# Golfers arrested after fighting off gang



## Ceicei (Jun 10, 2009)

I'm still trying to understand the British view of self defense.  :idunno:  

Read article

- Ceicei


----------



## Sukerkin (Jun 10, 2009)

I think if *Tez* were here she would tell you that being arrested is not the same as being charged.

I would not have expected the police to do anything else, especially with injuries (aka actual bodily harm) arising from the incident.

It may indeed go to court but I'd be surprised if any of those attacked went to gaol.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 10, 2009)

Ceicei said:


> I'm still trying to understand the British view of self defense.



It's starting to sound like the French view on war..."surrender early, and often".


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 10, 2009)

After reading the article I suppose it makes sense.  Sounds like it was nearly a mob scene and while logic would dictate that those with wooden planks were aggressors you'd haul everyone in at the very least for questioning.  As Mark said, though, Irene is our resident expert on matters of policing in the UK and I'll be looking for her input.


----------



## arnisador (Jun 10, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I think if *Tez* were here she would tell you that being arrested is not the same as being charged.



I think here we're less likely to arrest (as opposed to just taking down info.) in such a case--if it seems they won't be charged, one doesn't usually arrest. The LEOs can detain someone until evidence of their identity is presented. So, maybe being arrested sounds like a bigger deal here than over there!


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 10, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I think if *Tez* were here she would tell you that being arrested is not the same as being charged.
> 
> I would not have expected the police to do anything else, especially with injuries (aka actual bodily harm) arising from the incident.
> 
> It may indeed go to court but I'd be surprised if any of those attacked went to gaol.



Ok, that makes sense.  I think my confusion came from the way the article was written. (Perhaps more than likely, this is resulting from my preconceived bias against the laws of United Kingdom when I read it.  My apologies.)  Arnisador is right, semantics with the words  "arrested" and "being detained" may differ. I think here in USA, charges have to be presented when arrested and then wait in jail. It is more typical being temporarily detained until situation is sorted out to determine whether any charges are needed.  

- Ceicei


----------



## Guardian (Jun 10, 2009)

Sukerkin said:


> I think if *Tez* were here she would tell you that being arrested is not the same as being charged.
> 
> Is that what is it in England, because the article stated they were arrested for BH and GBH, the article stated they were arrested which to me means they were charged in order to be arrested, now whether it goes to trial is different, I agree with that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2009)

Ok, a big mob fighting, police arrive separate them, call for an ambulance to take injured away. Who started fight, who hit who and a few other pertinant questions have to be answered so all those involved are arrested and taken down the nick.Remember unlikely though it may seem you have to take into consideration that the golfers may have attacked the gang who had been annoying them, you can't take it for granted that because they are 'respectable' golfers and the others are a suspected gang that it was all the 'gangs fault' well not if you are a decent officer anyway, you have to be fair. It may not seem to be but it is. 

Once at the police station, identities can be checked, statements made. the tangle can start to be unwound.
These people were arrested on *suspicion* of GBH and ABH which are both serious offences, they were arrested under common law (incidentally anyone could have arrested them it didn't need to be a police officer)  to allow prompt and speedy investigaton and to prevent disappearance ( probably not the golfers but the gang) remember the police wouldn't know who is who. The police had reasonable grounds for suspicion and also needed to prevent further violence.

These people weren't detained, merely arrested which basically just means 'please accompany me to the police station' only as a statement not a question! they then would be released on their own recognisance or police bail after making statements.

If there are any charges made these will be decided by the Crown Prosecution Service not the police as these are serious crimes. If however anyone has confessed then the police can charge them, they can also charge people for lesser crimes but the serious ones go to the CPS In England and Wales, in Scotland it's the Procurator Fiscal that decides.

_The law on self defence here states that you are allowed to reasonably defend yourself and you may make the first move if you are in fear of your_ _life._ What the CPS have to decide is what was reasonable here. It may turn out that a gang member was struck to the ground then hit repeatedly while on the floor or kicked even. There's also the issue of weapons being involved. It all has to be investigated and not taken on face value, the law would be useless if we didn't investigate as everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty even the towrags.

Being arrested isn't a big deal here, we can arrest a stroppy drunk here, put him in the cells for the night then release him with no charge in the morning when he's sober and somewhat shamefaced. 
If there are no charges there is no record kept of arrests.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2009)

Oh and if they are still in custody it means it's taking a while to get through the statements and/or someone is giving the police grief which could be any or all of them!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 11, 2009)

Thanks Irene.

Btw, it would work the same way over here. Police officers are not allowed to take anything at face value in cases like that, and they are definitely not allowed to decide on guilt or facts. In a case like this, everyone would be hauled off to the police station, and held for questioning which can take anything from a couple of hours up to 2 weeks, depending on a gazillion factors (complexity of the case, flight risk, cooperation, seriousness of the case, etc...). This would be called 'arrest on suspicion of...'.

We can safely assume that what is in the newspaper is slanted one way or the other. If there is so much confusion about who was doing what to whom, then it is perfectly logical to take everybody in. It is the investigative judge (lit) who decides what to do and whom to charge after the results of the interviews and investigations.

For all we know, the gang could have been hanging around annoying people, and some snobby rich prats decided to have a go at their 'inferiors' with their clubs, and the gang picked up whatever they could grab to fend off their attackers. The police wont know one way or the other without investigation.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Thanks Irene.
> 
> Btw, it would work the same way over here. Police officers are not allowed to take anything at face value in cases like that, and they are definitely not allowed to decide on guilt or facts. In a case like this, everyone would be hauled off to the police station, and held for questioning which can take anything from a couple of hours up to 2 weeks, depending on a gazillion factors (complexity of the case, flight risk, cooperation, seriousness of the case, etc...). This would be called 'arrest on suspicion of...'.
> 
> ...


 

That's exactly how it happens here. Police turn up to a melee and who knows whats going on other than a bunch of people fighting and some are injured. The first priorities are to stop the fighting and get help for the wounded. If you were merely defending yourself being nabbed by the police may seem unfair but as I said being arrested just means you are being taken down to the police station and if all you were doing is defending yourself you go quietly, co-operate with the police and you'll be released. If the golfers were defending themselves, their statements will show as much and as long as they used reasonable force no problem at all. As I said they were arrested on suspicion by the police which is entirely valid. There is a limited time police can hold suspects so they won't be detained indefinitely.

British self defence laws are liberal and open, I don't understand why people find them to be restrictive, as long as you use reasonable force you won't be charged. there's no saying you can't kill someone if they attack you with deadly force, it just has to be reasonable. If someone throws a pebble at you , you can't kill them for it, if someone is coming at you with a blade of a gun and you manage to kill them, you won't be charged. Arrested yes but not charged.

It's a myth that you can't defend yourself here. I know there was a high profile case here where a man killed a burglar and was imprisoned for it but we've covered that on MT before. The papers made a great deal about it but most didn't chose to print the whole facts, that the man Tony Martin had illegal weapons ( he wasn't allowed a shotgun licence because of his violent behaviour, had threatened to kill a number of people including his own brother and had lured the burglars to the house with the intent to shoot them, which he did, in the back as they had left his property. Hardly a case of an Englishman defending his castle. No other person has ever been imprisoned for purely defending himself or his family, it's a myth brought into being by media who have a certain agenda to follow.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 11, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Thanks Irene.
> 
> Btw, it would work the same way over here. Police officers are not allowed to take anything at face value in cases like that, and they are definitely not allowed to decide on guilt or facts. In a case like this, everyone would be hauled off to the police station, and held for questioning which can take anything from a couple of hours up to 2 weeks, depending on a gazillion factors (complexity of the case, flight risk, cooperation, seriousness of the case, etc...). This would be called 'arrest on suspicion of...'.
> 
> ...


The key difference is that, in the US, an officer cannot arrest a person "on suspicion" and just because they were involved, then take them to the stationhouse to sort it out.  We need probable cause to take a person into custody -- facts and evidence which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person more likely than not did commit the alleged offense.  We can DETAIN someone on reasonable suspicion -- but not arrest them.  There's limited ability to transport someone who's merely detained to a different location, and it usually has to be directly related to confirming or dispelling the suspicion (like conducting a show-up identification).

This difference in arrest authority seems to underlie a lot of misunderstandings about news articles...


----------



## arnisador (Jun 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> This difference in arrest authority seems to underlie a lot of misunderstandings about news articles...



Yes, exactly! I have a clearer understanding now.

Over here "Have you ever been arrested?" is a not uncommon job application question. It shouldn't be on such forms, as a rule, but a Google search qill quickly turn up examples where it is (e.g., this fire dept.'s application).


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> The key difference is that, in the US, an officer cannot arrest a person "on suspicion" and just because they were involved, then take them to the stationhouse to sort it out. We need probable cause to take a person into custody -- facts and evidence which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the person more likely than not did commit the alleged offense. We can DETAIN someone on reasonable suspicion -- but not arrest them. There's limited ability to transport someone who's merely detained to a different location, and it usually has to be directly related to confirming or dispelling the suspicion (like conducting a show-up identification).
> 
> *This difference in arrest authority seems to underlie a lot of misunderstandings about news articles...[/*quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2009)

arnisador said:


> Yes, exactly! I have a clearer understanding now.
> 
> Over here "Have you ever been arrested?" is a not uncommon job application question. It shouldn't be on such forms, as a rule, but a Google search qill quickly turn up examples where it is (e.g., this fire dept.'s application).


 

Thats never asked here as it's not relevant, the question here will be "have you ever been convicted of any crime".
If you been arrested and then de arrested there is no record kept so it won't matter.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 11, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Thats never asked here as it's not relevant, the question here will be "have you ever been convicted of any crime".
> If you been arrested and then de arrested there is no record kept so it won't matter.



Exactly. It is also worth mentioning that being arrested doesn't carry that negative connotation over here, and noone asks about whether you have ever been arrested. Being arrested simply means that you were -involved- in something, and there is the -possibility- of being in the wrong.
Police are not allowed to decide on such matters on the spot except in the most simple of cases. 

I am pretty sure that some of my friends have been arrested at one point or the other. Noone cares.

The big question here is whether you were ever convicted of something. That may or may not come up.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 11, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Exactly. It is also worth mentioning that being arrested doesn't carry that negative connotation over here, and noone asks about whether you have ever been arrested. Being arrested simply means that you were -involved- in something, and there is the -possibility- of being in the wrong.
> Police are not allowed to decide on such matters on the spot except in the most simple of cases.
> 
> I am pretty sure that some of my friends have been arrested at one point or the other. Noone cares.
> ...


 
quoted for truth!


----------



## Ceicei (Jun 11, 2009)

So apparently the British definition of "arrest" is similar to the American definition of "detain".  

In USA, being arrested means being charged with a crime. Now whether the charge is pressed is up to the State prosecutors.  If the prosecutors decide to go through, then the results of the charge may turn into a conviction or an acquittal. Maybe the LEOs here can explain the USA legal process better. 

- Ceicei


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 11, 2009)

Ceicei said:


> So apparently the British definition of "arrest" is similar to the American definition of "detain".



Exactly.



Ceicei said:


> In USA, being arrested means being charged with a crime. Now whether the charge is pressed is up to the State prosecutors.  If the prosecutors decide to go through, then the results of the charge may turn into a conviction or an acquittal. Maybe the LEOs here can explain the USA legal process better.
> 
> - Ceicei



Being formally charged comes afterwards after an investigative judge has made a decision. The arrest is separate from it, and can last up to 2 weeks max. After that they either have to charge you or let you go.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 12, 2009)

This is the process and chain of events in Virginia; there are differences, but most states are fairly similar.  It's important to remember that the US Constitution, in the Fourth Amendment, requires that no warrant of arrest issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

An officer responds to the scene of an event, and determines that a crime was committed.  (Alternatively, the officer could come across the offender driving, or whatever...)

He has the suspect in front of him, and takes the suspect into custody.  The officer then takes the suspect "forthwith" before a magistrate, a neutral and uninvolved judicial officer, whose job is to assess whether or not probable cause exists to support the arrest.  In the case of some minor offenses, the officer can issue the charges on the scene, and release the suspect on their written promise to appear in court, or a summons.  In those cases -- the first court hearing is also a probable cause hearing.  The idea is that it spares someone the problems of being taken to jail at all, especially for a non-jailable offense.

Another alternative is to obtain the warrant before making the arrest.  This is common in serious offenses or where the offender isn't found at the scene.  In that case, the officer/detective goes before the magistrate, and, after being duly sworn, gives a statement of probable cause to the magistrate.  If issued, the warrant commands the arrest of the accused, and may require custodial arrest or permit release on a written promise to appear.

From there, we get into the court process.  In a felony offense, there are actually two more points where probable cause is assessed, and, if found to be lacking, the case ends.  These are the preliminary hearing and grand jury.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2009)

Here you can only be detained for a maximum of 36 hours unless a magistrate allows more time, again a maximum of 36 hours.
In reality though it will be less than 24 hours. However under the terrorism act you can be held for a maximum of 7 days, with all of these though you need to have good reason to keep someone any length of time. If they aren't to be charged they have to be released.
Not everyone is arrested, often the visit to the nick is voluntary,if it is you can leave at any time.
Thats the general rules, all time spent in the station in custody has to be accounted for and documented by the custody sgt, this makes sure you are treated properly. All interviews are recorded.
Not all cases go to court, some minor offences can be treated with a police caution, or a street warning, some are liable to small fines. 


From what I've been able to find out one of the youths was kept in hospital with serious head injuries for several days. As for the rest. . . . 
A 53-year-old man, from Hayes, who was arrested on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm has been bailed to return to Bromley police station on July 17. 
Five people, aged 13, 15, 16, 33 and 49, were arrested on suspicion of affray. 
They have all been bailed to return to the same station on August 12 along with a 48-year-old man, from Keston, who was arrested on suspicion of causing GBH. 
A 39-year-old man, from Plaistow, who was arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct has been bailed to return on the same date in August.

This means the investigation is ongoing, there may be conditions attached to this bail ( they can go to a magistrate to have conditions changed if they wish) but when they return they will be told what has be decided. No one has been charged yet. Failure to turn up though is an offence and can be treated as such with a warrant for arrest issued. 

The feeling seems to me though that the golfers went beyond the use of reasonable force, we'll have to wait and see though.


----------



## Brian King (Jun 12, 2009)

*Tez3 wrote*


> If there are no charges there is no record kept of arrests.


 
Has it Tez3, always been so? No record at all is kept? I had heard different but it was a while ago.
&#12288;
In the mid 1990s one of the guys training with the same group as I was doing everything he could to get on a police force. Applying all over the state in any agency that he could. Some he received call backs and was able to go further along in the hiring process others not. He would have interviews and testing and such. This had been going on for nearly two years, when he finally thought he had the job. I think it was SPD the Seattle Police Department but it might have been the Washington State Patrol I cannot remember which but do remember it was a very large department. Did most of the interviews, the polygraph tests, the physical fitness tests, but it was his background check that did him in. One of the questions asked was the Have you ever been arrested? question and he replied no. It turns he had been arrested in London during his college days having been involved in a little bar dust up. He was not charged, not held, and he thought no big deal. This event came up during his back ground check so it was determined that he lied on the application and he was denied the job. Bad enough but now that he had been labeled a liar all his other applications to other departments were summarily denied. He had to give up his dream of going into law enforcement. Not a total loss as he became a firefighter instead and was picked up by a department on his first or second try. He quit training martial arts as his motivation for training was to help his expected career in law enforcement. 

Personally I thought he was too arrogant to make a good cop and his martial skills were lacking due to the arrogance, so in my opinion things worked out for the best.

Regards
Brian King 
&#12288;


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Ok, a big mob fighting, police arrive separate them, call for an ambulance to take injured away. Who started fight, who hit who and a few other pertinant questions have to be answered so all those involved are arrested and taken down the nick.Remember unlikely though it may seem you have to take into consideration that the golfers may have attacked the gang who had been annoying them, you can't take it for granted that because they are 'respectable' golfers and the others are a suspected gang that it was all the 'gangs fault' well not if you are a decent officer anyway, you have to be fair. It may not seem to be but it is.


 'Fair' is often a relative term.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> 'Fair' is often a relative term.


 
So what would you do? You have a mob of people all going for each other, when you do get them stopped and the injured off to hospital, everyone is pointing the finger at the other 'side'. Do you assume the golfers in their nice clothes and claims of knowing the Chief Constable are obviously totally innocent because the youths couldn't possible be telling the truth? or do you take everyone down to the nick and question the lot of them and then spend some time checking all statements, evidence and forensics? What would you consider fair?
Bear in mind you can arrest all of them without a consequence to them if found innocent later and tempers are already frayed, adrenaline is running with people already seriously injured.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 12, 2009)

Brian said:


> *Tez3 wrote*
> 
> 
> Has it Tez3, always been so? No record at all is kept? I had heard different but it was a while ago.
> ...


 

Definiely no record of arrests are kept if there's no conviction. There's nothing to record if there's been no charge or conviction. Sounds like an excuse tbh. I suppose he could have called the American Embassy for help and they kept a record, I was thinking that would be unlikely but then I thought back and I know that American students at the London School of Economics and a couple of other seats of learning were kept a close eye on by your CIA! I suppose he could have put a UK professor or tutor as a reference and they mentioned it? It would be assumed perhaps like the OP here that being arrested was more than it was?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> So what would you do? You have a mob of people all going for each other, when you do get them stopped and the injured off to hospital, everyone is pointing the finger at the other 'side'. Do you assume the golfers in their nice clothes and claims of knowing the Chief Constable are obviously totally innocent because the youths couldn't possible be telling the truth? or do you take everyone down to the nick and question the lot of them and then spend some time checking all statements, evidence and forensics? What would you consider fair?
> Bear in mind you can arrest all of them without a consequence to them if found innocent later and tempers are already frayed, adrenaline is running with people already seriously injured.



Separate the groups.....handcuff accordingly......talk to by-standers.........Arrest the youths for attempted armed robbery........have the old men meet me down at the police department to fill out statements and complaints.......then shake their hands.  

Case closed.


----------



## Brian King (Jun 12, 2009)

*Tez3 wrote:*


> Definiely no record of arrests are kept if there's no conviction. There's nothing to record if there's been no charge or conviction. Sounds like an excuse tbh. I suppose he could have called the American Embassy for help and they kept a record, I was thinking that would be unlikely but then I thought back and I know that American students at the London School of Economics and a couple of other seats of learning were kept a close eye on by your CIA! I suppose he could have put a UK professor or tutor as a reference and they mentioned it? It would be assumed perhaps like the OP here that being arrested was more than it was? 


 
They didnt say how they found out just asked him about the incident and then said thank you very much that will be all. Had he mentioned the incident it would have likely been no big deal but his failure to disclose the incident is what did him in, a lie by omission is still a lie. I am not sure if he was going to university there or just visiting during his college days. I am reasonably sure that he had to list his travels to foreign countries. 

Further up thread Tez3 you said 


> all time spent in the station in custody has to be accounted for and documented by the custody sgt, this makes sure you are treated properly. All interviews are recorded.


 
How long are those records kept on hand and are they destroyed? If your interview becomes involved with a criminal case even if you are not further involved are those interview records kept, can they be entered into court proceeding even if the person interviewed is no longer in country? Are court proceedings over there public record?

In this case it was in my opinion for the best and obviously I do not know the full story LOL he was a liar after all the background check proved it so. Do not bust a gut answering the questions above, I am just curious but do not want to cause thread drift.

Thanks for the insights into the system over there

Regards
Brian King


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

This is what happens when a society gets confused about the problem......violence isn't the problem......violent CRIMINALS are the problem.  Some folks would say there is no difference......and that's where the confusion arises.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Separate the groups.....handcuff accordingly......talk to by-standers.........Arrest the youths for attempted armed robbery........have the old men meet me down at the police department to fill out statements and complaints.......then shake their hands.
> 
> Case closed.


Yep.  Not to be (too) sarcastic... but it's called investigation.  We just have to do it pretty much at the scene... or through follow-ups.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 12, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Yep.  Not to be (too) sarcastic... but it's called investigation.  We just have to do it pretty much at the scene... or through follow-ups.



How many witnesses do you have to talk to, that all say 'Yutes showed up, tried to rob these guys' before it's pretty clear what happened?


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> How many witnesses do you have to talk to, that all say 'Yutes showed up, tried to rob these guys' before it's pretty clear what happened?


I'm just more used to the guy who's bleeding, with half his teeth on ground around him, saying "nuttin happened."  And, amazingly, nobody ever saw anything happen...


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Separate the groups.....handcuff accordingly......talk to by-standers.........Arrest the youths for attempted armed robbery........have the old men meet me down at the police department to fill out statements and complaints.......then shake their hands.
> 
> Case closed.


 

We prefer not to be biased and keep an open mind. What old men? 
I'm afraid you don't even know the area and the tensions there may be there which can easily be caused by the golfing people who obviously you don't undertand either here. Still there's no way you could know I suppose that the golfers were from a criminal background, it's not going to be mentioned in a press report when the newspaper wants to prove a point. I think making quick off the cuff judgements can cause huge problems in policing don't you?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 13, 2009)

Records of arrest aren't disclosed to anyone and only kept if the person is being charge.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 13, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> We prefer not to be biased and keep an open mind. What old men?
> I'm afraid you don't even know the area and the tensions there may be there which can easily be caused by the golfing people who obviously you don't undertand either here. Still there's no way you could know I suppose that the golfers were from a criminal background, it's not going to be mentioned in a press report when the newspaper wants to prove a point. I think making quick off the cuff judgements can cause huge problems in policing don't you?



Glad to see Europeans aren't biased against criminal gangs.......open mindedness IS important.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 13, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I'm just more used to the guy who's bleeding, with half his teeth on ground around him, saying "nuttin happened."  And, amazingly, nobody ever saw anything happen...



That always makes it simpler.....'Nothing to see folks, nasty golfing accident!' :lfao:


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jun 13, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> This is what happens when a society gets confused about the problem......violence isn't the problem......violent CRIMINALS are the problem.  Some folks would say there is no difference......and that's where the confusion arises.



Ok if you arrive at that scene, would you assume that the golfers were innocent, just because they were wearing nice clothes? Or just because their friends say they were not the bad guys?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 13, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Ok if you arrive at that scene, would you assume that the golfers were innocent, just because they were wearing nice clothes? Or just because their friends say they were not the bad guys?



I'd talk to the large crowd of by-standers that just watched the whole thing. 

Also, the FBI calls it a 'clue' that this occurred on a golf course.......with golfers carrying golf clubs.......and a gang of yutes carrying planks of wood with nary a tree house or construction project in sight.......law enforcement isn't ALWAYS rocket science.......sometimes it's just the subtle application of a modicum of common sense. 


Again, the problem is the mindset 'We need to do something about the violence', instead of the more accurate and effective 'We need to do something about the CRIMINALS'.....those who don't know the difference should study on the subject for a while.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 13, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Ok if you arrive at that scene, would you assume that the golfers were innocent, just because they were wearing nice clothes? Or just because their friends say they were not the bad guys?


I sure wouldn't.

I've told this story here before... but it fits with this well.

A few years back, I was dispatched to a report of an assault.  I arrive, and the business manager has a bloody nose.  Wants rescue, too -- so the EMTs come to check him out.  His story was that a worker from a different part of the business (combined restaurant/catering service) had tried to take some aprons from the wrong area, and when confronted on it, the guy punches the manager before driving off.  OK... Witnesses aren't real helpful; the confirmation a confrontation, but that's about it.  On the face of it -- open and shut assault & battery.

Until I managed to talk to the guy who'd driven off...  After talking to him in English (not his strength...), I start to get enough of a different picture that I got a translator.  His version was rather different, in some key details.  The guy parks his car, and goes in for the aprons.  When he comes out -- his car is moved.  The manager confronts him, tells him he moved the car so that the driver wouldn't leave with the aprons, and the manager starts to push him.  Driver tells him to back off, and even ends up doing the classic "hand on the head to hold him back" and warning him!  When that's not enough and the manager is still moving in on him -- the driver popped him one.

Little different situation, huh?  As a cop in the US, even in the nicest of places, you learn quickly that NOBODY tells you the whole truth, and that there are always at least 3 sides to every situation: the two participants each have theirs -- and the truth is somewhere in the middle.  You learn to look at the physical evidence, listen to witnesses, and to the accounts of those involved... and hopefully find the truth by balancing them all.  I doubt this is very different than in England.  It's just that "arrest" carries a different connotation, because of the different laws, procedures, and standards.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 13, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> I sure wouldn't.
> 
> I've told this story here before... but it fits with this well.
> 
> ...



Conflicts between intimates and acquaintances usually involve the truth being somewhere in the middle........generally with attempted armed robbery it's not in the middle.....it's usually pretty one sided.


----------



## Guardian (Jun 13, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Ok if you arrive at that scene, would you assume that the golfers were innocent, just because they were wearing nice clothes? Or just because their friends say they were not the bad guys?


 

Sorry, golf course, golfers, gang of punks with weapons on a golf course, usually pretty spacious places, means a special trips to ensure they found someone out by themselves.  Yep, That's how I would see it also.

I think the article did mention the age of some of them.  Now, we just need to define old LOL.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Glad to see Europeans aren't biased against criminal gangs.......open mindedness IS important.


 

Which criminal gang were you meaning the golfers with the armed robbery records or the youths with the sticks?
What you are doing is jumping to conclusions based on what you have read in a newspaper report, you don't know the area, you don't know the people involved nor how the incident looked to the police officers who arrived you are just making snide comments based on your prejudices and what you assume happened. Well, police officers here prefer to find the truth out for themselves rather than reading about it in the newspapers and jumping to conclusions.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Which criminal gang were you meaning the golfers with the armed robbery records or the youths with the sticks?
> What you are doing is jumping to conclusions based on what you have read in a newspaper report, you don't know the area, you don't know the people involved nor how the incident looked to the police officers who arrived you are just making snide comments based on your prejudices and what you assume happened. Well, police officers here prefer to find the truth out for themselves rather than reading about it in the newspapers and jumping to conclusions.



Well, like I said........common sense doesn't always prevail.

As for my prejudices, I do have them......against violent criminal youth gangs.....silly me.......I see a gang of youths armed with wooden planks, trying to rob golfers and I don't utilize my imagination properly to fabricate some asininely absurd scenario where they could be the victims.......guess I won't pass the entrance exam for Scotland Yard! 



> 'You see, guvnor, the youths were simply minding their own business building a tree house with those planks of wood when they were violently attacked by a gang of old violent golfers!' :lfao:



I could care less, really, that the officers took everyone in to question them.......but the idea that we're being 'fair' by assuming that the youths involved could have been minding their own business is pretty silly when the light of logic is applied to it.



Remind me again......as it turns out, what did actually happen?  Were the youths minding their business and innocent victims?


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 14, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Well, like I said........common sense doesn't always prevail.
> 
> As for my prejudices, I do have them......against violent criminal youth gangs.....silly me.......I see a gang of youths armed with wooden planks, trying to rob golfers and I don't utilize my imagination properly to fabricate some asininely absurd scenario where they could be the victims.......guess I won't pass the entrance exam for Scotland Yard!
> 
> ...


 

You are judging the situation by what you read in the article. Do you always read it in a newspaper first then decide what happened or do you actually go out and find out what happened.
You are taking what a reporter has said over what the police think happened, a ones sided approach considring the reporting wasn't there and only wrote it up after the guys were charged, bailded and the interviewed by the newspaper so i guess it would be a bit biased. also you don't seem to have taken on board my comments at all, perhasp I'm on ignore?
Okay so I phoned a mate who is in a position to know and trust me the situation isn't as cut and dried as you may think, as I said before which 'gang' were you talking about here? do you think perhaps that golf clubs here don't allow criminals in? Do gang members intent on theft usually bring a large group of relatives along with them? they don't live in Bromley thats for sure. Are golfers usually good at brawling? would the word 'feud' mean anything to you? 
if you want to judge the case merely by a few words written in a Tory newspaper go for, I wouldn't want to spoil your fun.

Oh and while I think about it don't call me a liar, I'm in a postion to find out,perks of my job if you like, I don't have to fabricate.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> You are judging the situation by what you read in the article. Do you always read it in a newspaper first then decide what happened or do you actually go out and find out what happened.
> You are taking what a reporter has said over what the police think happened, a ones sided approach considring the reporting wasn't there and only wrote it up after the guys were charged, bailded and the interviewed by the newspaper so i guess it would be a bit biased. also you don't seem to have taken on board my comments at all, perhasp I'm on ignore?
> Okay so I phoned a mate who is in a position to know and trust me the situation isn't as cut and dried as you may think, as I said before which 'gang' were you talking about here? do you think perhaps that golf clubs here don't allow criminals in? Do gang members intent on theft usually bring a large group of relatives along with them? they don't live in Bromley thats for sure. Are golfers usually good at brawling? would the word 'feud' mean anything to you?
> if you want to judge the case merely by a few words written in a Tory newspaper go for, I wouldn't want to spoil your fun.
> ...


 
I'm not calling you a liar at all.....in fact I believe what you say........however, you're tap dancing around the whole story. 

Here, let me make it easier..........you talked to a friend who knows the story........answer a couple questions.

Were the yutes in question minding their own business building a tree house with those planks?

Were the golfers playing golf?

I'm judging this by the newspaper article AND the fact that you haven't added on substantial fact that alters what was in the newspaper article.......I think what we have is not a dispute of facts.......but a serious difference in interpretation that's a bit cultural driven.


----------



## jks9199 (Jun 14, 2009)

Hey, guys & gal...

While we wear different clothes and work in different systems -- we're all on the same side, huh?  We all know that a press article seldom contains the whole story.  And that some pretty serious criminals have memberships in country clubs and golf courses.  But, I think we can all agree that no matter how crooked they are -- they don't deserve to be robbed on the links!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 14, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> Hey, guys & gal...
> 
> While we wear different clothes and work in different systems -- we're all on the same side, huh? We all know that a press article seldom contains the whole story. And that some pretty serious criminals have memberships in country clubs and golf courses. But, I think we can all agree that no matter how crooked they are -- they don't deserve to be robbed on the links!


 
True, dat.

Incidentally, i've heard of Soccer hooligans.......but this is the first group of golf hooligans i've heard about!


----------

