Black Lives Matter

[downquark1]

Well concerns about jury contamination are entirely valid unfortunately.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Well concerns about jury contamination are entirely valid unfortunately.

Nothing to do with any fictitious jury contamination. Anything other than a full on guilty verdict is just not going to be allowed.


The "fascist" forces have well and truly been unleashed. All downhill from now on.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Nothing to do with any fictitious jury contamination. Anything other than a full on guilty verdict is just not going to be allowed.


The "fascist" forces have well and truly been unleashed. All downhill from now on.

So to sum up we might as well do nothing at all and just give up and leave it alone.

[tweetiepooh]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Should really be black lettering.

Black on White or White on Black?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Nothing to do with any fictitious jury contamination. Anything other than a full on guilty verdict is just not going to be allowed.


The "fascist" forces have well and truly been unleashed. All downhill from now on.

The issue is though, no matter what he did before being restrained, the way he was restrained was unacceptable.

Now, the he acted can be brought forward as mitigation into the way the cops handled it but they are guilty of accidental death, and the fact that they ignored his pleas that he couldn't breath the prosecution may even ask for the accidental part be removed.

Even without the sideshow, if the facts were brought before any jury, I would expect them to be found guilty of whatever the US version of accidental death is.

[Carth]

I wonder how they're going to find 12 impartial people for the jury?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The issue is though, no matter what he did before being restrained, the way he was restrained was unacceptable.

Now, the he acted can be brought forward as mitigation into the way the cops handled it but they are guilty of accidental death, and the fact that they ignored his pleas that he couldn't breath the prosecution may even ask for the accidental part be removed.

Even without the sideshow, if the facts were brought before any jury, I would expect them to be found guilty of whatever the US version of accidental death is.

But who was guilty and of what? The only person who could even remotely be charged with murder, is Kueng. The reason he needed to be restrained was because of HIS behaviour. How else was he going to be restrained? Even in the fictitious scenario of him not needing to be restrained, how exactly do you restrain somebody, in order the stop them injuring others or themselves? The police officers didn't do it for fun. As I said, the police are instructed to ignore bogus pleas, especially ones able to be made 16 times. At no point did he indicate he was going to go quietly.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

I wonder how they're going to find 12 impartial people for the jury?

Already tried and convicted in the court of public opinion , no justice just mob rule.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Already tried and convicted in the court of public opinion , no justice just mob rule.

My thoughts entirely to be honest. I'm sure we will all be treated to the 'trial of the decade' streamed live . . on every channel apart from . . . err . . um . . a couple of the food channels

[papa smurf]

Interesting video showing why Black lives are so special

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...ndishes-sword/

[Taf]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Already tried and convicted in the court of public opinion , no justice just mob rule.

Trial by (biased) news media.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But who was guilty and of what? The only person who could even remotely be charged with murder, is Kueng. The reason he needed to be restrained was because of HIS behaviour. How else was he going to be restrained? Even in the fictitious scenario of him not needing to be restrained, how exactly do you restrain somebody, in order the stop them injuring others or themselves? The police officers didn't do it for fun. As I said, the police are instructed to ignore bogus pleas, especially ones able to be made 16 times. At no point did he indicate he was going to go quietly.

There’s 4no. Police officers with guns. cuff him , hands behind back, and sit him on his arse. Looking at the shape of he wouldn’t have been able to get up.

They failed, visibly, in their duty of care to somebody being detained - there is no way around it.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Interesting video showing why Black lives are so special

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/uknews...ndishes-sword/

Other aspect to it.
Link

Twenty-two police officers have been injured during clashes at an illegal street party involving an estimated 400 people in south London.
Two officers and two people at the party were taken to hospital following the "unlicensed music event" in Brixton on Wednesday night.
Four people were arrested and the Met described the attacks on police as "totally unacceptable".

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

There’s 4no. Police officers with guns. cuff him , hands behind back, and sit him on his arse. Looking at the shape of he wouldn’t have been able to get up.

They failed, visibly, in their duty of care to somebody being detained - there is no way around it.

In what way do suggest they use their guns?
How would simply handcuffing him, with hands behind the back, stopped him from thrashing around, especially using his legs and/or spitting. He was already handcuffed, hands behind the back, and sitting(or trying to be sat) in the patrol car. At some point, they had to be able to get him in that car, and down to the station. He might've been interviewed by the Secret Service. He was accused of a Federal offence.

Short of using Chloroform, what else were they expected to do?

[Pierre]

In what way do suggest they use their guns?

I didn’t say they should use them. The fact they have them is a deterrent. Is the point I was making.

How would simply handcuffing him, with hands behind the back, stopped him from thrashing around, especially using his legs and/or spitting

. He can thrash around as much as he likes on his arse, I reckon he would have about 90 seconds in him before he was blowing out his backside.

He was already handcuffed, hands behind the back, and sitting(or trying to be sat) in the patrol car. At some point, they had to be able to get him in that car, and down to the station.

They should have waited until he was compliant or called for more offices and put him in a van like they do here.

He might've been interviewed by the Secret Service. He was accused of a Federal offence.

Short of using Chloroform, what else were they expected to do?

not kill him would be the starting point.

You’re trying to defend the indefensible.

I’m sure there are lots of scenarios that could have taken place that didn’t result in his death

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

I didn’t say they should use them. The fact they have them is a deterrent. Is the point I was making.

. He can thrash around as much as he likes on his arse, I reckon he would have about 90 seconds in him before he was blowing out his backside.

They should have waited until he was compliant or called for more offices and put him in a van like they do here.

not kill him would be the starting point.

You’re trying to defend the indefensible.

I’m sure there are lots of scenarios that could have taken place that didn’t result in his death

Why mention guns if you're not expecting them to use them in some way? A deterrent is only a deterrent, if you're prepared to use it? Are you really saying they should've been prepared to shoot him?

Thrashing around in a confined space is not a good idea. If only for that person's own safety.
Difficult to be expected to come up with examples.
In the REAL WORLD.
Link

ALBANY — A man arrested by Albany police who was being transported by detectives in an unmarked car injured himself during an agitated back seat outburst and was taken by ambulance to Albany Medical Center with minor injuries Friday afternoon

Link

Williams began trying to knock out the side window by repeatedly hitting it with his head.
...
The coroner ruled that Williams's death was the type of sudden death that occurs in individuals that are markedly agitated and are physically restrained.

UK ACPO advice

A violent or restrained detainee must not be placed in a police vehicle unsupervised. Detainees who have struggled violently should not be placed in a vehicle unrestrained.
...
Where a detainee becomes violent, staff should, where practicable,
stop the vehicle, regain control and only then resume the journey; it may be necessary to call for assistance and to change to a more
suitable vehicle.

What should they have whilst waiting for any fictional van? Let him run away? Even in a van he would've needed restraining.

Plenty of examples of where UK Police have had to use force.