Who's fault is it?

[normie]

The jury system, the so called golden thread running through the rich tapestry of our legal system is, intrinsically, a system which is supposed to reflect the attitudes of the average 'man* in the street'. It attempts to do this by calling upon a cross section of our society to make a decisions. Like a barometer, if you like, for community attitudes.

If that's the case then it clearly reflects a society which holds law enforcement officers in contempt!

*person, not gender specific...

[brokendown gunfighter]

I thought a jury comes to a decision on presented evidence,nothing else.
sometimes they get it wrong
what system do you want to replace it with Normie?

[slomo]

according to the news tonight the defence lawyer stated that , the police had used excessive force, once one of the mcleods had his black tee shirt pulled over his face and was hit by a batton from another officer, still no excuse for the violent headbutt on the officer....
Posted via Mobile Device

[laura]

I know relatively nothing about the other charges that were layed and overturned, they haven't really come into question but the assault police charges...I think its an absolute crock of you know what. How on Earth can the charges for assualt police be dropped? Its celarly shown in the footage that he headbutted Constable Butcher and as a result he is now paralysed down one side and can no longer be a part of the front line policing that he trained for.

Yes it is possible that the level of force used by the police was excessive (I'm not saying definitively if it was excessive of sufficient force used as I don't know all the facts) but for an officer to need to use their tazer obviously the offender is not responding to what the police have already said and therefore due force should be used to apprehend them. If the offender then refuses to comply go for the tazer, its better than going for the gun and plain out killing them.
Yes the son may well have said "dont shoot he has a heart condition" but who's to say he's not just saying it because he knows how tazers work. Who's to say either way and in the heat of the moment the officer acted to apprehend the offender and minimise the potential for further harm. If the son cared so much about saving a life, why head butt someone else knocking them to the ground, in an act that has a similar potential to kill?

I whole heartedly support the Police's actions and if the McLeod's were so innocent then there would have been no need for police intervention in the situation. The facts still remain that they were doing the wrong thing, the police acted to stop & apprehend them, they appear (in the video footage) not to have complied and as a result the bloke was tazered. Whether he had a heart condition or not is (to me) somewhat irrelevant, if his heart condition was so bad then what was he doing getting involved in the fight? The head butting was completely unneccessary and shows that he had no regard for the law and continued to act in an unlawful manner.

I know I don't know all the facts but one of my good mates is currently going through police training and a close family friends are police officers and I can only hope that something is done because if it was any of them in this situation it would be unbearable to know that whoever did it got away. Even if they weren't police officers, no one should get away with breaking the law and paralysing another person.

Those in the role to enforce the justice system get screwed over by it. How are you meant to continue to enforce something when it fails you?! I bet that if any one of those who were let off or on the jury (and decided not guilty) were to be wronged they would be the first to jump up and down that the justice system failed them.

[Burgs]

"I" paralysed another bloke but he, or one of the others, was using excessive force...
Last I heard two wrongs don't make a right?

Might be a new spin off series for Ch9, "McLeod's Sons"...

[Ecky]

Seems to me that it's all to do with the presentation of the case. In this case the defendants' lawyer(s) were clearly way better than the prosecution team in presenting sufficient info to the jury.

That's what jury trials are all about, I guess. I was on a jury in the Supreme Court a couple of years ago and we were out for about 8 hours for something that should have taken an hour. It was just that a couple of jurors were swayed by the defence case while the rest were not. We didn't get 12-0 for a very long time.

One imagines the DPP will consider whether to appeal. If they choose not to, I think that shows they just don't have a strong enough case to present without the defence picking holes in it. Maybe an indictment on the way DPP runs - maybe an indication that the original case was not thought through thoroughly enough. good Lord - look at the alliteration/assonance there!

[fulvio sammut]

I always thought the golden thread of the British judicial system was the presumption of innocence, Normie, but there you go...

[zimeric]

It's easy to critisice from an armchair.

Absolutely, and isnt that what the OP and everyone else in this thread is doing as well?

[fulvio sammut]

What's an OP?

[zimeric]

Original poster

[Lonzy]

I wouldn't say I am commenting from the armchair, one of our family friends has been a long serving officer in the police force and has given me an insight into certain aspects of policing and the community. I am shocked to think people would say well okay the jury said not guilty. Generally when people join the force its a life choice, this poor guy has had his life changed for ever, he is not going to be able to get back out there on the front line. and what makes it worse is he isn't going to be compensated at the present time. Not only is it a gross injustice for him it is one for his family as well. the people who attacked the cop were all able to walk into court (given the father didn't make several appearances due to health issues, but was this just a ploy from the defence to make the jury believe he has sustained some sort of ill after effects? non the less he can still walk) ...

In the paper today it is reported that there are almost 4 attacks per day on police officers...

[fulvio sammut]

Lonzy, are you suggesting that the law should apply selectively so that only those you or I know personally (or have sympathy for) are protected? Those we whimsically consider just and true are to be always in the right no matter what?That there should be no umpire, referee, judge, jury or tribunal because they just might not come down with the decision we want and expect?

As sympathetic as I am to the unfortunate gentleman in question, and as much as I am aware of the difficult situations police officers sometimes find themselves in, the Justice System must act strictly on the basis of the application of the Law and the rules, and cannot deviate from this just to accomodate the personal views of some, or indeed of the majority.

These views will always be different, depending on the subjective viewpoints of the proponents and the emotional issues arising from each case.

A justice system of any kind, as flawed as it may be, is not a system of justice unless the rules are consistent and apply equally to all. Without this, it is mob rule and anarchy, the law of the jungle. We may as well have the mafia or Saddam Hussein ruling by decree.

I don't want that.

[Burgs]

Probably worth noting a distinction between blaming the jury and blaming the system the jury have to work within too.

[Lonzy]

I'm not blaming the jury, I just think there should be more done to support the people who protect our communities. This isn't the only case where an officer has been attacked and the punishment certainly didn't fit the crime...

[Ecky]

The jury considers the evidence and the arguments. I don't think the jury is to blame - it's the side who didn't put up the convincing argument.