"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - Page 11

papa smurf · 31-01-2009, 12:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Could be worse, at least he was convicted.

Two Police Officers witnessing something with their own eyes isn't enough for a conviction anymore.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/sc...6908-21085458/

not being able to fit some one up will undoubtedly swing the balance in the favour of justice

Derek · 31-01-2009, 13:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

not being able to fit some one up will undoubtedly swing the balance in the favour of justice

So in your eyes cops shouldn't be allowed to be witnesses then? Obviously everything they see is wrong and any evidence under oath is an attempt to stitch up the law abiding members of the public.

On one hand in the believability stakes we have two Police officers, do you think they are going to perjure themselves and put their jobs and freedom on the line for a person using a mobile phone whilst driving.

On the other there is a convicted thug with umpteen convictions and an exceptionally dubious ability to own and drive expensive cars without ever having worked.

I know which I'd believe.

Osem · 31-01-2009, 13:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

So in your eyes cops shouldn't be allowed to be witnesses then? Obviously everything they see is wrong and any evidence under oath is an attempt to stitch up the law abiding members of the public.

On one hand in the believability stakes we have two Police officers, do you think they are going to perjure themselves and put their jobs and freedom on the line for a person using a mobile phone whilst driving.

On the other there is a convicted thug with umpteen convictions and an exceptionally dubious ability to own and drive expensive cars without ever having worked.

I know which I'd believe.

Me too!

papa smurf · 31-01-2009, 13:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

So in your eyes cops shouldn't be allowed to be witnesses then? Obviously everything they see is wrong and any evidence under oath is an attempt to stitch up the law abiding members of the public.

On one hand in the believability stakes we have two Police officers, do you think they are going to perjure themselves and put their jobs and freedom on the line for a person using a mobile phone whilst driving.

On the other there is a convicted thug with umpteen convictions and an exceptionally dubious ability to own and drive expensive cars without ever having worked.

I know which I'd believe.

having no evidence other than the word of even the most trusted officer is still having no evidence.
and convicted thug or not and no mater what he drives, he is at liberty because at this time he has not been convicted of any crime, what would this country become if a person could be convicted just because someone thinks he's guilty but has no evidence what so ever ..

Derek · 31-01-2009, 13:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

having no evidence other than the word of even the most trusted officer is still having no evidence.

So on your 'logic' then unless someone is caught on camera doing something they can't be convicted.

That would certainly effect the conviction rates. Pretty much all traffic laws would be unenforceable unless the Police were in a car fitted with a camera. People could wander about the streets with weapons and unless caught on CCTV the Police couldn't be trusted to tell the truth that they caught them with a knife etc.

Perhaps you'd like to come up with an idea that isn't so ludicrous. Eyewitness evidence is what 99% of court cases come down to. If two professional witnesses are being discounted in favour of someone proven to be of bad character then its a sad day for 'justice' in my book.

Osem · 31-01-2009, 13:33

It's going to be pretty hard to convict anyone in Papa's world.....

papa smurf · 31-01-2009, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

So on your 'logic' then unless someone is caught on camera doing something they can't be convicted.

That would certainly effect the conviction rates. Pretty much all traffic laws would be unenforceable unless the Police were in a car fitted with a camera. People could wander about the streets with weapons and unless caught on CCTV the Police couldn't be trusted to tell the truth that they caught them with a knife etc.

Perhaps you'd like to come up with an idea that isn't so ludicrous. Eyewitness evidence is what 99% of court cases come down to. If two professional witnesses are being discounted in favour of someone proven to be of bad character then its a sad day for 'justice' in my book.

Derek all i said was no evidence no case ,i fail to see what is so ludicrous. people cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth and sometimes we see what we want to see, not what is actually happening,i would rather have a legal system based on fact not hearsay ,and its a sad day for justice when evidence is no longer required .
.................................................. ..........................
and osem its just harder to fit someone up in my world

Derek · 31-01-2009, 14:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

i would rather have a legal system based on fact not hearsay ,and its a sad day for justice when evidence is no longer required .

Ok so how would the following be prosecuted without eyewitnesses.

People driving through red-lights.
Someone attacking someone else but is stopped before any lasting injury is caused.
Someone seen breaking into a building and caught inside.

etc. etc.

You quite clearly haven't given your argument any thought whatsoever. In your world there would be no point in anyone going to court and giving evidence as you don't think they can be trusted.

papa smurf · 31-01-2009, 14:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Ok so how would the following be prosecuted without eyewitnesses.

People driving through red-lights.
Someone attacking someone else but is stopped before any lasting injury is caused.
Someone seen breaking into a building and caught inside.

etc. etc.

You quite clearly haven't given your argument any thought whatsoever. In your world there would be no point in anyone going to court and giving evidence as you don't think they can be trusted.

answers
1-cctv[ static or in car will do]
2cctv-moile phone footage- forensic evidence-finger prints on weapon
3 caught in the act [with evidence ] is a little different to we saw him with a phone your worships [you can trust me i'm a copper]
you obviously haven't given much thought to your argument, in your world its hearsay to prison. no need for courts /magistrates /judges ,the police are the law judge and jury..

Will21st · 31-01-2009, 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Ok so how would the following be prosecuted without eyewitnesses.

People driving through red-lights.
Someone attacking someone else but is stopped before any lasting injury is caused.
Someone seen breaking into a building and caught inside.

etc. etc.

You quite clearly haven't given your argument any thought whatsoever. In your world there would be no point in anyone going to court and giving evidence as you don't think they can be trusted.

If there is just ONE witness,then no,that shouldn't be sufficient for conviction... after all,it's statement against statement,and that is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

That aside,i think the judge was right to throw the case out.There was insufficient evidence,and if that's the case,the defendant should be acquitted.period.

Derek · 31-01-2009, 17:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

1-cctv[ static or in car will do]
2cctv-moile phone footage- forensic evidence-finger prints on weapon

Ok so you are quite happy for a huge increase in the amount of CCTV cameras and filming taking place at every road junction in the land.
Oh and you can't just pick up forensics out of thin air, there isn't always any lasting evidence.
Fists and feet can be used to assault people, are you going to fingerprint them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

3 caught in the act [with evidence ] is a little different to we saw him with a phone your worships [you can trust me i'm a copper]

How. In the original link two cops saw a driver on a phone. He said he wasn't. Whats the difference to two cops finding someone in a building but when he gets to court he says he wasn't there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will21st

That aside,i think the judge was right to throw the case out.There was insufficient evidence,and if that's the case,the defendant should be acquitted.period.

There wasn't insufficient evidence though. Two witnesses both swore, under oath, they saw the accused driving whilst using a phone. Plenty of people are convicted every day in courts on the evidence of two people with no other corroboration. This shouldn't have been any different.

Out of virtually every other road traffic case in the country the evidence is what the Police saw. Not every car is fitted with cameras to record what happens.

papa smurf · 31-01-2009, 17:31

[QUOTE=Derek S;34725234]Ok so you are quite happy for a huge increase in the amount of CCTV cameras and filming taking place at every road junction in the land.
.................................................. ..................................
it is estimated that 4,200,000 cctv cameras operate in the uk if you need more i wont argue..

QUOTE=Derek
Oh and you can't just pick up forensics out of thin air, there isn't always any lasting evidence.
Fists and feet can be used to assault people, are you going to fingerprint them?

.................................................. ...................................
so we come back to concoct a story

QUOTE=Derek
How. In the original link two cops saw a driver on a phone. He said he wasn't. Whats the difference to two cops finding someone in a building but when he gets to court he says he wasn't there.
..........................................
even traffic wardens have helmet /hat cams[get some tec]
and if your in a building your leaving forensic unless your in stealth mode

QUOTE=Derek
There wasn't insufficient evidence though. Two witnesses both swore, under oath, they saw the accused driving whilst using a phone. Plenty of people are convicted every day in courts on the evidence of two people with no other corroboration. This shouldn't have been any different.
..........................
swore under oath -come on get serious

Will21st · 31-01-2009, 17:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Ok so you are quite happy for a huge increase in the amount of CCTV cameras and filming taking place at every road junction in the land.
Oh and you can't just pick up forensics out of thin air, there isn't always any lasting evidence.
Fists and feet can be used to assault people, are you going to fingerprint them?

How. In the original link two cops saw a driver on a phone. He said he wasn't. Whats the difference to two cops finding someone in a building but when he gets to court he says he wasn't there.

There wasn't insufficient evidence though. Two witnesses both swore, under oath, they saw the accused driving whilst using a phone. Plenty of people are convicted every day in courts on the evidence of two people with no other corroboration. This shouldn't have been any different.

Out of virtually every other road traffic case in the country the evidence is what the Police saw. Not every car is fitted with cameras to record what happens.

Derek,this isn't as clear cut as you make it seem,or may perceive it to be.I think there were multiple things that swayed the judge.

1) The hands-free kit

2) He said he was scratching his head.Now,that may be an excuse,but can the judge really accuse him of lying?

If you look at ALL the evidence in the case,I think the judge chose correctly.
And sorry to say this,but no,a police officers testimony is NOT necessarily to be believed or taken at face value.I know you're a police officer,and i mean no disrespect.But just cause someone is a cop,doesn't mean they're telling the truth.
And....you know just as well as I do,that there is no place on earth where more lies are being told than in a court of law.Under oath or not.Be realistic.

I also know that you guys don't like to testify against each other,or not back up your colleagues version of events.Don't say it's not so,cause it is.

All I'm saying is,that 'Blinks' story could be true,and the cops MAY have not seen the whole picture,that's all.

In dubio pro reo: "When in doubt, in favor of the accused."

p.s: what the guy being a gangster has to do with all this....I don't know,but that's the press

**Maggy** · 31-01-2009, 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

answers
1-cctv[ static or in car will do]
2cctv-moile phone footage- forensic evidence-finger prints on weapon
3 caught in the act [with evidence ] is a little different to we saw him with a phone your worships [you can trust me i'm a copper]
you obviously haven't given much thought to your argument, in your world its hearsay to prison. no need for courts /magistrates /judges ,the police are the law judge and jury..

So before we had CCTV we could trust a policeman's word?Or all policemen were lying through their teeth?

Jeeze papa I thought you wanted to put **** bags in prison?

papa smurf · 31-01-2009, 21:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So before we had CCTV we could trust a policeman's word?Or all policemen were lying through their teeth?

Jeeze papa I thought you wanted to put **** bags in prison?

no i just want justice to be done to those who deserve it, not those who the police don't like.[and of course Derek] Hence the necessity for evidence opposed to some ones word .

on another point.
i could swear what ever you want on a stack of Bibles i fear no retribution no wrath of God -as far as i'm concerned its all bunkum.. any hoo i could at any time if i did believe be come a catholic convert and be forgiven my sins, so both ends to the game covered as it where