Attempted Abduction of Children

CHEV4EVR · Post by **CHEV4EVR** » Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:24 pm

Lets bring a bit of reality back to the situation. You can only be charged by the police if you have committed an offence. In respect to this matter there was no loopholes or technicalities an investigation established that no offence was committed.

Yes it is an emotional topic but if the police were to base inquiries on emotions you are going to make mistakes and it is very dangerous ground to tread. This particular instance will not set a precedant for anything as with all cases, each will be judged on the evidence held by the inquiry officer.

As has previously stated there is no law against being stupid. I suspect if there was the gaols would be overflowing.

JG-103 · Post by **JG-103** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:24 pm

So if the same incident occured with the same outcome but the guy who was yelling at the kid to get in was a convicted pedo, then would no charges hav been laid?

CHEV4EVR · Post by **CHEV4EVR** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 6:29 pm

It is all time, place and circumstance. The "what if's" are too great and no purpose is served addressing hypotheticals

Donga · Post by **Donga** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 7:10 pm

JG-103 wrote:So if the same incident occured with the same outcome but the guy who was yelling at the kid to get in was a convicted pedo, then would no charges hav been laid?

Great and fair question JG-103 I had not even given that a thought. I doubt that we will get non biased and honest answer from CHEV4EVR or any of tha other serving WAPOL officers on this forum. I am sure they would love to be able give us a non biased and honest answer reflecting there views but because of there positions in the police force they cant. There views and opinions may be misinterpreted as the views and opinions of WAPOL. Its probably the same reasons they cant help out with our spreadsheets containing freqs and job codes they could get in trouble for it if they did. In saying that I think it would be different if a convicted pedo had done it but not just because they had been convited it would somewhere be on his realese conditions he was to remain a certain distance from areas surrounding schools, parks ect.

CHEV4EVR · Post by **CHEV4EVR** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:09 pm

Donga, I agree it is a good question by JG-103. Obviously not everyone can say what they really think but at the end of the day one thing we need to avoid is "Spanish Inquisition" style of policing. The forerunner to the CCC ,the ACC tried it, and it does not work, it just creates tension and uncertainity because all of a sudden the law is ruled by public opinion.

Don't get me wrong I am not on the side of the crooks or lawyers but sometimes it is best in areas that are emotion charged to deal with just the facts. It is one of the hardest things about policing is that nearly every facet of the job involves subjects that are dear to peoples hearts.

westernwedgey · Post by **westernwedgey** » Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:21 pm

CHEV4EVR wrote: Don't get me wrong I am not on the side of the crooks or lawyers but sometimes it is best in areas that are emotion charged to deal with just the facts. It is one of the hardest things about policing is that nearly every facet of the job involves subjects that are dear to peoples hearts.

Well put and so very true...