Police accused of a cover-up after failing to identify two officers who abandoned blinded street att

Double post sorry.

Trowa

Lets not forget

Even if the cops did NOTHING wrong leaving the scene..............there is still the issue of at least ONE cop lying about being there............isnt lying in an investigation a felony?

The thing that gets me is they pulled up and said to I would assume the paramedics "This isn't our shout". I'm not totally hip to all the British lingo so does anyone know what this means given the circumstance? Is this a way of saying that this isn't our scene? Or call? Or a way of saying we can't be bothered with this?

I don't know as I said before something isn't right here.

Trowa

reply to post by TrowaBarton


I would agree with you on that. Any police department, in this day and age of technology, should be able to know exactly where each police vehicle was at any given time.

But, if the officers were from a different jurisdiction or agency, the original police department would have no way of tracking those officers or their vehicle electronically.

And I would agree that any police department should be able to identify which officer was at the scene of any incident they respond to. The police do not have the luxury of anonimity. If you are a police officer then you lose the right to become John Q Public while on duty. When asked, the officers should admit to being there.

But, I would submit that the inability to identify the police there is not necessarily the product of a coverup or police wrong doing. Again, if the officers were from another agency, they may not know anyone was looking for them.

I am confused. If the cops said.... ‘This was an isolated incident from which lessons have been learned.’

But said they don't know who it was. How can anything be learnt from something that they claim no-one ( untraceable cops ) was responsible for. How can you teach non people a lesson ?

reply to post by TrowaBarton


my interpretation is they could not be bothered. some say the paramedic's were there and it is not the police's job to treat him, so what? what about finding out what happened? there was still a crime commited.

saying it is not our shout and driving off because the paramediic's were there dos'nt cut it, it is not the paramedic's job to investigate and solve a crime. if someone has been assualted they should of at least ask the victim at the earliest possible time if he wanted to press charges and take a statement, they should of been asking for witnesses etc. not just drive off.
what if the man latter died from head injuries? they would of been dealing with murder.

reply to post by lifeform11


Go back and read through the rest of my earlier post. Yes, it says if the paramedics were there than the police would not be responsible for treating the man's wounds. But then I went on to provide several other situations where the police would have been justified in leaving which were not addressed by your post.

You are correct, it would be good policy to have an officer there monitoring the victim's condition in case he died because then it would be a homicide. But, the paramedics should be able to tell if the man was in danger of death.

The police did do their job in investigating and charging someone with the crime. It says so in the article.