A police officer of the Greater Manchester Police was actually taken to court in June 2019, over accusations of using his police dog Jerry, as a weapon to assault five men who were being chased by the police in separate incidents.
The prosecutor claimed that the police officer used his dog to 'vent his contempt' of criminals when the dog bit and injured the fleeing men. Surely that's what police dogs are for ... to catch fleeing criminals who are evading capture?
The officer defended himself by saying that the incidents in 2015 and 2016, were all in the line of duty, and done lawfully, and that all the men had abandoned cars that were being chased by officers, and were fleeing or hiding from capture.
The jury in Preston crown court took very little time to unanimously acquit him of of five counts of wounding with intent, and five counts of causing grievous bodily harm, as well as another officer who had been accused of abetting in one of the alleged assaults.
All of the five complainants who gave evidence at the trial, had previous convictions - ranging from cannabis possession and driving offences, to burglary and even a murder. In contrast the accused, PC Jackson, had received three commendations for bravery in the line of duty - including two Chief Constable's Awards - since he joined Greater Manchester Police (GMP) in 2008.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) who carried out the attempted prosecutions, are exposed as being concerned more with criminals rights, than with effectively policing the community ..... Its Regional Director Amanda Rowe, was defiantly unrepentant and defended her decision: "People (aka fleeing criminals), suffered serious injuries during these police incidents, and we’re sure the vast majority of people would want to know what happened. That’s what we did, and we won’t apologise for ensuring such actions are held to account." .... well twelve men or women on the jury disagreed with Ms Rowe and her views for a start. I suspect that the vast majority of the non criminal population agree with them, and not her strange views of what the police dogs are for.
The decision to prosecute was also criticised by the Police Federation GMP branch chairman Stu Berry, who called it a "farce from start to finish. We now face a situation where dog handlers are reluctant to do their job." Both officers were subject to a two-year long investigation and now still face internal misconduct proceedings. They have not been allowed to work on the front-line during this process, and so the last quote to PC Jackson, the police dog handler cleared of any wrongdoing.
"It’s ludicrous it got that far. I feel like I was being punished for doing my job, being too proactive. Jerry and I used to be a great team - we were catching criminals. I was making arrests, now two years of not being able to [that]. That’s what members of the public have lost out on."
"I’m not saying there shouldn’t be an investigation body of any sort. What we do, we should be accountable for doing so. But the way they do it is just wrong. I’ve been treated terribly by the IOPC. There’s been no consideration whatsoever from the IOPC investigators into the work that we do, the stress and everything that we work under, and the split-second decisions that we have to make on a daily basis."
 |
| Jerry Not In The Doghouse Any More ..... |
The prosecutor claimed that the police officer used his dog to 'vent his contempt' of criminals when the dog bit and injured the fleeing men. Surely that's what police dogs are for ... to catch fleeing criminals who are evading capture?
The officer defended himself by saying that the incidents in 2015 and 2016, were all in the line of duty, and done lawfully, and that all the men had abandoned cars that were being chased by officers, and were fleeing or hiding from capture.
The jury in Preston crown court took very little time to unanimously acquit him of of five counts of wounding with intent, and five counts of causing grievous bodily harm, as well as another officer who had been accused of abetting in one of the alleged assaults.
All of the five complainants who gave evidence at the trial, had previous convictions - ranging from cannabis possession and driving offences, to burglary and even a murder. In contrast the accused, PC Jackson, had received three commendations for bravery in the line of duty - including two Chief Constable's Awards - since he joined Greater Manchester Police (GMP) in 2008.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) who carried out the attempted prosecutions, are exposed as being concerned more with criminals rights, than with effectively policing the community ..... Its Regional Director Amanda Rowe, was defiantly unrepentant and defended her decision: "People (aka fleeing criminals), suffered serious injuries during these police incidents, and we’re sure the vast majority of people would want to know what happened. That’s what we did, and we won’t apologise for ensuring such actions are held to account." .... well twelve men or women on the jury disagreed with Ms Rowe and her views for a start. I suspect that the vast majority of the non criminal population agree with them, and not her strange views of what the police dogs are for.
The decision to prosecute was also criticised by the Police Federation GMP branch chairman Stu Berry, who called it a "farce from start to finish. We now face a situation where dog handlers are reluctant to do their job." Both officers were subject to a two-year long investigation and now still face internal misconduct proceedings. They have not been allowed to work on the front-line during this process, and so the last quote to PC Jackson, the police dog handler cleared of any wrongdoing.
"It’s ludicrous it got that far. I feel like I was being punished for doing my job, being too proactive. Jerry and I used to be a great team - we were catching criminals. I was making arrests, now two years of not being able to [that]. That’s what members of the public have lost out on."
"I’m not saying there shouldn’t be an investigation body of any sort. What we do, we should be accountable for doing so. But the way they do it is just wrong. I’ve been treated terribly by the IOPC. There’s been no consideration whatsoever from the IOPC investigators into the work that we do, the stress and everything that we work under, and the split-second decisions that we have to make on a daily basis."
Its obvious to anyone who hasn't got a strange agenda to "influence positive changes to policing." that criminals running away have to be captured by police, not allowed to escape .... if for example a murderer is allowed to escape, simply because police dogs can't be used to capture them, for fear of prosecution by the IOPC, then they kill again, that blood would be solely on the hands of the IOPC and its regional director.
This is definitely the age of of the PC warrior. They are now getting in to position of power and it shows.
ReplyDeleteYes, sadly they are reaching the age where they are in senior positions, and can impact the rest of us. Thanks for the comment(s).
Delete