It doesn't seem like it can be a blanket rule... you can't tell me you have never seen instances where police release CCTV footage into the public domain prior to a trial? It happens quite frequently.
UK Policing
- Thread starter Sara125
- Start date
-
Hello, Guest! We have four new competitions (with taglines and awards as prizes) starting.
A new Odds or Evens competition is starting now. Click here to read the rules and message Damien to submit your eight players by 14th September 2024
A new Carabao Cup prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for round 3 which begins 17th September.
A new Champions League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 17th September.
A new Europa League prediction competition is starting now. Click here to enter to submit predictions for the first round which begins 25th September.
For Odds or Evens you have until the 14th September to submit your players. Submissions will be open for the next 6 days, 11 hours, 25 minutes, 50 seconds, and will close on Sep 14, 2024 at 12:30. -
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) and Jamie (@Vault Dweller) get the depressing job of reviewing United's 3-0 loss at Old Trafford to Liverpool. They discuss what went wrong, Casemiro's day to forget, and the pressure now on Erik Ten Hag. They also take some time to give McTominay a proper farewell, and give their overall thoughts on the Summer Transfer Window.
It doesn't seem like it can be a blanket rule... you can't tell me you have never seen instances where police release CCTV footage into the public domain prior to a trial? It happens quite frequently.
I'm sure there are a number of reasons for the police to release video or images prior to a trial but I doubt public curiosity is one of those reasons like in this case.
A lot of 'footage' I see that is released tends to be because they need help identifying, and very little of the actual offence caused. Nothing that tends to show the criminal act in process until after the trial.
I’ve read the first few responses to this incident and I’m astounded to the point where I can’t be arsed reading the rest because of the back and forth and i expect to have unfolded.
It’s ridiculous on all counts BUT I would like to see how the original incident panned out. However, the police officer is probably going to prison
It’s ridiculous on all counts BUT I would like to see how the original incident panned out. However, the police officer is probably going to prison
Not directed at you necessarily but how the original incident panned out is irrelevant. You can go curb stomping someone in the head.
If that was you to me or me to you it'd be bordering attempted murder regardless or what led to it.
Yes, I think I agree but we do not fully know or understand the full circumstances, nor do we know the risks believed to be involved.
The belief to the officer is paramount in terms of the action that he has had taken by using that level of force. He is in serious trouble in my opinion and will really, really struggle to justify what he has done. Will probably regret it for the rest of his life. Like I said, will probably get a custodial sentence and one that will probably outlast anything that the alleged offenders ever receive.
It will hang over him for years to come
I’ve certainly seen footage which show criminal acts that were released by the police. First one that comes to mind was a Sikh gentleman who was punched to the ground in the Northern Quarter. Ok, in this instance they were looking for a suspect but either releasing footage prejudices a case, or it doesn’t?
It’s not just about public curiosity though is it? Instances like this damage trust in the police… and maybe particularly if a specific community might feel they have been wrongly targeted. There are a lot of good reasons for transparency. I’m not sure the reasons for non-disclosure really hold up. So far, the only one mentioned to me in this thread is it might prejudice a trial. Nobody has explained exactly why this would be though, when there is existing footage already circulating on social media. I’m open to being persuaded that there is a good reason why the police can’t release CCTV.
Would want to see the whole incident and background before judgement on what appears an open shut case of police brutality.
I have a ridiculous theory on why he was so violent, in conjunction with being a scumbag
Let’s hear it
I'm guessing the only times we see it being released is to try and identify a suspect that they've not managed to track down, and the one you've shared which I've only just seen is another example of that. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I would imagine it's extremely rare that they would have a know suspect arrested or charged and release the footage of said case.
Having a quick search there's a useful document from Northamptonshire Police which outlines when the police share material from their body worn cameras and under what purpose - https://www.northants.police.uk/Sys...2021/releasing-bwv-footage-final_redacted.pdf
I'd imagine the releasing of the CCTV footage from the airport, could prejudice this case in the fact that suspects are known, and given the outcry of social media certainly wouldn't be released for the court of public opinion to make their mind up ahead of any disciplinary or potential legal process. Relating back to that link from Northamptonshire Police, it's known that the IPOC will be involved and potentially the CPS. They both need to approve the releasing of any footage from Body Worn Camera's publicly, and I think CCTV will fall under this as well given the sensitivity of this incident and that has probably been obtained by the police. How this falls under the publics own camera and them publishing it is a bit of a grey area, however if it gets to court then contempt of court could apply, whether that can be practically applied is a whole new discussion.
Well I'm currently talking to two mates who are having issues with their police partners having extra marital affairs with their colleagues.
As I said, wild theory, but I reckon (tongue in cheek) he is close, fond or in a personal relationship with the female officer who got her nose broken.
That or he saw red seeing a woman get a broken nose.
As I said, I don't believe this, it's a wild theory.
Nor do I think he isn't a scumbag or any way shape or form absolution of his actions.
Fair enough. Also worth mentioning going for the gun of an armed policeman in an airport is probably not the brightest of idea’s.
IF the person kicked was the person who broke his colleagues nose than no it’s not a wild theory at all and is probably the most logical reasoning for it. Everyone is going to go into deep analysis of this and talk about things like “police culture” and “institutional racism”.
When the simple explanation is that the officer has had a bout of red mist. It happens. It happens to police and to non police. As a police officer you’re supposed to be in control of that mist however:
But yeah I certainly wouldn’t rule out that he had a close or personal relationship with the female. Either way he’s lost it and probably should no longer be a police officer.
Christ
What would have to have happened prior to what we've seen for you or anyone else to think that was justified? The dude was on the ground already, he was no longer a danger.
This is the bit that confuses me. Nothing that I can think of justifies that
This is why we should be worried about Farage and his boys being anywhere near Parliament.
Nobody saying it’s justified. The full video of the lead up to the incident needs to be seen.
But why? I ask again, is there something in that could be shown in the video to make you think it was justified? Or why the need to see it?
Were you there?
The person is laying down and is no threat when the officer kicks them and stamps on them. Nobody needs to be there to see that it's excessive force with no justification.
The lads (who was kicked twice) lawyer says he now has a cyst in his head.
I’m not a doctor, any out there?
I’m not a doctor, any out there?
Im not sure how a reply if "were you there" is relevant to my post at all.
Why do you need to video to make a determination on what the cop did?
What could you see in the video that would make it justified? I'm genuinely curious because I can't think of anything that would.
No matter what the video showed it wouldn't make it justified.
Listening to an ex armed police sergeant on CBN, that’s not how he viewed it. Worth listening to what he has to say.
No thanks, he sounds like an idiot.
How would you know if you haven’t listened to what he says?
How did he justify it? I'm struggling to see how curb stomping someone who is already down could be justified in any scenario. Anyone?
maybe he found out he was a supe terrorist
If he’s suggesting there’s a need for context before determining that it’s wrong to kick someone in the head whilst they’re lay on the ground, then he’s definitely an idiot.
I would like to see it because one of the stories out there is this guy on the ground was the one who assaulted officers and broke the nose of a female officer. I’ve since read somewhere that the group who assaulted the officers weren’t this family, and they had actually called the police because their mum was being racially abused. There’s nothing they could show prior to this incident that would justify attempted murder by this police officer but it would certainly go a long way in clarifying the situation.
Don’t know how this is going to pan out, but whoever was responsible for hospitalising 3 officers, going for an armed police officers gun and breaking a police woman’s nose is in serious trouble.
Which is wholly irrelevant to the point.
In your opinion.
And rightly they should be, but it still wouldn't justify the boot to the head when they were on the ground subdued already
So if he's person on the ground was the offender, they deserved the kick in the head, in your mind?