Police brutality on film...
19 November 2010, 09:16 AM
#121
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twout
The sublime to the ridiculous - whilst i do not drink and drive (which apparently you do not seem to understand is wrong?!*!) i can drink without getting into fights, calling up family and insulting them and feeling the need to drink-drive over to make up or getting in trouble with the police - this hardly makes me a tea total or a sherry drinker - more a responsible adult capable of letting down what little hair i have left but without breaking the law or hurting others in the process of having a great time - is that so difficult for you to understand or comprehend - maybe says more about you than me
Using your weak-minded approach i could class you as one of those porsche driving high self-opinionated, chattering class know-it-all's who discuss this sort of thing after scanning through The Guardian and sitting down to a nice Risotto and cheeky little New World Chardonnay with their other friends who's experience of real life and the real world extends to mixing with the hoi-poli at Uni, watching X Factor and Corrie not because they want to but because they think (and i use the term loosely) they should...
The sublime to the ridiculous - whilst i do not drink and drive (which apparently you do not seem to understand is wrong?!*!) i can drink without getting into fights, calling up family and insulting them and feeling the need to drink-drive over to make up or getting in trouble with the police - this hardly makes me a tea total or a sherry drinker - more a responsible adult capable of letting down what little hair i have left but without breaking the law or hurting others in the process of having a great time - is that so difficult for you to understand or comprehend - maybe says more about you than me
Using your weak-minded approach i could class you as one of those porsche driving high self-opinionated, chattering class know-it-all's who discuss this sort of thing after scanning through The Guardian and sitting down to a nice Risotto and cheeky little New World Chardonnay with their other friends who's experience of real life and the real world extends to mixing with the hoi-poli at Uni, watching X Factor and Corrie not because they want to but because they think (and i use the term loosely) they should...
PS I don't drink alcohol and I don't read the Guardian, a little too pompous for my taste
19 November 2010, 09:28 AM
#123
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, not long at all - the words flowed out and afterwards i gave a huge sigh of contentment, knowing my work here was done.
19 November 2010, 10:27 AM
#124
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'lack of evidence' bit makes me laugh.
Refusing a breath test is an offence carrying the same penalties as drink driving (to stop people trying to get out of a more serious offence).
If asked to take a test you either do or you don't take it. There is no grey area and there is no need for evidence beyond clearly being asked by the cops to do it and saying no.
By all means refuse, get given the blood test if they can find a doc but do not kick off like a mindless drunken chav like this woman did then whinge about it afterwards.
*ring ring*
Cluephone - you are there because of your own actions. No one is to blame but you. Stupid woman.
5t.
Refusing a breath test is an offence carrying the same penalties as drink driving (to stop people trying to get out of a more serious offence).
If asked to take a test you either do or you don't take it. There is no grey area and there is no need for evidence beyond clearly being asked by the cops to do it and saying no.
By all means refuse, get given the blood test if they can find a doc but do not kick off like a mindless drunken chav like this woman did then whinge about it afterwards.
*ring ring*
Cluephone - you are there because of your own actions. No one is to blame but you. Stupid woman.
5t.
19 November 2010, 10:44 AM
#125
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 'lack of evidence' bit makes me laugh.
Refusing a breath test is an offence carrying the same penalties as drink driving (to stop people trying to get out of a more serious offence).
If asked to take a test you either do or you don't take it. There is no grey area and there is no need for evidence beyond clearly being asked by the cops to do it and saying no.
By all means refuse, get given the blood test if they can find a doc but do not kick off like a mindless drunken chav like this woman did then whinge about it afterwards.
*ring ring*
Cluephone - you are there because of your own actions. No one is to blame but you. Stupid woman.
5t.
Refusing a breath test is an offence carrying the same penalties as drink driving (to stop people trying to get out of a more serious offence).
If asked to take a test you either do or you don't take it. There is no grey area and there is no need for evidence beyond clearly being asked by the cops to do it and saying no.
By all means refuse, get given the blood test if they can find a doc but do not kick off like a mindless drunken chav like this woman did then whinge about it afterwards.
*ring ring*
Cluephone - you are there because of your own actions. No one is to blame but you. Stupid woman.
5t.
But, as I posted earlier, under the circumstances I would have thought the police would have done what ever tests necessary to prove she was in actual fact drunk to vindicate the action taken. As it stands now, there is doubt that she was and could possibly have been kicking off because of the way she felt was being treated.
19 November 2010, 10:52 AM
#126
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone behaving resonably doesn't behave like her.
Essentially she took offence to being asked to take a breath test and that forced the coppers to bring her in which made her even worse.
She is a stupid, angry drunk. In fact, similar to posh boy in that episode of Coppers last week who thought because he hadn't been in trouble before and had a decent job the police should leave him alone.
Thing is, she might have been trying to sleep off the booze but - cops see someone passed out in a car and do nothing = potential lawsuit
Cops wake up drunk motorist who argues that they weren't driving and try to book them for it - drunkard kicks off. Yes it seems harsh to do someone for 'drunk in charge' (which is what she would have got if they'd done a test) but who is to say that if she woke up a few hours later she wouldn't have tried driving home? Was she going to take a breath test herself before driving? what if she then hit one of your family members.
Responsible members of society without drink issues do not sleep off that much booze in their car. They call a cab/arrange a lift.
Again, she put herself in that situation, no one else and I'm happy the coppers did a good thing by getting her drunken *** off the street. Perhaps she'll try to do something about it now but it seems unlikely from this.
5t.
Essentially she took offence to being asked to take a breath test and that forced the coppers to bring her in which made her even worse.
She is a stupid, angry drunk. In fact, similar to posh boy in that episode of Coppers last week who thought because he hadn't been in trouble before and had a decent job the police should leave him alone.
Thing is, she might have been trying to sleep off the booze but - cops see someone passed out in a car and do nothing = potential lawsuit
Cops wake up drunk motorist who argues that they weren't driving and try to book them for it - drunkard kicks off. Yes it seems harsh to do someone for 'drunk in charge' (which is what she would have got if they'd done a test) but who is to say that if she woke up a few hours later she wouldn't have tried driving home? Was she going to take a breath test herself before driving? what if she then hit one of your family members.
Responsible members of society without drink issues do not sleep off that much booze in their car. They call a cab/arrange a lift.
Again, she put herself in that situation, no one else and I'm happy the coppers did a good thing by getting her drunken *** off the street. Perhaps she'll try to do something about it now but it seems unlikely from this.
5t.
19 November 2010, 01:21 PM
#128
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because refusing a road side breath test is an offence but not enough to convict you.
You need to be done by the calibrated machine at the station to be done for drink driving/drunk in charge. If there is a medical reason for not being able to do the breath test then you are asked to provide a blood sample (likewise if they think you are on drugs).
To do that they need a doc/nurse (someone qualified at least) sometimes, there isn't anyone, sometimes it takes an age for them to arrive so someone borderline could read under.
In this case she was refusing the breath test and therefore would have needed to be given a blood sample. given what happened they would have then ruled her unfit to take it therefore no charge for that.
It is the reason why refusing a breath test is the same penalty as drink driving because people used to play the system to stall for time.
Its also why 'insufficient evidence' is a joke.
"will you take a breath test?"
"No"
case closed IMHO.
5t.
You need to be done by the calibrated machine at the station to be done for drink driving/drunk in charge. If there is a medical reason for not being able to do the breath test then you are asked to provide a blood sample (likewise if they think you are on drugs).
To do that they need a doc/nurse (someone qualified at least) sometimes, there isn't anyone, sometimes it takes an age for them to arrive so someone borderline could read under.
In this case she was refusing the breath test and therefore would have needed to be given a blood sample. given what happened they would have then ruled her unfit to take it therefore no charge for that.
It is the reason why refusing a breath test is the same penalty as drink driving because people used to play the system to stall for time.
Its also why 'insufficient evidence' is a joke.
"will you take a breath test?"
"No"
case closed IMHO.
5t.
19 November 2010, 09:11 PM
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the link in the op really a youtube video?
I dare say the women was kicking off and needed some man handling to get her in the cell, but the way the sergeant strutted round to the cell and threw her to the floor looks way over the top to me.
If his innocence was so clear cut, how come he got convicted first time round?
I agree with RA Dunk though, not brutality, but certainly heavy handedness.
It will be interesting to see what happens next.
20 November 2010, 08:20 AM
#136
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good.
20 November 2010, 10:05 AM
#137
"The appeal judge, Mr Justice Bean, said after the four-day hearing he was satisfied that Sgt Andrews did not intend to throw Ms Somerville into the cell and that injuries she suffered "were probably caused by her falling to the floor after letting go of the door frame"."
The interesting point here is that the Judge formed the above view and one would assume that twelve members of the Jury on viewing the same evidence formed the opposite view regarding the intent of the defendant and the probable cause of the injuries- how can this be right?
If the Judge allowed the appeal on some point of order/techicality, I could understand.
What is the point of having a Jury bearing this in mind?
The interesting point here is that the Judge formed the above view and one would assume that twelve members of the Jury on viewing the same evidence formed the opposite view regarding the intent of the defendant and the probable cause of the injuries- how can this be right?
If the Judge allowed the appeal on some point of order/techicality, I could understand.
What is the point of having a Jury bearing this in mind?
20 November 2010, 10:10 AM
#138
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put
Because everybody gets procecuted as the CPS are just brilliant - Oh wait a mo i remember watching a pi$$ed up drugged up (found this out later) walk down the Wellingborough Road terrorising passers by attempting to smash shop windows pull people out of stationary cars and kick in almost every panel on a VW Polo he took a dislike to. He then resisted arrest and had to be pepper sprayed to subdue him
I gave a full statement to this effect as did my partner, having seen the episode. CPS dropped it...hardly infallible and certainly my reason to doubt the odd a decision or two
Twout
The sublime to the ridiculous - whilst i do not drink and drive (which apparently you do not seem to understand is wrong?!*!) i can drink without getting into fights, calling up family and insulting them and feeling the need to drink-drive over to make up or getting in trouble with the police - this hardly makes me a tea total or a sherry drinker - more a responsible adult capable of letting down what little hair i have left but without breaking the law or hurting others in the process of having a great time - is that so difficult for you to understand or comprehend - maybe says more about you than me
Using your weak-minded approach i could class you as one of those porsche driving high self-opinionated, chattering class know-it-all's who discuss this sort of thing after scanning through The Guardian and sitting down to a nice Risotto and cheeky little New World Chardonnay with their other friends who's experience of real life and the real world extends to mixing with the hoi-poli at Uni, watching X Factor and Corrie not because they want to but because they think (and i use the term loosely) they should...
Because everybody gets procecuted as the CPS are just brilliant - Oh wait a mo i remember watching a pi$$ed up drugged up (found this out later) walk down the Wellingborough Road terrorising passers by attempting to smash shop windows pull people out of stationary cars and kick in almost every panel on a VW Polo he took a dislike to. He then resisted arrest and had to be pepper sprayed to subdue him
I gave a full statement to this effect as did my partner, having seen the episode. CPS dropped it...hardly infallible and certainly my reason to doubt the odd a decision or two
Twout
The sublime to the ridiculous - whilst i do not drink and drive (which apparently you do not seem to understand is wrong?!*!) i can drink without getting into fights, calling up family and insulting them and feeling the need to drink-drive over to make up or getting in trouble with the police - this hardly makes me a tea total or a sherry drinker - more a responsible adult capable of letting down what little hair i have left but without breaking the law or hurting others in the process of having a great time - is that so difficult for you to understand or comprehend - maybe says more about you than me
Using your weak-minded approach i could class you as one of those porsche driving high self-opinionated, chattering class know-it-all's who discuss this sort of thing after scanning through The Guardian and sitting down to a nice Risotto and cheeky little New World Chardonnay with their other friends who's experience of real life and the real world extends to mixing with the hoi-poli at Uni, watching X Factor and Corrie not because they want to but because they think (and i use the term loosely) they should...
Good one
Les
20 November 2010, 10:21 AM
#139
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The appeal judge, Mr Justice Bean, said after the four-day hearing he was satisfied that Sgt Andrews did not intend to throw Ms Somerville into the cell and that injuries she suffered "were probably caused by her falling to the floor after letting go of the door frame"."
The interesting point here is that the Judge formed the above view and one would assume that twelve members of the Jury on viewing the same evidence formed the opposite view regarding the intent of the defendant and the probable cause of the injuries- how can this be right?
If the Judge allowed the appeal on some point of order/techicality, I could understand.
What is the point of having a Jury bearing this in mind?
The interesting point here is that the Judge formed the above view and one would assume that twelve members of the Jury on viewing the same evidence formed the opposite view regarding the intent of the defendant and the probable cause of the injuries- how can this be right?
If the Judge allowed the appeal on some point of order/techicality, I could understand.
What is the point of having a Jury bearing this in mind?
Last edited by Trout; 20 November 2010 at 10:25 AM.
20 November 2010, 11:11 AM
#141
People shouldn't expect too much from the legal system in this country.
Everybody seems to want to believe that everything about the UK is first class (even when they profess otherwise).
Is it really unpatriotic to say that any service provided by the state is likely to be second rate?
I certainly don't think so, it is just the way things are IMO and I can't understand why anyone would see this differently.
I acknowledge that am not very empathic though.
Everybody seems to want to believe that everything about the UK is first class (even when they profess otherwise).
Is it really unpatriotic to say that any service provided by the state is likely to be second rate?
I certainly don't think so, it is just the way things are IMO and I can't understand why anyone would see this differently.
I acknowledge that am not very empathic though.
20 November 2010, 03:33 PM
#142
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a bit odd though.
On appeal there are generally two routes: -
the first trial was flawed in due process/evidence; or
there is new evidence.
On the former the accused is usually acquitted and on the latter it should surely go to retrial.
If not then it only makes a mockery of trial by jury.
On appeal there are generally two routes: -
the first trial was flawed in due process/evidence; or
there is new evidence.
On the former the accused is usually acquitted and on the latter it should surely go to retrial.
If not then it only makes a mockery of trial by jury.
20 November 2010, 03:56 PM
#143
It is a bit odd though.
On appeal there are generally two routes: -
the first trial was flawed in due process/evidence; or
there is new evidence.
On the former the accused is usually acquitted and on the latter it should surely go to retrial.
If not then it only makes a mockery of trial by jury.
On appeal there are generally two routes: -
the first trial was flawed in due process/evidence; or
there is new evidence.
On the former the accused is usually acquitted and on the latter it should surely go to retrial.
If not then it only makes a mockery of trial by jury.
Would be interested to find out though, because it is something of a precedent otherwise.
20 November 2010, 04:34 PM
#144
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They will side with their own, no questions asked, check these out.......
1. Macclesfield express dated wednesday this week, a copper has been let off drink driving because he thought he was ordering weaker drinks, he has kept his license. I would love to see a member of the public get away with that excuse.........
2. Daily mirror dated friday this week, a copper has been let off a rape charge because of lack of evidence, the 22 year old girl says she woke up from a drunken stupor to find an off duty copper "having sex" with her, she claims there was no permission for him to do so but he hasnt been done and all charges have been dropped, if that was me cries of rape would ring out across the land and i would be fcuked!
they look after their own and NEVER expect a copper to be done to the FULL extent of the law, the ones that do go to court get miniscule punishments that dont fit the crime!
*****!!!!!!!
20 November 2010, 04:35 PM
#145
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
20 November 2010, 04:36 PM
#146
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone behaving resonably doesn't behave like her.
Essentially she took offence to being asked to take a breath test and that forced the coppers to bring her in which made her even worse.
She is a stupid, angry drunk. In fact, similar to posh boy in that episode of Coppers last week who thought because he hadn't been in trouble before and had a decent job the police should leave him alone.
Thing is, she might have been trying to sleep off the booze but - cops see someone passed out in a car and do nothing = potential lawsuit
Cops wake up drunk motorist who argues that they weren't driving and try to book them for it - drunkard kicks off. Yes it seems harsh to do someone for 'drunk in charge' (which is what she would have got if they'd done a test) but who is to say that if she woke up a few hours later she wouldn't have tried driving home? Was she going to take a breath test herself before driving? what if she then hit one of your family members.
Responsible members of society without drink issues do not sleep off that much booze in their car. They call a cab/arrange a lift.
Again, she put herself in that situation, no one else and I'm happy the coppers did a good thing by getting her drunken *** off the street. Perhaps she'll try to do something about it now but it seems unlikely from this.
5t.
Essentially she took offence to being asked to take a breath test and that forced the coppers to bring her in which made her even worse.
She is a stupid, angry drunk. In fact, similar to posh boy in that episode of Coppers last week who thought because he hadn't been in trouble before and had a decent job the police should leave him alone.
Thing is, she might have been trying to sleep off the booze but - cops see someone passed out in a car and do nothing = potential lawsuit
Cops wake up drunk motorist who argues that they weren't driving and try to book them for it - drunkard kicks off. Yes it seems harsh to do someone for 'drunk in charge' (which is what she would have got if they'd done a test) but who is to say that if she woke up a few hours later she wouldn't have tried driving home? Was she going to take a breath test herself before driving? what if she then hit one of your family members.
Responsible members of society without drink issues do not sleep off that much booze in their car. They call a cab/arrange a lift.
Again, she put herself in that situation, no one else and I'm happy the coppers did a good thing by getting her drunken *** off the street. Perhaps she'll try to do something about it now but it seems unlikely from this.
5t.
what potnetial law suit, ellaborate
20 November 2010, 07:15 PM
#147
Court of appeal ? trololololol
They will side with their own, no questions asked, check these out.......
1. Macclesfield express dated wednesday this week, a copper has been let off drink driving because he thought he was ordering weaker drinks, he has kept his license. I would love to see a member of the public get away with that excuse.........
2. Daily mirror dated friday this week, a copper has been let off a rape charge because of lack of evidence, the 22 year old girl says she woke up from a drunken stupor to find an off duty copper "having sex" with her, she claims there was no permission for him to do so but he hasnt been done and all charges have been dropped, if that was me cries of rape would ring out across the land and i would be fcuked!
they look after their own and NEVER expect a copper to be done to the FULL extent of the law, the ones that do go to court get miniscule punishments that dont fit the crime!
They will side with their own, no questions asked, check these out.......
1. Macclesfield express dated wednesday this week, a copper has been let off drink driving because he thought he was ordering weaker drinks, he has kept his license. I would love to see a member of the public get away with that excuse.........
2. Daily mirror dated friday this week, a copper has been let off a rape charge because of lack of evidence, the 22 year old girl says she woke up from a drunken stupor to find an off duty copper "having sex" with her, she claims there was no permission for him to do so but he hasnt been done and all charges have been dropped, if that was me cries of rape would ring out across the land and i would be fcuked!
they look after their own and NEVER expect a copper to be done to the FULL extent of the law, the ones that do go to court get miniscule punishments that dont fit the crime!
The first defence has been successfully used by defendants in the past - I vaguely remember a case where the drinks of the nominated driver were spiked. The problem is usually getting a set of magistrates to believe it.
As for number two, please keep up: this is a bog-standard "he said she said" case, and as such will nearly always result in a acquittal no matter what the profession of the defendant.
But at least you've proved my point about these forums being full of people who hate the police.
M
Last edited by _Meridian_; 20 November 2010 at 07:16 PM.
20 November 2010, 08:07 PM
#148
Scooby Regular
the police, in general, protect there own
the courts/establishment, in general, protect there own
the drunken, rude, agressive trollop needed a slap
case closed
the courts/establishment, in general, protect there own
the drunken, rude, agressive trollop needed a slap
case closed
20 November 2010, 09:34 PM
#149
21 November 2010, 12:03 AM
#150
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am very surprised at how many people are defending the corrupt tax collectors (police) They are an absolute joke only interested in creating revenue from innocent motorists!
Corrupt liars simple.
Corrupt liars simple.