hmm still in cock territory…. who said he has a gun……why did you follow him out of the club, how do you know the box he has gone to is the box containing the gun…..give me a year or so to present my case for the defence……oh and whilst your at it i want the case for the prosecution as disclosure too….before my client speaks…. don't forget my 2000 pounds a day legal aid as well….
Matt if you work in/at clubs in this day and age you must have an understanding of common law. Didn't someone give the example of the Noyes stabbing of the surveillance officer, that was his defence and he was cleared. Your forgetting the officers involved had been given intelligence that he was now in possession of a firearm so their threat assessment is going to be high. If that kid turns up at your club holding a phone then that is what you react to. If they turn up making threats to shoot you or someone has told you they are in possession of a gun and they suddenly produce something in their hand you have a split second to do something. Is it a phone or a gun, very easy to make a mistake and you've only to to look at the shootings in the States to see this.
Mens rea Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind".[SUP][1][/SUP] In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of some crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus, or "guilty act," accompanied by some level ofmens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence). As a general rule, criminal liability does not attach to a person who merely acted with the absence of mental fault. The exception is strict liability crimes. In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability for breach of contract or tort, for example. However, if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability as well as the measure of damages payable to the plaintiff. Therefore, mens rea refers to the mental element of the offence that accompanies the actus reus. In some jurisdictions, the terms mens rea and actus reus have been replaced by alternative terminology. In Australia, for example, the elements of the federal offences are now designated as "fault elements" or "mental elements" (mens rea) and "physical elements" or "external elements" (actus reus). This terminology was adopted to replace the obscurity of the Latin terms with simple and accurate phrasing.[SUP][2][/SUP]
No Casp. We were not given any examples on the course as it was shite to be honest.Used to be better yrs ago when it was 1 or 2 day affair with lectures from police ,ambos and council . All I was told was be very careful using force now a days.Doormen attract complaints to police and if you have been found to overstep the mark or over react even slightly your in the shit was the basic jist of it. Ever heard of the one where if you genuinely believe someone is about to attack you you can attack them first and claim self defense.Lecturer laughed and said good luck in court if you try that one. I was under the impression myself that I would only use very serious force if I could confirm weapon with my own eyes and person actualy tries to attack me or others with it.Just to keep on the right side of the law.Now im thinking as long as I believe the threat is real its ok to act even if I cant see clearly what they are holding.Seems very open to mistakes on my part or information about them carrying weapon could be incorrect. Think id want to see weapon clearly with my own eyes or wait until I could before killing someone.
Matt I'm surprised that the course for door staff is worse now than it used to be, stupidly I thought they were trying to regulate it better through training. After watching the Bouncers documentary you have my sympathy as there seems to be more dickheads than ever out there and they all know their rights..... Allegedly. To be honest we can all say what we would do but until we are actually In that position we don't know
the thing is Matt why do you have to do anything with the threat? ……walk away, call the Police. I don't mean that churlishly, what is the real root of your job……..you don't have to follow up information, you can walk away from the situation anytime, you don't have to get involved...
Andy you don't get chance really to call the police or walk/run away as trouble is usualy aimed at us from close quarters.Even if you do unless they happen to be at top of street the incident is usualy over or someone has been shot or shot at/stabbed half kicked to death etc etc by the time they get there.Not blaming them as they don't have a magic tardis.This is a good example of the majority of serious violent incidents ive faced.Ie little chance to call the police for back up or walk away. Besides when I did this previously we handled things ourselves and even the gangsters stayed well away from the one crew I worked with.Plus management hates you calling police as it looks bad and club/bar licence can be revoked .
Casp I think my recent experience may have been a one off from a particularly bad company.Training provider paid for it so probably not the top company chosen.The company took the full money from training provider provided the lecture half of training and then fucked off without paying for application.Then folded lol. Training provider has had to stump up for application costs but for only a select few.Count yourselves lucky if you like clubbing as 17 people out of 20 where completey fucking useless but still passed the exam part. Not sure I want to return to doorwork without the right crew. Watched crimewatch I think and saw a young group turned away only for two to come back hooded and put two bullets in doormans chest.Result one dead doorman. Don't get me wrong ive got no time for the little cunts as without there guns they would be bitch slapped into place.However I still worry about people being shot without a weapon seen.Im no firearms instructor but seems more open to mistakes this way.
The Duggan case was a Coroner's inquest, not a trial. The findings of the jury and the pronouncements of the Coroner are not binding precedents, or precedents of any kind, even for other inquests let alone for criminal prosecutions. They are applicable only to that case. So what ever case you might (hypothetically) be involved in, the Duggan case would make no difference one way or the other.
Because the police never lie... Pictures and video of tuition fees protest force Scotland Yard to pay out twice over 'inconsistent' claims - London - News - London Evening Standard
Ugh. Police demand notes from Channel 4 on Lawrence spying whistleblower | UK news | The Guardian ""The threat of prosecution is designed not only to keep me quiet but also all the other hundred or so former undercover officers from ever speaking out. It saddens me but does not surprise me that the police don't like their dirty undercover secret being revealed to the public. They should investigate the allegations properly."
There are about 220,000 people working in the UK police force, mostly officers, but also staff, admin and special constables. If only 0.5% of these were bad apples, that would be approx. 1,100 people. Not surprising then that there are examples of bad 'uns in the press, the courts and our own experience. There are good, indifferent and bad in all walks of life. The bad must be dealt with appropriately, whether it is by the authorities or folks discussing their opinions of specific cases as in this forum. Long may that continue, but let's keep a sense of perspective.
Of course, and I think we all appreciate that, but you have to remember the responsibilities that come with those jobs. For example, if you're a street sweeper and get your job wrong, the consequences are probably not too disastrous. If you're a brain surgeon, airline pilot, bus driver or armed police officer, then the consequences can be life threatening. Some people make honest mistakes and will face up to the consequences of those actions, but when you have people that lie, cheat, coerce and lie again to cover up their mistakes (whether genuine or not) then that is just plain and simply not acceptable.
A lyric from a song I like, 'feel bigger with a trigger, got a gun today'. Just imagine if all UK Police were armed with lethal force. So far we haven't copied the U.S. (yet).
this thread is about the Duggan case Ant……..where are the lies cheat coerce and lie again there then please?
and always believe the defence barrister and their team…. Top barrister denies perverting course of justice during Chris Huhne speeding case (From Streatham Guardian)
