Police criticized for "unlawful" methods following Drug barons arrest

[Joel`]

I'm livid. A cop killer wins thousands in legal aid, to help him in his case, in which he complains his prison is too dangerous for him and breaches his rights. Sorry you kill a cop-you deserve to die imo

Why can he complain about lack of rights when he made the conscious decision to completely remove everyone of the man's rights who he killed? Ridiculous.

 

[curtis290]

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.

Says the same guy who claimed that the BBC is an "illegal tax on the people" and that big bad government is taking too much control in our lives and the economy. So when the government taxes us and provides social services, it's big, bad, infringing on our rights, taking over, not being checked, etc. Yet when the government wants to invade our privacy or prosecute alleged criminals, it can pick and choose when it follows the law. I would call that hypocrisy.

And you've never sped before? Never littered? Never jaywalked? Never downloaded any music? Never made an unauthorized photocopy? Never committed a single infraction against the law? Who are you to judge?

And when I smoked weed, who did I harm? Whose rights did I infringe upon? More importantly, why did I never get caught? Because the practice where I'm from is that obviously people are going to smoke weed. The cops don't give a **** if you smoke in your home, it's none of their **** business and they know that. They just don't like the idiots that light up in public places, and they're the only ones they mess with. In Seattle the cops have instructions to not pursue any cases with weed under a certain weight...I can't remember exactly what it is, but it's around a few pounds. In other words, it's a law they don't give a **** about, it's like driving one mile an hour over the speed limit.

But more importantly, the reason your claim is bogus is I am not the cops. The cops better **** well follow the law because they ARE the law. They are the highest form of authority, they are the physical arm of the law, and they enforce it. They, more than anyone, must follow the law. That is one of the most important liberal principles: the government, more than any person or institution, MUST follow the law if it is to have any legitimacy whatsoever. Their disregard of the law is much more significant than some guy smoking a joint on his own property.

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.

But I was referring to your argument, not mine. My point is that you are defending the police for not following proper procedure in prosecuting ALLEGED criminals. You are innocent until proven guilty, meaning you still have rights. The police still have to respect your right to privacy, and if they violate it (meaning they don't follow the correct procedures), they are violating your rights because you are NOT a criminal. You aren't a criminal until you are found guilty in a court of law, and that court of law can't find you guilty UNLESS they follow the correct procedures, respect your rights, and give you a fair trial. These principles date back to the Magna Carta for Christ's sake.

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.

There are procedures that must be followed. When a policeman shoots someone, they have legal protection to do so under certain circumstances. Afterward, they do an investigation to determine if these were the correct circumstances. If they were, the policeman is OK. If not, than he gets in trouble.

Your second line just doesn't make sense. There aren't circumstances where the law "doesn't cover something." We have certain rights to a fair trial, rights to privacy, etc. The police can obviously infringe upon these rights, but they need to follow the correct procedure in doing so. If they don't, they are breaking the law, and that evidence can't be allowed in court. The proper procedures must be followed. That's how the law works. The government and police don't follow it only 99% of the time, they don't follow it only when they feel like it, they must follow it ALL of the time. That's why it's the law. It's supposed to be absolute. If you don't like it, change it, but they have to follow it. You say in "exceptional circumstances," but when is something an exceptional circumstance? Who determines this? It's a slippery slope, and if you give an institution the decision of when they can follow the law or not, than the law is meaningless and that institution only has to follow it when it wants. You say exceptional circumstance, but for the government or the police, every time they break the law and want to get away with it, it will be an exceptional circumstance.

The justification you have used for them breaking the law is the same justification used for so many atrocities in history. People like you said the same thing about the War on Terror, about the Patriot Acts, about Guantanamo Bay. The idea was that the government/military/police don't need to follow the law because it's the War on Terror. That they should get to pick and choose when the law was being followed. The supporters of the Bush administration said the EXACT same things you're saying. "What kind of society do we live in where we defend the rights of terrorists? Where we prosecute the police and government for trying to protect us? The terrorists gave up their rights when they decided to attack America! We are at War and the government is above 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.

Thank you, this is the point I'm making. It is a slippery slope, you can't just give the police the power to pick and choose when they follow the law. What happens when one of them ***** up and shoots the wrong guy? They'll simply choose to not follow the law/procedures in that circumstance. The last sentence, you wrote, is all I have been saying. What needs to be corrected are the PROCEDURES. If there are loopholes, fix the loopholes. That's the solution, not to simply say "**** the law" and allow the police to decide when they can enforce 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.

First of all, I have no idea where you're talking about split-second decisions to violate the law, because doing something like wire-tapping someone and following the correct procedures is not a split second decision. Wiretapping involves planning, meaning they have time to fill out the form for wiretapping someone. If you don't like the procedure and think it's too slow in helping cops pursue criminals, fine, I won't argue with you. Change the procedure. But don't go and claim that the procedure and law doesn't matter and that the police don't have to follow it.

I never said unknowingly tapping someone through the correct procedures is wrong. I simply said that you're supposed to follow the correct procedures because we have a RIGHT to privacy. If the police want to infringe upon my right to privacy, fine. But that has to bone through DUE PROCESS. That's the ******* point of the law. It's to limit government and protect us from it. Obviously government and society can infringe upon our rights, such as taxing us, but they have to follow the correct procedures in order to do so. That's the fundamental principle behind liberalism. I can't believe I'm having this discussion.

What if the Prime Minister simply issued a decree saying that all citizens will be taxed x amount of pounds to pay for this new unemployment program? And it happened like that, they didn't pass a law through parliament or anything? The people said their rights were infringed upon, but the government said it was an "exceptional circumstance." "Parliament is inefficient," they said. "We can't get the job done by following the procedure, so **** the law, we have to do what we have to do." When the people said this wasn't fair, they said that it was for the greater good, that the unemployment program was desperately needed, and "what kind of society do we live in where we get criticized for trying to make something good happen." What if the unemployment program actually was desperately needed?

What you don't see here is I am the one criticizing the government for the unemployment program, because they violated the law "for the greater good" and "in an exceptional circumstance," a couple of qualifications I don't give a **** about. And you people are the ones on the side of the government, because they did something for the greater good and that they shouldn't have to follow the law in pursuing the greater good.

Why can he complain about lack of rights when he made the conscious decision to completely remove everyone of the man's rights who he killed? Ridiculous.

Because you are innocent until proven guilty and the court of law has to follow the correct procedures in finding you guilty and putting you in jail. Since the Magna Carta Britain has had the principle that every person deserves a fair trial, and you've claimed that the courts and police don't need to follow procedures and that the trial doesn't need to be fair when it's for the greater good (putting a bad person in jail). Liberal thinkers for centuries have constantly written that allowing the government to follow the law at its own discretion, violating it when it's for the "greater good" is a recipe for disaster and the downfall of the very society we live in. When the Weimar Republic was dissolved, it was "for the greater good." I'm honestly stunned I'm even having this discussion. If you said that we need to change the law so that it isn't so overly zealous in protecting of our privacy rights, I wouldn't have even disagreed with you. But you didn't. You simply claimed that the government doesn't have to follow the law.

"Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither." - Ben Franklin

 

[Joel`]

Says the same guy who claimed that the BBC is an "illegal tax on the people" and that big bad government is taking too much control in our lives and the economy. So when the government taxes us and provides social services, it's big, bad, infringing on our rights, taking over, not being checked, etc. Yet when the government wants to invade our privacy or prosecute alleged criminals, it can pick and choose when it follows the law. I would call that hypocrisy.

And you've never sped before? Never littered? Never jaywalked? Never downloaded any music? Never made an unauthorized photocopy? Never committed a single infraction against the law? Who are you to judge?

And when I smoked weed, who did I harm? Whose rights did I infringe upon? More importantly, why did I never get caught? Because the practice where I'm from is that obviously people are going to smoke weed. The cops don't give a **** if you smoke in your home, it's none of their **** business and they know that. They just don't like the idiots that light up in public places, and they're the only ones they mess with. In Seattle the cops have instructions to not pursue any cases with weed under a certain weight...I can't remember exactly what it is, but it's around a few pounds. In other words, it's a law they don't give a **** about, it's like driving one mile an hour over the speed limit.

But more importantly, the reason your claim is bogus is I am not the cops. The cops better **** well follow the law because they ARE the law. They are the highest form of authority, they are the physical arm of the law, and they enforce it. They, more than anyone, must follow the law. That is one of the most important liberal principles: the government, more than any person or institution, MUST follow the law if it is to have any legitimacy whatsoever. Their disregard of the law is much more significant than some guy smoking a joint on his own property.

Of course I have, but I haven't gone into a rage about police breaking the law. They tapped his phone after careful thought and practice onto a known criminal who they strongly suspected to have serious misdemeanours, hardly interfering with your average Joe. And if you want to use my views on government having too much influence, then I can quite easily argue that it's overly regulated and poorly run and inefficient, hence preventing them from catching criminals.

And I wasn't using weed as a show of them not doing their job, it was showing hypocrisy. So, you're not harming anyone, so you don't care that won't catch you. But then when there's a murderer that they bend the law to catch, who WOULD and HAS harmed people, you don't want them to do it? Riiight.

There are procedures that must be followed. When a policeman shoots someone, they have legal protection to do so under certain circumstances. Afterward, they do an investigation to determine if these were the correct circumstances. If they were, the policeman is OK. If not, than he gets in trouble.

So why are they allowed to shoot someone and be investigated if they made the correct choice, and not tap someone's phone? I must say, shooting someone is a tad more serious.

Your second line just doesn't make sense. There aren't circumstances where the law "doesn't cover something." We have certain rights to a fair trial, rights to privacy, etc. The police can obviously infringe upon these rights, but they need to follow the correct procedure in doing so. If they don't, they are breaking the law, and that evidence can't be allowed in court. The proper procedures must be followed. That's how the law works. The government and police don't follow it only 99% of the time, they don't follow it only when they feel like it, they must follow it ALL of the time. That's why it's the law. It's supposed to be absolute. If you don't like it, change it, but they have to follow it. You say in "exceptional circumstances," but when is something an exceptional circumstance? Who determines this? It's a slippery slope, and if you give an institution the decision of when they can follow the law or not, than the law is meaningless and that institution only has to follow it when it wants. You say exceptional circumstance, but for the government or the police, every time they break the law and want to get away with it, it will be an exceptional circumstance.

Of course the law can't cover every single thing out there, hence why people who we would adjudge to have done something bad, get away with something through a technicality or legal loophole. That's what I was saying.

What if the Prime Minister simply issued a decree saying that all citizens will be taxed x amount of pounds to pay for this new unemployment program? And it happened like that, they didn't pass a law through parliament or anything? The people said their rights were infringed upon, but the government said it was an "exceptional circumstance." "Parliament is inefficient," they said. "We can't get the job done by following the procedure, so **** the law, we have to do what we have to do." When the people said this wasn't fair, they said that it was for the greater good, that the unemployment program was desperately needed, and "what kind of society do we live in where we get criticized for trying to make something good happen." What if the unemployment program actually was desperately needed?

And here I was thinking we lived in a tax free society, silly me! And that we haven't had tax rises recently, they can raise taxes as much as they like, it's their decision what they tax. The result would just be:
a) No chance of re-election
b) People will refuse to pay the tax (Laffer curve)
c) People's revolt.
Your analogy is weak. You can't just say something's for the greater good, taking everyone's money to fund employment is not for the greater good. People wouldn't work to be taxed in the first place, so it fails at the first hurdle. Preventing a criminal doing crimes is for the greater good.

Because you are innocent until proven guilty and the court of law has to follow the correct procedures in finding you guilty and putting you in jail. Since the Magna Carta Britain has had the principle that every person deserves a fair trial, and you've claimed that the courts and police don't need to follow procedures and that the trial doesn't need to be fair when it's for the greater good (putting a bad person in jail). Liberal thinkers for centuries have constantly written that allowing the government to follow the law at its own discretion, violating it when it's for the "greater good" is a recipe for disaster and the downfall of the very society we live in. When the Weimar Republic was dissolved, it was "for the greater good." I'm honestly stunned I'm even having this discussion. If you said that we need to change the law so that it isn't so overly zealous in protecting of our privacy rights, I wouldn't have even disagreed with you. But you didn't. You simply claimed that the government doesn't have to follow the law.

He was proven guilty, hence why he was, umm, in jail?

I didn't say the government was above the law. I said that in exceptional circumstances that the police should be exempt from certain laws to protect the population. Hence why I compared it to an ambulance speeding or a policeman shooting someone to prevent harm to others. In those exceptional circumstances, they are exempt. If they abuse the power, then investigations and/or charges are raised against them. I'm pretty sure I said this? It's already a prominent feature in society, I don't see the problem of the police having more ability to do their job.

If I said that they should be able to go around doing whatever the **** they like, then it was poor wording from me - do you really think I'm stupid enough to think that?

 

[hughsi]

I didn't say the government was above the law. I said that in exceptional circumstances that the police should be exempt from certain laws to protect the population. Hence why I compared it to an ambulance speeding or a policeman shooting someone to prevent harm to others. In those exceptional circumstances, they are exempt. If they abuse the power, then investigations and/or charges are raised against them. I'm pretty sure I said this? It's already a prominent feature in society, I don't see the problem of the police having more ability to do their job.

If I said that they should be able to go around doing whatever the **** they like, then it was poor wording from me - do you really think I'm stupid enough to think that?

The ambulance analogy is totally nonsensical. It completely backs up Curtis290's point, ambulances DON'T break the law because the procedures are flexible enough for them to legally speed. That is totally different from the police doing something against their procedures, if they do that then they ARE breaking the law.

He's also right on the 'innocent til proven guilty' argument. Yes this guy was guilty of the crime when they bugged his car but LEGALLY he was still innocent so you can't say 'well he's guilty so we can break procedure to prosecute him' because before you have successfully prosecuted him he is innocent by default. It's a paradox in a way. (Really difficult to put my thoughts into words so sorry if I'm unclear).

Curtis290, you are a *******, I voted yes to the question but now you've totally changed my mind, which I hate as it makes me feel that little bit less clever.

In this specific incident I have no problems with how events panned out, in fact I'm pleased with it. However it's a dangerous precedent to set and is just how **** Germany began. Very well argued my friend.

 

[Joel`]

The ambulance analogy is totally nonsensical. It completely backs up Curtis290's point, ambulances DON'T break the law because the procedures are flexible enough for them to legally speed. That is totally different from the police doing something against their procedures, if they do that then they ARE breaking the law.

He's also right on the 'innocent til proven guilty' argument. Yes this guy was guilty of the crime when they bugged his car but LEGALLY he was still innocent so you can't say 'well he's guilty so we can break procedure to prosecute him' because before you have successfully prosecuted him he is innocent by default. It's a paradox in a way. (Really difficult to put my thoughts into words so sorry if I'm unclear).

Curtis290, you are a *******, I voted yes to the question but now you've totally changed my mind, which I hate as it makes me feel that little bit less clever.

In this specific incident I have no problems with how events panned out, in fact I'm pleased with it. However it's a dangerous precedent to set and is just how **** Germany began. Very well argued my friend.

It's not nonsensical in the slightest. If police abuse their power then they are investigated then charged/sacked. Works better than allowing criminals to walk free. In the same way an ambulance driver will be sacked if he drives dangerously everywhere even when there's not an emergency. To compare it to **** Germany is utterly ridiculous. You're also proving exactly what I'm saying that the law is flexible for the ambulance service, and so it ****** should be for the police.

No he wasn't right on the innocent till proven guilty point. I was referring to a man who had been found guilty, sent to jail, THEN complained about lack of human rights. I'm pretty sure that makes him guilty, no?

 

[hughsi]

It's not nonsensical in the slightest. If police abuse their power then they are investigated then charged/sacked. Works better than allowing criminals to walk free. In the same way an ambulance driver will be sacked if he drives dangerously everywhere even when there's not an emergency. To compare it to **** Germany is utterly ridiculous. You're also proving exactly what I'm saying that the law is flexible for the ambulance service, and so it ****** should be for the police.

No he wasn't right on the innocent till proven guilty point. I was referring to a man who had been found guilty, sent to jail, THEN complained about lack of human rights. I'm pretty sure that makes him guilty, no?

Totally agree that it SHOULD be flexible but it isn't at the moment so the police should adhere to it. Hope they do make it more flexible going forward though.

On someone who went to jail THEN complained about their rights, again I totally agree with you, I thought you were referring to the rights of someone before they were convicted so my bad on that one.

 

[Joel`]

Totally agree that it SHOULD be flexible but it isn't at the moment so the police should adhere to it. Hope they do make it more flexible going forward though.

I thought that was the whole point of the discussion? It's quite frankly ridiculous that the police are under investigation for doing their job. And for this man's privacy, if the police had ****** up and he wasn't guilty, I'm sure the massive pay cheque from suing the **** out of the police force would cover it. Him and his lawyer's are just clutching at what they can to get him off.

 

[jamescfc]

completely agree with you. Drug dealers are scum if it were up to me they would be given the death penalty or a minimal of 30 years in prison. That would be some deterrent

 

[hughsi]

I thought that was the whole point of the discussion? It's quite frankly ridiculous that the police are under investigation for doing their job. And for this man's privacy, if the police had ****** up and he wasn't guilty, I'm sure the massive pay cheque from suing the **** out of the police force would cover it. Him and his lawyer's are just clutching at what they can to get him off.

The whole point of the discussion isn't about what the procedures should be but about what they are now. Obviously I have no sympathy for this guy as he's a drug dealer and he's off the streets but what the police did was wrong. If you say the police can break the law for the greater good then you may as well say the police never have to obey the law as there will be cops in places who will break the law at will and claim its for the greater good every time.

The police suspect thousands, if not more, people every year who turn out to be entirely innocent. Imagine you were one of those people and the police thought you were a major player in a drugs supply chain. By the 'greater good' way of doing things they could arrest you, beat you to a pulp every day for months in an attempt to get information out of you and if anyone tried to stop it they would say they were acting for the greater good because they would honestly believe that they were.

I know it's a big step from bugging to beatings but it's a very slippery slope. Like someone said, look at Guantanamo Bay, people said it was OK to break rules for the greater good and within a few years people were being held indefinitely, beaten and water-boarded.

The solution to the problem is to relax police procedures, not allow police to break them at will.

 

[Joel`]

The whole point of the discussion isn't about what the procedures should be but about what they are now. Obviously I have no sympathy for this guy as he's a drug dealer and he's off the streets but what the police did was wrong. If you say the police can break the law for the greater good then you may as well say the police never have to obey the law as there will be cops in places who will break the law at will and claim its for the greater good every time.

The police suspect thousands, if not more, people every year who turn out to be entirely innocent. Imagine you were one of those people and the police thought you were a major player in a drugs supply chain. By the 'greater good' way of doing things they could arrest you, beat you to a pulp every day for months in an attempt to get information out of you and if anyone tried to stop it they would say they were acting for the greater good because they would honestly believe that they were.

I know it's a big step from bugging to beatings but it's a very slippery slope. Like someone said, look at Guantanamo Bay, people said it was OK to break rules for the greater good and within a few years people were being held indefinitely, beaten and water-boarded.

The solution to the problem is to relax police procedures, not allow police to break them at will.

As I said, if our police force aren't intelligent enough to decide when and not to do things, then frankly we have far bigger issues than what they are/aren't allowed to do. Nor can you claim everything is for the greater good, your supervisors will adjudge if your actions are incorrect.

Bit of a big step from bugging to beating, there.

And what if a circumstance appears where the police need to break the law to save someone innocent. That particular law hasn't been relaxed yet, but many feel it should, but since it hasn't, the policeman is useless. It's bound to happen, it's simply impossible to have every scenario covered for by the law. In those circumstances the police should and need to be able to use their judgement to do the right thing, in the same way that any other citizen would. Since you like to exaggerate the effect of allowing them to do things at all, allow me to exaggerate where they have to follow the law by the letter, no exception. You're held at gunpoint, are you fine that a police squad aren't allow to shoot them to protect you? What if they had a suspected terrorist, and they didn't tap his phone and that person went on to kill hundreds the following week? Obviously the law has covered for these scenario's, my point is that it can't cover every scenario you may encounter, and it would be ridiculous to not allow that person to do what they must.

You can argue that it's a slippery slope, but so can I, that policeman are afraid to do their job correctly in fear of breaking the rules and losing his/her job or worst.