Second, the police did attempt to figure out why the man jumped from the balcony. However, without the cooperation of the other people who were in the apartment, there is really no way to know for sure. And without knowing for sure, there's little prospect of anyone being convicted of a crime. The police don't have infinite resources. At some point you have to accept that the circumstances around a death may never be fully known. This happens all the time in the real world.
How would you know if a crime has been committed or not unless you actually find out the truth about the event/situation?
How would the police get involved unless a crime has been reported?
The parents suspected something. Once the Met started digging all the red flags should have made them take the whole affair seriously.
I mean, the daughter gives a thoroughly debunked testimony at the coroner inquest and somehow that’s normal and nothing to worry about?
Compared to peer nations, the US spends a decidedly ordinary amount of money on the police:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/how-police-compare-differen...
What makes policing in the United States different is the weakness of central (i.e. federal) authority and lack of nationwide standards of training and conduct. Typical US police training is about six months, while European programs are not rarely three years (including essentially an associates degree in law enforcement). A parallel issue is civil asset forfeiture, which can amount to legitimized robbery.
Its clear that many of the legal and police systems in European countries were built directly out of the legacy of the monarchies and/or fascism, where absolute and centralized power directly administrates the affairs of the law and the state. So even if they are more well funded, well trained, and more effective than their american counterparts, the threat of total control, and terror through domination, still looms large.
What? Not only are those allowed, we already have them. That's what the FBI is.
Also, if funding is your concern, it's routine for state police to be federally funded.
Even if state police are federally funded, why does that matter? The use of that funding is still under the power of the state (or else it would be unconstitutional, for the federal government to direct how state institutions are operated).
It matters quite a bit to the question of whether federally funded police would ever be allowed. You stated outright that they weren't.
> The use of that funding is still under the power of the state (or else it would be unconstitutional, for the federal government to direct how state institutions are operated).
The normal way in which federal funding operates is that they direct its usage. You're not compelled to do what they want, but if you don't, they don't give you the money.
It's probably fair to say that nearly all mysterious deaths imply the possibility of some sort of malfeasance.
On a serious point though, I think there is some value in purely investigative work by the police even when there's no prospect of a successful prosecution. Unusual cases might lead to better insights into things that affect many more people: revealing well-hidden criminal gangs for instance. Even if the police can't pin the guilt on a specific suspect or accidental cause, the result of an investigation might simply be better public awareness of a risk, which is a good thing.
Simply knowing that every 'mysterious' death will be thoroughly and exhaustively investigated is a massive deterrent to just wiping out your enemies as happens so commonly in many places that have no form of homicide / cold case department.
The job of the police is to preserve order and accord. That includes investigating, thorougly, mysteries, especially mysteries that involve people jumping off balconies. To avoid a scenario where 'clever people' wander around the country leaving a trail of bodies in their wake because they keep covering their tracks effectively.
Seems odd to suggest so firmly and decisively 'oh well too bad so sad, not a police matter, let's move on!' especially given the way the other relevant parties are described to have behaved.
I also think that it would be overreach for the police to do this kind of thing. The UK is not a police state (in theory at least). The police have no business investigating anyone who they don’t suspect of having committed a crime. In this case, of course, there were reasonable grounds for suspicion and so there was an initial investigation. However, once it became clear that there was no realistic prospect of proving that anyone in the apartment was legally responsible for the young man’s death, there was nothing for the police to do.
It's easy to get sucked in by the fascinating story told in the article and forget that legally speaking almost everything turns on the last few minutes before the man jumped – about which we know almost nothing. If he didn't jump in response to an imminent threat to his life, then good luck making any kind of criminal case.
>To avoid a scenario where 'clever people' wander around the country leaving a trail of bodies in their wake because they keep covering their tracks effectively.
In this case the only person who could realistically be guilty of murder or manslaughter (Sharma) is now dead. So we need not fear that he will kill again.
- misgendering tweets are more important than unexplained deaths
- police would be less starved if they allocated their priorities better
Using a software dev analogy. It's like each case is a feature ticket, and then constantly grooming the backlog so any feature related to say "GDPR" is marked as too-large and pushed to the bottom.
Rather, case-files should be completed FIFO with very clear rules and thresholds for when it can't be meaningfully resolved. Same goes for prosecutorial discretion.
In summation, commentary from my side: "WTF is wrong with these people, I'm surprised society hasn't fallen apart."
The UK is going to fall apart because the level of corruption has reached the scale that nobody who's competent and prepared to do a good job (i.e. moral people who see doing a good and thorough job as a core value) wants to put up with it any more. It's too visible.
I studied Computer Science in the UK and the very first job I got (in central London providing service to names you'd certainly recognise) was with this absolute cowboy outfit managed service provider that was providing about 1/4 of the services it claimed to provide. Backups? Yes, you're getting billed for them, no, they aren't happening. Hot spares? See above. Redundancy? See above. On call? See above. The lying was endemic and it was gross. I developed a chronic drinking problem while working there and I really do think working/being in an atmosphere of bullshit affects you in some sort of karmic way.
The UK is going to fail if they don't drastically change trajectory because everyone who isn't gross is going to leave, and the tap of infinite numbers of exploitable Poles has been turned off.
I think it’s fair to call your second bullet point a ‘hot take’. Police funding was hit hard by austerity and the effects of that are still with us. It’s not credible or evidence-based to attribute the overall shortage of resources to overpolicing of tweets (however annoying and stupid that may be considered in itself).
And while you're correct that the article you linked is a bullshit waste of time, it probably represents around .005% of the forces allotted time in a year.
There is no big gotcha here, other than the reality that politics is a part of policing.
But it is far from guaranteed that a more rigorous investigation would have yielded meaningful answers, let alone a conviction. The parents' theory (that he died accidentally while trying to escape danger) sounds plausible to me, but of course it would when carefully presented by a sympathetic journalist who also decides what other facts of the case to disclose to us. I am doubtful that evidence could be produced to achieve anything close to the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshold required to sustain a conviction. That alone could be a reason for the police to decide not to devote significant additional resources to the investigation. We will probably never know.
That’s a very limited point of view and is more representative of the role of the police in a given context. This might be how it works in London and in the US, but it is not the case everywhere. There are systems, for example, with different police forces, one for actual policing and one working with the judiciary and whose role is explicitly to investigate and find the truth in such cases.
In this case, yes. London and the whole British establishment are thoroughly corrupt and the police is subservient.
Yes, that is what I am talking about, as this happened in London. As far as I'm aware, most police forces (of the kind that anyone would want to emulate) are focused on investigating crimes, not on attempting to resolve arbitrary mysterious circumstances.
>London and the whole British establishment are thoroughly corrupt and the police is subservient.
The simplest explanation for why the police stopped investigating is that there isn't any very strong evidence that anyone still alive (Sharma is now dead) is legally responsible for the death of the man who jumped from the balcony. Even if you are right that everything is the worst and everyone is corrupt, it doesn't follow that corruption is explanation for what happened in this instance. The police attempted to find out the truth, but none of the key witnesses were cooperative.
E.g., this bit: "The Coroner is expected to open an inquest where there is reasonable suspicion that the deceased has died a violent or unnatural death, where the cause of death is unknown or if the deceased died while in custody or state detention as defined by section 1(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009."
>[...] in such danger at that very moment from the other people in the apartment that those people could be held legally responsible for the death.
You can get convicted for murder when you never even met the victim or knew about them:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/12/18/felony-murder-...
"As a result of the crash, which all parties agreed was unintentional, two men stood accused of murdering his father and a friend who was cycling with him. One of those charged, twenty-five-year-old Sadik Baxter, had never laid eyes on the victims. At the moment of impact, he had been miles away, in handcuffs.
"When Donna heard the charges, she asked, How is this even possible? Ian had learned the answer in law school: a sweeping and uniquely American legal doctrine, often couched in terms of justice for victims’ families, called felony murder. To engage in certain unlawful activities, the theory goes, is to assume full responsibility if a death occurs—regardless of intent.
"The precipitating offenses in this case: Sadik Baxter had searched five cars for stray cash before surrendering when cops appeared, and O’Brian Oakley, his twenty-six-year-old friend, had fled the scene, lost control of his car in a police chase, and killed the bicyclists. The prosecution charged both men with two counts of felony murder in the first degree.
"Recently, Ian spoke with me about the case while caring for his newborn daughter in Brooklyn; as we talked, he sometimes ran his hand down a thick beard he’d grown in homage to his dad. 'It’s truly one of the cruellest ideas in the American legal system,' he said of felony murder. 'And most people don’t even know it exists.'"
Don't do that. Though luck, select your friends and activities better if you worry about this.
What about this real-world example from the same article:
"In 2015, when he was fifteen, LaKeith and four friends broke into two unoccupied homes in Millbrook, Alabama, to steal Xbox games and other electronics. A neighbor called the police, who appeared, guns drawn. LaKeith ran into the woods, and one of the officers shot and killed his friend, sixteen-year-old A’Donte Washington, who they said had a gun. The prosecution alleged that one of the older teen-agers had fired a shot, and a grand jury found that the officer’s use of force was “justified.” LaKeith was charged as an adult with murder, for the killing at the officer’s hand."
Is a 15-year-old really a murderer when a police shoots his friend for stealing Xbox games?
Elsewhere in the world, murder usually means a premeditated killing. This is something completely else.
Second degree "murder" also exists, as does third degree "murder" aka voluntary/involuntary manslaughter.
What? The one was just stealing stuff from cars. Do you think anybody who did some minor crime deserves to be heavily punished for something unrelated a friend of them did?
Why would cops even engage in a dangerous car chase for a petty theft? They should be held accountable, not the friend of a guy who killed a cyclist while fleeing from police.
There is nothing "just" about that.
> heavily punished for something unrelated a friend of them did?
It is not unrelated at all.
> They [the cops] should be held accountable
I agree with that. They too should be held accountable, yes.
> not the friend of a guy who killed a cyclist while fleeing from police.
The friend could have said "yo dude, let's not do crimes, it is stupid". If he would have done that the two cyclist would be still with us.
He did a crime. Intentionally. That crime directly lead to two deaths. He is punished for that. He thought he will be punished less severely. He was wrong. Sometimes when you roll a roulette wheel the ball stops at "two cyclist dead, you go to prison for life". The best strategy is to not roll the wheel.
> killed a cyclist
Killed two cyclist. Dean Amelkin and Christopher McConnell. Now that is a tragedy. Those two did not do anything wrong. They could be you, they could be me, they could be our parents, they could be our friends.
There's nothing direct about it. He was already in handcuffs when his friend decided to flee and the police decided to pursue. These other people made the decisions that killed the cyclists. The definition of murder is stretched beyond recognition here.
You probably think that these unexpected felony murder charges have a deterring effect that gets would-be criminals thinking twice about "rolling the wheel". But that's not the case either because statistics show nobody even knows about this legal doctrine (as mentioned in the New Yorker article).
Not really. I know it doesn't.
It's more like I have a limited amount of care. I imagine all the injustices and bad things in the world. There is so many of them. And I imagine them all in a rough order from the worst and most terrible injustices to the most minor ones. Idk the top might be a toddler dying of an easily treatable illness for reasons of neglect or capitalism. And the last one might be some well of person having to wait an extra minute to be served. And along the line somewhere I just stop caring with a passion. And this particular thing is over that line for me. This is what I mean when I say I can't work myself up about this.
Even if we concentrate just on this case, there are greater injustices I care about more.
The two cyclist moved down. That is tragic. My heart beats hard for them.
The fact that the cops violated policy by their speed during the chase. That's bad. The fact that seemingly there is no negative repercussion for this is even worse. That's an injustice I care about.
Then there is the fact that even if the cops were let go because of this. (Which doesn't really happen.) They would just get a job as a cop somewhere else. That is also fairly bad. I care about that.
Then there is a thing which some of the articles about this case allude to, but don't spell out exactly. It sounds like the dude got a longer sentence because he went for a trial. Practicing lawyers call this the "trial tax" unofficially. You absolutely have a right to a trial, but if you use that right you very often get more severe punishment. (for all kind of reasons) Now, that is bad. That is an injustice.
By the time I get to the dude's situation I run out of steam and care. Should he be punished? Yes. Does he deserve life in prison? Eh.... I don't think so. Was he sentenced according to the rules of the land? Appears to be. Are the laws of the land just? No, not really. Is it fair that circumstances outside of his direct control dramatically altered the course of his life? No, but I guess the cyclist would feel the same too.
Just basically the whole situation is too brainy for me to care about on an emotional level.