BBC - Cyclist Chased & Hit by Police car

[David Hansen]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:12:59 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
B" <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Irrespective of whether or not the lad was suspected of or actually guilty
>of a serious criminal act had the police been armed it wasn't a situation
>(we hope) that would have warranted the firing of a weapon

There was a case perhaps ten years ago. A police officer, who
happened to have a gun, tried to stop someone in a car by hanging on
to the door. At the trial he claimed that he feared for his life and
so pulled out the gun and shot the driver dead. Presumably he could
just have let go of the door. Amazingly there was a trial, but he
was found not guilty. My cynicism meter tells me that the government
does not try very hard when presenting such cases to the courts,
with the result that as far as I'm aware no police officer has ever
been held to account for their actions with guns.

I suspect that this breeds the sort of atmosphere where individuals
believe they are always right and can do what they like. I doubt if
anyone involved would say so, but I suspect it is at the back of
their minds. It is in this context that I view the childish tantrums
of the police following the mere possibility that those who murdered
Harry Stanley might be held to account at long last. One of the
murderers was (and possibly still is) employed to teach police
officers how to use guns. Absolutely amazing, words fail me.

I think it is in this sort of atmosphere, cut off from the "real
world", that a conspiracy to murder could be hatched by the police
and those who are supposed to regulate them, but are in fact
examples of regulatory capture. Some of the conspirators put their
conspiracy into effect in London some weeks ago. It is I think a
sign of the arrogance of those involved that they say that the
conspiracy will continue and thus there is the possibility of
further premeditated cold-blooded murders carried out by those who,
it is often claimed, are there to protect us. It will be interesting
to see what the "independent" inquiry comes up with, but the initial
statements and (in)actions are not reassuring.

The chances of society dealing with police officers who use cars as
deadly weapons is even less. Society doesn't even bother much with
members of the public who use cars in this way.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

 

[dave]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:12:59 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
> B" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Irrespective of whether or not the lad was suspected of or actually guilty
>>of a serious criminal act had the police been armed it wasn't a situation
>>(we hope) that would have warranted the firing of a weapon
>
>
> There was a case perhaps ten years ago. A police officer, who
> happened to have a gun, tried to stop someone in a car by hanging on
> to the door. At the trial he claimed that he feared for his life and
> so pulled out the gun and shot the driver dead. Presumably he could
> just have let go of the door. Amazingly there was a trial, but he
> was found not guilty. My cynicism meter tells me that the government
> does not try very hard when presenting such cases to the courts,
> with the result that as far as I'm aware no police officer has ever
> been held to account for their actions with guns.

Been several shootings far more sus than this in victoria. By police who
were not charged But one that more or less has the same circumstances.
Except that she was an armed security guard. Beaten very very badly.
Who shot the armed robber while trying to stop him escaping and hanging
on the door. She was charged with murder.

The copper who shot the mentally ill bloke chopping up a park bench with
a hatchet in St Kilda was not charged with anything.
>
> I suspect that this breeds the sort of atmosphere where individuals
> believe they are always right and can do what they like. I doubt if
> anyone involved would say so, but I suspect it is at the back of
> their minds. It is in this context that I view the childish tantrums
> of the police following the mere possibility that those who murdered
> Harry Stanley might be held to account at long last. One of the
> murderers was (and possibly still is) employed to teach police
> officers how to use guns. Absolutely amazing, words fail me.
>
> I think it is in this sort of atmosphere, cut off from the "real
> world", that a conspiracy to murder could be hatched by the police
> and those who are supposed to regulate them, but are in fact
> examples of regulatory capture. Some of the conspirators put their
> conspiracy into effect in London some weeks ago. It is I think a
> sign of the arrogance of those involved that they say that the
> conspiracy will continue and thus there is the possibility of
> further premeditated cold-blooded murders carried out by those who,
> it is often claimed, are there to protect us. It will be interesting
> to see what the "independent" inquiry comes up with, but the initial
> statements and (in)actions are not reassuring.
>
> The chances of society dealing with police officers who use cars as
> deadly weapons is even less. Society doesn't even bother much with
> members of the public who use cars in this way.
>
>

 

[MichaelB]

He's not a cyclist he's some scally lad trying to escape the police.

It was unfortunate that the car went over him but there you go; **** happens. Think how long it would take him to make 10 grand from cashing in his giro cheques and then tell me it wasn't the best thing that ever happened to him.

When I see 40+ year old men who are a bit chubby and their faces have set into an 'I know best expression' then I expect that they are going to be rude and arrogant. The reason I do this is because I worked behind a bar when I was a student and I learned that that expression on an old man is followed by some arrgance and rude behavior. So if a police man sees a black lad on a bike wearing chav gear etc and quite often these have been the thugs he's been trying to arrest then whats wrong with making the assumption that he is indeed a baddy?

If he picked on a black alter boy with a bible then you could understand that he was been racist because I've never seen an alter boy sell drugs.

 

[TooSore]

Ah yes,

"All policemen are racist violent thugs."

Good - glad we are airing that stereotype presume we won't be airing these:

"All Black male teenagers are gun-totting drug dealers"

"All Scousers are theiving perm headed dole scroungers"

"All cyclist run red lights and flout the laws of the road"

 

[MichaelB]

Ah yes,


"All Scousers are theiving perm headed dole scroungers"

All southerners are pompous tossers.

Thats not so much a stereotype more a statement of truth

 

[Tony Hogarty]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:52:51 +1000, MichaelB wrote:

>
> TooSore Wrote:
>> Ah yes,
>>
>>
>> "All Scousers are theiving perm headed dole scroungers"
>>
>>
>>
> All southerners are pompous tossers.
>
> Thats not so much a stereotype more a statement of truth

But what about Scousers who now live in the south, where do they fit in?

--
Regards
Tony
(Take out the garbage to reply)

 

[Bertie Wiggins]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:46:25 +1000, TooSore
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"All policemen are racist violent thugs."
>
>"All Black male teenagers are gun-totting drug dealers"
>
>"All Scousers are theiving perm headed dole scroungers"
>
>"All cyclist run red lights and flout the laws of the road"

It this one of those multiple choice questions where you have to
select the correct answer? If so, I think I know which one is right.
It's *D*, isn't it.

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, TooSore
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Ah yes,
>
> "All policemen are racist violent thugs."

Where did anyone say that? It clearly isn't true. But the police driver
in this case clearly deliberately used a lethal weapon (a car) to attack
an unarmed member of the public. The film shows this very clearly.
Granted it was in the heat of the moment and that the officer concerned
was probably under normal circumstances a decent and upright citizen, we
nevertheless cannot and must not allow those we employ to uphold the law
to be held to a lesser standard of personal behaviour than anyone else.

That's not a stereotype: it's a matter vital to the survival of the rule
of law, and civil society. After all, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; all in all you're just another click in the call
;; -- Minke Bouyed

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, MichaelB
('[email protected]') wrote:

>
> He's not a cyclist he's some scally lad trying to escape the police.

He was a cyclist, and as the police never charged him with anything at
all, he's hardly a 'scally lad'. Mouthy, certainly.

> It was unfortunate that the car went over him but there you go; ****
> happens.

That might have been true the first time the car hit him; it certainly
wasn't true the second time. You can't get away from it, heat of the
moment or no, that looks deliberate.

> When I see 40+ year old men who are a bit chubby and their faces have
> set into an 'I know best expression' then I expect that they are going
> to be rude and arrogant. The reason I do this is because I worked
> behind a bar when I was a student and I learned that that expression on
> an old man is followed by some arrgance and rude behavior. So if a
> police man sees a black lad on a bike wearing chav gear etc and quite
> often these have been the thugs he's been trying to arrest then whats
> wrong with making the assumption that he is indeed a baddy?

He's a policeman, that's what's wrong with it. He's employed, trained and
paid /not/ to act on assumptions.

> If he picked on a black alter boy with a bible then you could
> understand that he was been racist because I've never seen an alter boy
> sell drugs.

Neither have the police ever seen this boy sell drugs, nor found any
witness who's ever seen him sell drugs. If they could have pinned
anything at all on him they would have. They didn't; ergo, they
couldn't.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; First they came for the asylum seekers,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not an asylum seeker.
;; Then they came for the gypsies,
;; and I did not speak out because I was not a gypsy...
;; Pastor Martin Niemöller, translated by Michael Howard.

 

[Peter Grange]

In article <[email protected]>, MichaelB
<[email protected]> writes
>
He's not a cyclist he's some scally lad trying to escape the police.
>
>It was unfortunate that the car went over him but there you go; ****
happens.
>Think how long it would take him to make 10 grand from
cashing in his giro
>cheques and then tell me it wasn't the best thing
that ever happened to him.
>
>When I see 40+ year old men who are a bit chubby and their faces have
set into
>an 'I know best expression' then I expect that they are going

>to be rude and arrogant. The reason I do this is because I worked
behind a bar
>when I was a student and I learned that that expression on
an old man is

Oi. Sexist, racist & most other ist remarks on usenet I can get used
to, but I can't let ageist comments like that go by. 40+ is not old, at
least not until the + gets _very_ significant.
--
Peter Grange

 

[Call me Bob]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:52:34 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Granted it was in the heat of the moment and that the officer concerned
>was probably under normal circumstances a decent and upright citizen, we
>nevertheless cannot and must not allow those we employ to uphold the law
>to be held to a lesser standard of personal behaviour than anyone else.

I agree whole heartedly with the "cannot and must not" sentiment, but,
the fact is we don't have a say in the matter.

Abuse of police power happens every single day. And every single day
it is tolerated, covered up, and brushed under the carpet out of
public sight.

There's no denying it, it's there on film. That is terrifying police
action which could easily have resulted in that lad's life ending
right there and then on the tarmac.

Regardless of whether he's an angel or a scumbag, our police are not
empowered to execute people on the street.

In any sane, reasonable or just society, the official response to that
footage would be the same horror that you and I feel. It would result
in swift, public and transparent action to investigate just how the
hell that sequence of events came to pass, and those found to have
acted recklessly, negligently or criminally would be held to account.

That's not what we get however. The official response is to use the
vast financial, legal and bureaucratic resources available to them to
hide these events and the evidence of them from public view. It is a
disgrace, a shameful and hideous disgrace.

It happens all the time.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Nobody.

"Bob"
--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[g.harman]

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:19:57 +0100, Tony Hogarty
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:52:51 +1000, MichaelB wrote:
>
>>
>> TooSore Wrote:
>>> Ah yes,
>>>
>>>
>>> "All Scousers are theiving perm headed dole scroungers"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> All southerners are pompous tossers.
>>
>> Thats not so much a stereotype more a statement of truth
>
>But what about Scousers who now live in the south, where do they fit in?

Parkhurst .


G.harman

 

[NJF]

g.harman wrote:
>>>>"All Scousers are theiving perm headed dole scroungers"
>>> All southerners are pompous tossers.
>>>
>>>Thats not so much a stereotype more a statement of truth
>>
>>But what about Scousers who now live in the south, where do they fit in?
>
>
> Parkhurst .
>
>
> G.harman

And their families on the Flowers estate!

 

[NJF]

David Hansen wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 07:12:59 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Peter
> B" <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Irrespective of whether or not the lad was suspected of or actually guilty
>>of a serious criminal act had the police been armed it wasn't a situation
>>(we hope) that would have warranted the firing of a weapon
>
>
> There was a case perhaps ten years ago. A police officer, who
> happened to have a gun, tried to stop someone in a car by hanging on
> to the door. At the trial he claimed that he feared for his life and
> so pulled out the gun and shot the driver dead. Presumably he could
> just have let go of the door. Amazingly there was a trial, but he
> was found not guilty. My cynicism meter tells me that the government
> does not try very hard when presenting such cases to the courts,
> with the result that as far as I'm aware no police officer has ever
> been held to account for their actions with guns.
>
> I suspect that this breeds the sort of atmosphere where individuals
> believe they are always right and can do what they like.
>
> I think it is in this sort of atmosphere, cut off from the "real
> world", that a conspiracy to murder could be hatched by the police
> and those who are supposed to regulate them, but are in fact
> examples of regulatory capture.

Its been coming for years, accelerated by Thatcher who used the police
and army (in police uniform) to destroy any union who opposed her.
The extra pay and encouragement to remove I.D. (shoulder number/county
badge) during those days set aside any *public service* aspect of the
job, though some senior officers fought to retain control and I.D.
wearing (officer without it was not "in uniform" so couldn't claim the
protection of the uniform).
Now we have a *police service* that has grown even further away from the
public, officers no longer live and police in the same community often
living in enclaves, the disassociation makes it easier to lose sight of
who they work with/for, this is being pushed even harder with officers
seen socialising outside of police clubs/police ranks as dangerous (like
I.B.M. who monitor their employees social habits). And with the direct
graduate entrant senior/accelerated officers being easier to control the
gov't has been able to make them think they ARE above the law, this has
filtered down through the ranks and is now endemic at all levels.

A fellow Scouter has been effectively forced to resign from Scouting,
where he had direct contact with youth and could have a positive
influence, he has been acting up as duty sergeant for several years, but
cannot progress until he is "totally job focused"....

As far as dealing with motorists is concerned, the traffic unit I saw on
the motorway this morning (M27) was more interested in a 4x4 with
cycling stickers they were following (potential red light jumper?) than
dealing with a van driver who was towing a caravan with very
underinflated tyres, mis-matched number plates and due to mis-matched
height of towball probably very unstable.

 

[Dave Larrington]

Also sprach Tony Hogarty <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:52:51 +1000, MichaelB wrote:
>
>>
>> TooSore Wrote:
>>> Ah yes,
>>>
>>>
>>> "All Scousers are theiving perm headed dole scroungers"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> All southerners are pompous tossers.
>>
>> Thats not so much a stereotype more a statement of truth
>
> But what about Scousers who now live in the south, where do they fit
> in?

I though they'd been sent to New Orleans to help with the looting...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Funsize Mars bars? What could possibly be MORE fun about eating LESS
chocolate?

 

[TooSore]

David Hansen wrote:
Its been coming for years, accelerated by Thatcher who used the police
and army (in police uniform) to destroy any union who opposed her.

Dave I think we need to discuss the effacacy of the tin foil hat as Bike helmet