Hyperlithe wrote:Why did the police officer need to go into the cell at all?
So he was causing 'problems', so leave him in there on his own and he'll soon get bored and shut up. If he's causing physical damage in the cell it can always be billed to the parents when they come to pick up the little toerag!
I reckon he should have got more than 12 weeks; he was in a position of responsibility and he abused it. Aren't the police supposed to set a good example to the 'yoof'?
I fully agree, whenever we had anyone making a racket or a mess in a cell, we simply left them to it. And charged them with any damage later. And by charged I mean it in both senses 1. A criminal charge that they had to answer in court or failing that 2. Sent them an invoice for the damage.
I also think that a police officer assaulting someone, especially someone already in custody, and therefore neither a threat to the public nor the police should be made an example of and sentenced to the full extent of the law.
We can't expect the public not to commit assault if they are aware that police offciers are committing assault and receiving extremely lenient sentences.
In 1984 PACE set out clear legislation for the custody of prisoners. And
most police forces have their own internal guidelines (based on PACE) on when and why they should enter occupied police cells.
Making a mess, damaging the cell or making a racket are not on that list
The following are:
1. resuscitate seemingly unconscious prisoner
2. prevent serious self-harm/suicide
3. prevent escape attempts/preparations
4. extinguish fires/stop flooding
On this forum some serving and ex-soldiers are keen to use the phrase "If you've never served you shouldn't comment on it"
Equally apt here for those who have never served as police officers, advocating assault by police officers.
