straightshooter wrote:There is absolutely nothing stopping any of the immediate family of Mrs Nowland starting a private prosecution of the responsible policeman for grievous bodily harm and attempted murder or murder as the case may eventually be.
I am sure if they tried to crowdfund the case they would be overwhelmed with contributions and could afford the best legal minds to prosecute the case[/b] for them.
The only danger would be that the DPP might take over the case and then lie doggo.
It's about time that the average copper learnt that his/her job is not simply about improving their superior's KPI's by reacting over zealously for some issues (as we shooters are well aware of) and with complete lassitude to other more serious offences.
edit: I wonder how long it will take for this thread to disappear.
bigrich wrote: if their unable to deal with frail elderly people , how do they deal with hardened criminals and 1% hard core bikers ? i'm lost for words.......
bigrich wrote:i'm absolutely appalled that medical centres/hospitals resort to calling police over patients that the hospital should have procedures and adeqately trained staff to handle . cops do a extremely difficult job , but the over the top treatment of dementia patients and the elderly needs to be reveiwed and addressed by our police department .
according to the news article link ,TWO sets of handcuffs on a frail 45kg dementia patient ! really ?
tassered a 95 year old ?!? what is up with some members of our police ? if their unable to deal with frail elderly people , how do they deal with hardened criminals and 1% hard core bikers ? i'm lost for words.......
Oldbloke wrote:[[b]quote="straightshooter"]There is absolutely nothing stopping any of the immediate family of Mrs Nowland starting a private prosecution of the responsible policeman for grievous bodily harm and attempted murder or murder as the case may eventually be.
.........[/quote]
It may not be as simple as you think. However it's a great idea. And IMO should be attempted in this case.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
Oldbloke wrote:Point being. Needs to be unlawful. NFI if in this case it's unlawful. Looks it, but?
straightshooter wrote:Oldbloke wrote:Point being. Needs to be unlawful. NFI if in this case it's unlawful. Looks it, but?
In the end it's the job of a court to decide.
The NSW police act empowers an officer to use as much force as may be necessary to detain a person for arrest. I can't remember the exact words.
Thus it does not give licence for an officer to use any more force than is necessary.
What happened to the LOL was roughly equivalent to a detained person being kerb stomped.
In any case the rationale behind the private prosecution of the individual officer concerned, in the event there is no proportionate official disciplinary action, was to punish the individual and not to take on the whole police force.
As outlined in section 230 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW), police officers may exercise force 'as is reasonably necessary' to exercise their powers.
This is reinforced by section 231, which states that police officers who exercise the power to arrest another person may use such force as is reasonably necessary to make the arrest or to prevent the escape of the person after arrest.
What is considered reasonable will depend on the circumstances of the incident and will include the level of resistance.
Other considerations include the suspect's age, gender, size, fitness, and skill level compared to that of the officers present.
If a use of force is deemed to be 'excessive' and beyond what is considered reasonable, the officers actions will be found unlawful.
This leaves them open to charges, similar to any normal citizen.
In addition, you may also be able to sue the NSW Police Force for compensation in civil proceedings.
Lazarus wrote:As it seems the previous thread regarding police brutalising the disabled and demented appears to have been removed for some reason, some pissy Karen calling the "manager" or the police monitors stepping in and the hidden record of this being an ongoing occurrence
straightshooter wrote:I also know of a rural property owner who reported a marijuana crop on a nearby property only to have the police seize his firearms.
straightshooter wrote:Blackened
I don't wish to be argumentative but this thread is quite relevant for we gun owners/shooters.
It serves to highlight the general heavy handed approach of the NSW police in many other areas not just with shooters.
Blackened wrote:That's fine, SS. You're entitled to your opinion.
It has a neighboring relevance, I'll grant you. At the end of the day though, we have to draw the line somewhere.
If a topic is creating more problems than conversation, it will be removed. No one wants to read childish arguments between people who can't control themselves, and we're just not going to indulge such things.
The original post was deleted as much for the fact that it had become overly argumentative, as for not being directly related to the subject of this website.
As I noted above, this post has been allowed to remain as the discourse has been mature so far. If that continues, the post will remain. If it declines, it will be removed and repeat offenders banned.
The same rules apply as always.
If you'd like to start a topic about inappropriate police behavior in relation to safe inspections or in their dealing with licensed firearms owners, you're more than welcome to.
Lazarus wrote:It seems the NSW police are adapting
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/shar ... 1f7b234906
Lazarus wrote:It seems the NSW police are adapting
https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/shar ... 1f7b234906