Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
How Is She A Victim?
https:/
Granted, being strip searched is not nice, and the men were unprofessional, but she could have avoided the whole situation by
1) going away when they asked her to
2)not passively resisting and co-operating
3) giving them her name when requested
\what goes through people's heads?
Granted, being strip searched is not nice, and the men were unprofessional, but she could have avoided the whole situation by
1) going away when they asked her to
2)not passively resisting and co-operating
3) giving them her name when requested
\what goes through people's heads?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bednobs. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
She was obstructing the police in the course of their duties and was lucky not to have been prosecuted. Apparently she was trying to give a "Know your rights" card to a boy who had been subject to stop-and-search. The boy turned out to be in possession of a knife.
Suspects' rights are explained to them throughout the processes undertaken by the police. There's no need for cards to be given out. Tragic that she's suffering post traumatic stress, but that's life.
//You mean she could have avoided it by giving up her legal rights.//
What rights would she have relinquished if she'd done what bednobs suggests?
1) She doesn't have the right to interfere with a police operation taking place on the street (to do so is a criminal offence)
2) She doesn't have the right to resist arrest (to do so is a criminal offence)
3) Whilst it's not mandatory, it is advisable to give your details to the police when asked, especially after you have been arrested. They will only keep hold of you until they find out who you are.
All she had to do was walk away. None of her rights would then have been in jeopardy.
Suspects' rights are explained to them throughout the processes undertaken by the police. There's no need for cards to be given out. Tragic that she's suffering post traumatic stress, but that's life.
//You mean she could have avoided it by giving up her legal rights.//
What rights would she have relinquished if she'd done what bednobs suggests?
1) She doesn't have the right to interfere with a police operation taking place on the street (to do so is a criminal offence)
2) She doesn't have the right to resist arrest (to do so is a criminal offence)
3) Whilst it's not mandatory, it is advisable to give your details to the police when asked, especially after you have been arrested. They will only keep hold of you until they find out who you are.
All she had to do was walk away. None of her rights would then have been in jeopardy.
This case is half a dozen of one and half a dozen of the other.
She is obviously one of those nutters that the Police have to deal with every day, why on earth they found it necessary to strip search for the relatively minor offences let alone then act totally unprofessionally is beyond me. There will always be people like her, they should have simply arrested her for obstructing the police in their duties banged her in a cell for the night and then let her go, reporting her to the CPS.
She is obviously one of those nutters that the Police have to deal with every day, why on earth they found it necessary to strip search for the relatively minor offences let alone then act totally unprofessionally is beyond me. There will always be people like her, they should have simply arrested her for obstructing the police in their duties banged her in a cell for the night and then let her go, reporting her to the CPS.
I would conclude that one instance of inappropriate behaviour led to another.
AS NJ points out, correctly as always, the woman should not have interfered, and was correctly arrested.
But that does not excuse the inappropriate language and manner with which she was treated while in custody.
That behaviour, for which the police have apologised and compensated her, makes her a 'victim' in the true sense of the word.
Because her situation was self-inflicted, it does not absolve the police from their responsibilities to behave properly and maintain their professional standards.
AS NJ points out, correctly as always, the woman should not have interfered, and was correctly arrested.
But that does not excuse the inappropriate language and manner with which she was treated while in custody.
That behaviour, for which the police have apologised and compensated her, makes her a 'victim' in the true sense of the word.
Because her situation was self-inflicted, it does not absolve the police from their responsibilities to behave properly and maintain their professional standards.
I wonder how much that little exercise cost the public purse? She clearly holds the police in scant regard, and to introduce the murder of Sarah Everard into the equation is beyond contemptible. Despite the frustration her obstructive behaviour must have caused, the police should have risen above her obvious disdain and behaved differently, but she's not a victim. She's the author of her own misfortune. I've no sympathy whatsoever for trouble makers like her.
She's a victim because the police involved -- all of them, it seems -- abused their power. It matters not a jot that maybe she could have acted differently. The abuse of power and authority is orders of magnitude more serious than the act of handing somebody a card, and then being uncooperative by going limp, refusing to declare a name, etc.
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |