"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - Page 12

Derek · 01-02-2009, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will21st

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

Err yes the Judge could have accused him of that.

When someone drives past you with their hands to their ear you can tell if they have a mobile phone in their hands.

These two cops both saw the driver using a mobile phone when driving.
He said he wasn't.

The judge took his word over the word of two eyewitnesses.

All this does is make prosecuting cases much harder. There is now nothing to stop people turning up in court and saying.

"I didn't go through that red light, the Police are out to get me"
"I didn't have a phone in my hand, the Police are out to get me"

etc. etc.

01-02-2009, 10:19

well in reality 2 coppers could say they saw him using the phone and really only one might have and perhaps their arrest figures needed bumping

. Anyway isnt it easy to prove if a mobile was being used at the time?

**Hugh** · 01-02-2009, 10:30

Why weren't the phone records checked?

He stated he wasn't on the phone, he was scratching his head - the records could have confirmed/denied if a call took place at that time.

Derek · 01-02-2009, 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Why weren't the phone records checked?

He stated he wasn't on the phone, he was scratching his head - the records could have confirmed/denied if a call took place at that time.

Then you get into the realms of seizing phones as evidence etc. Potential minefields but I can see it going that way after this and a few other recent cases.

Plus he could have said he was using the hands free kit but happened to have an itch he was scratching with his mobile shaped fingers.

papa smurf · 01-02-2009, 11:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

well in reality 2 coppers could say they saw him using the phone and really only one might have and perhaps their arrest figures needed bumping

. Anyway isnt it easy to prove if a mobile was being used at the time?

well having been a telephone engineer since 1979--i would have to say yes its easy [if your interested in the facts of the case] but this is all about prosecution without evidence or the word of the police [who are all totaly honest all of the time ,have better eyesight than mere mortals, never make mistakes,never fit any one up ,can judge speeds without the need of costly technology .. and any way he was obviously guilty

he's got form guv...

Derek · 01-02-2009, 11:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

well having been a telephone engineer since 1979--i would have to say yes its easy

Yes it is easy to show phone calls to/from a number were made at a certain time.

After you wade through the mountains of paperwork to get the records released and certified you still then have to prove that the number given was the one for the phone in the car and if he has a hands free kit you can't prove this was being used at the time.
And plenty of people still use their mobile when they have hands-free kits in the car.

01-02-2009, 13:52

Maybe i am looking at this too simply but if were not going to take the word of two police officers and are not prepared to acquire the evidence i the form of phone records to support their statements then exactly what is the point in allowing police officers to be witnesses.

Sorry Papa me and you agree on many things but i cannot agree with your view of the police in general m8. Yes there are bad ones we all know that but as a complete group i believe they are decent honest people doing a job most in this country while loving to criticise wouldn't do and they do deserve our support in every aspect.

We expect them to hold a line in our society and protect the public at a time when it seems the system itself is less interested in protecting the public and more interested in the rights of criminals and of course political agendas. Question i often ask myself these days is why anyone would want to be a police officer given that they rarely get any thanks for the job they do are constantly criticised and examined see criminals laugh at them on their way out of the court when they get a pathetic sentence and are a piggy in the middle between whatever political party is ruling at the time.

You couldn't pay me enough to consider being a police officer in this day and age and i have the highest respect for the people that are and continue day in and day out to do the job.

papa smurf · 01-02-2009, 14:17

Andrew Haughney, prosecuting, said the case boiled down to the reliability of the witnesses.

The stipendiary magistrate told McDonald: "I am not entirely happy with the Crown evidence in this case. If I have any doubts then I have to go with you.

............................
" reliability of the witnesses" [2 police officers] if there not good enough for the magistrate why should any one else accept there word ,without evidence.

Will21st · 01-02-2009, 18:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Err yes the Judge could have accused him of that.

Yes,could have,but he didn't

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

When someone drives past you with their hands to their ear you can tell if they have a mobile phone in their hands.

Maybe,maybe not.Depends on many factors,i guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

These two cops both saw the driver using a mobile phone when driving.

Yes,and those two PO should be believed,just cause they're POs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

He said he wasn't.

He has the right not to incriminate himself.Maybe he didn't use it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

The judge took his word over the word of two eyewitnesses.

Maybe the witnesses weren't believable.Or there was other circumstantial evidence to support the defendants story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

All this does is make prosecuting cases much harder. There is now nothing to stop people turning up in court and saying.

"I didn't go through that red light, the Police are out to get me"
"I didn't have a phone in my hand, the Police are out to get me"

etc. etc.

No.This goes on a case by case basis.

Also,interesting how you didn't comment on the hand-set... why would he use the phone?like I said,IMHO the judge made the right choice.

**Maggy** · 01-02-2009, 18:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

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

So let me get this straight..even if the two eye witnesses were ordinary members of the public it would not be enough? Or is it just policemen in particular?

Or would it have to be 3,4,5,6 or more witnesses?

Just how far did it have to go before this judge would accept eye witnesses?

papa smurf · 01-02-2009, 19:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So let me get this straight..even if the two eye witnesses were ordinary members of the public it would not be enough? Or is it just policemen in particular?

Or would it have to be 3,4,5,6 or more witnesses?

Just how far did it have to go before this judge would accept eye witnesses?

how many good citizens have witnessed acts of witchcraft and burned the innocent in the past caught up in hysteria .
what if 6 people conspire to get a person convicted for a crime they did not commit .
all that that is required here is good solid evidence /and there was none in this case .
and i do not believe that only the police can be guilty of perjury it afflicts all
of society ,this is why we desire the burden of proof before condemning the accused ...

Derek · 01-02-2009, 19:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will21st

Also,interesting how you didn't comment on the hand-set... why would he use the phone?like I said,IMHO the judge made the right choice.

Plenty of people have a hands free kit in their car and don't use it. My brother has one fitted but if he gets a phonecall brings up the phone to his ear and talks away (Yes he knows my feelings and I'll be the first to say I told you so when he eventually gets caught)

Roughly a third of the people I've ever stopped for using their phone have had a bluetooth headset or hands-free kit in the car yet still had the phone clamped to the side of their head when talking on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Will21st

Or there was other circumstantial evidence to support the defendants story.

Such as? What circumstantial evidence is there that you were doing or not doing something whilst enclosed in a glass and metal box with no-one beside you?

**Maggy** · 01-02-2009, 20:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

how many good citizens have witnessed acts of witchcraft and burned the innocent in the past caught up in hysteria .
what if 6 people conspire to get a person convicted for a crime they did not commit .
all that that is required here is good solid evidence /and there was none in this case .
and i do not believe that only the police can be guilty of perjury it afflicts all
of society ,this is why we desire the burden of proof before condemning the accused ...

Witchcraft?Hysteria?

Red herring time.

Answer the question dammit..Don't skirt round it.

Will21st · 02-02-2009, 00:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Plenty of people have a hands free kit in their car and don't use it. My brother has one fitted but if he gets a phonecall brings up the phone to his ear and talks away (Yes he knows my feelings and I'll be the first to say I told you so when he eventually gets caught)

Roughly a third of the people I've ever stopped for using their phone have had a bluetooth headset or hands-free kit in the car yet still had the phone clamped to the side of their head when talking on it.

OK,i bet lots of people are probably too lazy to get the hands free going.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

Such as? What circumstantial evidence is there that you were doing or not doing something whilst enclosed in a glass and metal box with no-one beside you?

The hands-free set could be construed as not needing to use the phone directly.As the defendant did,and rightly so.

Derek,the court thought the two witnesses weren't believable.Having read the link,of course I can't comment on that,as I wasn't there.
However,it does seem like the case isn't as clear cut as you like to make it.Also,why do you feel the need to defend your colleagues so vehemently?No cop ever corroborated his buddies story out of camaraderie?

The courts decide who's guilty or not,not the cops!

Plus,IN DUBIO PRO REO

punky · 02-02-2009, 20:49

Another that'll-learn-'em...

Stupid tart who's texting whilst driving and crashes into a stationary car at 70mph killing someone, gets a 21 month jail sentence and a 3 year ban (probably served concurrently)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm

This wasn't an accident or a moment's inattention. This was willfull criminal negligence.