We've updated the 'What can I talk about?' section of the group chat guidelines to mirror the boards guidelines. You can find them here :)
Want to tell us about your experiences using The Mix and be in with a chance of winning a £200 Amazon Voucher? Click here to go to our survey!

police question

1246

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    silverhalo wrote: »
    Why does it matter anyway...just start wearing a Rangers top if you're so bothered :p

    never :D

    and you can honestly tell by the way their tone shifts when you mention your name and address, they turn into complete condescending bastards
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    I know this is slightly anecdotal but I was caught drinking on the street in Belfast and when the police man asked me where I was living (which is in a Protestant road) he let me go without saying anything. That speaks volumes like.

    same thing happened to me a few weeks back and i got a caution on the spot eh! :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's not to say all police are like that here.

    I've come across many dead on one's in my time, even had a bit of banter with them.

    But the hateful one's really are hateful like!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    z- wrote: »
    but they had no grounds to search me (they lied so they had an excuse, thats enough in itself!) ..

    On what grounds did they lie. You think that they didn't have a "suspicion" that you "might" be carrying.

    They don't have to lie, the law is a de facto stop and search and has been for years.
    the real problem is that they came down heavier on me because of my age and the fact i live in a working class republican area.. thats the part thats annoyed me the most.. if i was from a different part of the city they wouldnt even have bothered cautioning me, that is discrimination .. dunno about you but i dont think its very fair..

    Erm.. ever considered that it could be you who is showing discrimination here?

    You got a caution - how is that "harsh"?
    its definitely a lot different over here, so i dont really expect you to understand how frustrating it is

    Sorry, a tired old excuse. playing the victim card, used to justify the fact that you don't like the fact that you got caught. "Is it cos I is catholic" - to misquote Ali G. No, it's cos you are worth going over because you are a criminal.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I doubt the policemen had x-ray vision to see if there were drugs in their pockets, and since there was no knife I don't see how they thought there was.

    Erm... aren't you contradicting yourself there?

    Unless a knife is on show then it is concealed and by definition the police would have to have x-ray vision to see it - hence why they wanted to search. They couldn;t see it but had a "suspicion" that there might be one.

    Point is with this "excuse" for stopping people is that they need a suspicion, not evidence.
    It all sounds just like a made-up excuse to search someone they don't like the face of.

    Someone who just happened to be committing a crime at the time. Strike one for the boys in blue.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Erm... aren't you contradicting yourself there?

    Unless a knife is on show then it is concealed and by definition the police would have to have x-ray vision to see it - hence why they wanted to search. They couldn;t see it but had a "suspicion" that there might be one.
    The difference is that you can tell the shape of a knife in a pocket, but not of a bag of drugs.
    Someone who just happened to be committing a crime at the time. Strike one for the boys in blue.
    If they'd stopped them for suspicion of drugs I'd be more likely to think it wasn't a made up excuse. If I point the finger at someone at random and said "He's abusing his wife!" and it turned out he hadn't, but had been cheating on her, you wouldn't think I stroke a point.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Point is with this "excuse" for stopping people is that they need a suspicion, not evidence.

    Yeh and the "excuse" is a cover for an ulterior motive. Reasons given above.

    Someone who just happened to be committing a crime at the time. Strike one for the boys in blue.

    Committing a crime? What crime would this be now? Please don't say "possession of marijuana"?
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Committing a crime? What crime would this be now? Please don't say "possession of marijuana"?
    That's exactly what the crime was though. Like it or not, it is a crime. The point is that they don't seem to have real reason to think he was doing it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    "Committing" a crime to me would be smoking or rolling a joint in public, not having it on your possession. Also, isn't it technically legal now to have small amounts on your possession?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The difference is that you can tell the shape of a knife in a pocket, but not of a bag of drugs.

    Hardly. The point about concealed weapons is that they are hidden. i defy you to say for certainty that someone isn;t carrying just by looking at them.
    If they'd stopped them for suspicion of drugs I'd be more likely to think it wasn't a made up excuse.

    I may be wrong, but suspicion of possession isn't enough for stop and search.

    All important word here is "suspicion".
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    "Committing" a crime to me would be smoking or rolling a joint in public, not having it on your possession. Also, isn't it technically legal now to have small amounts on your possession?
    I wouldn't know about that. AFAIK "possession" is a crime. Now whether smoking it is another crime or not, I don't know.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    no it's not a crime in my opinion. it is bang out of order to be pulled over and searched for bullshit reasons and if it were someone cute on the boards everyone would be agreeing.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    I may be wrong, but suspicion of possession isn't enough for stop and search.
    If it's not, then they shouldn't have been stopped. Are you agreeing then that the knife thing was an excuse to stop them, and that the police didn't really think they had one?
    That's just a lie to get to do something that they wouldn't have the right to do otherwise, if that's the case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Yeh and the "excuse" is a cover for an ulterior motive. Reasons given above.

    The excuse is cover for the fact that they suspect that he might be doing something else. You can get stopped for walking around town at 3am with in darl clothing and carrying a holdall - possibly tooled up for burglary.

    Again, the all important word is "suspicion" here.

    We could get into a debate about the rights and wrong of stop and search and you will get a different response from me, but the police were acting within the law and during the course of a legal search found him breaking the law. End of story.
    Committing a crime? What crime would this be now? Please don't say "possession of marijuana"?

    Again, you think that possession is legal?

    Illegal substances are illegal substances. Whether you think that they should be legal or not is irrelevant, they aren't.
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    "Committing" a crime to me would be smoking or rolling a joint in public, not having it on your possession. Also, isn't it technically legal now to have small amounts on your possession?

    Nope. Smoking isn't the crime, possession is.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    katralla wrote: »
    no it's not a crime in my opinion. it is bang out of order to be pulled over and searched for bullshit reasons and if it were someone cute on the boards everyone would be agreeing.

    Are you trying to say that the OP isn't cute? :lol:

    Who says it was bullshit reasons....oh wait the OP who was actually committing a crime anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    silverhalo wrote: »
    Are you trying to say that the OP isn't cute? :lol:

    Who says it was bullshit reasons....oh wait the OP who was actually committing a crime anyway.

    fuck off. the crime of carrying a knife? purlease... grow up and smell the scum.
  • Indrid ColdIndrid Cold Warming up? Posts: 16,688
    If:
    • The police thought they might have a knife
    • The law allows them to stop someone for suspicion of a knife
    Then the police did well to stop them. They were doing their job.

    But if:
    • They police thought they might have drugs
    • The law does not allow them to stop someone for suspicion of drugs
    • The police stopped them for a fake suspicion
    Then, even if they were right about the drugs, by law they had no right to stop them. This is abuse of the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If it's not, then they shouldn't have been stopped. Are you agreeing then that the knife thing was an excuse to stop them, and that the police didn't really think they had one?

    No, I;m suggesting that there might have been an elemnt of doubt in their mind which is why they asked.

    personally I have never been stopped on suspicion of carrying a knife. I have, however, be stopped and asked why I had holdall etc at 3am - I was waiting for my pick-up to go to work.

    Point is that what I was doing aroused questions in their minds and they have the right to follow that up.

    Had I actually been in possession then that's just my tough shit. bang to rights, guv.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,931 Part of the furniture
    While posession of cannabis is still illegal, a formal caution for the amount he described really is a waste of time and money. The fact that he now has to go back for this meeting means it's even more time and money wasting, what exactly is it going to achieve. Comes down to the old and simple fact, that drug laws don't work.

    When I was younger I was 'picked on' by the local old bill simply because of some of the people I used to know. One month I was pulled over and given producer slips four times. I used to get it constantly for about two years. I'd never commited a driving offence ({or any other at the time) and they knew this. They just wanted to relay messages to the people I knew - along the lines of "Tell Charlie we're watching him' or something.
    Only after my mother put in several complaints did it stop. But since then I've been mistreated by the polive on a handful of occasions - one last year when I was seriously assaulted by 4 blokes in a pub and then arrested by their mate, a pissed up, off duty copper. They offered me a deal where if I dropped the serious complaint about the copper's behaviour they would go after the blokes who broke my ribs. They lied. Nothing came of it and I can honestly say that every copper I dealt with in regards to that situation was a complete and utter cunts.

    I know we need them, and the police do and important job but that doesn't change the fact that many of them are lying, rude, egotistical cunts.

    This isn't going to stop z doing drugs I'm sure. You think it's going to stop others?
    So what has it achieved other than waste time and money (ours and z's), and put a black mark against an otherwise law abiding individual, for nothing more than a little bit of smoke?

    What a load of shit.,
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Again, you think that possession is legal?

    Possession of small amounts a non arrestable offence* until Jan 2006. I didn't know they done a U-turn so I stand corrected.

    Still, that's not something I care too much in this debate. I agree he has broke the law, it's the reasons why he was seen as being "suspcious" and accussed of carrying a knife. You don't get accussed of carrying a knife out of the blue.

    *Sorry for getting my terminology wrong.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    an otherwise law abiding individual

    Except that he isn't.

    That's like saying that Iam Huntley was "otherwise law abiding" except for when he murdered two children.

    NB I am not suggetsing that the magnitude of crime is the same.
    What a load of shit.,

    Liek I said, debate about the rights and wrong of drug laws/stop and search if you like but it doesn't detract from the point that he was breaking the law.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    .

    Well said. :thumb:
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,931 Part of the furniture
    but the police were acting within the law and during the course of a legal search found him breaking the law. End of story.

    And our argument is that the laws an arse and coppers are often awkward twats.
    I think this situation prooves that.

    The law isn't the final word for me. Generally for the law to change for the better people often have to break it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    Possession of small amounts was legal until Jan 2006. I didn't know they done a U-turn so I stand corrected.

    No, it was still illegal it just wasn;t treated as such. It never came off the statute books.
    I agree he has broke the law, it's the reasons why he was seen as being "suspcious" and accussed of carrying a knife. You don't get accussed of carrying a knife out of the blue.

    No. He must have been doing something else. It could be attitude, it could be the people he was with, it could be that the policemen involved have seen him previously, it could be time/place. there a hundreds of reasons why they might have "suspicion".

    The problem here is that he was doing something illegal and it is entirely possible that his body language gave that away. We don't know because we weren't there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Except that he isn't.

    That's like saying that Iam Huntley was "otherwise law abiding" except for when he murdered two children.

    NB I am not suggetsing that the magnitude of crime is the same.

    You really are bonkers!

    And you are saying the two are comparable by using that analogy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    And our argument is that the laws an arse and coppers are often awkward twats.

    That's a shift. The argument up to now has been that he shouldn;t have been stopped.
    The law isn't the final word for me. Generally for the law to change for the better people often have to break it.

    Indeed.

    Argue that the law should be changed, that's fine. But not that he got caught, or that the police used the law to catch him. You won't win the argument like that.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yerascrote wrote: »
    And you are saying the two are comparable by using that analogy.

    In so far as they are both crimes. Not the magnitude of the crime.

    We're all "otherwise law abiding" until we commit a crime. It's a crap excuse to let someone off.
  • SkiveSkive No discipline! No morality! No respect! New ForestPosts: 14,931 Part of the furniture
    Except that he isn't.

    That's like saying that Iam Huntley was "otherwise law abiding" except for when he murdered two children.

    NB I am not suggetsing that the magnitude of crime is the same.

    My point is what did it actually achieve? And go further than simply saying 'He was committing a crime and was punished'.

    I think we all know what was achieved when Huntley was locked up.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    Last year when I was seriously assaulted by 4 blokes in a pub and then arrested by their mate, a pissed up, off duty copper. They offered me a deal where if I dropped the serious complaint about the copper's behaviour they would go after the blokes who broke my ribs. They lied. Nothing came of it and I can honestly say that every copper I dealt with in regards to that situation was a complete and utter cunts.

    Fuck, thats awful. I have sympathy with you there, why would anyone trust or like the police when this is your experience of them.

    I know you mentioned it, but please remeber not all police officers are like that. I havent had much dealing with the police, on the odd occasion I have felt they havent done much. However i still respect the poilce.

    At the end of the day, if someone breaks into my house with a gun, the police would be the first people I would call, and I would be dam grateful they would act on my call.

    :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Skive wrote: »
    My point is what did it actually achieve? And go further than simply saying 'He was committing a crime and was punished'.

    Why do I need to go further?

    The law was administered in the way it was written. Don't ask me to defend those laws because I would be agreeing with you. I think that the war on drugs is a monumental waste of effort.

    Problem is, for the OP, that those laws exist. He knows they exist. He breaks them. You cannot complain then if those laws are enforced. Even if it is inconvenient for you to attend according to you bail notice.
    I think we all know what was achieved when Huntley was locked up.

    Because it's what the law stated should happen. He didn't get treated lightly, or differently, because he was "otherwise law abiding".
Sign In or Register to comment.