Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more
Can't Access your Account?
New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!
Give them a fair trial, then shoot them.
Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.
And the only people who can present evidence about the events which led to the death are erm, let me think.............. hmm........
actually it's.................................... the police!
Now we have two different things on the table: the original comment was about the police officer being treated differently to civilians by the system. As described above, I would say 'no'.
The other thing is the quality of evidence to reach that decision. Cnspiracy to corrupt the course of justice (which the police would need to do in what appears to be your scenario) and of course that is itself is a criminal matter. Yes, the police are in a position to withhold facts, but then again so are accomplices, friends and family of a thief or murderer. So again the situation is no different. And, as you would say...
Don't get me wrong. I'm sure a proportion of deaths in the hands of the police (averaging 65 a year, it seems) have saved the taxpayer a lot of money in terms of trials/appeals/incarcerations. I'm sure few of us would lose any sleep about the individuals concerned.
But it's not really the British/Western Society way of going about things surely?
I should think the vast majority of people who die in police custody are already suffering due to drink and drug abuse, so most would be attributable to that.
Given that people die all the time, how does the 65 figure compare to what we would expect? Given the sheer numbers of people arrested in a year, statistically zero deaths in Police custody seems unlikely. Given that the population of people in custody is skewed towards druggies & drunks, what would be the expected figure?
Come on, Lobster. A good conspiracy theory does not allow for coincidence.
The Scene: A Coroner's Court
Custody Sergeant: The deceased kicked himself in the stomach and collapsed, sir.
HM Coroner: Members of the jury, you have heard evidence from dedicated long-serving members of the police service: officers of the highest integrity..... blah blah...
(Sorry, just adding a light note to a serious subject! )
PS: Would love to see that Bill Tidy "Crusader" cartoon. Can't find it on the web. Applicable to so many discussions on EPZ.
at last someone talking sense, CB
Quote: Would love to see that Bill Tidy "Crusader" cartoon. Can't find it on the web. Applicable to so many discussions on EPZ
I had it in a book of his work some years ago but it's gone missing now.
Another favourite was a scene showing a large crowd of men with top hats and elegant ladies standing outside the Cunard Line offices. There is a man standing on a podiium in front of the office with a sign saying 'Latest News Of Titanic Victims'.
At the back of the crowd is a bloke with a polar bear on a leash. He has his hand up and is saying 'any news of the iceberg?'
Quote: what about video proof of the assault. he should have received some form of punishment for that at least. being sacked is not a punishment
I don`t think there was enough video evidence to prove assault, sure it shows the victim being pushed and falling over but like a lot of video or picture evidence it does not always show the complete story.
Quote: Excellent, you think I am, as a retired copper along with every other copper, sticking together with all the corrupt coppers, and jurys are made up of (I quote), biased, racist, homophobic, lazy, vindictive, sexist, dishonest, stupid, indifferent and cruel people (unless they and I agree with you), and you still want my opinion... lol ... like i said - no more conversation, especially with a bigot. You stick with your opinion or discuss with someone else.
you misunderstood my last comment. the point i was trying to make was that most people will have some of those charachteristics, so a jury full of people will contain some people like that, and they will decide your fate. i cant believe a jury chosen at random will contain all honest, unbiased, truthful people. i did not mean to have a go at you, sometimes words in print cant convey the nature in which they were written.
Just dipping in to give some clarity and actual knowledge to this headline figure of 1433 deaths in custody. This report relates to a different timescale but represents how the large figures mischievously and malicously represented by many actually translate into what is a much much smaller figure.
For instance without even trying you can see 75% are down to natural causes, suicide, overdose or injuries received prior to contact with the police (I am not wishing to disregard these deaths but they still are not the types of deaths people are imagining when they see the headline figures) ...
Now we are down to 25% - still any number is too many yes.
A further 8% alcohol/drug related ... the police cells are not the place for people vulnerable by consumption of drink and drugs but when aggressive and violent the hospitals will refuse them and the police cells become the only option.
That is now 17% remaining before any suggestion of police assault, malicous mistreatment etc (although admittedly, duty of care in custody is an issue to consider) ... Also my personal experience is that some prisoners (it is not uncommon) falsely represent illness and unfitness for detention routinely to avoid detention. It is a minefield trying to decide what is and isnt genuine - sometimes impossible.
Just 3% are Restraint related but this means that whilst the restraint may not have caused the death it was used at some point ... so that 3% is open to investigation but may or may not find any police restraint directly contributed and if it did it does not necessarily mean the restraint was not properly administered or unlawful.
That leaves 14% ... 3% uncertain/not ascertained or inconclusive/not stated. We can all take what we wish from this but any opinion is just supposition and guesswork but will include post mortems where cause of death is unclear.
The remaining 11% - is made up of airway obstruction 5% which for the bashers does not mean a big daft copper choked them. I presume it could be as a result of drunkeness, drug related, when sleeping or during restraint or some other process - these are areas to consider but may or may not be as a result of mistreatment.
Hypothermia - 2%
Other - 2% ???
AND finally 3% from injuries sustained during detention - that could be sustained during arrest outside, inside the station during detention etc .. they may be as a result of violent behaviour from the prisoner, assault by police .. who knows. This figure is the one people I presume may feel uneasiest about and if we are honest it is the one most people presume when they see the headline figures bandied around on the news, on forums, etc Reading this will hopefully make people here realise why I cast scorn on the use of such figures as 1433 - which shock people but also grossly mislead them into imaging that these deaths are as a result of violence in custody (as I am certain most joe public see the figures as) where the reality is that 3% of these figures were deaths relating to injuries sustained in detention either at the time of arrest or in custody. We also have to remember that the police deal with people at their most violent, vulnerable, behaviour impaired, judgement impaired, disturbed, aggressive, threatening, abusive, vulnerable and confused and it is unthinkable that when dealing with over 100,000 such detentions per year some things occur that may require investigation but may not be unlawful or malicious. It is also unthinkable that we have no officers who are predisposed to aggressive unlawful acts or who may act in extreme circumstances in a manner that should be questioned. They are human beings at the end of the day and work in an incredibly pressured environment dealing with the absolute worst society has to offer and if they act unlawfully they should be tried. Take a read of the report and it may rationalise the facts so we all have a better understanding of the true figures, represented for intelligent people to consider rather than sensational figures misrepresented for fools to misunderstand.
Misses the point really. At least one person a week dies in police custody. When it happens it almost never merit a mention in the media: that's the point.
Carabosse you are the one who seems to have missed the point and I am wasting my time typing a post after researching a report and posting it if you dont seem to be able to read it - what point about how many deaths per week was missed? Any person dying in custody is unfortunate just like someone dying in hospital or in a cake shop. Do you know how many people die on the football pitch each week and how many times is it reported in the media or how many people die walking in the mountains and moorlands of the uk each week UNREPORTED !!! It's a stat that in isolation is meaningless and ridiculous, especially when someone has tried to help you out and provide detailed reports ... The report accurately gives you figures and gives a detailed report on how, so that point was not missed at all AND that figure is broken down into types of death, how the figures are analysed, what possible reasons may lie behind the figures and how the figures are put together, case studies etc - it goes far further in detail than the fact you mention. You obviously either didnt read the report or my post or didnt manage to take in one single bit of detail. I cant spoon feed you mate.
The media mentions of these deaths is not the responsibility of the police, they are reported and placed in the public domain. Maybe you feel the media wishes to hide these figures?? I understand that to read the text, 'one person a week dies in police custody' may seem to some as shocking but the half-intelligent person will look past the tabloid one-liner and analyse the figures, look at the risks involved in the area scrutinised, analyse the causes, etc ... you seem to have been given a detailed report and hit the 'revert to tabloid shortcut' button. Statistics are only any good if you dont take them on face value as one-liners and look at the figures behind them and assess how reliable they are and how they were compiled. Maybe you would be happier if I had posted a load of red top headlines with simple, unsubstantiated and meaningless figures from which you could form an opinion ... In fact if you want to be silly CB your 'AT LEAST ONE A WEEK' headline is a gross exaguration - it is actually FAR LESS THAN ONE A WEEK AT ITS HIGHEST POINT - almost half that at 0.64 (that may seem pedantic but in stat terms you pretty much doubled the statistic) and in the final study year it was down to 0.29 per week, pretty much a quarter of your tabloid figure. For me the important fact lies between how many people pass through custody to demonstrate an accurate statistic, how the ones that died actually died, how that can be avoided and if anyone was criminally responsible etc. Not just a meaningless one line statistic that in isolation means as much as saying 100% of my Grand National bets have won ... without asking how many times I have bet. I hope other people here actually manage to digest the report and take some reasonable opinions from it, whatever side of the fence them opinions may be.
Blimey this thread has become boring.
May I sum it up? View 1: All coppers are bastards. View 2. No, they're not.
Quote: Blimey this thread has become boring.
May I sum it up? View 1: All coppers are bastards. View 2. No, they're not.
And the correct one - 3) Some are :0)
ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.
Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.
You must be a member to leave a comment
Get the latest photography news straight from ePHOTOzine in your email every month and win prizes!
01/09/2014 - 30/09/2014
Check out ePHOTOzine's inspirational photo month calendar! Each day click on a window to unveil new photography tips, treats and techniques.
View September's Photo Month Calendar