Young woman murdered in Argoed, attacker killed by police taser

[Spymaster]

If he was proven to be insane at the time.

Sometimes insane people do insane things (like eating people) and have to be heavily subdued. Unfortunately the take-down is very occasionally going to kill the perpetrator.

Shit happens. As seems the case here.

 

[Pickman's model]

it's precisely these cases which should be very carefully scrutinised as the police like to create precedents with groups or people few people like.

 

[Citizen66]

Sometimes insane people do insane things (like eating people) and have to be heavily subdued. Unfortunately the take-down is very occasionally going to kill the perpetrator.

Shit happens. As seems the case here.

And you can't forsee of any possible situations where the police might get it wrong and then lie to cover it up?

Of course, you'd probably just buy their narrative wholesale: no need for inconvenient factors such as defence barristers or juries.

 

[topher25]

If he was proven to be insane at the time.

Are you sure about that? I've not heard of voluntary intoxication being used in mitigation before, nor as an aggravating factor.

 

[Spymaster]

And you can't forsee of any possible situations where the police might get it wrong and then lie to cover it up?

Of course. And I'm fully aware of the fact that the default setting on these boards is to assume they did!

Of course, you'd probably just buy their narrative wholesale:

I'll "buy" the strength of the case on the evidence at hand.

So far we've got a murdered and partially eaten woman, and a tasered and dead violent criminal. If more evidence comes to hand I may revise my opinion but at this point I'm prepared to go with plod on this one.

no need for inconvenient factors such as defence barristers or juries.

I'm all for due process but I'm also fine with lethal force (accidental or otherwise) being used where necessary in self defence or that of others. Most reasonable people should be.

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course. And I'm fully aware of the fact that the default setting on these boards is to assume they did!



I'll "buy" the strength of the case on the evidence at hand.

So far we've got a murdered and partially eaten woman, and a tasered and dead violent criminal. If more evidence comes to hand I may revise my opinion but at this point I'm prepared to go with plod on this one.



I'm all for due process but I'm also fine with lethal force (accidental or otherwise) being used where necessary in self defence or that of others.

yet you'd be the first person sputtering their horlicks on the screen in disgust if this person's story was ever to be tested by a court.

 

[Spymaster]

yet you'd be the first person sputtering their horlicks on the screen in disgust if this person's story was ever to be tested by a court.

Would I?

 

[Spymaster]

it's precisely these cases which should be very carefully scrutinised ...

I'm sure it will be.

 

[Citizen66]

Are you sure about that? I've not heard of voluntary intoxication being used in mitigation before, nor as an aggravating factor.

I think it's whether they were insane at the time of their actions. I don't think they have one box for insanity due to illness and another for insanity due to side effects of drugs.

I think eating someone's face off strongly suggests being mentally disturbed.

 

[xenon]

If anyone is going to be tasered and if ever there were a justification for the use. This is one of those occasion. Could have been worse if the officer had to subdue him with a truncheon or night stick she may well have ended up in hospital, dead and him getting away.

 

[Spymaster]

If anyone is going to be tasered and if ever there were a justification for the use. This is one of those occasion.

Pah! Begone with your unthinking acceptance of the police narrative.

 

[Citizen66]

It's dangerous. You think the police can be forgiven on this occasion based on reports in a newspaper. It doesn't take Einstein to see where that leads.

 

[Pickman's model]

Would I?

yes. no one else here drinks horlicks.

 

[Spymaster]

yes. no one else here drinks horlicks.

Not factually correct.

I've always been an Ovaltine man.

 

[Pickman's model]

Not factually correct.

I've always been an Ovaltine man.

trying to relive your ovalteen years

 

[xenon]

It's dangerous. You think the police can be forgiven on this occasion based on reports in a newspaper. It doesn't take Einstein to see where that leads.

You know the thing about difficult unusual cases make for bad law? well I'm not going to frame a scepticism about police and policing around an instance where it seems a violent cannibal,, FFS, ends up being killed whilst being apprehended.

 

[Pickman's model]

You know the thing about difficult unusual cases make for bad law? well I'm not going to frame a scepticism about police and policing around an instance where it seems a violent cannibal,, FFS, ends up being killed whilst being apprehended.

good for you.

 

[Citizen66]

You know the thing about difficult unusual cases make for bad law? well I'm not going to frame a scepticism about police and policing around an instance where it seems a violent cannibal,, FFS, ends up being killed whilst being apprehended.

So the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and legal representation shouldn't necessarily apply in all cases?

 

[xenon]

If you think the repots are wholly inaccurate to disguise a case of police brutality. Well. Is little point to this discussion. There will and rightly so be an investigation.

 

[xenon]

So the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and legal representation shouldn't necessarily apply in all cases?

Of course it applies. So does the right to self defence. They can't always both win.

 

[Citizen66]

If you think the repots are wholly inaccurate to disguise a case of police brutality. Well. Is little point to this discussion. There will and rightly so be an investigation.

I haven't said what I think. It's your side of the argument doing that. I said we were unlikely to ever know if the police acted unlawfully as the only two witnesses apart from the police are now dead. It's not for me to assume they acted lawfully ffs.

 

[Citizen66]

Of course it applies. So does the right to self defence. They can't always both win.

How do you know that the cannibal wasn't acting in self defence btw?

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course it applies. So does the right to self defence. They can't always both win.

on what are you basing your claim that this was an instance of self-defence?

sounds to me more like pre-emptive self-defence...

 

[xenon]

How do you know that the cannibal wasn't acting in self defence btw?

For the purposes of a reasonably sensible discussion. I'm taking some things as read. How do you know the lizards didn't do it.

 

[Pickman's model]

For the purposes of a reasonably sensible discussion. I'm taking some things as read. How do you know the lizards didn't do it.

because they left you alive

 

[Citizen66]

For the purposes of a reasonably sensible discussion. I'm taking some things as read. How do you know the lizards didn't do it.

Precisely my point. When do the facts get tested?

 

[Spymaster]

So the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial and legal representation shouldn't necessarily apply in all cases?

You're getting this arse about face mate.

The presumption of innocence is a legal construct that begins when an alleged criminal is apprehended and faces trial. There will always be occasions where the arrest of violent criminals (particularly those eating the face off his victim) result in his death.

 

[xenon]

on what are you basing your claim that this was an instance of self-defence?

sounds to me more like pre-emptive self-defence...

The officer was trying to stop him carrying on with his lunch. That seems to be a reasonable probability. Given what we have been told.

 

[Pickman's model]

You're getting this arse about face mate.

The presumption of innocence is a legal construct that begins when an alleged criminal is apprehended and faces trial. There will always be occasions where the arrest of violent criminals (particularly those eating the face off his victim) result in his death.

so he was eating the face of his victim and posing no immediate threat to the police constable who tasered him.

 

[xenon]

Precisely my point. When do the facts get tested?

In the enquiry.