Support NeoGAF

[Transhuman]

Michael Borrelli QC, for Passmore, said his client was the carer for his elderly mother and stepfather and suffered from low IQ and memory recall.

The makings of a fine officer.

 

[toythatkills]

Demonstrate? As in provide links to articles, studies or something? Heck, I believe it's been more than a decade since the string of events that formed the impression I mentioned above. I have no idea where that stuff is today, and I don't really feel like googling around for it while at work. I don't really feel a desire to try and convince you anyway. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. I might be horribly wrong, but you've got to admit that it's peculiar when people think "oh, it must be the UK again" when it comes to stuff like this. I wasn't the only one either.

Well you can do what you want, I guess, but as someone who lives in the UK and follows the news in the UK very closely, I certainly haven't noticed any kind of problem with vigilantism here - obviously there are instances of it but no more than anywhere else in the world I'd wager.

Still, if that's your poorly formed impression of the UK, keep it or don't, no skin off my nose.

 

[Kard8p3]

People actually defending these light ass sentences lol. Get the Fuck out of here.

 

[theignoramus]

Damn.

Stomping on the head of a disabled man till he died? An innocent man no less.
This is one of those crimes where if I was a relative of the victim I would probably be going to jail for vigilante crime.

 

[Simon Belmont]

In America, those who were complicit can be sentenced as accomplices to said crime and often get similar sentences as those who did the crimes. The getaway driver shouldn't necessarily get a lighter sentence than the guy who robbed the bank and shot a teller in the process. How much more so an officer of the law who has taken a sworn oath to protect, who are entrusted with the power to be used to stop things like this from happening?

That's a pretty big stretch of the word complicit, though. They weren't tacitly approving of this happening, they didn't think it would. You can't compare what they did to a getaway driver. That's ridiculous.

 

[spekkeh]

In America, those who were complicit can be sentenced as accomplices to said crime and often get similar sentences as those who did the crimes. The getaway driver shouldn't necessarily get a lighter sentence than the guy who robbed the bank and shot a teller in the process. How much more so an officer of the law who has taken a sworn oath to protect, who are entrusted with the power to be used to stop things like this from happening?

If you seriously think an officer who makes a bad judgment call of the like he does tens of times a day where in this case he decides not to follow a lead, makes him complicit in murder, I don't know what to say. Except that I suspect that tomorrow there would be no police force left if that were case.

Look it's not like I'm defending some police brutality where an officer shot a fleeing suspect in the back because he smelled funny, it's someone who had been marked a querulant sadly seemed to have cried wolf one too many time, and the officer should have been more aware of this. Complicit? Yeesh.

 

[MarkMclovin]

Such a sad case really.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

People actually defending these light ass sentences lol. Get the Fuck out of here.

Well, what do you think a fair sentence would be?

 

[Tesseract]

Well, what do you think a fair sentence would be?

5 seems appropriate, maybe 10 if your history sucks.

then again, i think prisons have been massive failures.

 

[Gravy Boat]

I'm not good with laws and stuff, can someone explain what the officers would have needed to have done to avoid being convicted of anything? Assuming they arrested the wrong guy and let him go (which I think is what happened here), what precautions should they have taken? I guess what Im asking is, what did they do that directly led to this mans death?

Note I'm not trying to be contrary, I'm genuinely asking.

 

[toythatkills]

I'm not good with laws and stuff, can someone explain what the officers would have needed to have done to avoid being convicted of anything? Assuming they arrested the wrong guy and let him go (which I think is what happened here), what precautions should they have taken?

If someone phones you up and says their life is in danger, maybe go and check it out instead of saying "I don't like him, I'm not gonna bother."

 

[Kard8p3]

Well, what do you think a fair sentence would be?

5-10 years would be better. Those assholes refused to help a man who said his LIFE was in danger. Fuck.Them.

 

[MarkMclovin]

Wasn't this brought up a few years ago? About how police officers need to be trained to understand and deal with people with disabilities / mental health issues.

The guy shouldn't have been arrested (unless of course he kicked off and presented himself to be danger to himself and.or other around him?)

I bet the cunt that killed him probably thought he was arrested for what he thought the guy was. A pedophile.

 

[Gravy Boat]

If someone phones you up and says their life is in danger, maybe go and check it out instead of saying "I don't like him, I'm not gonna bother."

I didn't realise that's what happened, hence why I was asking.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

5 seems appropriate, maybe 10 if your history sucks.

then again, i think prisons have been massive failures.

Years?

I can't really agree. These people aren't violent criminals. They don't need to be locked away from society for our protection. They made a bad judgement call, and they won't be in a position to make that call again since they've been sacked from the force.

What purpose does locking them up for so long serve? Are they going to learn something in year 5 that they wouldn't have already learnt by the end of year 1? I think a "teach them a lesson" sentence of more than a year weighs too heavily on the retribution side of the scale.

Likewise, if you're suggesting a long sentence to serve as a "deterrent": a) I don't think that's very effective for cases that basically come down to incompetence, and b) any amount of jail time is probably sufficient to persuade officers to be more vigilant / careful when making these calls in future - I don't think 5 / 10 times the sentence results in 5 / 10 times the "deterrent" effect.

 

[Maximus P]

The judge said: “I cannot go behind the jury’s verdicts and it is with a heavy heart that in each of your cases I take the view that only a custodial sentence is appropriate.

“It doesn’t seem to me a proper consequence of your wrongdoing that the sentences need be long. You have already suffered greatly. You have already lost your careers and in each of your cases there is genuine justification for mercy.

“You must not bear the responsibilities for the wider failings in the police which were beyond your control.”

The judge sounds like a massive twat.

Indirectly accusing the jury of being wrong while talking about the accused like they're some sort of victims of our poor police force.

 

[The Technomancer]

This is what vigilante justice actually looks like. People who are just sure they've got the right guy and the law needs to be taken into their own hands.

I really struggle to tolerate vigilante fantasies in media these days.

 

[spekkeh]

Years?

I can't really agree. These people aren't violent criminals. They don't need to be locked away from society for our protection. They made a bad judgement call, and they won't be in a position to make that call again since they've been sacked from the force.

What purpose does locking them up for so long serve? Are they going to learn something in year 5 that they wouldn't have already learnt by the end of year 1? I think a "teach them a lesson" sentence of more than a year weighs too heavily on the retribution side of the scale.

Likewise, if you're suggesting a long sentence to serve as a "deterrent": a) I don't think that's very effective for cases that basically come down to incompetence, and b) any amount of jail time is probably sufficient to persuade officers to be more vigilant / careful when making these calls in future - I don't think 5 / 10 times the sentence results in 5 / 10 times the "deterrent" effect.

This. Long jail time in this case serves no real purpose except that 'someone needs to suffer', which is not that different a mindset from the vigilantes.

 

[Messofanego]

Funny timing of this thread.

I was just stopped by police coming out of a bus at Clapham Junction. Apparently it was reported by someone (maybe the school?) some man was watching children at a school and got on the 295 bus which is what I was on but I only got on from a hospital where I work at the mental unit. They said I fit the description. So they checked my ID and asked me questions. One cop was nice and we had a great chat (told him I'm going to see Creed tonight; talked about Hot Fuzz). The other cop, who was checking my details and didn't chat much with me, said it might be a case of mistaken identity but said pretty forcefully: "If it is you, stop looking at children. Don't do it. Or we'll be in touch again." I just said "ok" and went on my way.

It was literally good cop/bad cop! XD

At least nothing else came of it but wrongful accusations can be not the most pleasant.

On topic, vigilante "justice" can be pretty disgusting. Communities are just not quite there yet, when info about a sex offender in the neighbourhood is made public, to be trusted to not act violently.

 

[Furyous]

How many years did Lee James receive for killiing the man?

 

[Simon Belmont]

The judge sounds like a massive twat.

Indirectly accusing the jury of being wrong while talking about the accused like they're some sort of victims of our poor police force.

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying he agrees with the jury and nothing short of incarceration would be appropriate, while also acknowledging that this is sad all around and not worthy of a lengthy prison sentence.

How many years did Lee James receive for killiing the man?

Life. I'm not sure what that means in the UK, here it's 25 years.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

How many years did Lee James receive for killiing the man?

Say "minimum of 18 years" in this report.

 

[linkandzelda]

While it's certainly better than what they would have likely gotten in America (paid vacation time), 14 combined months in jail for dereliction that lead directly to the horrible death of this man is hardly morally praiseworthy.

They let a man be beaten to death and set on fucking fire. Let's not brag that they got full and proper justice. They were complicit in his death and if America was working right they would have gotten the same or similar sentence as the murderers themselves here on our side of the pond.

15-20 years each would have gotten me to agree that we saw accountability here. Yes, I hold law enforcement to the highest possible standard and breach of that trust should carry just as significant and serious ramifications as the crimes committed under their watch do for their perpetrators.

15-20 years is an extraordinarly long sentence in the UK. You won't see a sentence that long for anything but Murder, Rape or Torture for a single offence.

What these Police Officers did was terrible but mistakes are not worth taking a quarter of someone's life away from them. And this was a mistake. They didn't kill the man nor did they want him dead. They made a significant error in judgement that lead to his death. I would say they should have gotten a year each but I think the sentence is fair.

 

[linkandzelda]

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's saying he agrees with the jury and nothing short of incarceration would be appropriate, while also acknowledging that this is sad all around and not worthy of a lengthy prison sentence.



Life. I'm not sure what that means in the UK, here it's 25 years.

Life means until death in the UK but Parole is usually given after period of time set by the judge so long as the prisoner has had good behavior and agrees to certain conditions for release. For murder that tends to be in the 15-20 year range.

 

[KHarvey16]

For all the "paid vacation" quips, these officers were also suspended while an investigation was conducted. This incident occurred in 2013.

 

[Slackbladder]

This is the result of institutional racism within the British Police. They weren't convicted because they were incompetent. They actively and purposely ignored a vulnerable Asian man because of his race. Don't think that's true? Well I've met more than enough Police in the UK to know the force is filled with racist cunts. The judge may have sympathy for them, I certainly do not.

 

[Kathian]

For all the "paid vacation" quips, these officers were also suspended while an investigation was conducted. This incident occurred in 2013.

They can't come back to the Police following imprisonment.

10 and 4 months for someone being set on fire? Seems pretty light. Its better than paid vacation but not by much imo.

They didn't actually light him on fire and they'll never work in the Police again. Seems right.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Seriously, the notion that they went to jail lead me to believe that they either actively knew that he was not guilty, or there would be an audio tape of them paying an inmate to kill him. Turns out that they just seriously fucked up at their job and got in trouble as a result. Who knew?

 

[KHarvey16]

They can't come back to the Police following imprisonment.

Of course. I don't understand your point. When this happened, officers were suspended while an investigation was undertaken. They weren't charged with crimes for awhile.