Monday, July 10, 2006
Quick! OPEN UP!
I've posted before (not very long ago) on a police raid here. Now today in the local paper there is another report on a police raid. In my previous post I was critical of the lack of due process and concerned about the nature of the raid and the reporting of the same. Some of my readers might have thought I was exaggerating; now we have a report of another police raid, although strangely reporters weren't present for this event perhaps the arrest of a single mother for stealing meat is not something reporters get invites for.
Now I have no sympathy with those who steal and commit offences, but we must look at each thing in its context, here we have theft of meat to the value of £70.00p committed some six weeks previously. We have a known suspect and a known residence, there's no reason to suspect a danger to the public and whilst the matter clearly needs dealing with, according to our laws and due process, it isn't crime of the century. Now clearly I don't know if there is any missing background here, perhaps the police have tried to call in the past and the offender has refused to open the door, but the paper has given the police opportunity to speak and they fail to mention any such background; so I don't have any qualms about highlighting this.
Similalrly, I do not know how long she took to open the door from when the police first knocked; the thought process of one witness causes me concern: "...but she should have opened the door sooner for her daughter's sake."
How quickly you can open the door is always going to be subjective to the individual and I would hope the individual gets the benefit of the doubt, here it seems the witness thinks the individual should do their utmost to open the door in double quick time, but from the report we cannot be sure the police even correctly identified themselves. Do you have a duty to promptly open the door just because someone wants access?
The words of the police spokesperson are pathetic, but not unsurprising. The words do not make sense when taken as a whole and applied to policing methods: "If we do a forced entry, we have to use properly trained officers under health and safety rules, with a risk assessment and correct staffing levels. They go in as a team, irrespective of the offence." Oh really! So this would be the same kind of team you'd use for drugs, or firearms or terrorist offences then?
They continue: "I am sure the public would not like to hear the police were unable to deal with offenders merely because they refuse to answer the door." No we wouldn't, but you haven't exactly shown that here, and since when do you concern yourselves with what the public think? After all there are many reasons why offenders aren't properly dealt with and the police are often complicit in those processes.
My concerns here are: was this necessary? If so why hasn't the police sopkesperson justified it? Of equal concern is the attitude of some of those witnesses; how come they think that this sort of behaviour by the police is somehow acceptable? The person hasn't been convicted of the offence and from re-reading the story it appears they left voluntarily: "...who finally let herself out of the front door..." suggesting the whole raid was over the top and unwarranted.
I don't want to see the police risking unnecessary injury, but they must show respect for private property and I see no reason to suspect any physical risk here. These kinds of thing are for me barometers of freedom, the police know they can behave execcisvely and they'll not be brought to task over it and consequently that's how they'll behave. What's more reading reports like this will affect how you will behave if you have to deal with the agents of the state. Will you open the door sooner for your children's sake?
Ask yourself how will you react if you hear the knock followed by shouts of "Quick Open Up!"?
How should you react?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Now I have no sympathy with those who steal and commit offences, but we must look at each thing in its context, here we have theft of meat to the value of £70.00p committed some six weeks previously. We have a known suspect and a known residence, there's no reason to suspect a danger to the public and whilst the matter clearly needs dealing with, according to our laws and due process, it isn't crime of the century. Now clearly I don't know if there is any missing background here, perhaps the police have tried to call in the past and the offender has refused to open the door, but the paper has given the police opportunity to speak and they fail to mention any such background; so I don't have any qualms about highlighting this.
Similalrly, I do not know how long she took to open the door from when the police first knocked; the thought process of one witness causes me concern: "...but she should have opened the door sooner for her daughter's sake."
How quickly you can open the door is always going to be subjective to the individual and I would hope the individual gets the benefit of the doubt, here it seems the witness thinks the individual should do their utmost to open the door in double quick time, but from the report we cannot be sure the police even correctly identified themselves. Do you have a duty to promptly open the door just because someone wants access?
The words of the police spokesperson are pathetic, but not unsurprising. The words do not make sense when taken as a whole and applied to policing methods: "If we do a forced entry, we have to use properly trained officers under health and safety rules, with a risk assessment and correct staffing levels. They go in as a team, irrespective of the offence." Oh really! So this would be the same kind of team you'd use for drugs, or firearms or terrorist offences then?
They continue: "I am sure the public would not like to hear the police were unable to deal with offenders merely because they refuse to answer the door." No we wouldn't, but you haven't exactly shown that here, and since when do you concern yourselves with what the public think? After all there are many reasons why offenders aren't properly dealt with and the police are often complicit in those processes.
My concerns here are: was this necessary? If so why hasn't the police sopkesperson justified it? Of equal concern is the attitude of some of those witnesses; how come they think that this sort of behaviour by the police is somehow acceptable? The person hasn't been convicted of the offence and from re-reading the story it appears they left voluntarily: "...who finally let herself out of the front door..." suggesting the whole raid was over the top and unwarranted.
I don't want to see the police risking unnecessary injury, but they must show respect for private property and I see no reason to suspect any physical risk here. These kinds of thing are for me barometers of freedom, the police know they can behave execcisvely and they'll not be brought to task over it and consequently that's how they'll behave. What's more reading reports like this will affect how you will behave if you have to deal with the agents of the state. Will you open the door sooner for your children's sake?
Ask yourself how will you react if you hear the knock followed by shouts of "Quick Open Up!"?
How should you react?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
