Citizen's arrest of a police officer
November 5
harassed by police officers for doing what is a perfectly legitimate
activity.
Ignoring for the fact that the police have all the (legal) weapons,
can people being harassed by the police officers arrest them instead
for breach of peace, disorderly conduct, harassment, suspected
terrorist activity, ... ?
If those person(s) could subdue the officers at the scene and call the
(shock horror) police for backup, what is likely to happen?
What will happen, if in the course of making a citizen's arrest
against a police officer, the person uses the policeman's own
equipment against him - Taser, pepper spray, handcuffs, belt or
shoelaces?
Or take the Ian Tomlinson case. If the mob could have overpowered the
riot police using legal means or illegal weapons, and arrested the
officer who struck Ian for assault and murder/manslaughter, what is
likely to happen?
N5
Sam
"November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:f918f5c9-be46-4094...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> If those person(s) could subdue the officers at the scene and call the
> (shock horror) police for backup, what is likely to happen?
Take a guess.
Roger Dewhurst
If you are not shot you will be beaten up almost to the point of death.
R
Richard
wrote:
Yet another loony post....................piggies throughout the world
operate completely outside the law, with full support of the
establishment and corp media propagandists. Possibly you are not aware
of this, but perhaps murder of innocent passengers on the London tube,
getting the thumbs up might have provided just a small clue?
Harry Merrick
> On Jan 4, 12:57 am, November 5 <november.fifth...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> Suppose someone is taking pictures of factories or Royals, and gets
>> harassed by police officers for doing what is a perfectly legitimate
>> activity.
>>
>> Ignoring for the fact that the police have all the (legal) weapons,
>> can people being harassed by the police officers arrest them instead
>> for breach of peace, disorderly conduct, harassment, suspected
>> terrorist activity, ... ?
>>
>> If those person(s) could subdue the officers at the scene and call
>> the (shock horror) police for backup, what is likely to happen?
>>
>> What will happen, if in the course of making a citizen's arrest
>> against a police officer, the person uses the policeman's own
>> equipment against him - Taser, pepper spray, handcuffs, belt or
>> shoelaces?
>>
>> Or take the Ian Tomlinson case. If the mob could have overpowered the
>> riot police using legal means or illegal weapons, and arrested the
>> officer who struck Ian for assault and murder/manslaughter, what is
>> likely to happen?
>>
>> N5
>
> Yet another loony post....................piggies throughout the world
> operate completely outside the law, with full support of the
> establishment and corp media propagandists.
AND most law-abiding citizens as well, so it appears!
>Possibly you are not aware
> of this, but perhaps murder of innocent passengers on the London tube,
> getting the thumbs up might have provided just a small clue?
MMM! Not the regular police surely? Also, the victim was an illegal alien
immigrant with no papers. Also he behaved suspiciously. In the
circumstances, (bombing the London transport system by extremeist Muslims),
can one blame the security forces for being overly cautious? - Honestly, I
believe not. IMO, the police in Denmark have got it right. Beat the sh-one-T
out of the massed crowd of professional and rent-a-mob protesters! Non-
democratic activity deserves non-democratic reactions.
--
Harry Merrick.
Mrcheerful
moving against legally appointed officers of the law must be close to
treason or terrorism. I don't think it would be a good idea , but you are
welcome to try it, beforehand speak to a close friend and ask them to let us
know how you got on, and/or when the funeral is.
November 5
I had meant these questions originally as rhetorical ones to
illustrate the disparity in power between the State's enforcers and
it's citizens. Hence why I believe citizens should both be armed, and
that a unitary police force be devolved into a collection of competing
entities - private security firms, neighbourhood coalitions and so on.
But of course people are invited to conjecture possible outcomes of
attempting a citizen's arrest of a police officer.
So in a nutshell, even *if* a uniformed police officer is flagrantly
breaking the law such as bludgeoning/shooting innocents or not
displaying their ID numbers, no one may stop him except another police
officer (good luck on that happening!).
QED
N5
Mrcheerful
I think that would be the wisest course, the next step is of course anarchy
(or would be shown to be)
F Murtz
Big Les Wade
>Richard wrote:
>>Possibly you are not aware
>> of this, but perhaps murder of innocent passengers on the London tube,
>> getting the thumbs up might have provided just a small clue?
>
>MMM! Not the regular police surely?
Yes, the killers were two members of the Metropolitan Police firearms
unit.
>Also, the victim was an illegal alien immigrant
No he wasn't, and anyway it wouldn't have made any difference because
nobody knew who he was.
>with no papers.
You may not be aware that people are not obliged to carry "papers" in
the UK. For you, mein friend, der Usenet debate is over.
> Also he behaved suspiciously.
No he didn't.
Harry, you're a propagandist's dream. A born dupe.
>In the circumstances, (bombing the London transport system by
>extremeist Muslims), can one blame the security forces for being overly
>cautious?
No, but I can blame them for blowing an innocent person's head off
without having the slightest evidence that he was a danger to anyone.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
Mrcheerful
if he had not been in the UK (ie left the country when he should ) then he
would still be alive.
yitzhak in eretz isreal (sic)
> MMM! Not the regular police surely? Also, the victim was an illegal alien
> immigrant with no papers. Also he behaved suspiciously. In the
> circumstances, (bombing the London transport system by extremeist Muslims),
> can one blame the security forces for being overly cautious? - Honestly, I
> believe not. IMO, the police in Denmark have got it right. Beat the sh-one-T
> out of the massed crowd of professional and rent-a-mob protesters! Non-
> democratic activity deserves non-democratic reactions.
i) he was in the UK legally
ii) he didn't run
iii) he wasn't dressed 'bulkily'
iv) he didn't threaten the police
Get it right once and for all, you fucking dick. You're regurgitating crap
that even the Met is too ashamed to claim now.
Y.
--
Yitzhak Isaac Goldstein
AADP's 'left-wing Israeli intellectual'
'I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix'
(Dan Quayle)
<http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/>
Cynic
wrote:
>>> In the circumstances, (bombing the London transport system by
>>> extremeist Muslims), can one blame the security forces for being
>>> overly cautious?
>> No, but I can blame them for blowing an innocent person's head off
>> without having the slightest evidence that he was a danger to anyone.
>if he had not been in the UK (ie left the country when he should ) then he
>would still be alive.
AFAIAA the last announcement was that he *was* legally entitled to
have been in the UK.
Not that it makes a fig's worth of difference. It's akin to saying
that it's your fault that you were gunned down by armed bank robbers
because if you hadn't forgotten to buy milk you wouldn't have later
been walking past the bank on the way to the convenience store.
--
Cynic
Jethro
wrote:
> On 2010-01-04, Harry Merrick <homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > MMM! Not the regular police surely? Also, the victim was an illegal alien
> > immigrant with no papers. Also he behaved suspiciously. In the
> > circumstances, (bombing the London transport system by extremeist Muslims),
> > can one blame the security forces for being overly cautious? - Honestly, I
> > believe not. IMO, the police in Denmark have got it right. Beat the sh-one-T
> > out of the massed crowd of professional and rent-a-mob protesters! Non-
> > democratic activity deserves non-democratic reactions.
>
> i) he was in the UK legally
> ii) he didn't run
> iii) he wasn't dressed 'bulkily'
> iv) he didn't threaten the police
>
> Get it right once and for all, you fucking dick. You're regurgitating crap
> that even the Met is too ashamed to claim now.
>
Unfortunately, the Mets wet-ops unit did a brilliant job here. Despite
the repeated inescapable statements of fact (as above) in all official
reports and forums, 80% of the public believe the 1st draft.
Francis Burton
Harry Merrick <home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>MMM! Not the regular police surely? Also, the victim was an illegal alien
>immigrant with no papers. Also he behaved suspiciously. In the
"Don't point your fookin' tentacles at me!"
Francis
Harry Merrick
> Harry Merrick <home...@hotmail.com> posted
>> Richard wrote:
>>> Possibly you are not aware
>>> of this, but perhaps murder of innocent passengers on the London
>>> tube, getting the thumbs up might have provided just a small clue?
>>
>> MMM! Not the regular police surely?
>
> Yes, the killers were two members of the Metropolitan Police firearms
> unit.
Then, decidedly NOT regular police! Get your facts straight.
>
>> Also, the victim was an illegal alien immigrant
>
> No he wasn't, and anyway it wouldn't have made any difference because
> nobody knew who he was.
In fact he was. This is clearly explained at the time.
>
>> with no papers.
>
> You may not be aware that people are not obliged to carry "papers" in
> the UK. For you, mein friend, der Usenet debate is over.
IF you are a lawful immigrant, yes, you DO have to have immigration papers.
Get your facts in order.
>
>> Also he behaved suspiciously.
>
> No he didn't.
Really? He did run away, and he didn't do what the police told him, which is
why he got shot. I am not saying that the police didn't act precipitously,
they did. However, I wonder what your bleats would have been like if he had,
in fact, been a bomber and blown himself and the police up!!
>
> Harry, you're a propagandist's dream. A born dupe.
You, Les, are a complete ass and a pompous one at that.
>
>> In the circumstances, (bombing the London transport system by
>> extremeist Muslims), can one blame the security forces for being
>> overly cautious?
>
> No, but I can blame them for blowing an innocent person's head off
> without having the slightest evidence that he was a danger to anyone.
For someone who wasn't even there, totally unaware of the situation as it
was, totally unaware of the dangers these police were facing, it seems you
are an unimaginative, substantially intransigent and self-opinionate git.
Get a life! If we are to properly fight terrorism, accidents are bound to
happen.
--
Harry Merrick.
Harry Merrick
> On 2010-01-04, Harry Merrick <home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MMM! Not the regular police surely? Also, the victim was an illegal
>> alien immigrant with no papers. Also he behaved suspiciously. In the
>> circumstances, (bombing the London transport system by extremeist
>> Muslims), can one blame the security forces for being overly
>> cautious? - Honestly, I believe not. IMO, the police in Denmark have
>> got it right. Beat the sh-one-T out of the massed crowd of
>> professional and rent-a-mob protesters! Non- democratic activity
>> deserves non-democratic reactions.
>
> i) he was in the UK legally
No, he was not. His visa had long since run out.
> ii) he didn't run
He didn't stop, either.
> iii) he wasn't dressed 'bulkily'
Yes, he was. He carried a rucksack, and looked like the man the police
wanted. He also lived in the same building. Accidents such as these do
happen, as any Jew should know.
> iv) he didn't threaten the police
Nobody said that he did. He didn't do what he was told, and in the light of
the time that was in it the police thought that he was a terrorist.
>
> Get it right once and for all, you fucking dick.
Oh FFS!! DO grow up! Ad hominems from you do not sit well, it does have to
be said!
>You're
> regurgitating crap that even the Met is too ashamed to claim now.
Bullshit. The Met had to backtrack due to bad book-keeping is all.
If we don't have a strong security against suicide bombers, then we will
suffer the consequences and deserve to do so! Accidents such as this are
bound to happen no matter what. If there is a fucking dick here it is
yourself.
--
Harry Merrick.
Harry Merrick
LOL!! Exactly so!
--
Harry Merrick.
Cynic
<home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Also, the victim was an illegal alien immigrant
>>
>> No he wasn't, and anyway it wouldn't have made any difference because
>> nobody knew who he was.
>
>In fact he was. This is clearly explained at the time.
And later it was explained that he was in the country legally.
>>> with no papers.
>> You may not be aware that people are not obliged to carry "papers" in
>> the UK. For you, mein friend, der Usenet debate is over.
>IF you are a lawful immigrant, yes, you DO have to have immigration papers.
>Get your facts in order.
Get *your* facts in order. There is no requirement for *anyone* to
carry papers on their person.
>>> Also he behaved suspiciously.
>> No he didn't.
>Really? He did run away
No he did not. It turned out that the running man seen by an
eyewitness was a policeman, not DeMenezes,
>, and he didn't do what the police told him
The police later admitted that they did not challenge him or speak to
him in any way whatsoever.
>, which is
>why he got shot.
Seeing that the reasons you gave were later shown to have *not
happened*, you might like to re-think that assertion.
> I am not saying that the police didn't act precipitously,
>they did. However, I wonder what your bleats would have been like if he had,
>in fact, been a bomber and blown himself and the police up!!
You could use that same argument to justify killing *anyone*.
>> Harry, you're a propagandist's dream. A born dupe.
>You, Les, are a complete ass and a pompous one at that.
The fact that you still believe the initial false reports shows that
Les's statement is not far off the mark. I'm surprised you have not
also claimed that he was a rapist.
--
Cynic
November 5
At first, I thought Mr. Harry Merrick was being sarcastic. No one
could possibly be so clueless.
Now, I just think he is a bloody moron without any idea of what really
happened in the JCdM murder.
This here is why a capitalist anarchy would be a good thing. His genes
for feeblemindedness would have been weeded out generations ago by
survival of the fittest. Instead in a Socialist nanny welfare state
system we have to put up with the likes of him. He probably even
sponges off our tax money too in some form of civil "servant" job or
handout, being the moron that he is.
N5
Cynic
<home...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> MMM! Not the regular police surely? Also, the victim was an illegal
>>> alien immigrant with no papers. Also he behaved suspiciously. In the
>>> circumstances, (bombing the London transport system by extremeist
>>> Muslims), can one blame the security forces for being overly
>>> cautious? - Honestly, I believe not. IMO, the police in Denmark have
>>> got it right. Beat the sh-one-T out of the massed crowd of
>>> professional and rent-a-mob protesters! Non- democratic activity
>>> deserves non-democratic reactions.
>> i) he was in the UK legally
>No, he was not. His visa had long since run out.
No. The initial reports were about a visa that had been found to have
expired. Later it was discovered that he had a valid new visa that
had not expired.
>> ii) he didn't run
>He didn't stop, either.
Why should he have stopped? He had no idea the police were following
him or had any interest in him. Do *you* stop periodically when
walking to catch a train?
>> iii) he wasn't dressed 'bulkily'
>Yes, he was. He carried a rucksack, and looked like the man the police
>wanted. He also lived in the same building. Accidents such as these do
>happen, as any Jew should know.
Wrong on all accounts except that he lived in the same building as a
suspect. He was not wearing a bulky jacket. He was not carrying a
rucksack. He was in fact no different in appearance or behaviour to
hundreds of other commuters trying to get to work via that underground
station.
>> iv) he didn't threaten the police
>Nobody said that he did. He didn't do what he was told, and in the light of
>the time that was in it the police thought that he was a terrorist.
He was not told to do anything. The police were operating under
"Kratos" rules, which meant that they must shoot to kill *without any
warning*. They came very close to shooting the train driver as well
BTW.
>> Get it right once and for all, you fucking dick.
>Oh FFS!! DO grow up! Ad hominems from you do not sit well, it does have to
>be said!
Although it must be said that you are remarkably misinformed about
that incident, and there is by now plenty sufficient accurate
information on the Internet so that you have no good reason to remain
so ignorant of the very simple facts.
>>You're
>> regurgitating crap that even the Met is too ashamed to claim now.
>Bullshit. The Met had to backtrack due to bad book-keeping is all.
If by "bad book-keeping" you mean "misinformation"
>If we don't have a strong security against suicide bombers, then we will
>suffer the consequences and deserve to do so! Accidents such as this are
>bound to happen no matter what. If there is a fucking dick here it is
>yourself.
If "accidents" like that are "bound to happen" then it would appear
that the cure is far worse than the disease.
--
Cynic
Phil Stovell
>>> Also, the victim was an illegal alien immigrant
>>
>> No he wasn't, and anyway it wouldn't have made any difference because
>> nobody knew who he was.
>
> In fact he was. This is clearly explained at the time.
>>> Also he behaved suspiciously.
>>
>> No he didn't.
>
> Really? He did run away, and he didn't do what the police told him, which
> is why he got shot.
Fuck me. The Met's blame the victim spin machine has done a very good job.
Surely you missed out the drug addict rapist part.
Phil Stovell
> Now, I just think he is a bloody moron without any idea of what really
> happened in the JCdM murder.
That he is, but he isn't alone. The Met's spin squad did an excellent job.
Steve Walker
> Suppose someone is taking pictures of factories or Royals, and gets
> harassed by police officers for doing what is a perfectly legitimate
> activity.
>
> Ignoring for the fact that the police have all the (legal) weapons,
> can people being harassed by the police officers arrest them instead
> for breach of peace, disorderly conduct, harassment, suspected
> terrorist activity, ... ?
The Black Panther Party used a similar tactic some decades ago, following
police patrols through ghetto areas and intervening if they felt an innocent
citizen was being illegally harrassed. There is no particular reason why a
concerned person or group could not do this tomorrow in Windsor, Hartlepool
or Parliament Square. Obviously anyone who attempted it would be subjected
to huge harassment and malice from the police, but the BPP stood up to that
(with bullets flying).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Panther_Party#Conflict_with_law_enforcement
Colin Trunt
"November 5" <november...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:f918f5c9-be46-4094...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
You ar likely to have been found to have slipped on a bar of soap in
your cell and beaten yourself to death with staff sargants batton.
>
> N5
Alex Heney
<november...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>Suppose someone is taking pictures of factories or Royals, and gets
>harassed by police officers for doing what is a perfectly legitimate
>activity.
>
>Ignoring for the fact that the police have all the (legal) weapons,
>can people being harassed by the police officers arrest them instead
>for breach of peace, disorderly conduct, harassment, suspected
>terrorist activity, ... ?
>
No.
Apart from the last, all of those are summary offences, which means
citizen's arrest is not valid. You can only make a citizen's arrest
for an indictable offence.
And there is no way you could possibly persuade a court you had a
reasonable suspicion that their harassment of you was "terrorist
activity", so the last is also a non-starter.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Just what part of "NO" didn't you understand...?
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Paul Cummins
(Alex Heney) wrote:
> Apart from the last, all of those are summary offences, which means
> citizen's arrest is not valid.
You can arrest for Breach of the Peace, at common law.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
bill
> November 5 wrote:
> > Suppose someone is taking pictures of factories or Royals, and gets
> > harassed by police officers for doing what is a perfectly legitimate
> > activity.
>
> > Ignoring for the fact that the police have all the (legal) weapons,
> > can people being harassed by the police officers arrest them instead
> > for breach of peace, disorderly conduct, harassment, suspected
> > terrorist activity, ... ?
>
> > (shock horror) police for backup, what is likely to happen?
>
> > What will happen, if in the course of making a citizen's arrest
> > against a police officer, the person uses the policeman's own
> > equipment against him - Taser, pepper spray, handcuffs, belt or
> > shoelaces?
>
> > Or take the Ian Tomlinson case. If the mob could have overpowered the
> > riot police using legal means or illegal weapons, and arrested the
> > officer who struck Ian for assault and murder/manslaughter, what is
> > likely to happen?
>
>
> If you are not shot you will be beaten up almost to the point of death.
>
> R
too true
Big Les Wade
Yes. Posts like Harry's are very useful in reminding us just how easy it
is, even today, for the authorities to fool most of the people most of
the time. Which is all they really need to do.
Colonel Colt
news:7qeom6...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Really? He did run away, and he didn't do what the police told him, which
> is why he got shot.
Colonel Colt
news:pan.2010.01.04....@stovell.nospam.org.uk...
>>
>> Really? He did run away, and he didn't do what the police told him, which
>> is why he got shot.
>
> Fuck me. The Met's blame the victim spin machine has done a very good job.
>
Even though they were quickly discredited, lies always leave traces behind,
as is proved by Merrick's contribution.
Alex Heney
uset...@stedphone.invalid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
>In article <5mq4k5de7pu28bph5...@4ax.com>, m...@privacy.net
>(Alex Heney) wrote:
>
>> Apart from the last, all of those are summary offences, which means
>> citizen's arrest is not valid.
>
>You can arrest for Breach of the Peace, at common law.
I think that has been overridden by statute.
BoP used to be an "arrestable offence" when such things existed.
The law was changed in 2005 to make it "indictable offences".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's Ensign Flintstone, Jim... He's Fred!
Paul Cummins
(Alex Heney) wrote:
> BoP used to be an "arrestable offence" when such things existed.
>
> The law was changed in 2005 to make it "indictable offences".
No, I'm pretty sure that any citizen can arrest, in the name of the
monarch, any person who breaks the kings(sic) peace, and indeed may even
be under a duty to do so.
I'll look for the relevant cites.
Robert Henderson
<f918f5c9-be46-4094...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
November 5 <november...@googlemail.com> writes
>Suppose someone is taking pictures of factories or Royals, and gets
>harassed by police officers for doing what is a perfectly legitimate
>activity.
>
>Ignoring for the fact that the police have all the (legal) weapons, can
>people being harassed by the police officers arrest them instead for
>breach of peace, disorderly conduct, harassment, suspected terrorist
>activity, ... ?
>
>If those person(s) could subdue the officers at the scene and call the
>(shock horror) police for backup, what is likely to happen?
>
>What will happen, if in the course of making a citizen's arrest against
>a police officer, the person uses the policeman's own equipment against
>him - Taser, pepper spray, handcuffs, belt or shoelaces?
IN principle you could make a citizen's arrest of a policeman. However,
the almost certain outcome would be that you would be found guilty of
assault or worse. RH
--
Robert Henderson
Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk