PDA

View Full Version : Police Caution


tony draper
7th Oct 2008, 20:51
Watching one of these endless cop camera progs,(buggah all else on to watch)anyway bloke is arrested and the policeman lady does the "You do not have to say anything but blah lbah blah ect ect"
We have all heard this a thousand times ont telly and in movies and some pruners prolly heard in with a hand on their shoulder, summat occurred to me, what does it actually mean?
:confused:

Crosshair
7th Oct 2008, 20:53
It's a Miranda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning) warning.

tony draper
7th Oct 2008, 21:01
Yer, but what does it actually mean in practice? if I refuse to say anything to the arresting officer am I not allowed to speak in my own defense when standing in front of the beak?
:uhoh:

amber 1
7th Oct 2008, 21:09
what does it actually mean?

I believe that you have the right to say that you do not understand and that THEY then have to explain it. Give it a try sometime and you might find out!

mixture
7th Oct 2008, 21:09
I'm no legal expert, but I would guess it means what it means.

That is ....

You don't have to answer their (the Police) questions, either through 'no comment' or silence.

However if the matter were to come to court, the court and jury may wonder why you gave an answer in court that you could have given under questioning when you had the opportunity to.

i.e. they may draw the "wrong" conclusion through suspicion. Hence, the police say "it may harm your defence".

However, the other side of the coin is that it may be wise to say nothing until you have had the chance to obtain legal advice. So if you are going to say something, you should just probably say "I'm not saying anything until I obtain legal advice from a qualified legal advisor".... or words to that effect.

merlinxx
7th Oct 2008, 21:19
If yu Google PACE_Chapter_G you'll see the whole doc, I ain't going to post it here, too bloody long.

Scooby Don't
7th Oct 2008, 21:50
Miranda rights only apply to the USA. In the UK, it used to be "you have the right to remain silent", similar to the US 5th Amendment, but that right was removed, hence "may harm your defence if you later rely on it in court" when you choose to say nought.

Roger Sofarover
7th Oct 2008, 22:00
Any policeman will tell you that over 90% of people incriminate themselves under questioning. A police mate of mine said never tell the police anything and NEVER answer questions without a lawyer present.

Blues&twos
7th Oct 2008, 22:01
So, following the caution, the bit where the copper goes "Do you understand?" what happens legally if your suspect says "No", and then continues to claim he doesn't understand despite repeating the caution?

I've never seen anyone try this, mind you.

airship
7th Oct 2008, 22:10
If Jean Charles de Menezes (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7656886.stm) could contribute to this discussion, he might simply say "Hey, so long as they don't pump you full of bullets, who's complaining...?!" :ok:

Loose rivets
7th Oct 2008, 22:54
Tee hee...Following the long blurb, One is all set to say -- with hand cupped over One's ear -- "Eh? Shpeak up Shunny." Then do it again when he's finished.

PLovett
7th Oct 2008, 23:08
At its most basic the caution is a reminder to the accused that they have a right to silence but if they incriminate themselves that can be used against them in court. There is a long-standing legal principle that an accused cannot be forced to incriminate themselves but if they do (without coercion) then there self-admission is admisable as evidence against them.

The extra bit that the Brits put in their cautions appears to be in relation to alibi evidence. In other words if you have an alibi for the crime for which you are being arrested then the police want to know about it now so they can investigate it prior to formal charges been laid or a court hearing.

Crosshair
7th Oct 2008, 23:19
Hence, at the roadside breath test, don't say, "Oh, I had a glass of wine with dinner," because it becomes, "Defendant admitted he had been drinking recently" in court, pretty much eliminating your ability to argue that the machine gave a bad reading.

PingDit
7th Oct 2008, 23:30
Google is your friend.....
I found this on an animal activist site:

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence." British police caution.

Remaining Silent
http://www.animalethics.org.uk/gr-spacer.gif
You have the right in some countries not to answer questions put by the police. In the United States, under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, citizens and non-citizens have the right to remain silent whether questioned by the police or other government agency (eg FBI). However, in certain US states you have to give your name and address, although not anything else.
http://www.animalethics.org.uk/gr-spacer.gif
After arrest by the police in Britain you used to have a right to silence, but not any more. You must state your name and address. Refusing to answer other questions is not a crime and the police cannot force you to speak. Do not be intimidated that your silence might be held against you if you have the prospect of going to court.
http://www.animalethics.org.uk/gr-spacer.gif
Be careful when you do say something, even if you are innocent and think you have nothing to fear. Do not let any deception or apparent friendliness by the police loosen your tongue. It is always better to remain silent rather than lie, which can go against you, innocent or not.
http://www.animalethics.org.uk/gr-spacer.gif
During the interview he police may take written notes or use a tape recorder. You may be able to see these notes or a transcript of the recording. But do not sign anything unless they describe your situation correctly and if your lawyer says you should sign. The same applies to signing anything, written by you or provided by the police. The exception is a receipt for your possessions and whatever your lawyer okays.

prospector
8th Oct 2008, 00:28
"If Jean Charles de Menezes could contribute to this discussion, he might simply say "Hey, so long as they don't pump you full of bullets, who's complaining...?!" "

I would think, if he could contribute, he is more likely to say "I wished I had of stopped when ordered and listened to my rights being read to me rather than taking to my scrapers."

Flintstone
8th Oct 2008, 00:52
Had have surely?


How about "Anything you say may be taken down...blah blah...and used in evidence...."

"Officer. Stop kissing me".

PingDit
8th Oct 2008, 00:55
or

"..please don't hit me again officer..."

MarlboroLite
8th Oct 2008, 01:01
or an even better one....


Policewoman: anything you say will be taken down blah blah blah blah

Accused: KNICKERS!! :}


on a more serious note.. way back in my youff, i had a small car crash, where i went into back of an illegally parked car on a blind bend. It was at christmas time, so when PC Plod and his mate turned up, i'm sure they assumed that it was a gonna be a winner on the breathalyzer test.

I read my rights and was then given the test, and much to the officers amazement it flashed green (i hadn't been drinking), then the police turned really sh-tty, i was read my rights again, but was told that if i wanted legal counsel then i would have to pay for it, as none would be supplied?. I then signed my statement and told to produce my documents to police station of my choice.

3 weeks later i got a letter saying no further action would take place due to a lack of evidence, 2 weeks after that, i got a "Customer" service questionaire on how i felt i was treated by the police officers in question :E

BlueDiamond
8th Oct 2008, 02:13
Yer, but what does it actually mean in practice? if I refuse to say anything to the arresting officer am I not allowed to speak in my own defense when standing in front of the beak?
You will always be able to speak in your own defence, Mr. Draper but the only place where that can actually have any value is if you do it in court under oath. Statements and video records of interview are admissible in court, and may be referred to and the accused may be examined/cross-examined on the content, but they are not sworn evidence and therefore carry little weight. They do, however, provide clever lawyers with a goldmine of ammunition ... if they do not question you on what you said, they will question you on what you didn't say.

Brits, through legislation, have recently given up one of their most important and basic rights with regard to law ... the right to silence. It has always been the "burden of prosecution" to prove the charges against the accused and he or she could sit there from point of arrest to end of trial and not have to say one word. It is still the case that no accused person is required to present a defence but, in the UK at least, things are now slanted so that any jury can now draw an adverse inference from this. Once again, the Brits shoot themselves in the foot and I can see that a time may come when an accused is required to prove innocence rather than prosecution proving guilt. What has happened in the UK with regard to this is NOT a good thing.

I'm not sure what happens in the UK if people claim not to understand, but here in OZ someone who has been arrested has their rights explained to them and is then asked to tell police in their own words what they understand that to mean. If an accused appears to have difficulty, they will be provided with an interpreter or if they are "away with the fairies" through drugs, a doctor will be called, or a psychiatrist if the person seems "unqualified" to understand. Most people here would not bother playing the "I don't understand" game with the police because the police will keep them there all the longer while they look for the right person to "help" them understand.

... never tell the police anything and NEVER answer questions without a lawyer present.
That is one of the most important pieces of advice that could ever be given to any person under arrest. Never give the police a statement, and never give a record of interview. Here in Oz you are required to give your name and address ... and they had better be correct ... but you are not required to say anything else. the cops will love you for it too, by the way ... they can just charge you or not as the case may be, you will be locked up or not (either of which would happen anyway at the end of any interview), and everyone gets out of there in quick order. The end result is no different for the accused or for the police but everything happens a lot quicker.

Not saying anything is the one piece of advice I would still give any arrested person even in the UK. After some years in court watching lawyers cut people to shreds through their interview/statement, I would strongly recommend that the right to silence should be taken to heart. Give evidence in court if you wish (it is not compulsory) and then that is ALL you can be cross-examined upon. Nobody will pick up the police statement you made a year ago and say, "But in your statement, Mr. Accused, you told the police you were wearing a black leather jacket ... are you now telling the court that it is really a very dark blue? ... What else have you been less than accurate about, Mr. Accused?" They can make it sound like you are the most evasive individual ever seen in court ... even when you are telling the complete truth.

But back to your original question, Mr. Draper ... if you adopt your right to silence, you can forego that at any point in the process. You may choose to say nothing to the arresting officers but that does not prevent you from giving evidence in court at a later date.

PingDit
8th Oct 2008, 02:31
and on a lighter note but similar vein, from the good old U.S. of A.....

Some type of police officers have a sense of humor too....
These 16 police comments were taken off actual police car videos around the country:
#16 "Relax, the handcuffs are tight because they're new. They'll stretch after you wear them a while."
#15 "You know, stop lights don't come any redder that the one you just went through."
# 14 "If you take your hands off the car, I'll make your birth certificate a worthless document."
#13 "If you run, you'll only go to jail tired."
#12 "Can you run faster than 1200 feet per second? Because that's the speed of the bullet that'll be chasing you."
#11 "You don't know how fast you were going? I guess that means I can write anything I want to on the ticket, huh?"
#10 "Yes, sir, you can talk to the shift supervisor, but I don't think it will help. Oh, did I mention that I'm the shift supervisor?"
#9 "Warning! You want a warning? O.K., I'm warning you not to do that again or I'll give you another ticket."
#8 "The answer to this last question will determine whether you are drunk or not. Was Mickey Mouse a cat or a dog?"
#7 "Fair? You want me to be fair? Listen, fair is a place where you go to ride on rides, eat cotton candy and corn dogs and step in monkey poop."
#6 "Yeah, we have a quota. Two more tickets and my wife gets a toaster oven."
#5 "In God we trust, all others we run through NCIC."
#4 "How big were those 'Just two beers' you say you had?"
#3 "No sir, we don't have quotas anymore. We used to, but now we're allowed to write as many tickets as we can."
#2 "I'm glad to hear that Chief (of Police) Hawker is a personal friend of yours. So you know someone who can post your bail."
AND THE WINNER IS....
#1 "You didn't think we give pretty women tickets? You're right, we don't.
Sign here."

mdt001
8th Oct 2008, 06:34
Mr. Draper,

It is meant to ensure that anything said after the caution is read is said voluntarily, and not as a result of any threat or inducement.

Lon More
8th Oct 2008, 10:01
From a UK legal "rights" site


NEW POLICE CAUTION

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

suggested reply

"I have been advised that I should answer no questions. It is not right that I should have to give a complete case for my self until charges have been made and properly explained and until there are other people around to check that questions put to me are fair and legal. I will say nothing until I am advised to do so by a fully qualified legal advisor".

IMPORTANT: This information was forwarded by a police officer, who naturally wants to remain anonymous:

"In reality, any response made following arrest or charge is worth very little PROVIDED IT IS NOT SIGNED BY THE PERSON MAKING IT. The CPS do not make any sort of a deal about responses unless they are on tape.

I would simply advise people to make no reply to any caution until it is in the interview room with a solicitor present. This would apply doubly is special warnings are used in interview.

People are very frightened to ask for the tape to be stopped before consulting the solicitor. At the end of the day, he is your only friend in the station, so use him to the full, and tell him everything.

If he is any good, he will advise you when to co-operate and when to keep schtum. I find a good response is then "On the advice of my solicitor I have no comment to make at this time."



If this is then questioned in court, the solicitor can take the blame for offering dodgy advice, and no adverse views will be drawn from the no comment response.

I don't know about other forces, but in mine we keep the tape running throughout the completion of antecedents and signing of forms to protect officers against allegations. It tends to negate a whole lot of trouble.

G-CPTN
8th Oct 2008, 13:29
What puzzles me is that I believe that the Police cannot question a 'prisoner' after they have been charged (or am I mistaken?), unless, of course, they re-arrest on a different offence.
My point is that the Police have to struggle to extract evidence within a potentially restricted period. Can they 'bail' a suspect (say for a month hence) while they continue investigations and then question under caution?

MagnusP
8th Oct 2008, 13:52
In Scotland, a suspect can first of all be detained, and the police have 6 hours in which to question the suspect. After 6 hours, the suspect has to be arrested or released. In that 6 hours, the suspect has the right to have a solicitor (and one other person) informed of the detention, but not to have the solicitor present. Then it's charge and arrest, or charge and release
(or, of course, just released). If released within the 6 hour limit, a suspect can be re-detained on the same grounds for the remainder of the 6 hours.

tony draper
8th Oct 2008, 14:49
I liked the Tudor Police caution.
"You have the right to remain silent but I must caution you if you choose to do so I have the right to turn this handle on this Rack thingy you are strapped to"
:E

Hyph
8th Oct 2008, 15:08
Some reasons why you ought not say anything to the police...

"Don't Talk to the Police" by fast-talkin' Professor James Duane (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865)

(American 5th Amendment content, but probably applicable elsewhere)

Captain Stable
8th Oct 2008, 19:19
I would think, if he could contribute, he is more likely to say "I wished I had of stopped when ordered and listened to my rights being read to me rather than taking to my scrapers."What makes you think he was ordered to stop? What makes you think he ran? Why are you repeating misleading statements that the police have admitted many months ago were lies in the first place?

cockney steve
8th Oct 2008, 19:27
AFAIK, UK police have a "duty solicitor" list, and are obliged to ask the arrested, if they require legal representation. Should the "prisoner" not have a solicitor-preference, the Duty solicitor is called (presumably at the prisoner's expense)....the interview can be in private ....recently convictions have been squashed,because the police eavesdropped on the private solicitor-client interviews. (invariably they were guilty), but got a" get out of jail free" card due to over-zealous Plod.

Say nowt. ask for a solicitor (duty solicitor is off a rota of practitioners in the area and has NO afilliation with the Crown) = not biased toward either side.

Act on what the "brief" says....if you don't think they're up to scratch, don't be afraid to sack them and get a sharper pencil out of the box.
Plod will NOT tell you your rights and WILL rely on your ignorance of procedure to intimidate you and secure "evidence"...make the buggers earn their money.

NRU74
8th Oct 2008, 19:49
Statements and video records of interview are admissible in court, and may be referred to and the accused may be examined/cross-examined on the content, but they are not sworn evidence and therefore carry little weightWrong !
Records of Taped Interviews [ROTIs] + video interviews [ROVIs] are usually good evidence, are admissible, and carry a great deal of weight - they are the greatest exception to the rule against hearsay.
This is why, before we had taped interviews, written question and answer interviews [the verbals] in which suspects were 'fitted up' in interviews which were admissible, the police secured many convictions which were later deemed unsafe by the Court of Appeal.

JFW
9th Oct 2008, 17:58
Cockney Steve - the duty solicitor is provided at no expense to the suspect. Retaining a solicitor thereafter would be down the suspect to fund, or obtain legal aid.

Matari
9th Oct 2008, 18:54
When confronted by the police, one would do well to follow Chris Rock's advice:

YouTube - Chris Rock - How not to get your ass kicked by the police! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj0mtxXEGE8)

Alloa Akbar
9th Oct 2008, 19:20
Heard the one about the guy who jams his artic lorry under a low bridge..?

The cop says "Got stuck under the bridge huh?" to which the driver replies..


"No dumbass, I was delivering the bridge, I've just run out of gas.."

and undoubtedly the best reply to a police caution.. "Ouch! that hurt officer, please don't hit me again"




Reaching for coat...:O

dazdaz
9th Oct 2008, 20:01
JFW...."the duty solicitor is provided at no expense to the suspect." Always been a bit sus as to his/hers allegiances? Who pays the duty solicitor?

Lancelot37
9th Oct 2008, 20:12
H.M Government pays the duty soliicitor.

amber 1
9th Oct 2008, 21:07
H.M Government pays the duty soliicitor.

Which means we pay the duty solicitor.

BladePilot
9th Oct 2008, 21:13
Which means the Duty Solicitor pays for the Duty Solicitor?

dazdaz
9th Oct 2008, 21:22
That's all very well, but, I still have concerns as to how familiar the duty solicitor is pals/friendship/old boys network with the duty sergeant on the desk.

I have my doubt's

Bravo73
9th Oct 2008, 23:54
That's all very well, but, I still have concerns as to how familiar the duty solicitor is pals/friendship/old boys network with the duty sergeant on the desk.

I have my doubt's

Aha. Another conspiracy! Quick, where's me tinfoil hat? :E

MadsDad
10th Oct 2008, 08:33
Was told that the best statement when charged is:-

"Yes officer, I did it, it's a fair cop and you've got me bang to rights. Now just slap the bracelets on and take me down the nick".

(Fast forward to constable in witness box clutching notebook, "And then M'lud the accused said....".)

BlueDiamond
10th Oct 2008, 10:24
Wrong !I am definitely not wrong, NRU74. I listen to judges (on an almost daily basis) explaining this difference very carefully to juries because it is critical that they clearly understand this. Sworn evidence is that which is given in court under oath or affirmation. Records of interview are definitely not sworn evidence and their use in court has a limited purpose. Nobody puts the suspect under oath prior to an interview and that small but very significant difference is made crystal clear to the juries. It is the accused's answers to questions about the content of the interview that are evidence.

An accused person is perfectly free to say anything they want to in a VRE and nobody can do anything about it. They can give half a dozen interviews if they like, each featuring a different version of events. They can be as creative or imaginative as they like and it does not matter. If, however, they try the same trick in court while giving actual evidence under oath, and are proved to be lying, they can be done for perjury.

Evidence under oath carries significant weight, talking to the cops does not and judges take great pains to explain the difference to juries. Well, at least ours do. Can't speak for the UK of course but judges are very careful here with their charge to the jury ... helps to avoid expensive appeals because of any misdirections.

NRU74
10th Oct 2008, 17:26
Bluey,
Sorry, but we appear to be talking at cross purposes here.
I was citing the position in regard to English Law re the police station interview and accept that a different position may apply in W Australia.
Believe me, the interview goes in unless the advocate can keep it out using S76 or S78 of our Police and Criminal Act [PACE]. It is 'good' evidence even tho' it's not on oath.
Also here, if the suspect 'No Replies' the interview the court can,and will, draw what the Act calls 'proper inferences' from his silence.
Proper invariably means Adverse, of course.

MMEMatty
10th Oct 2008, 20:18
So surely, If i have the right not to incriminate myself, how come i still have to admit it was me that was driving when the speed camera photo comes through? Surely it should be up to the police to prove it was me that has broken the law?

I think i already know the answer to this, and i reackon it has something to do with ...


P.S. i dont want to start the debate about speed cameras, or where they should be put, or how to avoid paying the fine or owt, i'm just curious from a legal standpoint.

cockney steve
10th Oct 2008, 21:04
[So surely, If i have the right not to incriminate myself, how come i still have to admit it was me that was driving when the speed camera photo comes through? Surely it should be up to the police to prove it was me that has broken the law?/QUOTE]

AFAIK, if you are the registered owner of the vehicle and cannot provide another "miscreant" you carry the can probably getting done for "obstructing the course of justice" or somesuch.......if you're caught passing it off to someone else, you're in REALLY deep 5h1t.....and, yes, it's just another way of shearing the sheep.


[QUOTE]That's all very well, but, I still have concerns as to how familiar the duty solicitor is pals/friendship/old boys network with the duty sergeant on the desk.

I have my doubt's
Like all British "Gentlemen's clubs", once they're in the courtroom, it's gloves off! The rights and wrongs are largely irrelevant (except where kids are involved,when even lawyers have conciences) It's a big game to them the WIN is what counts, the mental challenge of outwitting the other side.

Call me a cynic, but there are so many cases where the indefensible has been robustly defended, where corruption, obfuscation ,inappropriate and unethical means have been used to "fit up" someone

Stefan Kishco....convicted of rape/murder...Evidence was withheld that proved the charges were trumped-up.
Birmingham 6....false conviction.
OTOH lots of crim's go free 'cos they have very smart lawyers with absoloutely no concience...........

Sorry, should have gone to the rant thread.

seang
10th Oct 2008, 23:42
quote re jean charles de menezes
"I would think, if he could contribute, he is more likely to say "I wished I had of stopped when ordered and listened to my rights being read to me rather than taking to my scrapers."

Don't know how much proper information you get in NZ about this case, but if you were armed with some decent facts you probably wouldn't have come out with such a crass statement. Mr de Menezes was never ordered to stop at any point on his journey from his home to the Tube station where he was murdered. Had he been stopped, he probably would never have had his rights read to him as the police trailing him would have quickly realised he was actually a Brazilian electrician on his way to work rather than the suspected terrorist they mistook him for (who was even a different colour). The man was never given that opportunity. If you recall the statements made by the police immediately after Mr de Menezes was shot dead, you will remember they triumphantly declared they had "shot a suspected terrorist" who was wearing a puffa jacket with "wires hanging from it" after he ignored repeated cries to stop and vaulted over the Tube barriers. Then the story unravelled quicker than a woolly jumper caught on a barbed wire fence - Mr de Menezes, it turns out, was wearing a denim jacket with no visible wires, went through the barriers quietly and normally like every other commuter that day and was then shot seven times in the head while a cop held him to his seat on the train. If he could contribute, he would probably more likely say "you shouldn't have done that, perhaps you should have stopped me and asked me who I am/was".

BlueDiamond
11th Oct 2008, 01:37
... we appear to be talking at cross purposes here.
I think you're right, NRU74 ... my misunderstanding, I think.

Certainly the VRIs are used here too. If they are edited, it must be with the approval of both counsel and this is explained to the jury in court so that nobody thinks either side is pulling a swiftie. If the video (or disc these days) is then MFI (Marked for Identification), the jury will not get to see it again but if it is entered as an exhibit, they will take it into the jury room and may refer to it as often as they wish.

... if the suspect 'No Replies' the interview the court can,and will, draw what the Act calls 'proper inferences' from his silence.
I have heard about this radical change to Brit law and am still completely gobsmacked that it was allowed to be passed. The presumption of innocent until proven guilty has been something that protects us all and a person's right to silence, up to now, has been sacrosanct. To have removed one of a person's most basic rights in law may well be the thin edge of the wedge and I can see Brits giving away their rights one by one until the pendulum has swung the other way completely and it will be a case of guilty until proven innocent.

... lots of crim's go free 'cos they have very smart lawyers with absoloutely no concience...........
Whether the lawyers have a conscience or not is entirely irrelevant. They are hired to do a job and will do it to the very best of their ability. Every accused person is entitled to a defence and every lawyer is defending an innocent person ... by law every person is innocent until the point where a jury decides they are guilty. It is not for a lawyer to make that call of innocence or guilt ... just to do his or her job.

There is another side to that too, cockney steve ...if the accused is unable to afford a lawyer, they will be able to get one through Legal Aid (here in Oz anyway). All lawyers here are required to do a percentage of legal aid work and are sometimes assigned cases that they would probably not choose to take on under normal circumstances. As an example, I'll quote a case we had here recently where two paedophiles abducted a young lad, kept him prisoner and were planning to kill him. They admitted all the sex-related charges but denied the conspiracy to murder. They were being tried for the conspiracy charges and the lawyers assigned to the defence were both really nice guys ... with kids of their own ... and few of us are likely to forget how rough it was on them having to defend these two. I'm not going into detail but if you want to look it up, it was the Wheeler and Urquhart (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/sick-fantasy-pedophile-pair-convicted/2007/04/20/1176697043063.html) trial.

Sometimes lawyers have no say in whom they defend ... but they still have a duty to do a proper job.

prospector
11th Oct 2008, 02:55
"Mr de Menezes, it turns out, was wearing a denim jacket with no visible wires, went through the barriers quietly and normally like every other commuter that day and was then shot seven times in the head while a cop held him to his seat on the train. If he could contribute, he would probably more likely say "you shouldn't have done that, perhaps you should have stopped me and asked me who I am/was"."

If that is indeed the case then my previous post is definitely out of order.

If my memory serves me correctly, the story that unfolded here was that he was in the country illegally, got perturbed when asked to stop and took to his scrapers.

Can remember seeing a video of all this happening outside a railway station, never heard of him being held in a seat on the train and shot.

Perhaps the story had lost its shock value by the time all these things,if indeed it was as you posted, had been established.

seang
11th Oct 2008, 10:27
Hi prospector
the CCTV footage in the public domain here shows Mr de Menezes walking through the barriers normally, followed by the officers. At no point does he run. None of the many commuters on the Tube station that morning heard any orders to stop being shouted.
Best wishes, Seang

Captain Stable
11th Oct 2008, 11:38
prospector, I took you to task a while back about your rather silly and misguided post. If you are going to post on a subject like that, then make sure you get your facts right before posting lies.

Scumbag O'Riley
11th Oct 2008, 13:46
....and I can see Brits giving away their rights one by one until the pendulum has swung the other way completely and it will be a case of guilty until proven innocentAlready here, pretty much how magistrates courts work, unfortunately. So surely, If i have the right not to incriminate myself, how come i still have to admit it was me that was driving when the speed camera photo comes through? Surely it should be up to the police to prove it was me that has broken the law?This was taken to the European Courts and they appeared to accept this argument, but decided that as driving a car was a dangerous thing to do it did not apply. It was a very poorly argued decision in my opinion but there is no appeal so that's how it now stands.