Re: Police Powers???

In message <gYNej.71421$c_1.2943@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mrcheerful <nbkm57@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes

"Mike_B" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OlOAd5d3j6eHFwVd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <5u1m5tFmjpmlU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dr Zoidberg
<AlexNOOOO!!!!!!@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
"Mike_B" <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jXXrBbbQm5eHFwDM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In message <QCMej.71393$c_1.35382@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Mrcheerful <nbkm57@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes

everyone is a suspect until eliminated from the enquiry,

That is not an appropriate view, but does come down to the nub of the
argument. The police should not be treating everyone as a suspect unless
eliminated, they should be seeking evidence which leads them to a
suspect.


I think the point being made here , is that you don't know what the police
have in mind when they speak to you.

If they are not aware of any offences having been committed that could be
relevent to your presence then they shouldn't be asking you to account for
it.


Yes, that is the point. However they do and other are arguing that we
should just go along with that.

If the area has a history of crimes being committed there , possibly by
people that match your description , then it's more reasonable (and a good
idea) for them to want to speak to you. As an example if it's in an
industrial estate where there are a lot of burglaries and a person is seen
walking around at night then it's good policing for them to stop and have
a word with them to check what's going on. If they have a genuine reason
to be there then it's (should be) a short polite conversation.

If the individual chooses to enter in to the short, polite conversation.
If the individual decides to continue on their way instead then that
shouldn't be a problem either unless there is reason to suspect they have
committed a crime.


Even more specifically , if an offence has only just been committed then
it's very reasonable for the police to stop potential suspects based on
what they know of the offender. It may be that the OP matched a
description of someone they needed to arrest so they stopped to speak to
him. Having done so they realise that he couldn't be the one they were
after and went on their way. They know why they needed to speak to him ,
but as far as he's aware there was no reason

There would be no harm in them explaining their reason for asking. What is
wrong with "There has been a report of a crime in the area and you match a
description, would you mind telling us x, y, z"

Although to be honest I'm not sure how that resolves their suspicion to
any level of satisfaction, for example

"Excuse me sir, we have had a report of a person matching your description
engaging in public sexual activity in this park. Could you tell us why you
are here and give us your details?"

"Really? Well it wasn't me, I've only been jogging for about 10 minutes.
I'm Mr X and live at Y"

"Oh, alright then sir, have a pleasant day".

What has been achieved other than to log people who were in the area?

in that scenario it would be VERY useful to have logged who was in the area
at the time, or would you not agree?

Mrcheerful



As the OP has stated that the park in question is well known for sexual activity then no, I don't agree. Unless they are going to catch people in the act then there is no advantage at all in listing everyone who is in the area other than to intimidate people into staying away. Intimidating people into staying away from public places is not the role of the police.

Its not all that controversial. If the police have reason to suspect an individual may have been involved in a crime, they should identify that fact and formally request information.

If they don't have reasons to believe an individual is involved in a crime, they should leave them alone or allow them to exercise their right not to answer questions if that is the person's choice, leaving them to go on their way.

What is the least bit controversial about that?


--
Mike_B
.

Loading