Hard agree.
In addition to what I (personally) consider excessive protection of the "human rights" of vile people who have never considered the human rights of their victims, the policy of "reasonable doubt" seems to have morphed into "any tiny scintilla of an almost impossible but might have happened in a 1,000 parallel universes doubt".
I also think that people expect too much of police in the heat of a violent altercation - they need to be able to use the degree of force necessary, especially if members of the public may be put at risk if an incident escalates (or even an individual escalates their behaviour ). I know we hear about a lot of rotten apples in the police barrel, but I really believe that most of them are just good people trying to do a pretty thankless job, and they're doing their best.
I wanted to just come back to this when I had more time to write out a reply. Again, with the overhaul of the system I think there should be more done regarding deportations. This is linked more to the justice system than maybe some people think. For automatic deportation to be considered, an individual needs to receive a 12 month (or more) custodial sentence. If it’s less than that, then a separate application of deportation needs to be made and meet X criteria.
Now sentencing is horrendous at the moment and people aren’t being given custodial sentences, they’re often suspended - even for serious crimes such a Child sex abuse images etc better sentencing and a better system would go a long way with the current laws we have in relation to deportations and that’s before you start discussing regarding changing any of those laws.
The difficulty you have with the police is that they have to be held to a higher standard than your average Joe. That’s part of the job. They are trained and they should conduct themselves as professionally as possible even under the extreme circumstances. No one does know how they’d react and it’s easy for someone at home to say they should do X, Y, Z but kicking someone in the head when on the floor is not reasonable force and isn’t something they’re trained to do - therefore if that happens, whatever the outcome of that, that officer is liable and I believe in this instance, it’s played a huge part in the jury not deciding the guy was guilty when he should have been imo.
It does also become a bit of a “where do you draw the line” if you let actions like this slide in certain circumstances. Who decides which scenarios that action is acceptable in? How can we then convict the lay person of attempted murder or murder for stamping on someone’s head if the police are allowed to do it? When faced with a terrorist is it reasonable? I’d argue in those circumstances yes but then what stops the police abusing that and using the excuse of “I thought they were a terrorist” I dunno, I just think it’s a bit of a slippery slope which opens up a whole other can of worms for everyone
