What can we do?
Police must have the authority to stop violent crime -- without, themselves, being charged with violence. On the other hand, there could well be police who misuse -- overuse -- their right to use violence. So we need to balance that, with a public right to call attention to overuse of violence by police.
email nick leth at gmail dot com. Need solutions? No worries. Now. |
When a thug claims "self defence" as an excuse for thumping the police, the thug is really acting as a vigilante. When a violent thug becomes entitled to take the law into their own hands -- we are heading for mob rule by violence.
Do not hit the police officer
Rule 1, as it should be: Do not hit the police officer.If the police use excessive violence -- report it. There are procedures for charging police with excessive violence. Follow them -- after the fight is finished. Do not reply to violence with more violence.
Rule 2, as it should be: The police officer will stop the fighters as quickly as possible.
It's like war, really: the aim is to stop the thug as quickly as possible -- before they do any more harm. Get them down and out of the fight. Unconscious thug? Fine. Injured thug? Unfortunate. Dead thug? Improve police training so that "unconscious" is easier to achieve than "dead". Excessive police violence? Take it -- after the fight -- to the appropriate tribunal.
What if the thugs insist on their right to violence?
Violent thugs -- and their lawyers -- seem to feel that violence is their right. Funny, isn't it. Big, tough people think that violence is okay. Their lawyers are paid to believe that violence is okay. Only the people on the receiving end of violence seem to object.Still, there may be a valid point. So...
Alternative rule 1: Police will ring-fence the fight. Let no new person in. If someone wants to leave the fight, let them through the ring-fence (but not back again). Once the fight winds down, arrest anyone who needs to be arrested. That is, police will not attempt to stop a fight. They will stop it growing, they will limit the area affected by the fight.
You want a fight? No worries, you'll also be expected to finish it.
What about the weak and "innocent"? They'll end up in hospital or the morgue. Just as it is now. What about the strong and "guilty"? They will be charged and, probably, released.
So, no change to the outcomes for the fighters. Just a limit to the spread of the fight. And police have less chance of being injured.
A stupid rule, really. But I suggest it as a sop to those who believe that police should have their hands tied behind their backs when attempting to stop a violent fight.
This is my court!
Judge Mazza dismissed a juror. Why? She had -- allegedly -- already made up her mind. One juror said, Your honour, that other juror believes that the thugs are guilty. The judge threw a hissy fit: I have not yet finished my summing up, how dare you decide before I have finished speaking, get out.Okay, the judge had had a bad day. Defence lawyers had been attacking him, it had been a long trial, etc, etc. Is that a reason for the judge to spit the dummy? To ignore all the rules about guilt and innocence?
According to one juror, the other juror had already made up her mind. That's what the paper would report as "allegedly" -- not yet proven, innocent until proven guilty. Yet the judge skipped all that difficult stuff and decided, Guilty, get out, don't you dare to not need my summing up to make up your own mind.
Ah well.
It's just a judge using his own position of power. I guess we should be glad that he did not hit the juror with a flying head butt.
Agamedes Consulting. Support for your thought: email nick leth at gmail dot com |
No comments:
Post a Comment