BS: Forestgategate

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 09:12 PM

The relevant things so far as the money is concerned is, who told the press?

Passing out information like that, and publishing it, was an appallingly irresponsible thing to do, an invitation to robbers - after all the police aren't the only people capable of launching an armed raid on a family house.

I hope that the investigation into what happened will include finding out who was responsible for this leak, and that they will be very severely dealt with.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 22 Jun 06 - 05:43 AM

The local paper has just published a report. The money was held at home for religious reasons as I suggested and came from pooled wages and from renting out number 48. Apparently the police asked the family no questions about the money.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 08:23 PM

Presumably, LtS, your words didn't come out the way you intended. You're not suggesting that the invasion of Iraq, deemed illegal by most authorities on international law, should set the standard?

The police numbers involved is perhaps a red herring. It may well turn out that the deployment was proportionate. The target was two conjoined houses, which may have presented logistic challenges, and the houses contained more people than the two arrested. Three streets were sealed off, and that too may have been reasonable, to avoid any risk of potential terrorists escaping into, or otherwise being assisted by, any supporters they might have had in the immediate neighbourhood.

The question is whether any raid at all was appropriate, and for an answer to that we will have to wait to hear how the inquiries rate the quality of the intelligence.

But there are also legitimate concerns about the way the raid was conducted. The brothers' accounts of their disorientation and sheer bewilderment were, for me, persuasive and I will be interested to see the IPCC's assessment of whether the police identified themselves. And the shooting itself is obviously a major issue. Having seen the guys speaking for themselves, I find it hard to believe that they would have behaved in a manner that warranted such a response.

The information about the cash horde could only have come from the police. Such smearing is completely inexcusable, and we need neither inquiries nor hindsight to reach that view. Almost certainly the claim that one brother shot the other came from a police source, and if so, that is an even greater offence.

The very best the Met can hope for - and this may be a forlorn hope - is a report that says they got it right in parts.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 07:55 AM

Sounds familiar... didn't half the western world just do that to Iraq?

Certainly did. Which is why most of the non-Western World are unhappy with that half of the Western World, and around half of that half of the Western World are unhappy with the lying bastards who have shamed their countries by doing it.

And similarly here - most of the Muslim population of the UK are unhappy with the police for their actions against their racial/religious group, and around half of the rest of the UK are unhappy with the police who've shamed their society by behaving in that way.

In other words, as the people who set and enforce compliance with laws, the police are supposed to follow those laws scrupulously, because otherwise it becomes a "do as I say, not as I do" situation where the police are just another gang of thugs. Similarly in international terms, if the leaders of countries like the US and UK want to be the "global policeman", then they'd damn well better be following the laws themselves before they start casting aspertions (and bombs and missiles and soldiers) at the leaders of other countries.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 07:49 AM

No, be fair - they only shot Jean-Charles Menezes eight times, not eighteen times. And they restricted themselves to shooting him in the head.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Mr Fox
Date: 21 Jun 06 - 06:05 AM

250 police to arrest two young men? At four in the morning when they're asleep? Just a little heavy-handed, don't you think, Liz? Just a tiny bit over the top? (And don't tell me they didn't know what they would come up against - if they were any good at their job, they'd have had the place under surveillance for weeks.)

Still, I suppose they WERE restrained - they didn't hold down the Kahar brothers and shoot them eighteen times. It's an improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 07:24 PM

There are situations where it makes sense for police to cover up the fact that they are police, for example when carrying out surveillance or trying to infiltrate some gang.

But when carrying out a raid the last thing you'd want would be to make yourself not readily identifiable as police - even if only in order to reduce the chances of getting shot by some overexcited colleague.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Barry Finn
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 11:23 AM

"Sounds familiar... didn't half the western world just do that to Iraq?"

Still doesn't make it the right thing to do.

If it were your husband, brother, son or father being shot would you still think it was ok?

What if he were killed, then would they be faulted?
They behaved & acted like a mob, no better. Hopefully they'll get it right before they come to your house. This is the kind of thinking that gets this to become exceptable. It is scary when a village is in fear, that fear is what makes it ok to give up your rights & freedom. What you need to do is demand a better performence from your police.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 07:11 AM

the one where they had no good reason, and they went in mob-handed and shot someone. This is not (or shouldn't be, anyway!) the proper way of doing things.

Sounds familiar... didn't half the western world just do that to Iraq?

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Grab
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 06:24 AM

Liz, if you wait outside your suspected burglar's house for him to come back to *his* place and then beat the crap out of him with a baseball bat, then you're going to be in some big trouble. This is regardless of whether or not you find anything in his place. If you catch him redhanded then this is a different matter, but you can't just go round to his place, say "I know you did it" and start swinging. And this is exactly what the police did - they literally shot first and asked questions later.

The situation could, and should have been handled with a lot more restraint, communication and consideration. They obviously haven't learned much from the shooting of De Menezes other than not to shoot to kill.

I think you'll find that this is the major factor that upset people. There have been quite a few arrests of people throughout the country, most of which have involved the people concerned being released again, and you won't find too many people complaining about this - this would be the proper way of doing things, which is arresting suspects when you've got a decent reason to think they were doing something they shouldn't have, and releasing them if it's established that they weren't. But the one which made the news was the one where they had no good reason, and they went in mob-handed and shot someone. This is not (or shouldn't be, anyway!) the proper way of doing things.

Yes, hindsight is 20/20. But with 20/20 *foresight*, you can say that police *must* identify themselves to the person they're arresting (so the person knows they're not being kidnapped by an armed gang), the police must *not* shoot unless threatened, and the police *must* do at least some basic checking on the facts before arresting anyone. Failure to do all of those is pure incompetence of the most indefensible kind.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 20 Jun 06 - 04:31 AM

Don't presume to answer for others Mr Fox & Mr Finn. There are a lot of people who consider the actions taken by the police as the 'right thing to do'... and a lot of those people are Muslims.

Consider... would you be as passionate about this if the victims had a)not been Muslim? b) had a stash of weapons and chemicals for bombs? or c) were white and living in Iraq?

Simplify it. You hear someone saying Joe Blow is a burglar who operates in your neighbourhood. Do you leave your windows open and ignore the possible threat, do you go to his house in the middle of the afternoon and ask him if he's a burglar or do you sit on the stairs with a baseball bat? When your neighbours are turned over, do you think ~ I could have warned them? Or just thank (insert Deity/totem of choice) that it wasn't you?

The police are screwed which ever way it went. In 20/20 hindsight, they acted overzealously on poor information which should have been checked out thoroughly. The situation could, and should have been handled with a lot more restraint, communication and consideration. They obviously haven't learned much from the shooting of De Menezes other than not to shoot to kill. If there had been a bomb factory there, they would be ridiculed for not acting sooner. If they had taken fewer unarmed officers, they would have been accused of putting police lives at risk if it had turned out to be a terrorist cell.

In a community where many were victims of the bombing of the London transport system (including a Muslim girl who was killed) on the 7th July 2005, and the attempted bombing 2 weeks later of a bus just a short mile away, the police have all been stretched to breaking point. This community has deep rooted and unshakeable mistrust between its many and varied members, regardless of how many workshops and training courses they're sent on. Policing that on a daily basis every day of the year is worse than all out street war once a week. It's a horrid job that someone has to do, we shouldn't turn on them for doing it.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Mr Fox
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 08:52 PM

[i]Does anyone still feel that the police "DID THE RIGHT THING"?[/i]


The police do. Both Blairs do. Er.........

And that's about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: GUEST,Hedd Wyn
Date: 19 Jun 06 - 02:49 PM

The march against the police shooting at Forest Gate attracted 5000 people not 500 ...according to the latest reports
Heddd Wyn

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Barry Finn
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 11:54 PM

Does anyone still feel that the police "DID THE RIGHT THING"? Shame.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 07:42 PM

You're right. Here you go.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5894330,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 06:17 PM

I suggest that when writing posts starting "and now it seems" and so forth, we should always make a point of giving a source (and preferably a link) for the information, to distinguish it from the fog of rumours that cloud the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 03:51 PM

...and now it seems the informant was already in jail and has an IQ of 69.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: GUEST,Hedd Wyn
Date: 18 Jun 06 - 02:52 PM

Around 500 local people marched to the Forest Gate police station ,East London today to protest at the shooting of the man inside his own home .This was given coverage on the national newsthis evening.
Hedd Wyn

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 06:12 PM

That story about the cash found in the house - quite a reasonable amount for people who don't believe in using the banking system for religious reasons - could only have come out because people in the police are still briefing journalists in a way that serves to muddy the waters and impute guilt to the victims.

Of course it may just be bent coppers trying to earn a few bent pounds from bent newspapers. Ironically, that way of explaining it is the relatively innocent way. Bribery and corruption on the part of individual police officers is not as bad as a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice would be.

Unfortunately our police have form in both respects. And it's not fair on decent police, who are by far the majority. They get stabbed in the back by that kind of thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: GUEST,ifor
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 02:12 PM

There will a demonstration and march to the Forest Gate police station on sunday 18th June .Assemble at 12 noon ,Plashet Park ,Shrewsbury Rd, London E7
Ifor

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Mr Red
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 01:46 PM

Even if Foolstroupe had not qualified exactly one of my predictions with "OK, so while we are being distracted by this fracas, what ELSE is going on?" I would still offer one last FACT, straight from the guy's mouth (via the TV). One I did not predict, even to myself - it would be too preposterous.

One of the "marks" had applied to join the police force.

Quite a PR coupe for the terrorists. They choose well.

Needless to say my scenario looks far more convincing with this news.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 08:42 AM

Like I said... hindsight = 20/20.....

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Grab
Date: 17 Jun 06 - 07:58 AM

I didn't hear about that, Peter. Although it can be difficult to tell whether it's the press or the police inventing stories until it gets to some kind of official level, since neither are exactly 100% models of probity.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: ard mhacha
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 02:30 PM

Peter, their confusion about what happened wil be the usual parcel of lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 10:15 AM

Grab, you missed out the little detail that they tried to blame the shooting on the injured guy's brother, rather than accept that they did it themselves.
+Even when the Metropolitan (London) Police "do the right thing" they are proving, under Sir Ian Blair's leadership, disturbingly prone to saying the wrong thing. But I'm jumping the gun again. Maybe their confusion about what happened at Forest Gate, and their confusion after the stockwell episode, will all be explained when the reports are published.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: GUEST,Grab
Date: 16 Jun 06 - 08:30 AM

From the information I had to hand last week, the police acted correctly, if rather over-enthusiastically, to deal with what had the potential to become a major incident.

Had the accusation been true, then yes, this could have been a major incident. But all they had to go on was an unsubstantiated story. Certainly it needed checking, and you can't fault them for that - in checking the rumour, they were acting correctly. They were probably even acting correctly in having plenty of officers available, although even then 250 looks like overkill. But raiding people's houses at 4am is a standard known tactic for inspiring terror in the population being raided, used by all secret police and paramilitary organisations. This was utterly unnecessary. Add failing to identify yourselves as police officers, physically dragging people out into the street such that they're afraid they're about to be murdered, and shooting without provocation - there's no way that's defensible as "acting correctly".

Had anything been found, you would all be singing a different song.

But it wasn't. And it's clear from reports that the chances of there being anything to find were pretty damn minimal in the first place. Certainly it needed checking - maybe the people in there even needed arresting on suspicion of terrorist activity, whilst this was being checked - but was breaking down the door at 4am and shooting without warning the best way to do it? I doubt it, somehow.

If you know you're not doing anything illeagl, then why not co-operate?

Given what reports say about the family and their status in the community, it's quite likely they would have co-operated, had they been given a chance. Had they not been assaulted by armed, unidentified men dressed in black and carrying guns, who smashed down their door at 4am, shot one of them and dragged them all bodily out of the house at gunpoint before they were given any chance at all to co-operate...

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Barry Finn
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 10:22 PM

"I still think they did the right thing" until it's your kid that gets shot or worst they kill an innocent. Getting it wrong is not exceptable. Your fear will allow them to steal all your rights & there'll be no saftey from then. You have a police state when this is exceptable & you end up fearing the squads more than the terrorists.

I need to roto till my garden. Would some one call the locals & tell them that I've burried guns in my yard so they can come & do my digging for me. Just don't tell them I'm armed. We can tell them as they go "it's bad intell.
Thanks

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 09:14 PM

OK, so while we are being distracted by this fracas, what ELSE is going on?

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 05:16 PM

"I still think the police did the right thing. Yes they got it wrong..." Nothing like hedging your bets, Cat!

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Big Phil
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 04:40 PM

Is it illegal to have £36,000 in your own property. I think not. Just another ruse to try to glossover the shambles made by the police on this raid...............

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Mr Red
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 08:11 AM

McGrath of Harlow

Whether the "intelligence community" were sloppy in the investigation, or were lead to it is unlikely to become clear. There is too much at stake and too many comics printing their own thoeries - and newspapers too.

But in order to deal with any situation it is better to understand it.

1) the terrorists are not stupid
2) collectively they have an IQ at genius level if only six of them act and plan in consort. I have done the tests long since and it works every time. I think we can assume their think tanks come close to numbering 6.
3) My theory is plausable. It is the duck and weave, bobbing and feinting, prodding and poking, IT IS TACTICS.
4) In the absence of evidence I favour it over corporate incompetence. Though both scenarios are not exactly mutually exclusive.
5) It is a huge chess game with plenty of pawns (willing, unwilling and innocent bystanding ones). Gains and losses on both (I meant all) sides.
6) who makes the rules? Who gains?

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Paul Burke
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 07:59 AM

How much does cyanide cost these days? What's the point of publicising the money (if it's not to sneakily try to imply that they must be guilty of something?

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: manitas_at_work
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 07:47 AM

It was probably life savings. If they are Muslim they would have problems with the High Street banks because of strictures against usery. Many people in East London still live in a cash economy. Even houses and businesses tend to be bought for cash with families clubbing together to loan the money to buy and renovate houses prior to moving in.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 06:56 AM

£36,000 (about $66,000)in cash needs some explaining though don't you think? What was it for?

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From:
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 05:38 AM

Like Liz, we only live a couple of miles from the raided house. I still think the police did the right thing. Yes they got it wrong and perhaps a bit more planning might not have gone a miss but only one person got hurt were as hundreds could have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: ard mhacha
Date: 15 Jun 06 - 04:20 AM

The Birmingham 6, The Guilford 4 and the Maguire Family,the English Police were racialist then, when they tortured the people above into admitting to crimes they were entirely innocent off.
Nothing has changed, now it`s the Muslims turn.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 10:42 PM

"If you know you're not doing anything illeagl, then why not co-operate?"

Ask Maher Arar.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:52 PM

Perhaps SOMEBODY in authority is finally beginning to realise that deliberate lying to avoid responsibility when things get stuffed up, just destroys the very trust that Western Police Forces could always count on since the days of Mr Peel?

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:22 PM

"If you're not doing anything illegal, why not cooperate" makes sense - unless of course a bunch of blokes in plain clothes grab you on the tube and shoot you in the head eight times without giving you a chance to cooperate; or a masked gang breaks down your front door and shoots you on the landing.

Or to go back a few years, it didn't make any difference for the Maguire Family that they cooperated with the police who arrested them on the basis of faulty information, and tehn proceeded to construct a fraudulent case against them in order to cover up up that mistake, with the result that the family were jailed for years.

At leat it appears that this precedent has not been followed in the case of the Forest Gate episode.

Mistakes get made, and that can be understood. But what can never be excused is any attempt to camouflage those mistakes in a way that compounds the damage to innocent people.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Bill D
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:17 PM

Mr Red....I am sorta glad I was not here for the first few posts. That bit of starting a thread with oblique references to local stories and making most of us go "huh??" is really rather tedious. It doesn't 'hurt' anyone, but why not SAY what it is you're on about?

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 07:32 PM

"If you know you're not doing anything illegal"

You may only THINK you are doing nothing illegal, the Police KNOW they are 'the thin blue line defending society from the depredations of everybody else out there' (A legendary quote reported from one Qld Police Cadet Graduation Ceremony!).

A good idea, as long as 'cooperating' does not lead to you being seen as 'confessing'.

I used to be like you, then got dragged into some nasty things while naively 'cooperating', now not so sure I trust Police, even my own family, especially as I have been lied to my face many times by Police...

Donuel is an American, other countries do not have 'Miranda' but do have similar protections, for the moment.

Anybody read Judge Dread lately?

"What am I doing wrong?"

"You're breathing heavily citizen, that's evidence of guilt, so you MUST have broken the Law! I find you guilty! Penalty Death!"

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 03:21 PM

Alternativley, you could assume that a vast majority of police officers are not muderous thugs, with room temperature IQs and a very big axe to grind with you.

If you know you're not doing anything illeagl, then why not co-operate?

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: GUEST,Donuel
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 12:09 PM

The recent shooting of a Marine back from Iraq in LA while he was complying with the police order to stand up, should warn you that it may be best to stay on the ground while handcuffed and claim you are having a heart attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: GUEST,donuel
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 11:53 AM

When dealing with the police, keep your hands in view and don't make sudden movements. Avoid passing behind them. Nervous cops are dangerous cops. Also, never touch the police or their equipment (vehicles, flashlights, animals, etc.) - you can get beat up and charged with assault.

The police do not decide your charges; they can only make recommendations. The prosecutor is the only person who can actually charge you. Remember this the next time the cops start rattling off all the charges they're supposedly "going to give you."

Questioning

Interrogation isn't always bright lights and rubber hoses - usually it's just a conversation. Whenever the cops ask you anything besides your name and address, it's legally safest to (respectfully) say these Magic Words:

"I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer."

This invokes the rights which protect you from interrogation. When you say this, the cops (and all other law enforcement officials) are legally required to stop asking you questions. They probably won't stop, so just repeat the Magic Words or remain silent until they catch on.

Remember, anything you say to the authorities can and will be used against you and your friends in court. There's no way to predict what information the police might try to use or how they'd use it. Plus, the police often misquote or lie altogether about what was said. So say only the Magic Words and let all the cops and witnesses know that this is your policy. Make sure that when you're arrested with other people, the rest of the group knows the Magic Words and promises to use them.

One of the jobs of cops is to get information out of people, and they usually don't have any scruples about how they do it. Cops are legally allowed to lie when they're investigating, and they are trained to be manipulative. The only thing you should say to cops, other than identifying yourself, is the Magic Words: "I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer."

Here are some lies they will tell you:

"You're not a suspect - just help us understand what happened here and then you can go."

"If you don't answer my questions, I'll have no choice but to arrest you. Do you want to go to jail?"

"If you don't answer my questions, I'm going to charge you with resisting arrest."

"All of your friends have cooperated and we let them go home. You're the only one left."

Cops are sneaky buggers and there are lots of ways they can trick you into talking. Here are some scams they'll pull:

Good Cop/ Bad Cop: Bad cop is aggressive and menacing, while good cop is nice, friendly, and familiar (usually good cop is the same race and gender as you). The idea is bad cop scares you so bad you are desperately looking for a friend. Good cop is that friend.

The cops will tell you that your friends ratted on you so that you will snitch on them. Meanwhile, they tell your friends the same thing. If anyone breaks and talks, you all go down.

The cops will tell you that they have all the evidence they need to convict you and that if you "take responsibility" and confess the judge will be impressed by your honesty and go easy on you. What they really mean is: "we don't have enough evidence yet, please confess."

Jail is a very isolating and intimidating place. It is really easy to believe what the cops tell you. Insist upon speaking with a lawyer before you answer any questions or sign anything.

The Golden Rule: Never trust a cop.

The Miranda Warnings

The police do not have to read you your rights (also known as the Miranda warnings). Miranda applies when there is (a) an interrogation (b) by a police officer of other agent of law enforcement (c) while the suspect is in police custody (you do not have to be formally arrested to be "in custody"). Even when all these conditions are met, the police intentionally violate Miranda. And though your rights have been violated, what you say can be used against you. For this reason, it is better not to wait for the cops â¤" you know what your rights are, so you can invoke them by saying the Magic Words, "I am going to remain silent. I want to see a lawyer."

If you've been arrested and realize that you have started answering questions, don't panic. Just re-invoke your rights by saying the Magic Words again. Don't let them trick you into thinking that because you answered some of their questions, you have to answer all of them.

Police Encounters

There are three basic types of encounters with the police: Conversation, Detention, and Arrest.

Conversation

When the cops are trying to get information, but don't have enough evidence to detain or arrest you, they'll try to weasel some information out of you. They may call this a "casual encounter" or a "friendly conversation". If you talk to them, you may give them the information they need to arrest you or your friends. In most situations, it's better and safer not to talk to cops.

Detention

Police can detain you only if they have reasonable suspicion (see below) that you are involved in a crime. Detention means that, though you aren't arrested, you can't leave. Detention is supposed to last a short time and they aren't supposed to move you. During detention, the police can pat you down and go into your bag to make sure you don't have any weapons. They aren't supposed to go into your pockets unless they feel a weapon.

If the police are asking questions, ask if you are being detained. If not, leave and say nothing else to them. If you are being detained, you may want to ask why. Then you should say the Magic Words: "I am going to remain silent. I want a lawyer" and nothing else.

A detention can easily turn into arrest. If the police are detaining you and they get information that you are involved in a crime, they will arrest you, even if it has nothing to do with your detention. For example, if someone gets pulled over for speeding (detained) and the cop sees drugs in the car, the cops will arrest her for possession of the drugs even though it has nothing to do with her getting pulled over. Cops have two reasons to detain you: 1) they are writing you a citation (a traffic ticket, for example), or 2) they want to arrest you but they don't have enough information yet to do so.

Arrest

Police can arrest you only if they have probable cause (see below) that you are involved in a crime. When you are arrested, the cops can search you to the skin and go through you car and any belongings. By law, an officer strip searching you must be the same gender as you.

If the police come to your door with an arrest warrant, go outside and lock the door behind you. Cops are allowed to search any room you go into, so don't go back into the house for any reason. If they have an arrest warrant, hiding won't help because they are allowed to force their way in if they know you are there. It's usually better to just go with them without giving them an opportunity to search.

Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

Reasonable suspicion must be based on more than a hunch - cops must be able to put their suspicion into words. For example, cops can't just stop someone and say, "She looked like she was up to something." They need to be more specific, like, "She was standing under the overpass staring up at some graffiti that hadn't been there 2 hours ago. She had the same graffiti pattern written on her backpack. I suspected that she had put up the graffiti."

Cops need more proof to say they have a probable cause than to say they have a reasonable suspicion. For example, "A store owner called to report someone matching her description tagging a wall across the street. As I drove up to the store, I saw her running away spattered with paint and carrying a spray can in her hand."

Searches

Never consent to a search! If the police try to search your house, car, backpack, pockets, etc. say the Magic Words 2: "I do not consent to this search." This may not stop them from forcing their way in and searching anyway, but if they search you illegally, they probably won't be able to use the evidence against you in court. You have nothing to lose from refusing to consent to a search and lots to gain. Do not physically resist cops when they are trying to search because you could get hurt and charged with resisting arrest or assault. Just keep repeating the Magic Words 2 so that the cops and all witnesses know that this is your policy.

Be careful about casual consent. That is, if you are stopped by the cops and you get out of the car but don't close the door, they can search the car and claim that they though you were indicating consent by leaving the door ajar. Also, if you say, "I'd rather you didn't search," they can claim that you were reluctantly giving them permission to search. Always just say the Magic Words 2: "I do not consent to this search."

If the cops have a search warrant, nothing changes - it's legally safest to just say the Magic Words 2. Again, you have nothing to lose from refusing to consent to a search, and lots to gain if the search warrant is incorrect or invalid in some way. If they do have a search warrant, ask to read it. A valid warrant must have a recent date (usually not more than a couple of weeks), the correct address, and a judge's or magistrate's signature; some warrants indicate the time of day the cops can search. You should say the Magic Words 2 whether or not the search warrant appears correct. The same goes for any government official who tries to search you, your belongings, or your house.

Infiltrators and Informants

Undercover cops sometimes infiltrate political organizations. They can lie about being cops even if asked directly. Undercover cops can even break the law (narcs get hazard pay for doing drugs as part of their cover) and encourage others to do so as well. This is not legally entrapment.

FBI and other government agents

The essence of the Magic Words "I'm keeping my mouth shut until I talk to a lawyer" not only applies to police but also to the FBI, INS, CIA, even IRS. If you want to be nice and polite, tell them that you don't wish to speak with them until you've spoken with your lawyer, or that you won't answer questions without a lawyer present. If you are being investigated as a result of your political activity, you can call the National Lawyers Guild at [phone]; they will help you find a lawyer you can talk to.

Taking Notes

Whenever you interact with or observe the police, always write down what is said and who said it. Write down the cops' names and badge numbers and the names and contact information of any witnesses. Record everything that happens. If you are expecting a lot of police contact, get in the habit of carrying a small tape recorder and a camera with you. Be careful - cops don't like people taking notes, especially if the cops are planning on doing something illegal. Observing them and documenting their actions may have very different results; for example, it may cause them to respond aggressively, or it may prevent them from abusing you or your friends.

Conclusion

People deal with police in all kinds of circumstances. You must make an individual decision about how you will interact with law enforcement. It is important to know your legal rights, but it is also important for you to decide when and how to use them in order to best protect yourself

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 11:31 AM

If you're police and you think someone suspected as being an armed terrorist is on the point of entering a tube station, you intercept them. I don't mean shoot them, stand in their way and tell them to stop. Get shot by them yourself if need be. It's part of the job, being ready to risk your life to protect the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 10:44 AM

Shot 17 times at his front door
reaching for a cell phone
or in the back seat of an SUV
that drifted to close to police
or on the couch watching pay TV...
They say:
He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Its best to be safe than sorry.
You know hindsight is 20/20
Afterall no one is innocent
and no one is perfect.
People are shot all the time.
If a policeman should do it
its for the prevention of crime.
I say:
The only ones threatened
are in front of the gun.
I knew cops who murdered for fun.
Sometimes for payback or to avoid a run.
They laughed at the sounds kids made
when shot in the head hiding under a car
in the dead of night.
Those cops are the first to tell you
the time for law and order has come.

Ask anyone who
traded liberty for security;
Do you feel safer?
Do you have more fun?
Do you like being spied on
and under the gun?

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 09:52 AM

Gee, thanks Peter K... glad to see I've reassured you.... would hate to think of you being worried by a possible terrorist living near where you used to run.

I stand by what I said 4 days ago before the other details were released. I would rather be sorry for one person shot in error, than for hundreds injured deliberately. From the information I had to hand last week, the police acted correctly, if rather over-enthusiastically, to deal with what had the potential to become a major incident.

And in case you were wondering, I would feel the same way if the house raided belonged to an African, Asian, English, Irish, Korean, Lithuanian, Scottish, Tristan da Cunan or Venusian family.

"For the life of me...I can't see how shooting an innocent guy in his own home at 4am is in any sense "the right thing." But maybe that will be explained." I can't see how killing innocent people for no reason at all is the right thing either. And I've never seen the point in shooting anyone.

Had anything been found, you would all be singing a different song. If the injured bloke had been a terrorist or a murderer, you'd all be saying hanging was too good for him. If people had died because there weren't enough officers around to control a situation, you'd be lambasting them and demanding to know why there were too few officers...

Hindsight is always 20/20.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 14 Jun 06 - 08:31 AM

"the guy who was shot, had applied to the police to work as as community support officer"

Ah! - light dawns! They 'vetted him' and some backstabbing arsehole stitched him up!

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate (England)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 09:11 PM

This episode had me quite worried. But I see that Liz is "quite satisfied that they did the right thing," so surely I can relax. Or should I perhaps wait for the outcome of the police and the police complaints commission inquiries?

For the life of me (as one who used to do my marathon training in those very streets, Liz *G*) I can't see how shooting an innocent guy in his own home at 4am is in any sense "the right thing." But maybe that will be explained.

Incidentally Mohammed Abdul Kahar, the guy who was shot, had applied to the police to work as as community support officer. He said today that his family had supported him in that, but had now changed their minds.

Mr Red may be close to an explanation for this cock-up. I know that in Northern Ireland a grudge was sometimes pursued by someone anonymously telling the RUC that a neighbour was engaged in suspicious activities, or telling the Provos that a neighbour was an informer. But Mr Red, it would be helpful and a simple courtesy, in a transatlantic forum such as this, to assume that some will be less clued-up than others about local events.

Subject: RE: BS: Forestgategate (England)
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Jun 06 - 08:15 PM

"Letting someone who has been identified as an activated terror bomber"

... as long as you keep your fingers crossed that you got the right guy... just in case some trigger happy goons start blazing away...

Of course, it's "damned if you do, and damned if you don't".


Does anybody remember Lenny Bruce's brillant take on "The Policeman in Society"?

Basically,

We're tired of people dumping their here shit everywhere. We'll pick a guy to tell people not to dump their shit everywhere.

"Hey man, you can't dump your shit here!"

"Who the hell do you think you are to tell me where I can dump my shit?"

"I'm the guy you picked to do that!"

"Yeah? Says who? I didn't pick you! I'll dump my shit where I want - **** off!"

-------
**** Lenny's Bruce's material was full of that...