Golfers arrested after fighting off gang

[Tez3]

Here you can only be detained for a maximum of 36 hours unless a magistrate allows more time, again a maximum of 36 hours.
In reality though it will be less than 24 hours. However under the terrorism act you can be held for a maximum of 7 days, with all of these though you need to have good reason to keep someone any length of time. If they aren't to be charged they have to be released.
Not everyone is arrested, often the visit to the nick is voluntary,if it is you can leave at any time.
Thats the general rules, all time spent in the station in custody has to be accounted for and documented by the custody sgt, this makes sure you are treated properly. All interviews are recorded.
Not all cases go to court, some minor offences can be treated with a police caution, or a street warning, some are liable to small fines.


From what I've been able to find out one of the youths was kept in hospital with serious head injuries for several days. As for the rest. . . .
A 53-year-old man, from Hayes, who was arrested on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm has been bailed to return to Bromley police station on July 17.
Five people, aged 13, 15, 16, 33 and 49, were arrested on suspicion of affray.
They have all been bailed to return to the same station on August 12 along with a 48-year-old man, from Keston, who was arrested on suspicion of causing GBH.
A 39-year-old man, from Plaistow, who was arrested on suspicion of disorderly conduct has been bailed to return on the same date in August.

This means the investigation is ongoing, there may be conditions attached to this bail ( they can go to a magistrate to have conditions changed if they wish) but when they return they will be told what has be decided. No one has been charged yet. Failure to turn up though is an offence and can be treated as such with a warrant for arrest issued.

The feeling seems to me though that the golfers went beyond the use of reasonable force, we'll have to wait and see though.

 

[Brian King]

Tez3 wrote

“If there are no charges there is no record kept of arrests.”

Has it Tez3, always been so? No record at all is kept? I had heard different but it was a while ago.
　
In the mid 1990’s one of the guys training with the same group as I was doing everything he could to get on a police force. Applying all over the state in any agency that he could. Some he received call backs and was able to go further along in the hiring process others not. He would have interviews and testing and such. This had been going on for nearly two years, when he finally thought he had the job. I think it was SPD the Seattle Police Department but it might have been the Washington State Patrol I cannot remember which but do remember it was a very large department. Did most of the interviews, the polygraph tests, the physical fitness tests, but it was his background check that did him in. One of the questions asked was the “Have you ever been arrested?” question and he replied no. It turns he had been “arrested” in London during his college days having been involved in a little bar dust up. He was not charged, not held, and he thought no big deal. This event came up during his back ground check so it was determined that he lied on the application and he was denied the job. Bad enough but now that he had been labeled a liar all his other applications to other departments were summarily denied. He had to give up his dream of going into law enforcement. Not a total loss as he became a firefighter instead and was picked up by a department on his first or second try. He quit training martial arts as his motivation for training was to help his expected career in law enforcement.

Personally I thought he was too arrogant to make a good cop and his martial skills were lacking due to the arrogance, so in my opinion things worked out for the best.

Regards
Brian King
　

 

[sgtmac_46]

Ok, a big mob fighting, police arrive separate them, call for an ambulance to take injured away. Who started fight, who hit who and a few other pertinant questions have to be answered so all those involved are arrested and taken down the nick.Remember unlikely though it may seem you have to take into consideration that the golfers may have attacked the gang who had been annoying them, you can't take it for granted that because they are 'respectable' golfers and the others are a suspected gang that it was all the 'gangs fault' well not if you are a decent officer anyway, you have to be fair. It may not seem to be but it is.

'Fair' is often a relative term.

 

[Tez3]

'Fair' is often a relative term.

So what would you do? You have a mob of people all going for each other, when you do get them stopped and the injured off to hospital, everyone is pointing the finger at the other 'side'. Do you assume the golfers in their nice clothes and claims of knowing the Chief Constable are obviously totally innocent because the youths couldn't possible be telling the truth? or do you take everyone down to the nick and question the lot of them and then spend some time checking all statements, evidence and forensics? What would you consider fair?
Bear in mind you can arrest all of them without a consequence to them if found innocent later and tempers are already frayed, adrenaline is running with people already seriously injured.

 

[Tez3]

Tez3 wrote


Has it Tez3, always been so? No record at all is kept? I had heard different but it was a while ago.
　
In the mid 1990’s one of the guys training with the same group as I was doing everything he could to get on a police force. Applying all over the state in any agency that he could. Some he received call backs and was able to go further along in the hiring process others not. He would have interviews and testing and such. This had been going on for nearly two years, when he finally thought he had the job. I think it was SPD the Seattle Police Department but it might have been the Washington State Patrol I cannot remember which but do remember it was a very large department. Did most of the interviews, the polygraph tests, the physical fitness tests, but it was his background check that did him in. One of the questions asked was the “Have you ever been arrested?” question and he replied no. It turns he had been “arrested” in London during his college days having been involved in a little bar dust up. He was not charged, not held, and he thought no big deal. This event came up during his back ground check so it was determined that he lied on the application and he was denied the job. Bad enough but now that he had been labeled a liar all his other applications to other departments were summarily denied. He had to give up his dream of going into law enforcement. Not a total loss as he became a firefighter instead and was picked up by a department on his first or second try. He quit training martial arts as his motivation for training was to help his expected career in law enforcement.

Personally I thought he was too arrogant to make a good cop and his martial skills were lacking due to the arrogance, so in my opinion things worked out for the best.

Regards
Brian King
　

Definiely no record of arrests are kept if there's no conviction. There's nothing to record if there's been no charge or conviction. Sounds like an excuse tbh. I suppose he could have called the American Embassy for help and they kept a record, I was thinking that would be unlikely but then I thought back and I know that American students at the London School of Economics and a couple of other seats of learning were kept a close eye on by your CIA! I suppose he could have put a UK professor or tutor as a reference and they mentioned it? It would be assumed perhaps like the OP here that being arrested was more than it was?

 

[sgtmac_46]

So what would you do? You have a mob of people all going for each other, when you do get them stopped and the injured off to hospital, everyone is pointing the finger at the other 'side'. Do you assume the golfers in their nice clothes and claims of knowing the Chief Constable are obviously totally innocent because the youths couldn't possible be telling the truth? or do you take everyone down to the nick and question the lot of them and then spend some time checking all statements, evidence and forensics? What would you consider fair?
Bear in mind you can arrest all of them without a consequence to them if found innocent later and tempers are already frayed, adrenaline is running with people already seriously injured.

Separate the groups.....handcuff accordingly......talk to by-standers.........Arrest the youths for attempted armed robbery........have the old men meet me down at the police department to fill out statements and complaints.......then shake their hands.

Case closed.

 

[Brian King]

Tez3 wrote:

“Definiely no record of arrests are kept if there's no conviction. There's nothing to record if there's been no charge or conviction. Sounds like an excuse tbh. I suppose he could have called the American Embassy for help and they kept a record, I was thinking that would be unlikely but then I thought back and I know that American students at the London School of Economics and a couple of other seats of learning were kept a close eye on by your CIA! I suppose he could have put a UK professor or tutor as a reference and they mentioned it? It would be assumed perhaps like the OP here that being arrested was more than it was? “

They didn’t say how they found out just asked him about the incident and then said thank you very much that will be all. Had he mentioned the incident it would have likely been no big deal but his failure to disclose the incident is what did him in, a lie by omission is still a lie. I am not sure if he was going to university there or just visiting during his college days. I am reasonably sure that he had to list his travels to foreign countries.

Further up thread Tez3 you said

“all time spent in the station in custody has to be accounted for and documented by the custody sgt, this makes sure you are treated properly. All interviews are recorded.”

How long are those records kept on hand and are they destroyed? If your interview becomes involved with a criminal case even if you are not further involved are those interview records kept, can they be entered into court proceeding even if the person interviewed is no longer in country? Are court proceedings over there public record?

In this case it was in my opinion for the best and obviously I do not know the full story LOL he was a liar after all the background check proved it so. Do not bust a gut answering the questions above, I am just curious but do not want to cause thread drift.

Thanks for the insights into the system over there

Regards
Brian King

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is what happens when a society gets confused about the problem......violence isn't the problem......violent CRIMINALS are the problem. Some folks would say there is no difference......and that's where the confusion arises.

 

[jks9199]

Separate the groups.....handcuff accordingly......talk to by-standers.........Arrest the youths for attempted armed robbery........have the old men meet me down at the police department to fill out statements and complaints.......then shake their hands.

Case closed.

Yep. Not to be (too) sarcastic... but it's called investigation. We just have to do it pretty much at the scene... or through follow-ups.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Yep. Not to be (too) sarcastic... but it's called investigation. We just have to do it pretty much at the scene... or through follow-ups.

How many witnesses do you have to talk to, that all say 'Yutes showed up, tried to rob these guys' before it's pretty clear what happened?

 

[jks9199]

How many witnesses do you have to talk to, that all say 'Yutes showed up, tried to rob these guys' before it's pretty clear what happened?

I'm just more used to the guy who's bleeding, with half his teeth on ground around him, saying "nuttin happened." And, amazingly, nobody ever saw anything happen...

 

[Tez3]

Separate the groups.....handcuff accordingly......talk to by-standers.........Arrest the youths for attempted armed robbery........have the old men meet me down at the police department to fill out statements and complaints.......then shake their hands.

Case closed.

We prefer not to be biased and keep an open mind. What old men?
I'm afraid you don't even know the area and the tensions there may be there which can easily be caused by the golfing people who obviously you don't undertand either here. Still there's no way you could know I suppose that the golfers were from a criminal background, it's not going to be mentioned in a press report when the newspaper wants to prove a point. I think making quick off the cuff judgements can cause huge problems in policing don't you?

 

[Tez3]

Records of arrest aren't disclosed to anyone and only kept if the person is being charge.

 

[sgtmac_46]

We prefer not to be biased and keep an open mind. What old men?
I'm afraid you don't even know the area and the tensions there may be there which can easily be caused by the golfing people who obviously you don't undertand either here. Still there's no way you could know I suppose that the golfers were from a criminal background, it's not going to be mentioned in a press report when the newspaper wants to prove a point. I think making quick off the cuff judgements can cause huge problems in policing don't you?

Glad to see Europeans aren't biased against criminal gangs.......open mindedness IS important.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I'm just more used to the guy who's bleeding, with half his teeth on ground around him, saying "nuttin happened." And, amazingly, nobody ever saw anything happen...

That always makes it simpler.....'Nothing to see folks, nasty golfing accident!' :lfao:

 

[Bruno@MT]

This is what happens when a society gets confused about the problem......violence isn't the problem......violent CRIMINALS are the problem. Some folks would say there is no difference......and that's where the confusion arises.

Ok if you arrive at that scene, would you assume that the golfers were innocent, just because they were wearing nice clothes? Or just because their friends say they were not the bad guys?

 

[sgtmac_46]

Ok if you arrive at that scene, would you assume that the golfers were innocent, just because they were wearing nice clothes? Or just because their friends say they were not the bad guys?

I'd talk to the large crowd of by-standers that just watched the whole thing.

Also, the FBI calls it a 'clue' that this occurred on a golf course.......with golfers carrying golf clubs.......and a gang of yutes carrying planks of wood with nary a tree house or construction project in sight.......law enforcement isn't ALWAYS rocket science.......sometimes it's just the subtle application of a modicum of common sense.


Again, the problem is the mindset 'We need to do something about the violence', instead of the more accurate and effective 'We need to do something about the CRIMINALS'.....those who don't know the difference should study on the subject for a while.

 

[jks9199]

Ok if you arrive at that scene, would you assume that the golfers were innocent, just because they were wearing nice clothes? Or just because their friends say they were not the bad guys?

I sure wouldn't.

I've told this story here before... but it fits with this well.

A few years back, I was dispatched to a report of an assault. I arrive, and the business manager has a bloody nose. Wants rescue, too -- so the EMTs come to check him out. His story was that a worker from a different part of the business (combined restaurant/catering service) had tried to take some aprons from the wrong area, and when confronted on it, the guy punches the manager before driving off. OK... Witnesses aren't real helpful; the confirmation a confrontation, but that's about it. On the face of it -- open and shut assault & battery.

Until I managed to talk to the guy who'd driven off... After talking to him in English (not his strength...), I start to get enough of a different picture that I got a translator. His version was rather different, in some key details. The guy parks his car, and goes in for the aprons. When he comes out -- his car is moved. The manager confronts him, tells him he moved the car so that the driver wouldn't leave with the aprons, and the manager starts to push him. Driver tells him to back off, and even ends up doing the classic "hand on the head to hold him back" and warning him! When that's not enough and the manager is still moving in on him -- the driver popped him one.

Little different situation, huh? As a cop in the US, even in the nicest of places, you learn quickly that NOBODY tells you the whole truth, and that there are always at least 3 sides to every situation: the two participants each have theirs -- and the truth is somewhere in the middle. You learn to look at the physical evidence, listen to witnesses, and to the accounts of those involved... and hopefully find the truth by balancing them all. I doubt this is very different than in England. It's just that "arrest" carries a different connotation, because of the different laws, procedures, and standards.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I sure wouldn't.

I've told this story here before... but it fits with this well.

A few years back, I was dispatched to a report of an assault. I arrive, and the business manager has a bloody nose. Wants rescue, too -- so the EMTs come to check him out. His story was that a worker from a different part of the business (combined restaurant/catering service) had tried to take some aprons from the wrong area, and when confronted on it, the guy punches the manager before driving off. OK... Witnesses aren't real helpful; the confirmation a confrontation, but that's about it. On the face of it -- open and shut assault & battery.

Until I managed to talk to the guy who'd driven off... After talking to him in English (not his strength...), I start to get enough of a different picture that I got a translator. His version was rather different, in some key details. The guy parks his car, and goes in for the aprons. When he comes out -- his car is moved. The manager confronts him, tells him he moved the car so that the driver wouldn't leave with the aprons, and the manager starts to push him. Driver tells him to back off, and even ends up doing the classic "hand on the head to hold him back" and warning him! When that's not enough and the manager is still moving in on him -- the driver popped him one.

Little different situation, huh? As a cop in the US, even in the nicest of places, you learn quickly that NOBODY tells you the whole truth, and that there are always at least 3 sides to every situation: the two participants each have theirs -- and the truth is somewhere in the middle. You learn to look at the physical evidence, listen to witnesses, and to the accounts of those involved... and hopefully find the truth by balancing them all. I doubt this is very different than in England. It's just that "arrest" carries a different connotation, because of the different laws, procedures, and standards.

Conflicts between intimates and acquaintances usually involve the truth being somewhere in the middle........generally with attempted armed robbery it's not in the middle.....it's usually pretty one sided.

 

[Guardian]

Ok if you arrive at that scene, would you assume that the golfers were innocent, just because they were wearing nice clothes? Or just because their friends say they were not the bad guys?

Sorry, golf course, golfers, gang of punks with weapons on a golf course, usually pretty spacious places, means a special trips to ensure they found someone out by themselves. Yep, That's how I would see it also.

I think the article did mention the age of some of them. Now, we just need to define old LOL.