After reading through the article “Gary slams politicians, lawyers, as cop killed in cold blood”, published an hour ago on the Daily Express’ website, I had to wonder whether the Commissioner of Police (CoP) Gary Griffith is uneducated, ignorant of the law, merely stupid or a combination of all three.
Gary, your statements are absurd bordering on the stupid, if not already passing that gate. If I had to break down the utter tripe you spewed, it might be a doctoral thesis.
First, “the rights of cold-blooded criminals to be free when held with a firearm, have precedence over the rights of law-abiding citizens to survive in this country” is utter nonsense.
Starting with ‘cold-blooded criminals’ you mislead yourself. Any individual is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt after a trial. So, merely arresting a person, whether caught with arms or not, doesn’t make that person automatically guilty. The burden lies with you, your officers and the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to make a sound case for proving that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Mouthing off to the public surely isn’t the way, or the evidence needed.
Continuing, the rights of alleged criminals are the same as those of the law-abiding citizens, so you again mislead yourself, your TTPS officers (who lack legal training) and the public when you spout such drivel. The Constitution guarantees that rights are for everyone. Not just those whom you think deserves them. Your opinion matters not in the slightest, really.
“It is difficult for the police to be doing their job of arresting these individuals with firearms only for them to be given a get out of jail free card, to go back onto the streets.”
Rights, Gary, rights. It is up to Parliament to abrogate those rights but even Parliament can be constrained if it breaches the Constitution. Rights must be balanced.
“Why must we wait for these cold-blooded killers to commit their act, before we understand that they should not be entitled to their freedom?”
Simple, Gary. It is still not part of the law to convict people on merely suspicion, or intention. Murder has two parts, an intent to kill or do serious harm, and the act of doing so. Hence, you can only convict after, and you need proof Gary. Real, solid evidence that can be tested and accepted in a court. Not the Mickey Mouse braggadocio of a CoP with an elevated opinion of his capabilities and unaware of his limitations.
“…we must start setting the precedence of looking over the rights of law-abiding citizens, over the rights of criminals”. Go back to paragraph 5, Gary. The rights of alleged criminals are the same as those of the law-abiding citizens, so you continue to mislead yourself.
Close mouth and engage brain, Gary. You have legal advisers, and many police officers who studied law. Consult them. They must be hanging their head in shame right now. Remember the Scotland Yard detective who mentioned, “Lions led by donkeys”? Surely, your entire TTPS members must be realising what that is like.
