Or would just a black eye be OK?

What 'ACTS' deserved a physical punishment by police robbery? GBH?

If they happen upon a murder or rape would they have the right to instil a 'real beating' as that crime is so much more serious??

NO, punishments are to be decided by judges and juries and to be given in the form of custodial sentances.

Its not a policemans job to decide.

"I bet if the same situation had occurred only the boy has smashed up someones car he would have still got his £4000 for what the policeman did and would have probably got a caution for smashing the car!"

yes and if the police man had just done his job and issued a caution or arrested the kid without deciding to assault him he would not have gotten any money. i haven't seen the video but from the description (mates standing round laughing/copper just walking off) it does not sound as though the kid was threatening physical violence or resisting any attempted arrest or warning so their was no need for the copper to lay a hand on him other than if he wanted to put cuffs on him or arrest him.the boy isn't getting paid for breaking the law, he is getting paid because the officer went beyond the powers he is legally permitted.

But our judges and juries are failing to give out harsh punishments for mindless criminals. It's a joke and what about the victim who suffers because of these criminals? They don't get £4000, they would be very lucky to get an appology!

i agree - but becuase the justice system is an arse - doesn't and SHOULDN@T give our police force the right to take dishing out punishment

that is what the justice system is for.

agree

I agree with whiskeyandbeer.

I had a friend who grew up in the 1970s in St Pauls (an area of Bristol that had big race riots in the 1980s). He is still terrified of the police after growing up watching them kicking several types of hell into people.

ALlowing police to deal out physical punishments is not the way to deal with problems. We've had that and the system was abused.

But the copper didn't beat him up/stamp on his neck/give him black eyes, he put him in a rubbish bin, having been goaded by the boy and egged on by his mates who were sooooo obviously worried they videoed it on their phones whille falling about laughing.

Personally I think humiliation is probably the best way of dealing with yoofs like this - they strut around like they're untouchable, bellowing about their rights (but fully ignorant of responsibility).

It's just hair raising where the judicial system's priorities lie (I'm thinking of my FIL who has to leave a light on his shop so that if robbers broke in, they won't sue him for falling down stairs because it was dark - no this is not a joke).

He was a minor out causing grief by throwing conkers at people. Even if the policeman had arrested him he would have got of light with a caution because that is what our justice system is like. The little shit deserved a bit of humiliation for what he was doing and so what if he was called 'bin boy', if he hadn't of been out causing grief the whole incident wouldn't have happened. If the little shit had hurt someone by his conker throwing i suspect that person wouldn't have got £4000. The little shit saw a loophole and took advantage!

i can't see how "juries are failing", they are there to pass judgment and if they decide that there is not enough evidence to convict or that someone is innocent, then in the eyes of the law and soceity the person has committed no crime. i can see why people get annoyed about what is perceived as leniant sentencing in some cases and down right stupid in others. but that doesn't mean the cops can take the law into their own hands just cause they don't like the results.
there is a system of due process in place for a reason and no one is guilty until they are proven to be in a court of law (except with ASBO's ) as such the cop picked up and put an innocent kid (as he was charged with nothing) into a bin rather than following due process. if he wanted to discipline him then arrest him or issue him a fine and let the courts decide.

but the point is one leads to another - if you allow the police to give clips round the ear, or other minor physical punishments then you lead to more and more.

The same era people are referring to when the police were allowed to give clips round the ear/dunk kids in bins is the same era of blatant police brutality.

How can you have one without other.

And as WhiskeyandBeer says there are proceedures adn actions that are in place for that type of offence. If they choose to ignore them for one offence and get off, then what guidelines will they refuse to follow for the next offence. It spirals.

'Innocent kid' - has anyone been to Stokey or Hackney of late? The groups of youths often larking about are well known for their innocent behaviour and high jinks .

An innocent kid eh The policeman didn't just go up to a random kid on the street and put him in a bin. He intervended in a group who were throwing conkers (which could prove very dangerous if it hit someone hard) and told them to stop and move on in which case the group got gobby and so he deserved the humililtion he received. He didn't kick the shit out of him, he probably thought there was more justist by humililating this kid than there would be by arresting him and him getting a caution like so many other thugs get.

The justise system in this country has no time for cases like this which is why they get cautioned everytime. It's a joke.

"'Innocent kid' - has anyone been to Stokey or Hackney of late? The groups of youths often larking about are well known for their innocent behaviour and high jinks "

yes innocent kid. as i mentioned no charges where brought and there was not even a suggestion in the article linked that it was him throwing conkers.
"The officer and his colleagues were investigating a report of youngsters throwing conkers at passers-by in Stoke Newington, north London"

in your country (as in mine) you can not claim someone to be guilty of an offence and punish them without due process which is exactly what this cop did. there was a report of "youngsters" throwing conkers which in no way accuses or proves that this particular kid was doing so. if the cop believed him to be guilty of the offence and had proof then report him or arrest him, if he thought it warrented discipline.

So a policeman who has seen it with his own eyes has to arrest him, charge him, take him to court to get a bunch of people who didn't see it happen to decide whether it did happen or not and then issue a caution. Ok then

The policeman delt with it with a bit of humililtion because he probably knew that would be the only punishment this lad would get. We all know that he wouldn't be punished like most thugs aren't and the fact you can say otherwise is ridiculas.

"So a policeman who has seen it with his own eyes has to arrest him, charge him, take him to court to get a bunch of people who didn't see it happen to decide whether it did happen or not and then issue a caution"

where does it say the police man saw any of them throwing a concker?
and even if he did, yes that is the system as with all criminal activity it is not up to the police to decide on the appropriate punishment or guilt of the person.

Well then lets let the police arrest yobs and let the system deal with them.

Caution anyone?...

sorry i don't understand the question in your last post.
was it
"do we bother cautionining anyone?"
sorry

thee is a definite mix in where the blame is being pointed in this thread.

the title should read - has the justice system gone mad?

the police use the powers given to them - they cannot go round willy nilly declaring " this kid threw conkers .....send him down for 15 years"

no, their powers say - caution ( maybe)

if you want the police to have greater powers - then you are advocating for judicial reform

rather than slagging the police - who are just the monkeys

the police settled this case out of court - which is why it's headed as it is. If it went to court would a judge have been daft enough to award 4000 - or would he have said the policeman shouldn't have done it but you should have obeyed when he asked you to move along. No harm done so both do better in future!

You can have the police being allowed to deal with minor misbehaviour without arresting someone or you can have people arrested for minor infringments. If someone is beaten up by a policeman they can sue and it would be fair enough to settle out of court.

whiskeyandbeer-so you are saying that somebody can only be guilty and deserving of punishment if they have been convicted in a court of law?

bullshit.

"whiskeyandbeer-so you are saying that somebody can only be guilty and deserving of punishment if they have been convicted in a court of law?"

no i'm saying that they can only legally be punished if they are found guilty.of course lots of little scrotes deserve a kicking and lots of guilty people manage to get off on a technicallity and are deemed innocent in the eyes of the law and soceity.but that is the system we abide by as the alternative is far too frightening where by people are punished by the powers that be without being proven guilty through due process.and in this particular case we have a cop who overstepped the authority and power granted to him by the state.
sure it's funny to put him in a bin but what is the next step? is a clip round the ear ok?how about a punch?then two punches or three? the cop had no right to do so and acted outside of the law, what if the kid has put his hands on the copper or tripped him up in a funny way would that be acceptable? police have no right to issue punishments or employ procedures where they are not expressly granted such powers by the state.

ok.

i didnt mean to stand up for the police,and tbh i'm rather that this wasnt allowed to go to court,as i have known of some genuine police brutality cases where the officers in question got away with it,which is what usually happens from what ive heard.

i cant help but feel sad,though,that this sort of case is going to give the little thugs more power.their parents will be telling them to goad the police so they can get a few grand for nothing.

"i cant help but feel sad,though,that this sort of case is going to give the little thugs more power.their parents will be telling them to goad the police so they can get a few grand for nothing."

and that is a truely sad situation and abuse of the system akin to people who fall "accidently" on purpose in supermarkets to get insurance pay outs. the system hasn't evolved to deal with these little scrotes yet but i know what the cop did was wrong. if they are found to be goading the police or failing to move on when asked then the cops can issue a warning or a fine if they're involved in public intoxication etc, unfortunately at the moment thats all they can do. i know the kid deserved some retribution and humiliation and i agree 4 grand is excessive but as i said earlier i think the imperative regarding those we entrust with power is to ensure they don't abuse it.and when you start letting them away with minor abuses (even though we know they happen) it leads to resentment from the public and cops engaging in greater abuses as it is seen as the norm for them to be "above the law"