(no subject)

[mandragora]

Following the discovery of poison at a flat in North London near me, there was a raid today in Manchester in an associated counter-terrorist operation.

One policeman died in the operation, stabbed to death.

I am surprised by how shocked I am. Given all that we've heard recently about violence in Britain perhaps I shouldn't be, but I am. Upset, too.

My feelings are similar to when I heard about the 2 teenage girls killed in Birmingham, caught up in inter-gang warfare. Because we just don't do that in Britain. Except that, clearly, we've started to do so.

I can't remember the last time there was news of a policeman killed in the course of his duties. And that is a good thing, notwithstanding the poor man who died today.

The fact that I am - still - shocked by these events is because they do not happen often. Yet.

Comments

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

It's only unusual to see a police officer be a victim of violence, rather than an assaulter.

Oh sure, that's what shocked me. And the fact that police behaviour was unsatisfactory was the reason that PACE (Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984) and the police Codes of Practice were brought in. It tightened up protections considerably. Not absolutely, though. No system is perfect.

As for the people who died in custody, it is, I think, misleading to suggest that they are all victims of police brutality. Many are victims of neglect. The police are meant to keep an eye on the drunks and substance abusers, but, they get busy and don't keep an eye on them as they should. Plus, getting the police doctor to pronounce someone unfit to be in a cell is an uphill battle; the person in custody has to be practically dead. This also applies to someone who has 'resisted arrest' and gets thumped while doing so. But in most cases the police aren't going to beat someone up in the cells or anything like that, there are too many safeguards for them to do that.

No, of far more concern is 'verballing', which still goes on, unfortunately.

On the whole, the police nowadays know better than to get violent. It's too easy to prove against them.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

As for the people who died in custody, it is, I think, misleading to suggest that they are all victims of police brutality.

Of course not ALL of them are. But certainly SOME are. And the point is, that even when a verdict of unlawful killing is given, no police officer has ever yet been prosecuted.

In the case of victims of neglect, I fail to see why the police SHOULDN'T be prosecuted when they fail on their duty of care. If someone does their job so badly that someone dies because of it, or fails to do their job and as a direct result someone dies, it seems reasonable enough to find out who was responsible in an independent investigation and see them held responsible, rather than allowed to claim "I was busy". If it's a matter of life and death, "I was busy" is hardly an excuse.

It's shocking when any innocent person dies. I don't find it either more or less shocking when it's a police officer, but far more shocking when it's a police officer who is responsible for the killing of an innocent person - especially when they routinely get away with it.

[mandragora1.livejournal.com]

In the case of victims of neglect, I fail to see why the police SHOULDN'T be prosecuted when they fail on their duty of care.

If you're talking about criminal negligence that is fiendishly difficult to prove and requires incredibly bad conduct on the part of the police, rather than 'mere' neglect. However the police can be, and are, sued for civil negligence, where the remedy is damages. They've had to pay out some hefty sums, too.

If someone does their job so badly that someone dies because of it, or fails to do their job and as a direct result someone dies, it seems reasonable enough to find out who was responsible in an independent investigation and see them held responsible, rather than allowed to claim "I was busy". If it's a matter of life and death, "I was busy" is hardly an excuse.

Er, yeah. Tell that to victims of medical negligence. Amazingly enough, people die in hospitals all the time when a doctor screws up because he was too busy. Look, it happens. Someone is negligent and some poor person dies as a result. That's why we have the tort of negligence, to try and compensate victims or their families when it happens.

Criminal negligence is a whole different ball-game and there's a reason why it's rarely used. Cases include a recent one where 2 people died when a fairground ride collapsed which hadn't been properly inspected and the inspector had a history of negligent inspections. Another case involved someone starving to death because the people who were meant to be looking after her didn't. That's what criminal negligence is and bringing a prosecution against the police for it means that the police conduct was so bad, so negligent that no police officer in his right mind would act like that. Too high a burden of proof in 99% of cases.

As for an independent investigation, absolutely. There should always be one of these. And now I have to get to bed.

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

Well, primarily, of course, I'm talking about police violence against people held in custody, not negligence, which is always difficult to prove. Police violence is, relatively speaking, easier to prove - but no policeman is ever prosecuted for it.