3 ms·

> So the claim that the U/C broke no laws himself is laughable. By being immune from such laws.

qwertox 5y ago
Yesterday I read a bit about the European Convention on Human Rights, where Article 2 – Right to life [0] left me thinking for a while. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence; b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Conv...
- dmurray 5y ago
  It's a bit loose, isn't it? You can shoot someone if it's the only way to prevent them ruffling your hair, escaping from an arrest for shoplifting, or inciting a political protest. But the ECHR is meant to be a lowest common denominator: states are encouraged to have their own stricter prohibitions on human rights abuses.
monkeycantype 5y ago
There’s a case in Geelong Australia where a stabbing was caught on grainy cctv, people knew who the perpetrator was, but there was no hard evidence. The undercover police set up a fake gang that recruited the suspect, and performed fake burglaries on prepared targets as part of their attempt to get him to confess, including the tv show staple of the undercover police officer cell mate, none of which worked he never confessed to the crime to his fellow ‘gang members’ This is the case: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/9687114 https://amp.abc.net.au/article/9687114 It was said to be the states most expensive unsuccessful undercover operation, after the operation was shut down a million dollar reward was offered. I believe it was evidence that was then provided that lead to a conviction

Yesterday I read a bit about the European Convention on Human Rights, where Article 2 – Right to life [0] left me thinking for a while. 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: a. in defence of any person from unlawful violence; b. in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; c. in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_2_of_the_European_Conv...

dmurray 5y ago
It's a bit loose, isn't it? You can shoot someone if it's the only way to prevent them ruffling your hair, escaping from an arrest for shoplifting, or inciting a political protest. But the ECHR is meant to be a lowest common denominator: states are encouraged to have their own stricter prohibitions on human rights abuses.

monkeycantype 5y ago

There’s a case in Geelong Australia where a stabbing was caught on grainy cctv, people knew who the perpetrator was, but there was no hard evidence. The undercover police set up a fake gang that recruited the suspect, and performed fake burglaries on prepared targets as part of their attempt to get him to confess, including the tv show staple of the undercover police officer cell mate, none of which worked he never confessed to the crime to his fellow ‘gang members’ This is the case: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/9687114 https://amp.abc.net.au/article/9687114 It was said to be the states most expensive unsuccessful undercover operation, after the operation was shut down a million dollar reward was offered. I believe it was evidence that was then provided that lead to a conviction