Not really mate, defendants don't even have to take the stand if they so wish, and nothing can be inferred from that. As to the IPCC giving police a hard time, quite right, they should, if they need to. However, everyone still has rights and entitlements, seems to me that these officers just exercised them (bear in mind I'm just surmising this, as all I've done is search the web to find out as most here have done). Would we be saying Glood that because they are the police then they do not have the rights of the 'normal' citizen?
no, a court may draw inference from a no comment……a lot weaker than a hostile act, but i don't see it ever making any difference in court cases...
as i understand it they are witnesses, and as such have submitted statements…..if they were arrested then they would be required to attend an interview, but they haven't been arrested….. what the IPCC want to do is a taped interview as per a suspect but with the Officers still being just witnesses…………….what would you do..
What I would be saying, is that the police are not being accused of anything by the IPCC. The latter are just mounting an investigation to see what actually happened. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't want to cooperate with that investigation, then the normal inference is that you have something to hide. They have all their rights. But if you simply want to say what happened, what is there to get shirty about? It is also not helpful for the image of the police (which is an important thing to protect, to facilitate their day-to-day jobs) to be seen to be not actively helpful. It's bound to sow seeds of doubt, or water the ones already there.
Maybe not in a court case but in an investigation it would suggest a witness who was being less than cooperative and most likely with something to hide.
All coppers are honest then. Is that an acceptable generalisation? All criminals are liars. Is that another? Oh hold on, if a copper becomes a criminal, does that mean all coppers are liars?!
It's been an interesting thread. My view when I kicked it off was that the police were in no way to blame. Now I'm not nearly so sure. I thought it was just the family whinging, but you get the impression that they have a point. Of course, if Duggan did run around with guns, then he laid himself open to something like this happening. After all, if you don't run around with weapons, you're fairly unlikely to be gunned down by the Old Bill, lawfully or otherwise (unless you're a Brazilian on the Tube). But it's pretty bloody rare.
i was with you up to the last bit………but then you are clever enough to know and understand ALL the circumstances surrounding that..
Did you witness that……….fook off…………..what can you do …..nothing……………not to be confused with a hostile witness in a court case different kettle of fish...
Inconsistencies in the witness testimonies. As others have previously pointed out not everyone has been telling the truth. Someone or some people have been lying and whilst it is reasonable to assume that investigating officers have no reason to lie it would be unreasonable to extend that priviledge to officers directly involved in the incident. The investigation should go where the evidence leads, without favouring anyone, until the inconsistencies have been resolved.
The cops have a job to do. Some are useless fecks, some are fantastic people dealing with other useless fecks. Human nature indicates and numbers (total employed by police forces) that there will be a fair mix of personalities and characters. There are proportion of police who bent as fuck, but they are being weeded out internally, and even denied posts as civilian (are not they all civilians really?) employees of forces nowadays. There was a time cops could rely on there being a post for them as civils to supplement their measly pension - not nowadays thank fuck. My last face to face with an unpleasant person (who happens to be a cop - a one time inspector now demoted - hehehe) was to ask him to leave gathering as he was embarrassing his sober workmates and other guests. The comment "get the fuck out of this here before you get a kicking" was enough for his mates (very embarrassed but junior in rank) to see sense and leave, taking the little shit with them before an incident occurred to their boss. Anyway I digress.. Was Duggan shot and killed purposely? I should think so, if you pull a weapon - use it. Was his death legal? Maybe not, but the inquest has given us the official view to be taken. If he had not been a little shit for many years he would most likely be alive still. Is it his character that resulted in his behaviour or his upbringing? I would not care to hazard a guess, because it would be a guess. Is the gent who pulled the trigger telling the truth? Again, it can be disputed. Would you pull the trigger or risk being shot? Me, I hope I would be mentally strong enough to tough it out and not pull, but then again............pull it, you know you will breath for a while longer. I can imagine that the good v bad attitude races so far in some of these police units that it more like crypts v bloods. People who join the police force are extraordinary, but not always for the right reasons -some very naive, some very targeted , some very nasty, some very decent and even a few cocks (demoted inspector achieves this rating). In General, dont be a bad fellow and you need not fear the weight of the law.
i think you and others are confusing individuals perceptions with not telling the truth…..which key witness has been lying?? and where is the proof it is was a lie, and why hasn't that said person then been arrested for perjury and why isn't it on the news…. There will always be inconsistencies…….and I'm sure the occasional cluster of process, but i would be more alarmed if stories were exactly the same
