Police accountability

[K]

[Pies4shaw]

Many years ago, the people two doors up from our old house were raided by the police.

These were kind, caring people who would do anything for you - a young family of 5. The police busted down the door, threatened them with guns and dealt with the father quite violently.

The allegation was that the father (who was a computer technician) had been doing the book-keeping for an "illegal" tobacco "racket".

He and various other members of his extended family were tried in the County Court. The case ultimately collapsed.

But, even if it had not (and even if there had been some basic investigatory merit to what the police had been doing), the raid was violent and unnecessary and left ordinary people fearful. The police had had this gentle member of the "gang" under covert surveillance using an under-cover fellow and had been, as it turned out, watching him and his family from the front room of the home of the elderly couple across the street from us. The police well knew that the family they targeted had nothing to do with any dangerous behaviour (these were, at most, State duty offences). At worst, if the police had been correct about what was happening, they wanted to see the father's spreadsheets - he was a quite peripheral figure. Even if he were a criminal (and he wasn't), he was neither dangerous nor violent.

When I read about it in the press after the raids - but of course before the acquittals, the noises being made were about "gangs" and "rackets" and all sorts of other pejorative terms that, for me, conjured up images of the Mafia - you know mobsters, executions, concrete shoes, gun-running and the whole bit. None of it was capable of being reconciled with the people I had known then for the best part of a decade and, of course, none of it bore any relation to the actual facts of that case.

It's quite possible to execute search warrants without breaking down doors, pointing guns at young children, pistol-whipping their parents and causing injuries. Yet, when these things go wrong, they tend to be justified by suggestions that police didn't know what they were getting themselves into and needed to take precautions against possible dangers. Given modern surveillance techniques and the way such investigations are conducted - and what police can, usually do and in any event always should know about people before they execute such a raid, that is typically nonsense. If you want to exercise extraordinary powers in a very heavy-handed way, you'd want to be able to justify the decision to exercise those powers in that way in the particular circumstances of that case. Not by reference to generalised concerns that the police have a difficult or sometimes dangerous job.

[think positive]

[think positive]

Many years ago, the people two doors up from our old house were raided by the police.

These were kind, caring people who would do anything for you - a young family of 5. The police busted down the door, threatened them with guns and dealt with the father quite violently.

The allegation was that the father (who was a computer technician) had been doing the book-keeping for an "illegal" tobacco "racket".

He and various other members of his extended family were tried in the County Court. The case ultimately collapsed.

But, even if it had not (and even if there had been some basic investigatory merit to what the police had been doing), the raid was violent and unnecessary and left ordinary people fearful. The police had had this gentle member of the "gang" under covert surveillance using an under-cover fellow and had been, as it turned out, watching him and his family from the front room of the home of the elderly couple across the street from us. The police well knew that the family they targeted had nothing to do with any dangerous behaviour (these were, at most, State duty offences). At worst, if the police had been correct about what was happening, they wanted to see the father's spreadsheets - he was a quite peripheral figure. Even if he were a criminal (and he wasn't), he was neither dangerous nor violent.

When I read about it in the press after the raids - but of course before the acquittals, the noises being made were about "gangs" and "rackets" and all sorts of other pejorative terms that, for me, conjured up images of the Mafia - you know mobsters, executions, concrete shoes, gun-running and the whole bit. None of it was capable of being reconciled with the people I had known then for the best part of a decade and, of course, none of it bore any relation to the actual facts of that case.

It's quite possible to execute search warrants without breaking down doors, pointing guns at young children, pistol-whipping their parents and causing injuries. Yet, when these things go wrong, they tend to be justified by suggestions that police didn't know what they were getting themselves into and needed to take precautions against possible dangers. Given modern surveillance techniques and the way such investigations are conducted - and what police can, usually do and in any event always should know about people before they execute such a raid, that is typically nonsense. If you want to exercise extraordinary powers in a very heavy-handed way, you'd want to be able to justify the decision to exercise those powers in that way in the particular circumstances of that case. Not by reference to generalised concerns that the police have a difficult or sometimes dangerous job.

That is certainly an over reaction, the powers that be that gave the order should have been investigated. That comes from the top.

[Pies4shaw]

^ Yes, most of it does. When police "raid", they don't just have a ciggy together behind Fitzroy police station and decide that they've got not much on so they'll organise a posse and raid someone that afternoon. There are checks and balances that are supposed to be applied before such investigatory actions are taken. Generally, it's not the police who do the raid that we should be concerned about - by the time they arrive, a certain process has been put in motion and a particular, chaotic dynamic is created that informs how the police on site must respond. Mostly, I see these as "command" concerns about the process by which such serious measures are ordered.

I think one can always be sensible about things, too. If there is, eg, an active terrorist threat and police have information that suggests particular people may be involved, we probably expect the police to be swift to make a judgement about whether a raid may be necessary. With common or garden (even violent) criminal activity, though, it's difficult to see how precipitate and erroneous action could ever have been reasonably necessary.

[K]

What happened to your neighbour (apart from being exonerated)?

[think positive]

^ Yes, most of it does. When police "raid", they don't just have a ciggy together behind Fitzroy police station and decide that they've got not much on so they'll organise a posse and raid someone that afternoon. There are checks and balances that are supposed to be applied before such investigatory actions are taken. Generally, it's not the police who do the raid that we should be concerned about - by the time they arrive, a certain process has been put in motion and a particular, chaotic dynamic is created that informs how the police on site must respond. Mostly, I see these as "command" concerns about the process by which such serious measures are ordered.

I think one can always be sensible about things, too. If there is, eg, an active terrorist threat and police have information that suggests particular people may be involved, we probably expect the police to be swift to make a judgement about whether a raid may be necessary. With common or garden (even violent) criminal activity, though, it's difficult to see how precipitate and erroneous action could ever have been reasonably necessary.

totally agree, have to take in to consideration that we dont know what they troops have been told too though. or maybe ive watched fugitive 2 too often!

[stui magpie]

[ronrat]

Many years ago one Christmas I was walking form Bensons (when Daics had it) to the other side of Richmond station. 2 youths, about 16, pulled a knife and demanded I hand over my wallet. Full of beer I noticed the one with the knife had his head about 4 inches from the wall so I decked him he smashed his head into the wall. His mate took off towards punt road. This other dude was still holding the knife so I jumped on his wrist and I heard it snap. Then I delivered about 6 or 7 kicks into his ribs , took the knife and threw it on the train tracks.I then gave him another kick in the back and he limped off.

I rang the cops and 2 coppers one male, one female turned up. Told them what they were wearing , descriptions etc and there was a massive pool of blood where I had belted his nose. The male copper asked me where I had been, told him, it was only about 6 ish and had some mates still at Bensons. He said he would look for the knife but probably just idiot kids and said "well mate, you may have deterred them from a life of crime" Then radioed in to see if anyone turned up at casualty. Said go back, have a few beers with your mates and look after yourself'

Policewoman Pollyanna was a different case. "I hope you didn't hurt him too much' "Why didn't you talk to them" "I hope we won't have to charge you fro assault" "Do you think he was in pain, he is probably frightened' "lets go look for him , he might need treatment' My answer was basically "If you want to waste Police and court time on this go ahead and find the prick but I won't be worried. I hope he is badly hurt, he can go and tell his proud parents how tough he was a knife and got the crap beaten out of".

The male copper said "I am not going to bother the boss with this. We have his name. I doubt anyone will be pressing charges" Enough trouble around Richmond on the friday before Xmas to worry about self defence cases. Dakes lent me a shirt because my white shirt was covered in blood and I brought it back on Boxing day after I washed it.

[Pies4shaw]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-15/ ... t/11114708

"Senior Constable Grantley James Keenan's conduct on the night of March 31, 2017, became the subject of a Corruption and Crime Commission (CCC) investigation, after he was cleared of any wrongdoing by three earlier internal police investigations.

...

A mobile phone video taken by his passenger showed Mr Bartlett then being tasered as he sat in the driver's seat with his seatbelt on.

Keenan was charged with two counts of common assault. He admitted to tasering the man but denied it was unlawful.

But he was convicted after a two-day trial in the Perth Magistrates Court, and was released on bail until he is sentenced in June."

[stui magpie]

It's hardly uncommon for a union to go on the front foot to defend their members, but this is an interesting take on things.

Victoria's police union boss says he is "proud" of the way officers handled a pre-dawn raid of a Fitzroy home that left a man with a severely broken arm in a terrible case of mistaken identity.

Police Association secretary Wayne Gatt told radio station 3AW on Thursday morning that officers in the Critical Incident Response Team were being pre-judged and the facts of the arrest, particularly claims that officers did not declare themselves, were being distorted.

Even if the facts are being distorted, I'm not sure if "proud" is the term I'd use. Even if the guy was the bloke they wanted and he was dangerous, he was unarmed and that's a pretty serious break,

Contrary to claims from the residents, sources have told The Age police announced themselves three times as they stormed the building........."They took every attempt to engage with people in the building. They can't be responsible for people running."

Heavily armed CIRT officers were led by a helicopter and then a sniffer dog to the apartment above well-known gay community bookshop Hares & Hyenas on Johnston Street, Fitzroy, about 2am last Saturday.

They were searching for what residents were told was an "armed member of a 'Lebanese' gang".

Resident Nik Dimopoulos ran, with friends saying he feared he was the target of a hate crime, before he was tackled by police and arrested on the footpath.

So someone runs away from Police, is tackled hard onto concrete and breaks his arm. There's an argument that if you believe the person is armed and dangerous, that's reasonable action. They didn't bash him, just tackled him and the break was accidental. Still not sure if "proud" is the right term though. I do find the excuse for running interesting though, that's not a normal instinctive reaction unless you've been a target before.

Victoria's Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission and police's own Professional Standards Command are investigating the incident,

So IBAC is investigating, as I suggested they could. Surely having an independent body investigating ensures accountability?

https://www.theage.com.au/national/vict ... 51nwb.html

[Pies4shaw]

Only if they're competent and their powers are adequate.

[stui magpie]

I think their powers are adequate.

Our investigative powers
We have powers to effectively investigate allegations of public sector corruption and police misconduct, including being able to:

compel the production of documents and objects
enter and search premises
seize documents and objects
use surveillance devices
intercept telecommunications
hold private and public hearings
require people to give evidence at a hearing.

https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/investigati ... ive-powers

They've also got form in investigating Police.

https://www.ibac.vic.gov.au/investigati ... -summaries

[Pies4shaw]

Seriously? You’re reading about their investigative powers on their website?

This is the legal equivalent of going into your English exam having only read the blurb on the back of The Mayor of Casterbridge.

[stui magpie]

You have an alternative source which says different?