Brave Policeman Kneels On Zero's Neck

[Peter Pedant]

no thread on this yet.
so I thought I would remind you
what do ABers think? - my own surprise is the speed at which the police conduct dept acted, why it was put on internet media without complaint
and why the body cameras were not showing they were on - so the only film is viral on the internet

oh and the editor has asked me to point out that the sunny Sun report that one explained " I was only taking the knee" is completely untrue - he said something else

[andy-hughes]

teacake - // Regarding the stupid lawyer who is trying to get him off, should be prosecuted for aiding and betting, ( I wish :0)) stuff him in jail with the scum he's trying to protect. //

I doubt the lawyer is stupid - by definition, a certain level of intelligence can be assumed.

There is no indication that the defence council is 'trying to get him off' as you put it.

What is happening is the right of the individual, enshrined in law, to a defence, and fair trial.

You may imagine that because this individual is viewed by you as 'scum', that his right to a fair trial and an able defence should be foregone.

But that is not how the system works, and here is why.

Let's imagine that you are driving your car down the road, and a pedestrian has a fatal heart attack, and collapses in front of your car, giving you no time to stop, and you run over him.

Under your system, you are not entitled to a defence, so you will be automatically jailed for ten to fifteen for manslaughter.

It's allowed, because the man's widow has labeled you as 'scum' so your right to defence is gone.

Under the current system, you would be very grateful to receive appropriate legal protection from someone who can prove your innocence in court, and let you walk free.

You see, for the system to work properly for everyone, it can't be selective in deciding on a whim who does and who does not get a defence. Everyone gets a defence, and the the arguments in court decide a verdict.

Your system is simply vigilante-ism, which works fine for you, as long as it's not you on the wrong end of it.

[Zacs-Master]

Crikey, patronisation is rife.

[andy-hughes]

Zacs - // Crikey, patronisation is rife. //

If that is aimed at me, and I imagine that it is, please explain what you see as patronising about it.

[Mamyalynne]

I made no analogy.

I have also stated I am glad he has been arrested and off the streets.

I can however also have the opinion that a knee to the neck would almost never be a requirement.

[ProfessorMaisie]

Mamyalynne - if you quote someone, put it in quotation marks - if you don't you're in danger of compounding the offence.
In this case you've exaggerated the opposing positions in this debate by suggesting one side of it wants to give out lollipops (rather than one person - and even then, wasn't that supposed to be viewed as a bit of hyperbole in the first place?).

It would help me, atheist, if you'd complete your questions rather than leave them hanging (in the hope that I've missed something).

[teacake44]

20.05 I wouldn't need a duff lawyer to do anything for me, or need one, a examination of the body would prove that the heart attack came before the collision, and its really silly in my view to compare this with an already convicted thug, who carries a weapon by choice.
Again I say if you carry a gun or knife your intentions are very clear, you intend to kill someone, there is no other valid reason to carry such in the UK, if one does insist on carrying one, then expect the worst to happen to you, in what ever direction that comes from, being police or your intended victim. If he's ever out and about again I hope they call armed response first, because they will give him one chance to drop what he carries, and they can do that at a safe distance.

[Mamyalynne]

I'll type slower for you next time.

[Peter Pedant]

I wouldn't need a duff lawyer to do one, An examination of the body would prove a heart attack came before the collision, //

erm no it wdnt actually. acute VF is functional and doesnt leave a trace post mortem.

and prof maisies point
when you quote someone "L'etat c'est moi'
you put Louis XIVs words in inverted commas

no you dont

wherein this sleep of death what dreams may come
when you have shuffled off this mortal coil
ay to sleep - - - to dream

actually you will notice that I have rather murdered that one

for Macbeth hath murdered sleep and shall sleep no more

My quotes are obvious - erm Hamlet and Macbeth but yet are inaccurate and I suggest that inverted commas are inappropriate

and if you dont recognise them
I will cheerfully claim them as my own

[teacake44]

OK my dash cam would be all I need :0)

[THECORBYLOON]

TEACAKE, "if you carry a gun or knife your intentions are very clear, you intend to kill someone, there is no other valid reason to carry such in the UK"

If the intention is to kill someone, why is the maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife, only four years in gaol and an unlimited fine?

There are also defences for carrying a knife,

he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article;

he had the article for use at work;

he had the article for religious reasons;

he had the article as part of a national costume.

[royfromaus]

There are also excuses for carrying a knife,

he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article;

he had the article for use at work;

he had the article for religious reasons;

he had the article as part of a national costume.

[teacake44]

Only four years, that's exactly why they still do carry them, and out in 18 months if you promise to be a good boy. Give them 15 yrs to serve in full and you may stop it. All the reasons you give, again is why they still carry them, but none of those reasons come into play in my book if you already have a C/R

[Peter Pedant]

// "if you carry a gun or knife your intentions are very clear, you intend to kill someone//

10/10 for concluding someones state of mind from their actions. BUT it shows an intention to carry
which MAY be enough to convict on a few offences

sorry my brain has gone frazz on these sections of the
offences against the person act 1861

(various defences - like "I am a butcher and I am going to my place of work" dont really engage).

[Peter Pedant]

that is why we have courts
so they can weigh up and decide
their various preferences

[teacake44]

There preferences are to stop the prisons becoming overwhelmed I think that may be their priority.

[ProfessorMaisie]

''My quotes are obvious... but yet are inaccurate and I suggest that inverted commas are inappropriate
and if you dont recognise them
I will cheerfully claim them as my own'' Peter Pedant
(A gift from an unexpected quarter.)

That's the point I was making, Mamyalynne - and the risk you take by ignoring your source(s).

I'm not sure what 'I'll type slower' can mean (in your last answer) or if it's directed at me, but never mind.

[Peter Pedant]

HI Prof Maisie
well I am kinda giftie man

I worried about absolute troof on AB - no one noticed and it didnt seem to matter what I said - and there was far too much on how I said something and not content

( gloss this time on Stanley Baldwin - very little is important and almost nothing is very important) - the problem but not here is that he wasnt THAT good as a PM

[Peter Pedant]

knife as national cozzy is the whining scots and scean dubh
little knife in the sock

you can now buy ceremonial ones that look like cheese trowels