Posts by Psyx

Re: The only thing more staggering...

Hey remember: Google aren't evil, because their motto says so!

*sips Koolaid*

Re: Police would definitely use that information against them if they got the chance

"Then why is ignorance of the law not a defence when you seem to think it is acceptable for police officers?"

Ignorance of the law is a viable defence if you otherwise acted as a reasonable person with decent morals and had no real reason to get prior legal advice.

If you genuinely believe the police should all have a degree in law and go on a ten-week refresher course each year, then you can pay for it. I'd rather they just did the police-work, let CPS sort out the complex legal matters and got done for wrongful arrest and harassment if they screw it up. Because that's what you can do if they do: If their partial knowledge of the law screws you over, the law is theoretically on *your* side.

Re: Police would definitely use that information against them if they got the chance

"And yet it is their duty to arrest anyone whom they see (or hear about) breaking the law. How on earth can they do that if they don't know the law themselves?"

Again - as already stated - they have a WORKING knowledge of the law. They're trained to do the job, not be lawyers.

Again: It's the job of the CPS to figure out precisely what laws were broken after the bill have pried the proverbial two parties off of each other and mopped up the blood.

And you can still sick them for illegal arrest or harassment if they balls it up.

It takes years to qualify to be a solicitor, and then you earn a ton of money. Do you honestly believe it's viable for our policemen to be trained to those standards of familiarity with the law?

What do you want: Policemen who are au fait on a working level with the law, or to triple the salray of every policeman.

Because those are your choices.

"Yet our legal system insists that every citizen must act as if he knew every law in detail."

No, it doesn't. That's not how our legal system works. It expects us to act as a reasonable person would. Ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the morally obvious, but it's a perfectly acceptable defence when it comes to intricacies that a reasonable member of the public would not understand, have exposure to, or be likely to take legal advice over.

Re: Also there is apparently no law against

"Police State Britain!"

Mate, I don't always think much of our police either, but it's not a police state. It's a long way away. And I don't like it to be called such as it belittles the plight of people who are unfortunate enough to live in them.

Ultimately, you're not going to be banged up without trial, beaten for confession and have your family threatened by the police because of your perceived wrongdoings. Our police don't routinely carry firearms. You can have a trail and legal representation. There are no star chambers.

It's not a perfect police force and I'll be near the front of the line when it comes to pointing out short-comings, but we should have a bit of perspective and consideration for those less fortunate before tossing around phrases like 'police state' and 'Orwellian'.

Re: They've got you...

"They can always claim that your Graphics Card transmitted it to your Monitor."

No 'they' can't, because the law of the land is supposed to be interpreted and sustained in line with what a reasonably intelligent and just man on the street would do.

Ultimately, our law is not about weaselling, but common sense. Common sense interpretations apply.

"If they have the judge in their pocket, he could rule on this."

Judges tend to take their work fairly seriously, despite what TV teaches us.

Re: Police would definitely use that information against them if they got the chance

Key thing to remember: The police are not barristers. They have a *working* knowledge of the law, but are not experts and aren't supposed to be.

Yes, I *know* that in an idealised world every PC would be au fait with every piece of legislation, but if they were, they'd be called 'lawyers who also patrol the streets', we'd have to pay them all over £80k a year and not many people would ever qualify for the job (and if they did, they'd take the training, work for 5 years and then go and work in the private sector for more money, just like RAF pilots and GPs). It's just not viable for police to know about what they're enforcing in detail. Instead they only have a working knowledge. That's why the CPS exist, and that's why a lot of arrests go nowhere when the CPS discover that there's no actual case.

The police exist to nick you for likely causing an offence and taking you to a station. It's someone with proper training's job to then figure out if you actually did something wrong.

However, all that doesn't excuse a PR dolt for passing legal advice on to a member of the media. Frankly, it's a stupid, stupid thing to have done, and whoever the muppet is should lose their job.

If things had been the other way around and the press had been advised by a PR officer that something was perfectly ok, and you read and acted on that and were later arrested, you know how much slack you'd be given for having been told what the law was by a PR copper? Zilch.

tl;dr: If you want legal advice, talk to a lawyer, not a copper.

"And just what exactly might anyone hope to find on any investigator's computer, ONE DAY after the plane went missing...?"

A news scoop?

The investigator's PIN and debit card details?

Classified RADAR traces that shows the military capabilities of another nation?

All are viable answers.

"More to the point, why is anything in such an investigation "classified"?"

Because some information passed to the investigation was from military sources - such as RADAR and later SONAR traces - and would demonstrate classified capabilities.

If the investigation did not guard that information at the appropriate level, future crash investigation could probably kiss goodbye from being handed such data from military sources (especially foreign ones) ever again, thus making the entire process more difficult for everyone in future and causing further woe for affected families seeking answers.

Hope that answers your question.

Re: The fact that the attack occured one day after MH370 disappeared...

"Clearly the Chinese Government..."

Supposition upon supposition. There is no evidence that the attack was even from the Chinese government - or even launched by people from China.

Even if it was, there's a gulf of difference between wanting the inside track and knowing that something is amiss.

Re: Another way to use this

"a "so called" photographer"

I don't think speech marks do what you think they do.

Re: Please

"In the meanwhile, I would like to inform some of you that sitting there and calling someone--not to his face--a wanker or a moron does not make you look big or clever, neither is that helpful in any way whatsoever."

If it helps, I'd gladly call him a wanker to his face if he'll come out of his hidey-hole.

Re: Does the court case matter?

"He might be not a nice person or even worse. But he did some good in his Wikileaks days."

That is and should not be of any relevance to a Court.

Rapeyness or not, we know that he is absolutely guilty of jumping bail and contempt of court in the UK.If you or I did that, we'd be banged up. why should he be any different?

What is there about this person that means they should not suffer jail for jumping bail?

Re: Sorry...

" I do care about the predicament in which he finds himself."

I don't intend ever getting all rapey and bail-jumpy, so it's not really relevant to me.

Re: "puts his life on the line every day"

"You Eurotrash should spend a whole night on the streets of a major US city and see how scared you get by the scum that police have to deal with every day; BEFORE you spout off about something you have NO IDEA about."

I have, thanks. Baltimore. It was surprisingly ok. The only intimidation I suffered through was a police officer. I'm not damning the man for being aggressive towards me or tarring an entire organisation with the actions of one man, but the only aggressive, rude and threatening behaviour I experienced was at the hands of a guy in uniform, toting a lethal weapon.

"It's pretty clear that you have already made up your mind and convicted the cop before he ever has a chance to go to court."

No, I'm open minded as to whether the gun was grabbed. I'm more appalled that the cop kept shooting after the guy had started running (and I'm open minded as to if that happened still), and even more appalled by your own attitude towards the impoverished racial minorities.

Re: Has anyone given thought to the fact that...

"But why are most people assuming that the kid was innocent?"

I'm personally not assuming he's innocent at all. I have an open mind.

However, when you have corpse with multiple bullet-holes in its back and no weapon, and another guy standing nearby with a weapon, it's fair to make some working assumptions in the name of public safety. You don't just assume the person was innocent and let them carry on as they were while you go about finding out.

When that person is a civvie, they are immediately arrested, the weapon taken away, they are detained, questioned and probably charged. Their name is leaked to the media and published, and their freedoms curtailed while an investigation is under-way. I don't think it's unreasonable for police officers to expect the same - or even more stringent - measures to be taken when they're the one standing next to the corpse. Certainly, my consent to be policed only extends for as long as police officers are subject to the same laws and treatment as the rest of us.

My open mindedness to the dead guy's guilt or otherwise is also a separate concern to him being dead, backshot, yards from the car. If he was struggling for control of a lethal weapon and was shot in the process... well that's fair enough: Tough. I'd expect the officer to be cleared (providing he had followed procedure and his firearm was properly secured.) But when the guy stops struggling, turns and runs away unarmed... that doesn't warrant execution: Which is what shooting someone unarmed in the back is.

Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

I love it when someone disagrees so vehemently that they go through the entire thread, down-voting every one of someone's comments.

Because that really shows rationality and isn't at all laughably pathetic.

Re: Not if you apply yourself!

"Not if you apply yourself!"

I just gave that post a second read, and it was no better the second time. Please tell me how the "whole culture promotes crime".

"there is nothing that can be done until they growup and want to have a better life"

I'm pretty sure most poor people don't want to be poor.

"My Niece (who was poor and half black and had a hard life with addicted parents and was raised by her white gandma) IS NOW A DOCTOR!"

Clearly only because she was raised by a white person or something, right?

The kind of attitude that you are preaching is precisely the problem: "It's not racist, it's just them poor black people all like rap music and won't try".

Re: Not if you apply yourself!

"Stop trying to make excuses for people who would rather loot and steal than face facts."

Wow.

I don't think he was looting anything. He was too busy being back-shot by a police officer.

"The percentage is high because they won't apply themselves."

'They'? What, all of them? More than the white people in the neighbourhood, or equally?

If it's the latter, then it's a problem with POVERTY, not racial minorities, as you would have it.

"I never made any such claim or assumption."

I never said or assumed you were.

"That is a matter of opinion."

No, it's a matter of historical fact. 150 years ago they were slaves. 50 years ago they were not allowed to sit at the front of the bus. Even if we pretend for a moment that America is no longer racist in any way, that means that the current generation is the first to have anything like equality. No time to establish themselves, no 'old money', not proportionally many families with enough tucked away to provide their kids with the best chances, et al.

"I see kids (many of them very smart) who wont even try at school because they are of the opinion that it wont do them any good afterwards"

And that's uniquely a 'black thing'? If it's not, then it's not a valid reason why a grossly disproportionate number are deprived. Are you seriously trying to go down 'the poor black kids are poor because they won't help themselves' route?

I can't even fathom why you are trying to persuade me that racism is not still firmly a part of US culture and that black people are not disproportionately deprived because - at heart - of racism.

"Is it racist to point out that the %age of people in US who commit crime are black is many many times higher than the percentage of the US population who are black?"

No, but its racist to then assume that the cause of them being criminals is because they're black. Truth be told, the reason why the percentage is high is because of the endemic racism in society means that people from racial minorities are more likely to be poor than us white guys.

"Is it racist to point out that according to an article I saw, in areas which are majority black less than 15% of applicants to join the police are black?"

Maybe because they are bought up in a section of society where the police are viewed as oppressive and unjust, rather than as protectors of the community?

Re: On the matter of the public's right to know. (They don't!)

"A cop is not automatically bad, you just make him out to be that way. "

When someone is standing over the body of someone they repeatedly shot, they probably aren't a 'good' person by my moral default.

"It is a "right of passage" of gangs to kill a cop or some bystander."

What, all of them? citation required. You condemn a poster for inferring all cops are bad, but then state that all gangs murder cops/bystanders by way of initiation.

"Therefore the cop shouldn't even think once before unloading a whole magazine into the scumbag."

Yeah. Screw it: Gun the scumbag down! And like you said: The USA is NOT the wild, wild west!

"It's as simple as that. And by the way don't expect any fair treatment by cops, TSA, ICE, Border Patrol or any other "public" servant who puts his life on the line every day for sorry losers like you!"

Idiot. You have appeared to missed the entire concept of justice, policing and policing by consent.

Re: What happened to the principle of...

"Obama is a baldface liar and you have no real argument just your ignorant comments."

Unlike your chosen brand of politician, who is honest and not a massive lair at all.

"You get to find out what celebrities have been arrested or had a warrant of some form issued against them as that is a matter of public record. You rarely hear that one of them is under investigation."

True that.

But if you or I shot someone dead, we would not *be* under mere investigation. We would be arrested and questioned, with full charges pending.

The Officer is being extended a luxury that the public would not have.

"We'd also be offered police protection from an angry mob. How do you envisage that working in this instance?"

I would imagine that should his name be released, he would be given a safe house and police protection. Cynically, he'd probably get better protection than you or I would, too.

"I don't disagree with you by the way, but I find the whole anonymous making demands thing purile, repulsive, and deserving of stomping into the dirt. I'm not sure who they think they are that they feel entitled to make demands."

I don't entirely disagree. I don't approve the methods but they are essentially doing what the media would be doing (and earning money from doing it) were this a member of the public under investigation for -say- child abuse. Trial by media and mob justice are not good things.

Re: I call BS on these anon-tards

No, because that's never how they've historically acted. Selling information to tabloids is never what the organisation has done.

I don't think much of them myself, but I'm not about to accuse them of selling out when they don't really seem to have that arrow in their quiver.

"yeah, they can take down computers, but they know as much about the officer who shot the kid as I do - zilch. BS called."

Quite right. Because people who can organise the taking down of websites and with a long track-record of hacking stuff certainly wouldn't know enough about computers to hack into a local police department to obtain data, would they?

"Now, were these radicals actually radical, or intelligent, they might consider waiting for due process to take its course before deciding the police are guilty and the dead guy is innocent"

Putting the name of a suspect in the public domain long before court proceedings start is something common in the media. We all get to find out what celebrities are under investigation for long before they are found guilty (or not). While I don't agree that names should be dragged through the mud prior to evidence being presented, what is good for the goose is good for the gander: Police officers should be subject to trial by media in the same way that you or I would be.

"I am not fearful of going to Israel (your chance of being killed by a rocket in Israel is about 1% that of being killed in a car crash)."

How about your odds of getting killed by an Israeli shell Palestine?

Re: Also, £6M? Bollocks.

"If the Met genuinely think they've spunked £6M on this, someone needs to go over their accounting policies asking serious questions."

Oh yeah, the figure is inflated as all hell. No doubt on that.

Re: Mad

"his rights and fears shouldn't be subjugated to the comfort of the state."

So if I'm afraid that people will beat me up in prison, I shouldn't have to go to prison?

Sounds legit.

Re: @acacacac

"Well in this case, no charges have been filed, that is the problem, surely no extradition should be granted unless a charge has been filed."

That's not how the laws work.

"but I can't see how he can get an impartial trial now"

An impartial trial for what? You appear labouring under the mistaken idea that trials in most of the rest of the world involve a jury of peers (Hint: Sweden uses the Roman System) or that straight out Contempt of Court for bail jumping is likely to be judged by a jury, rather than settled by a Judge.

No jury will be involved in either matter.

But don't let that stop you debating points of law.

Re: He can't come out in a diplomatic bag

"Sure he can. That's a time tested method of smuggling someone out of a country. Admittedly it's usually a box not a bag, but it's been done and it is still covered as a document."

No it's not. It's a breach of the Vienna Convention to do so. Granted, breaking diplomatic seals on person-shaped boxes is still seen as naughty, but if the hunch was correct and the box contains a bunch of people, a pile of charlie and a box of SAMs, then it's the nation sending the bag that's disgraced.

Re: Er, timing?

"Hmmm - I have heard that "screwing the PoWs wive" still carries "hanged, drawn and quartered" in the UK. Any chance we could get Assange to do that?"

No crime in the UK carries a death sentence. Removal of such statutes is a requirement for EU membership.

Re: £6m ($10.3m) and counting.

"Yes, that all makes sense - except when you see the world from the pov of the interconnectedness of all things, at which point the way our Government and Opposition insult our Law, every day, day-after-day-after-day, and insult us, and lie to us and steal from us, and are actively trying to enslave us from within the near-future until the end of time, Assange becomes meaningless except for the hypocrisy of the wildly-disproportionate response by our police."

Do you honestly want our Courts and policing to be based around the 'interconnectedness of all things', or the premise that politicians lie so we should be able to ignore the Courts?

Just because the professional lying classes are unpleasant, it doesn't mean that we should let guests in our nation decide what Court decisions they want to abide by.

Re: @Psyx

"I have no love for Mr. Assange. Regarding my commentary on the merit of spending large sums to keep watch on him my reasoning is two fold. Practically speaking I haven't been able to come up with a scenario where the current response is proportionate"

Proportionate financially?

Surely that should have no bearing on justice? We shouldn't stop chasing someone just because it gets a bit pricey, do we? What kind of message does that send? Be a rich guy, wave your dick at the law and we'll sidle off and let you get away with it if it becomes a chore to come and get you.

Ok, cost does have a bearing, but it *shouldn't*. And I guess that if we have such a high profile fugitive and we know exactly where he is, it would be a dereliction of police duty to let him wander off. Just how much egg on their faces would the Met have then, especially if upon escape he notched up some further legal complaints.

"Maybe it's because of my lack of imagination, I grant you that."

The legal and court system has to be seen to work. It has to be seen to be effective. If the Courts can be laughed at, we're in a bad place as regards law and order. If high profile figures are seen to be getting away with whatever they like, then us plebs might start thinking we can just abscond when Courts make unfavourable decisions. Granted, the courts *are* laughed at by a section of society, but the vast mass of us have a perception that it works, and it is partly that perception that makes us obey the Courts and respect them. That's why Contempt is a serious matter. The Courts cannot be seen to be letting people ignore them. Without an effective Court system we are no longer a functioning society.

Perhaps more seriously, if being out on bail is seen as something frivolous and more people abscond, then it makes bail harder to get and more expensive for everyone else. That infringes on people's freedoms and is something that I would not want to see happening: If I am undergoing trial, I want to have the opportunity to walk free for the duration, until I am found guilty. So: People who flout bail need to pay severely for it, for all of our sakes.

"He should definitely have to answer for his alleged crimes, no question."

But not until after he's been punished for the crimes that he has committed: Bail jumping and contempt of court. For me, the alleged crimes in another nation which may or may not have occurred are of secondary importance, now. America's issues with him aren't even of any interest to me.

*If he has little chance of a fair trial, or there's a real possibility of him being spirited away outside of the eyes of the law.... We shouldn't ignore this.*

The Judge who authorised the extradition has considered it fully and its been settled in Court. More informed minds than ours have assessed the risk and decided it was negligible (and I concur: We're talking about Sweden here, not the Sudan). Asshatange fought the charges in Court, with expensive lawyers. He had a better crack at avoiding it than you or I would have had, enjoyed a comfortable bail agreement, and when decided he didn't like what our legal system decided (although he would have been the first to claim a victory for justice had it agreed with him), he bravely ran away. (And it's beside the point now, but he ran away not from jail... not even from trial... but from *questioning*).

"In any case I hope we can both agree he has an ego the size of a planet, is generally a disagreeable person, and we hate the waste of resources."

Certainly no disagreement from my quarters on that.

Re: Cost a government

"Simple answer, the Swedes should pay the cost.

I don't see how this is our problem."

You don't see how a fugitive jumping bail over a sex offence is a problem?