Stinks in my opinion. He had a warrant out for his arrest after skipping bail and after getting in a fight he REFUSED hospital treatment for a head injury and then sues the police for him not receiving treatment which led to a brain injury. Well tough **** he shouldn't get a penny
He was in police custody and deserved better treatment. His behaviour after the fight may well have been influenced by the brain injury.
But if he refused to receive treatment then what are they supposed to do? What was it that influenced his behaviour in being an horrible human being who skipped bail?
You live in such a goldilocks world You dont know the full facts but again off you go making assumptions How did he sustain his injury ?
Can't see anywhere he refused treatment, paramedics looked at him and told police he had a head injury. He wasn't checked and they failed to note he had a head injury when taken into the police station. Police have a duty of care and they failed. Simple as that.
He refused to go with the paramedics to hospital saying that he didnt need treatment. I just fail to see how when he stated he didn't need treatment and he refused to be treated that he can then sue for not being treated.
BBC story does say that the man declined the advice of paramedics to go to hospital, the Chronicle story doesn't. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-25728721 Having said that, the police knew he had a head injury and ought to have taken more care with him, be that putting him under observation whilst at the station rather than treating him as if he was drunk, and he was the victim of an attack that night.
If that was the case, not mentioned in 6 reports I've read, then it still doesn't matter. He'd been hit over the head with a scaffolding pole. He probably wasn't making good decisions at that point. That's still immaterial however as the police failed to make a record of his injury so when he failed to wake and was then sick they presumed he was drunk. They've even taken the rare step of admitting they ****ed up. Unfortunately for them he didn't die. Why? There's been over 1000 deaths in police custody since 1969 and not a single policeoff has veebeen ciconvicted of
The police are not judge jury and executioner they have a duty of care whilst they have temporarily removed people from society they should have taken him to hospital and if he had refused treatment after a proper medical examination or refused an examination whilst there that would have been different. We are not in a police state and if they do not go by the book they have to face the consequences.
Sorry should have read: There's been over 1000 deaths in police custody since 1969 and not a single police officer has been convicted.
No worries Marlon. Must admit I'm torn 'cos I always tell my kids to take personal responsibility for their actions but the guy can't take himself to hospital if he's locked up. However if he'd turned up to court when he should have he wouldn't have been in the cell in the first place. IF the police hadn't arrested him what would've happened? Would he have made it home? Did he live with his parents or did he live alone? If he did live alone would he have died there? IF my brother was a lass he'd be my sister. IF Danny had come to us instead of going the the blunts we wouldn't have got stuck with King Keef.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have been arrested in fact he definitely should ave been but once in their custody then its their responsibility for his care and treatment. We cannot as a society let the authorities do as they see fit. They work for us and signed an agreement in exchange for a wage/career. Just as anyone else eg elderly /disabled care workers etc