MY FRIEND RACIALLY PROFILED AND SHOT BY COPS

[LORD LUCAN]

As an aside, this is the machine UK police use at the roadside:

http://www.breathalyzersolutions.co.uk/ ... lyzer.html

Draeger 6510

In the jurisdiction I am familiar with, the rozzers didn't generally bring you down to the station to blow on the big machine unless you blew a 0.40 on one of these, because despite being the best handheld available, they're not particularly accurate. The UK limit is 35 microgrammes per 100 millilitres of breath.

[BLACKCRUSADER]

To answer a question that was raised, and to be honest not an unreasonable one: No. There were no drugs involved. Not drug related. The guy was not carrying anything illegal on his person. The only matters the police are currently raising with the prosecutor's office are DUI and evading arrest (obstruction of a public official). No assault charge has been laid. The suspect has been released on bail without having to post a bail bond, has been allowed to retain his passport, and has a bar on leaving the country or changing his residential address.

Nobody on these forums ever asked about drugs being involved. Only alcohol and DUI.

[HEADHONCHO11]

angerim wrote:

Novaspes wrote: I for one rejoice at the fact that the prosecutor did not judge the Apple Daily reporting as sufficient proof of multiple offenses, which otoh posters on this and other forums seem happy to do.

The prosecutor has to review the police video/evidence first. As far as I know that's still being done.
What I'm wondering however, was the video shown in the Apple Daily given by the police to the "reporters"?
Not judging Apple Daily or the police here just where I'm from it would never happen or would require ministry level approval.

The video may not even be from that incident, I haven't really looked at it, but it's common enough for media to splice in unrelated video to a story to jazz it up.

[LORD LUCAN]

Giving that video to the press in a potential trial-by-jury in the UK would raise grounds to make the "fair trial" argument. Drink-driving is, I think, a summary offence in the UK, so there is no jury which might become prejudiced by such footage. Assault on a police officer, on the other hand, could in my day (pre-95) be tried by jury and that footage would be potentially prejudicial in a jury trial.

At the prosecutorial hearing the police said they had no footage of the events surrounding the arrest and shooting. That's either true, or the video would be detrimental to a police case of assault and therefore the video will not be produced. The police did not file a charge of assault, although as Taiwanese procedings are inquisitorial not adversarial, it is open to what passes for a court here to come to any conclusion that pleases it.

[BLACKCRUSADER]

Giving that video to the press in a potential trial-by-jury in the UK would raise grounds to make the "fair trial" argument. Drink-driving is, I think, a summary offence in the UK, so there is no jury which might become prejudiced by such footage. Assault on a police officer, on the other hand, could in my day (pre-95) be tried by jury and that footage would be potentially prejudicial in a jury trial.

At the prosecutorial hearing the police said they had no footage of the events surrounding the arrest and shooting. That's either true, or the video would be detrimental to a police case of assault and therefore the video will not be produced. The police did not file a charge of assault, although as Taiwanese procedings are inquisitorial not adversarial, it is open to what passes for a court here to come to any conclusion that pleases it.

Yes but we are not in the UK. Stop listing other scountries policies or laws they are irrelevant here. This is the problem with many epxats they keep talking about other countries laws. You are not in "anotehr country" you are in TAIWAN.

Also in any country the polcie decide what charges to press. Not having a charge of assault now is not unusual. And also in the UK and Australia you can request not to have a jury trial as well. Most don't as juries are not as good as judges at looking at cases. Judges are less likely to be fooled by some slick lawyers defence.

[serial killer on parole]

Mick

Lord Lucan wrote: Once again a failure to adhere to police procedure (tackling a suspect one-one-one and not waiting for backup) has backfired upon the police because they now have no evidence to support any claim of assault.

Then what is that contusion to the officers neck and ripped shirt pocket?

Mick don't give them any ideas. They will accuse the police officer of ripping the shirt himself and causing a self inflicted injury. There's no video evidence of John assaulting anyone remember. Without video evidence it cant be true. Haven't you heard?

[angerim]

Easy, both crashed when John did a U-Turn, police officer tries to stop him by hitting him with the Police Club (a few times), he still doesn't stop, he gets shot (after a warning shot). I heard John takes full responsibility that the cop shot him. Excess force (should he have let him run?). I guess not, someone who is racing away from the police should be red flagged and shot if needed.

[DR SPOCK]

MICK Wrote

No, you miss my point. I wasn't there so don't know what happened. It looks like someone grabbed the shirt AND that is the cops story. It doesn't matter if it is true or not, that is his story AND is believable.

If this guy goes with a different version of events, essentially what you are saying is he got beat, and then shot when he posed no threat. Is a very different version. I'm surprised. You guys have been living in Taiwan for a long time, and none of you seem to get the concept of face. Shooting him under the circumstances the cops claim, is still excessive IMO. If the guy posed no threat, its inexcusable, which is why, if he made that claim, I believe in order to save face, they will have no choice except to prosecute to the fullest extent of the officers claims.

If hes got no way of proving that in fact the cop is lying, Im pretty sure the court will reject any apology and side with the cop. The two stories will not be equal, one will be from someone who fled from the cops under the influence and is facing jail time, the other from an officer who was doing his job.

Since John iniated the chase and told the cops to fuck off and resisted arrest during a fight, then getting shot is not wrong. If the police office had no choice. If the cop just shot him I do not believe he did so unless he was afraid that John could overpower him. The John who fled has a lot to answer for so he should assume fault for being shot.

[LORD LUCAN]

The prosecutor asked this question and heard testimony for the purposes of the bail hearing allowing for the possibility that the injuries to the cop could have resulted from coming off the scooter, and the police didn't file a charge of assault so there was no evidence offered by them relating thereto that would have been relevant to the bail hearing. There was no ruling on the contusion or shirt pocket as it was a bail hearing. The cop was wearing a flak jacket according to his media interviews so it is difficult to guess how his shirt pocket got ripped. I don't know at the moment. The flak jacket could, for example, have come off during the crash, although it's probably unlikely. I don't know. If the police are going to raise those issues it will be at the upcoming trial, if they do add an assault charge pre-trial.

Mick wrote:
Shooting him under the circumstances the cops claim, is still excessive IMO. If the guy posed no threat, its inexcusable, which is why, if he made that claim, I believe in order to save face, they will have no choice except to prosecute to the fullest extent of the officers claims.

If hes got no way of proving that in fact the cop is lying, Im pretty sure the court will reject any apology and side with the cop. The two stories will not be equal, one will be from someone who fled from the cops under the influence and is facing jail time, the other from an officer who was doing his job.

It seems it is down to the cop himself. He appears not to want to push the assault charge. I think he's had his day in the papers, he has gained face from reinforcing his reputation as the Anti-DUI King, he got to shoot a foriegner, and that is that. I think there is a danger for the cop that if the matter is fully examined, questions will be asked about bending the nightstick, then opening fire, and coming away with a bruise on the neck and a torn shirt pocket and no video evidence (maybe the Apple Daily lost the tape?). Given the rather low opinion of the police held by all and sundry here, I think prosecutors and judges alike are looking for evidence of an assault beyond the sort of thing that might be suffered by someone slipping on a banana skin.

I too originally believed that the story would be upgraded by the police to justify the use of firearms, on the basis that "I shot him, therefore he MUST have attacked me!"

However, it seems that the prosecutor and the police have formed the idea that even if he did resist arrest violently, he got shot for his troubles and that is punishment enough.

[BLACKCRUSADER]

However, it seems that the prosecutor and the police have formed the idea that even if he did resist arrest violently, he got shot for his troubles and that is punishment enough.

Well John might get lucky not being charged. He may be able to stay in Taiwan and not get deported with less charges.

You can push the cop shot John without justification all you like. But weren't you the one who said Big John could have disarmed the cop if he had wanted to. Perhaps the cop thought big john might just try to do that and brought the situation under control by shooting John. That stopped his fleeing and his resisting arrest.

The police officer only fired one round. It was enough and he didnt just keep firing. That in itself says a lot. Also the initial hearing was not going to make any rulings other than bail and a prevention on leaving Taiwan and not moving address.

The police officers shirt could have been ripped by the flack jacket when they crashed. But not the mark on his neck. That looks like he was being throttled or got hit. Just conjecture of course.