Was this a crime (Ex-pc stabbed to death)?

Wail

Wail

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,671
Name
Wail
Edit My Images
No
So, this policeman was suspended and in the process of being tried for the crime of child pornography when someone stabbed him to death.

I was wondering how others perceived this? Is his death a crime? Should / will the authority really search for the culprit? Will the culprit be tried? And if so, how lenient will the system be, knowing that s/he has rid society of someone who was about to be sentenced for a heinous crime?

Here is a link to the BBC article: -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7445989.stm
 
Surely any Murder is a crime :shrug: regardless of the circumstances or motive.
That is what the justice system is for, regardless of how it is percieved, or do we just descend into Anarchy.

What about Innocent until proven guilty
 
Last edited:
Oh, I totally agree with all that you've said; but I was curious as to how would other percieve the "system" will treat this crime?!

Do you think that the system will be harsh in searching, incriminating, and convicting the murder ... or will the system be more lenient because of the stigma the murdered policeman had hanging on his head?
 
So he was suspended and in the process of being tried have you never heard of innocent until proven guilty? There is a process of law in this country and whilst some do not agree on many parts of the judicial system it is there for a reason - to protect you.

And why should this crime not be investigated and where do you draw the line? "Sorry sir, we're not going to investigate this crime because the victim was black/Asian/gay/Irish [insert whatever you want here] and as such it doesn't count as a crime." I'd be interested to know why you think it shouldn't be investigated - is it because he was awaiting trial or because he was an ex-police officer?

I am hoping that the original poster wrote this with tongue firmly in cheek.
 
What about Capitol Punishment?

Does the person carrying out the execution not commit murder?

But the system does not claim this to be the case.
 
The law is arguably more dilligent in vigilante cases because if they gave it a green light it would be open season on everyone who let's their dog **** on your lawn.

Hence when a lone Norfolk farmer shoots 2 of the 3 men who have travelled 100 miles in the dead of night with the express intention of robbing him in his own home, he is incarcerated.

If this case isn't handled with the full force of the law it will be a very bad day for doctors specialising in treating the ailments of children all over the land.
 
Grahame said:
What about Capitol Punishment?

Does the person carrying out the execution not commit murder?

But the system does not claim this to be the case.
Click to expand...

In that situation the person killed has been tried and found guilty.

The presumption is that the man in this case was innocent since he had not yet been proven guilty.

It's an entirely different situation that said, in the UK capitol punishment is banned so there is no legal right to execute anyone (I don't believe that the death penalty is right either but that is a different debate).
 
Hacker,

Interesting that you relate what I ask as if I am saying it was ok for the policeman to be killed, or as if I don’t have the right to question the morals of killing him and how will the system deal with this case!? I ask these questions because I am sure many people will be thinking just that; obviously the person who committed the killing was thinking something, which probably was along these lines!

The ideology of innocent until proven guilty is how the legal system works, but individuals don’t usually follow the legal system 100%, and some choose to go outside the system to seek their own sense of justice – again this case seems like a perfect example of vigilante justice where someone choose to take the law in his / her own hands and put an end to this.



Grahame,

In the case of capitol punishment, I think if anyone is guilty of murder (other than the convicted murder(s) ) that would be the legal system implemented and those who enforce it. The executioner is just civil servant doing his / her job :shrug:


spannerdude,

Interesting that you say that the law is more diligent in vigilante cases, and may be rightly so otherwise we’d see a whole scenario of people taking the laws in their own hands with a crime for the sake of a crime; but will that be the case here?
 
Two wrongs! do not make a right... :shake:
 
i would agree with spannerdude. pretty much sums it up.

the system has no choice to search for the culprit, otherwise anarchy is the only way to go.
 
I agree with Hacker and Spannerdude.

But hacker has made an error, in this country you are not innocent until proven guilty, if suspected of terrorism. Today the Labour goverment want to pass a law to lock people up for 42 day without charge.
 
Dont know the specifics of this crime tbh...
But, to add a differant slant onto the arguement, if it was my child that the ex-policeman had been accused of taking indecent video/photos of, then id most certainly not hesitate in murdering him... This obviously wouldnt make it right, but, im fairly sure when i went to court for murder these things would be taken into account.
 
1) We have photographers who would defend their right to take photos of people in public places including children.

2) They would kill someone for being accused of taking indecent video/photos

3) Yet how many times have the same photographers been questioned/accused of the same thing when doing 1)
 
whiteflyer said:
... in this country you are not innocent until proven guilty, if suspected of terrorism. Today the Labour goverment want to pass a law to lock people up for 42 day without charge.
Click to expand...

And they have proven that their definition of terrorism includes "heckling at the Labour party conference", "reading out aloud the names of the gulf war dead at the Cenotaph" and "trying to get your kids into a school that they haven't yet ruined"
 
whiteflyer said:
I agree with Hacker and Spannerdude.

But hacker has made an error, in this country you are not innocent until proven guilty, if suspected of terrorism. Today the Labour goverment want to pass a law to lock people up for 42 day without charge.
Click to expand...

Up to 42 days, not everyone suspected of terrorism will be locked up without charge for 42 days. I think you read it wrong! They are still presumed unnocent till proven guilty, it just takes longer.
I dont see anything wrong with the principle though, the extra time is to gain evidence which in terrorism circumstances is notoriously difficult to collect.
I dont fancy the idea of terrorists walking around free ( again) because the Police have not had enough time to gather all the evidence.
And, as a sweetener, it has just been anounced ( by the government) that suspects released without charge will be liable to compensation of up to £3000 per day.
Of course, if you lived in the USA, you could be detained for years, other countries would just shoot you.
I think we still have one of the best systems.

As for murder, the definition is the unlawful and malicious or premeditated killing of one human being by another.
So, executioners were lawfully allowed to kill their subjects. Your government has to declare war on a country before you are legally allowed to kill its occupants.

Me? I dont think anybody has the right to kill anybody else, whatever the circumstances.
Allan
 
whiteflyer,

Interesting point you raise there about the 42 days, in all fairness I would be more than happy to vote yes for that given that there are too many regulations to protect people who behave oddly as it already happens.

To be on a list of a suspected terrorist is a huge thing, and I think you’d have to be wielding more than a heavy backpack and a large black / white (for our Canon friends) in your hand.

If someone fell into the habit of behaving in a way that would arise the authority’s suspicions with regards to their malice then, if anything, the 42 days is for the best interest of the suspect to justify him / her self rather than for the authority to file a case!?


Darryn,

As it so happens I come from a part of the world where such crimes, if found guilty, can be punishable by death. This is why I’ve raised the issue here.

However, in the case of the ex-policeman who was stabbed to death, he was yet to be convicted of the crime; and I have no idea how well was the case going against / for him and what was his relationship to the murderer.
 
allanm,

That is interesting, the £3,000 per day compensation! Wow, so, if a person was detained for the whole 42 days and not be charged / convicted then (s)he stands to make a good £126,000 ... now that's serious money.
 
allanm said:
Up to 42 days, not everyone suspected of terrorism will be locked up without charge for 42 days. I think you read it wrong! They are still presumed unnocent till proven guilty, it just takes longer.
I dont see anything wrong with the principle though, the extra time is to gain evidence which in terrorism circumstances is notoriously difficult to collect.
I dont fancy the idea of terrorists walking around free ( again) because the Police have not had enough time to gather all the evidence.
And, as a sweetener, it has just been anounced ( by the government) that suspects released without charge will be liable to compensation of up to £3000 per day.
Of course, if you lived in the USA, you could be detained for years, other countries would just shoot you.
I think we still have one of the best systems.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I'm in complete disagreement with you on locking people up without charge.

We don't arrest somebody, charge them and then STOP collecting evidence, NO we charge them hold them on remand and continue to collect evidence, why should it be different for terrorism.

The principle of locking people up WITHOUT charge is just wrong wrong wrong

It just becomes a fishing expedition, lock everyone up and then see what we can find.

As for the £3000 a day, I think I'll wait until the 41 day before I give the police my cast iron alibi, just to make sure I get the full amount of cash.
 
allanm said:
..........
I dont see anything wrong with the principle though, the extra time is to gain evidence which in terrorism circumstances is notoriously difficult to collect.
I dont fancy the idea of terrorists walking around free ( again) because the Police have not had enough time to gather all the evidence.
..........
Allan
Click to expand...

They want the extra time before the suspect is charged because once they have charged them they are allowed no further interviews.
They are also not allowed to use much of the intelligence gathered against the suspect in court.
Why, when authorities are so clearly being seen to abuse the powers they've already been given to "fight terrorism" are the government not striving to rectify these clearly ludicrous restrictions before resorting to ruining the lives of innocent people by locking them up for 6 weeks without having to produce any evidence against them?

The suggestion that the laws won't be abused because it's unthinkable to do so is naive in the extreme.

Now if you'll excuse me I need to hatch a plot with some mates to be falsely implicated in a terrorist scare so that I can cash in on the 3 grand a day compo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top