A former senior Metropolitan police officer and relative of Rashan Charles, whose death sparked protests in east London, has said that the family is being treated with “disdain” by the force he served for 30 years.
As a relative, shouldn't he be more concerned with the fact he has criminals in his family?
Rod Charles, a retired sergeant and the 20-year-old’s great-uncle, said Scotland Yard’s refusal to explain the circumstances of the death shortly after contact with police meant the family’s rights “are being violated”.
He refused to stop for police, tried to swallow the substance he was carrying so police wouldn't seize it, and choked on it. What more explanation do you need?
Referring to police “use of force” principles, Rod Charles wrote that when the known circumstances are set against official guidance, it appears that “the force used [against Rashan] was unreasonable, disproportionate, unnecessary and excessive”.
He added that the Met’s refusal to explain the purpose of the arrest also seems to contravene the law.
A former public support unit commander, Charles said the family was concerned that Rashan did not receive first aid. “We will continue tirelessly to secure all our legal entitlements,” the statement added.
They always know their entitlements, but are somewhat hazy on their
responsibilities....
6 comments:
Typical Gaurdy eyewash (making 'normal' procedures out to be racist) : "It has also emerged that police representatives have applied for an “ex parte” hearing, securing reporting restrictions. The move has preserved the anonymity of the officers involved but Charles’s family was not warned about the application, denying relatives the opportunity to challenge it."
Which-the 'no warning' thing- is kinda the whole point of an "Ex parte" (usually used by victims of domestic violence so their abuser isn't prewarned.).
Since when could a sergeant be described as a senior police officer?
If Sgt. Charles knew his Law, then he would be well aware that only the arrested person need be informed of the reason for his/her arrest at the time of their arrest. Such as "Joe Blogs, I am arresting you for the offence of the possession of Class A drugs for the purposes of trafficking."
No other person, other than the arrested person's legal representative has any sort of 'right' to be informed.
With regard to the use of force, the official 'guide-line' is that "that degree of force which is neccesary to achieve the objective, and no more than that, can be applied; once the objective has been achieved then the application of force must cease. Ex Sgt. Charles was not present at the time of the arrest so he has no grounds to assert that such force that was used was unreasonable, disproportionate, unnecessary and excessive.
"They always know their entitlements, but are somewhat hazy on their responsibilities...."
This applies:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/question-time-commentary.222767/page-1285#post-8185385
Boils down to behave like a respectable, polite, law abiding British person
"We will continue tirelessly to secure our legal rights"
Bullshit,they`re hoping that if they make themselves a big enough pain the police`s arse they`ll get a pay off.
"Which-the 'no warning' thing- is kinda the whole point of an "Ex parte"..."
And forestalls, in this case, the alerting of the mob to picket the venue.
"Since when could a sergeant be described as a senior police officer?"
Indeed! What does that make the commissioner, God?
"If Sgt. Charles knew his Law, then he would be well aware that only the arrested person need be informed of the reason for his/her arrest at the time of their arrest."
I suspect he wasn't hired for his intelligence.
"Bullshit,they`re hoping that if they make themselves a big enough pain the police`s arse they`ll get a pay off."
Or a chance to do some free trainer & flatscreen TV shopping.
Post a Comment