Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
You think the Police can be above the law.
Im of the opinion they should practice what they preach, we are suposed to be living in a society that give equal right to all.
Police criticized for "unlawful" methods following Drug barons arrest
- Thread starter ajt09
- Start date
- Replies 89
- Views 4K
Im of the opinion they should practice what they preach, we are suposed to be living in a society that give equal right to all.
Can easily reverse that. If they follow what they preach, and allow crime then it just shows that they're weak and will allow you to get away with it. Some times you need exceptions. Are you fine with an ambulance speeding to save a patient? Are you fine with a fire engine speeding to put out a fire? What if a man was holding you at gunpoint, he's about to shoot you but a police officer shoots him without getting the go ahead. Would you be ****** at him for breaking the law? Come on, please. So you'd rather have a drug problem and another murderer in your city than the police break the law to stop it?
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
But the emergency services are lawfully aloud to do those things so im fine with it. They arent allowed to bug cars. But they proceeded to do it anyway. But they dont preach about allowing crime. They preach about going about things the right way and within the law.
My point is that we allow those emergency services to break the law in order to protect society. The same applies to the police, the point is they should be allowed to do it, which is the point of this debate.
They preach about doing things the right way and within the current law, but their objective is to stop crime. So they can't complete their objective AND do as they preach. As Joseph Heller would say, it's their catch-22. The solution to the catch-22 would be to make it possible for them to do this thing, and **** right they should be able to.
Some of the posts here are disgusting...if you disagree with the laws and think the police should have less restrictions in catching criminals, that's one thing, and it's something I won't disagree with you on (I don't know how it works in Britain). But it seems that just about everyone in this thread thinks that the police should not have to follow the laws and that they should be able to do whatever they want in pursuing these criminals...how can you actually believe this? There are laws and procedures in place for a **** good reason. If you don't like them, than change them. But don't go and advocate for the police ignoring them completely...I can't believe I'm actually hearing this in a modern, liberal, western country. Is Britain turning fascist?
Britain isn't turning Fascist, Britain is turning too Liberal. People go on about criminals rights, what about the rights of people affected by crime. Criminals make a living by violating other peoples rights and then moan that they should have more rights, maybe they should have thought about their victims rights before they committed crimes. And why should members of the public like me campaign for the rights of someone who has infringed mine ?? TOTAL LUNACY!!!!!
Strawman argument. You're claiming that we think the police "should be able to do whatever they want" in catching criminals. Not so. I just think that the police should be allowed some leeway to catch criminals without having to deal with the red tape of the law on occasion. Look at the example in the OP, they caught him using borderline illegal methods. If they didn't do that, their case would be weakened and they might ot have got him.
It's a high risk thing. It's going to result in more catches, but also more public indignation. I'm happy with the tradeoff.
This.
But would the public really be that unhappy? I find there is general outrage in the public when a criminal gets away because of red tape or a loophole, and when the trespasser sues the person who assaulted him for invading his own property for example.
Curtis, my argument wasn't that the police should be allowed to disallow laws at will. I was saying that those laws should be wavered in certain situations in order to help them put a criminal way. In the same way the speeding law is wavered for emergency vehicles. This man was a serious drug dealer and murderer. How can he complain about his car being bugged when he took someone else's right to live?
Shay Given
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2010
- Messages
- 3,638
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Pretty much what I was trying to say. I wouldnt give a **** if they put a law in place that allows them to bug suspected criminals but they arent allowed to atm. When they break the Law they become criminals no matter how they justify being above the law.
The general idea of most people in the thread is that criminals shouldn't get rights and that the police shouldn't have to follow any restrictions in pursuing them. That thinking is borderline fascist. If you think the police should have less restrictions in pursuing criminals, that's one thing. But that's not the argument you're making.
It's not a strawman argument. Strawman is attacking the person rather than their argument. The posts in this thread have repeatedly made claims such as 'criminals don't have rights' and that 'disregarding procedure is OK while catching criminals.' That type of thinking is disturbing. First of all, the idea that criminals don't have rights is pretty much in violation of every principle the UK is based on...in western, liberal countries we have the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty, and it's an idea we cherish. That means that you aren't a criminal until you're convicted and you have rights. The second part is equally disturbing: the idea that the police should not have to follow procedure pretty much violates everything liberal government is based on.
If you want to change the red tape and loopholes so that the police can better catch criminals, that's fine. But the claim has been repeatedly made here that the police should not have to follow the red tape and legal procedures. That's what's scary. You said that your argument "wasn't that the police should be allowed to disallow laws at will," but that's exactly what your argument said. Wavering laws when you feel like it is the same as breaking them. There is no difference in the eyes of the law. If I steal something, it doesn't matter if my justification was good or not, the Law is the Law.
Now, if you want to change the Law so that the police can more easily bypass certain restrictions, that's fine, but police investigations have to be by the book and done through the correct procedures. That's why these procedures exist. Your analogy with the ambulance is a very poor one: speeding is a law that the general public must abide by that certain government vehicles obviously don't. Privacy rights deal directly with the government: they protect us from government spying and unwanted intrusion in our lives, and that's why they exist, and there are no exceptions. Thus the government cannot ignore these whenever they feel like it. They can bypass these laws, obviously, when they need to (such as in the case of pursuing criminals) by following the correct procedures. In the US this is done by obtaining a warrant (at least that's how it works in the US), and if you want to change the law so that they can get a warrant more easily, that's fine.
But people are claiming in this thread over and over again that the government should not have to follow procedures and that they should be able to do whatever they want in catching criminals. That type of thinking is shocking. And what I always find amusing is that in the US and Britain, the people that constantly criticize big bad government for 'violating our rights' and 'its unwanted presence in our lives' through taxes and regulations seem to have no qualms about the government having unlimited powers to spy on us and not having to follow any procedures in pursuing the "enemy," whether they are suspected criminals or suspected terrorists.
"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
Which is exactly what you're doing.
And how am I misrepresenting their position? As I've stated a couple of times now, I find it disgusting that everyone here seems to think that the police don't need to follow procedure. The last few posts in the thread state exactly what I was criticizing:
The police were totally right, they used methods available to catch a criminal, if thats deemed wrong then there is something fundamentally wrong with society.
PS. To anyone who thinks of replying with 'the police can't allowed to go round bugging people, how would you like it if they bugged you'. I would reply 'I couldn't care less as I don't commit crimes, they can bug me all they want'.
PPS. To anyone who thinks of replying to the PS. with 'well its just the principle of it'. I would reply 'I don't see why we should risk peoples safety just to satisfy some idiots principles/ego, it kind of sounds like you're just making excuses what do you have to hide'.
Rant over, much better...... this is what happens when I get stressed by FM lol
Joel repeatedly stated that what the police did was OK, that they can break the law and ignore procedure since it's for the greater good. This line of thinking is frightening, and there's a reason that our governments don't operate like this. Police have to follow procedure for a reason, and they can't simply claim that they are breaking the law "for the greater good" and get away with it. You can't pick and choose when you follow the law and break it whenever you feel like it "for the greater good." If you don't like the law, than change it. But you still have to follow it. I can't believe I'm actually having this discussion.
I also find it really disappointing that Joel in his last post claimed that he never said the police should be allowed to break the law and ignore procedure ("my argument wasn't that the police should be allowed to disallow laws at will") when he clearly said that in his two posts before that.
i said "no", not because the man didn't deserve jail but because its dangerous to allow the police to abuse power to prosecute people. Regardless of whether this time it was in the interest of the greater good it is a pandora's box we should never open
the fact that this man was commiting blatant crimes also suggestions they could have collected "legal" evidence against him.
the fact that this man was commiting blatant crimes also suggestions they could have collected "legal" evidence against him.
Irish Scouse
Bob Kelso. ❥
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2009
- Messages
- 4,986
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Legally wrong.
Morally right.
More of this scum off the street the better it is for us all.
Morally right.
More of this scum off the street the better it is for us all.
well not for cannabis smokers in jersey,
besides i object to the term 'scum'- this guy wasn't nice but what about everyone else arrested by the police?
i bet De Menzes was scum too was he?
the police are too inept and corrupt to trust with the power they have, let alone allowing them to supercede the law
Curtis290 does have a reasonably fair point. I can see what he means in that it is a slippery slope from this to police beating confessions out of anyone. I mean if you take the 'break procedure for the greater good' argument to far then the police will be beating confessions out of people who 'most likely did it' and have no evidence against them. However in this instance I think what Irish Scouse said kinda hits the nail on the head 'Legally wrong. Morally right.'
I think the real problem with things like this is the current legal procedures. It's ridiculous that the police are refused permission to do stuff like bug someone's car. In my eyes the police should be able to use whatever methods necessary (as long as they aren't hurting innocent people) to catch criminals, and as far as bugging cars/phones/houses goes they shouldn't even need to ask permission, they should just be able to do it as even if the person turns out to be innocent then the police haven't hurt anyone or anything like that. The police should be able to get on with their job in a far more unimpeded way than they currently can.
I think the real problem with things like this is the current legal procedures. It's ridiculous that the police are refused permission to do stuff like bug someone's car. In my eyes the police should be able to use whatever methods necessary (as long as they aren't hurting innocent people) to catch criminals, and as far as bugging cars/phones/houses goes they shouldn't even need to ask permission, they should just be able to do it as even if the person turns out to be innocent then the police haven't hurt anyone or anything like that. The police should be able to get on with their job in a far more unimpeded way than they currently can.
I can't believe the man who advocates cannabis use (AKA illegal activity) has such a huge problem with police breaking the law. Hypocrisy thy name is you.
Also, your argument about a criminal having rights until proven guilty is dumb. A criminal is defined as a person who has committed a crime, thus if you're innocent until proven guilty you're seen as committed nothing till prosecuted. Since you've been prosecuted, you're therefore guilty, and you therefore lose your rights.
And I said multiple times that it's exceptional cases where they can break the law. Generally, if you're at the high end of the police force to be involved with this sort of crime, I'd like to believe they have the intelligence to make the correct judgement call. If they abuse their power, they get prosecuted the exact same as everyone else. Just as you would be in an illegal police shooting. If we don't have people intelligent enough to be trusted to make these judgement calls, then frankly we have bigger problems with our investigative police department.
There's always going to be circumstances that the law won't cover, so it's stupid to let serious criminals get away with it over petty loopholes in the law.
Curtis and Joel you are both saying a similar thing and are both half right as far as I see. Yes the police can't have be allowed to just break procedure at will, that would lead to a Gestapo style police force, however there are always going to be unforeseen circumstances/legal loopholes etc. so what is needed is for the procedures to be far more relaxed and for the police to be able to take a broader view of them so that when someone tries to exploit a loophole the police can still do them for it.
Innocent until proven guilty.. He wouldn't have been proven guilty if the police hadn't surpassed a minor law, which in turn, found him guilty, but if you want drug barons and the like to run riot around the world, then you, sir, are a fool. They won't have just broke this law in a split second decision, it would have been down to hours of deciding whether it was worth it or not, based on the evidence they currently have, they basically just hit the nail on the head with an excellent decision to do so. Like someone said before, unknowingly tapping someones phone line doesn't hurt anyone, the only way you will know they have done it is when you're down the old bailey, looking at definate imprisonment, this is a news story, you, nor I know what the police will have gone through to make this decision.
Last edited: