'Mr Mahmood should not have used the Taser. It was not, the prosecution say, a reasonable use of force in the circumstances he faced. It was not lawful.'
It's a complex issue as far as I am concerned. Nine officers can't catch a single bloke? Wouldn't it have been better to let him get away than to inflict the benefits cost on the rest of us?
The taser seems the wrong side-arm, because a proper firearm would have led to only the much lesser cost of a cremation: same verdict, cheaper result, less tax!
More details have emerged. The “ victim” refused to take the witness stand as he would have had to explain his numerous previous convictions. The day before this incident the same officer arrested him for being in possession of bags of cannabis he was selling. The day he was tazered he was also in possession of drugs. Once at hospital he was found to have cocaine deals hidden up his arse. Interesting that the cps declined to prosecute him for those offences and went after the officer instead. That’s what the media have done with their constant lies and negativity towards the police. They would rather prosecute a pc than a drug dealer. Jaded
I recall being stunned by the Plod Proclamation that these guns were 'safe'.
In more recent years, maiming or lethality can be guaranteed through multiple deployment of the more recent models. But my money's on the 'Chameleon' (a concealed version to flick out of plod's mouth at will). Seemingly fitting, as nothing pleasant ever vented from those orifices.
More details have emerged from this trial. The "victim" was arrested the day before by the same unit carrying a large amount of cannabis he was selling. The day he was tasered he was selling again. Once at hospital cocaine was found up his arse. He refused to give evidence in court as the defence would have asked him about his previous convictions. The CPS didn't charge him with any of the drug offences as they were more concerned with prosecuting the PC rather than a drug dealer. Just about says it all. Jaded
It's a complex issue as far as I am concerned. Nine officers can't catch a single bloke? Wouldn't it have been better to let him get away than to inflict the benefits cost on the rest of us?
ReplyDeleteThe taser seems the wrong side-arm, because a proper firearm would have led to only the much lesser cost of a cremation: same verdict, cheaper result, less tax!
The good old jury system. No wonder they want to get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteHe will get sacked by the lynching mob of a misconduct hearing . Disabled black man trumps Asian policeman .
ReplyDeleteJaded
More details have emerged. The “ victim” refused to take the witness stand as he would have had to explain his numerous previous convictions.
ReplyDeleteThe day before this incident the same officer arrested him for being in possession of bags of cannabis he was selling. The day he was tazered he was also in possession of drugs. Once at hospital he was found to have cocaine deals hidden up his arse.
Interesting that the cps declined to prosecute him for those offences and went after the officer instead. That’s what the media have done with their constant lies and negativity towards the police. They would rather prosecute a pc than a drug dealer.
Jaded
I recall being stunned by the Plod Proclamation that these guns were 'safe'.
ReplyDeleteIn more recent years, maiming or lethality can be guaranteed through multiple deployment of the more recent models. But my money's on the 'Chameleon' (a concealed version to flick out of plod's mouth at will). Seemingly fitting, as nothing pleasant ever vented from those orifices.
"Nine officers can't catch a single bloke? Wouldn't it have been better to let him get away than to inflict the benefits cost on the rest of us?"
ReplyDeleteWhat about the cost benefit to us of 'not letting the bastard get away with it'? It just encourages them...
"The good old jury system. No wonder they want to get rid of it."
Quite!
"He will get sacked by the lynching mob of a misconduct hearing . Disabled black man trumps Asian policeman ."
Sadly, I wouldn't be at all surprised...
"I recall being stunned by the Plod Proclamation that these guns were 'safe'."
When did they ever say that? They are described as 'less lethal', because they are. No-one has ever described them as 'safe'.
"When did they ever say that?"
ReplyDeleteMemory performance deteriorating with old age, JuliaM?
More details have emerged from this trial. The "victim" was arrested the day before by the same unit carrying a large amount of cannabis he was selling. The day he was tasered he was selling again. Once at hospital cocaine was found up his arse.
ReplyDeleteHe refused to give evidence in court as the defence would have asked him about his previous convictions.
The CPS didn't charge him with any of the drug offences as they were more concerned with prosecuting the PC rather than a drug dealer. Just about says it all.
Jaded