I'm not sure it's sensible to presume any agreement from interlocutors, but if you do, then I do agree that it's the right thing to say so.
My own guess -- it's nothing more -- is that the officers were acting just to effect an arrest on arrival, as requested, quite possibly without any knowledge of the content of wretched tweet at all*, and that their being armed was absolutely incidental. But I don't know any reliable facts.
I do think the turning up (5?) en masse to do so was possibly complacent and unthinking, if there was no reason to believe the arrestee was a threat. If they had been doing so for good reason, I guess they could have had at least one weapon trained at him, and had him hands above head or on the ground in no time. But I know no reliable facts of the incident whatsoever. Perhaps they were Father Ted fans -- seriously -- and trogged along, on a quiet afternoon, to see the man himself. Perhaps they and/or their CO will get a severe bollocking from above. I don't know.
* But even that with some reservations. The last time I looked up cases on wrongful arrest, years ago, I think I remember there being held then to be at least some onus on the acting arresting officer to be satisfied that the required grounds for a lawful arrest did exist. And I don't know any of the facts of the present case.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.