backwoodsman
Tour Winner
Just a thought, but a criminal is not a criminal until they are convicted of being a criminal. So at what point are we suggesting removing their rights ? Only asking ...
I’ve waited a while to get an answer to this and it isn’t forthcoming.Just a thought, but a criminal is not a criminal until they are convicted of being a criminal. So at what point are we suggesting removing their rights ? Only asking ...
I know what you mean, apocryphal story springs to mind. In the case quoted though, what if they had won? £150k costs plus damages. Even if insurance covers it, maybe maybe not, that is a lot of stress as those costs build up.The point is that it seems this doesnt actaully seem to happen that often and when it does its dismissed and in the 1 case I found the complainant had to pay all costs , well over £150 Thousand!
It always seems to be one of those things where someone knows somone who knows someone who got sued..
Just a thought, but a criminal is not a criminal until they are convicted of being a criminal. So at what point are we suggesting removing their rights ? Only asking ...
The problem for a business is not that they will lose but the cost and worry of fighting the case. Even with a nailed on case there is still that nagging doubt to deal with.
If the company is found to be negligent then their insurance may not cover them.Business's should have public liability insurance so it's all the people who pay their premiums that lose out financially not the company.
Yes but police can’t determine guilt at the point of arrest as per our legal system. And we should NEVER give them the power to do so.A criminal is a criminal when engaged in the commission of a criminal offence. They become a convicted criminal when the court finds them guilty.
Yes but police can’t determine guilt at the point of arrest as per our legal system. And we should NEVER give them the power to do so.
I know you didn’t. What I said was my addendum to what you said.I didn't say anything about the poiice, or the police determining guilt. Perhaps you're letting your prejudices cloud your judgement?
During the crime imo.Just a thought, but a criminal is not a criminal until they are convicted of being a criminal. So at what point are we suggesting removing their rights ? Only asking ...
Ask Dirty Harry [ Clint Eastwood ] he had a great answer to what is IntentI've seen it said by a few that if you commit a crime and get injured etc then you deserve all you get and that anyone commiting a crime deserves to lose any rights.. Is this a widly held belief, has anyone really thought what this would actaully mean?
Genuine question to you.I've seen it said by a few that if you commit a crime and get injured etc then you deserve all you get and that anyone commiting a crime deserves to lose any rights.. Is this a widly held belief, has anyone really thought what this would actaully mean?
A criminal is by definition someone convicted of a crime by a court of law.
We seem to be talking about the rights of the suspected criminal before the judicial process is complete.
Arrest: this is the point of apprehension and the first time the 2 parties come together. The level of force involved in this must be proportional to the level of resistance / risk , but must always be reasonable.
the shooting of the London Bridge terrorist was deemed reasonable as he was wearing a bomb vest, the fact that it was later found to be a fake is not a defence.
The prisoner will be fed, watered and given medical care if necessary, the police must be allowed to do their job and if the prisoner resists or is violent, then suitable force can be used to subdue them.
Once a prisoner has been charged then a judge will decide on remand or bail, restrictions etc,
At this point the prisoner is not convicted but is in the judicial system
All of this is well known and shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
I think the crux here is the level of force on arrest.
Police dogs would only be sent in to subdue someone who was a threat to others or to the arresting officers.
The independent police complaints authority will investigate any issues raised, that’s what they are there for.
Police officers have to work within the law, but they are human and sometimes placed in potentially dangerous situations where a split second decision is needed. Hind sight is a wonderful thing, but sometimes it is necessary to stand in the shoes of the police.
The point is that it seems this doesnt actaully seem to happen that often and when it does its dismissed and in the 1 case I found the complainant had to pay all costs , well over £150 Thousand!
It always seems to be one of those things where someone knows somone who knows someone who got sued..
I’ve read the thread and I’m still not 100% sure what you are asking?That isn't happening though is it. I cannot find any examples of it.
Did you or a friend whack a little toe rag round the head with a 9 iron while they tried to make off with your TV?I keep getting told people are are being sued by burglars for personal injury claims. But I can't find any examples of it.