Seriously unimpressed
Discussion
TPS said:
In my eyes,yes it was.
He had failed to stop and had committed other offences.there comes a point where they have to think of their own safety and that of the public.What if he drove off again and then drove faster.
He had a choice to stop,he did not so he has to accept the end result.
They had his name and address already, if they possessed a brain cell between them i think they could have made an educated guess he was just going home. A sensible person would have just followed him home and then had a word. All that was achieved lots of damage to private property and putting one member of public in harms way and glass being spread over the road to add more danger for other motorists.He had failed to stop and had committed other offences.there comes a point where they have to think of their own safety and that of the public.What if he drove off again and then drove faster.
He had a choice to stop,he did not so he has to accept the end result.
Very sensible policing!
FasterFreddy said:
Mr Dave said:
And 15 whacks with a baton including running up and hitting the window to break it? Police need something better to break modern car windows with. saw that a few times when police are trying to break car windows.
Sure, but as I said they seem to like bashing things with their big sticks. The first plod to get one of these out would get the piss taken out of him something rotten...
Edited by FasterFreddy on Thursday 5th August 17:31
TPS said:
carinaman said:
Safety?
Standing on the bonnet?
Not ensuring it had the handbrake on?
Safety? He was doing 40mph and didn't touch the solid white line once.
They can quickly jump of the bonnet.Standing on the bonnet?
Not ensuring it had the handbrake on?
Safety? He was doing 40mph and didn't touch the solid white line once.
They can not do anything about the handbrake until they get inside the car.Seriously think about your comment
So just because he is doing 40mph you think it is safe.What if he went faster?
He only stopped because there was a stinger.
Or would you smash the s
t out of his vehicle, just in case..?TPS said:
They can quickly jump of the bonnet.
I presume the Officer did that to prevent him being able to see if he drove off again?Bearing in mind the fuss the bloke made about his medical condition I'm surprised the court didn't take his licence off him.
And the dodgy numberplate and excessive tint are just so stereotypical.
Hedders said:
They had his name and address already...
Sorry if I've missed it, but I've just re-read the article, and I can't see where it says that.Even if he had given "a" name and address, even the keeper's details, had they been verified? I've dealt with people who have given the keeper's details from stuff they've ratted in the glove box, having just stolen the vehicle they're in. Not many, but it happens.
Of course, the other side of the argument/discussion is that the BiB were acting like cocks and went over the top.
TPS said:
So just because he is doing 40mph you think it is safe.What if he went faster?
How fast do you suspect he might have gone? 50? 60? 70mph?? :EEK: oh my gosh. It is too scary to contemplate. But you are right, he might have even gone at what, 140mph in that car..140mph!!!Throw the book at him, i can't believe he could have been doing 140mph on that road given the chance. what a nutcase!!!
He deserved everything he got, the potential for death and destruction was huge!!
defblade said:
Just cos he's old, doesn't mean he's a nice bloke.
+1Was he driving slowly to make it easier for him to conceal drugs or something else, was he phoneing ahead to warn someone else. The police didn't know what he was doing/arranging other than he drove off during a stop.
Dibble said:
Hedders said:
They had his name and address already...
Sorry if I've missed it, but I've just re-read the article, and I can't see where it says that.Even if he had given "a" name and address, even the keeper's details, had they been verified? I've dealt with people who have given the keeper's details from stuff they've ratted in the glove box, having just stolen the vehicle they're in. Not many, but it happens.
Of course, the other side of the argument/discussion is that the BiB were acting like cocks and went over the top.
- I specified englishman becuase i know some cultures tend to take advantage of the confusion of everybody having the same name.
Hedders said:
They had his name and address already, if they possessed a brain cell between them i think they could have made an educated guess he was just going home. A sensible person would have just followed him home and then had a word. All that was achieved lots of damage to private property and putting one member of public in harms way and glass being spread over the road to add more danger for other motorists.
Very sensible policing!
They do not know why he would not stop though.Did he have something in the car he should not etc.Very sensible policing!
The damage to private property is a direct result of the drivers actions and I have no sympathy.
A little bit of glass in the road I doubt is going to cause a major issue,in fact for all we know the police may have swept it up after the incident.
Its this kind of attitude which helps contribute to the nanny state we are in.
Hedders said:
TPS said:
So just because he is doing 40mph you think it is safe.What if he went faster?
How fast do you suspect he might have gone? 50? 60? 70mph?? :EEK: oh my gosh. It is too scary to contemplate. But you are right, he might have even gone at what, 140mph in that car..140mph!!!Throw the book at him, i can't believe he could have been doing 140mph on that road given the chance. what a nutcase!!!
He deserved everything he got, the potential for death and destruction was huge!!
Hedders said:
Dibble said:
Hedders said:
They had his name and address already...
Sorry if I've missed it, but I've just re-read the article, and I can't see where it says that.Even if he had given "a" name and address, even the keeper's details, had they been verified? I've dealt with people who have given the keeper's details from stuff they've ratted in the glove box, having just stolen the vehicle they're in. Not many, but it happens.
Of course, the other side of the argument/discussion is that the BiB were acting like cocks and went over the top.
- I specified englishman becuase i know some cultures tend to take advantage of the confusion of everybody having the same name.
Some people play on their disability as they think it will lessen the penalty/help them get off. How did this man's disability manifest itself? Was it obvious to the officers, or did it not get mentioned until he got to Court?
I'm glad you are sure what the Police in this situation "knew". It must be supertastic being omniscient.
TPS said:
Hedders said:
TPS said:
So just because he is doing 40mph you think it is safe.What if he went faster?
How fast do you suspect he might have gone? 50? 60? 70mph?? :EEK: oh my gosh. It is too scary to contemplate. But you are right, he might have even gone at what, 140mph in that car..140mph!!!Throw the book at him, i can't believe he could have been doing 140mph on that road given the chance. what a nutcase!!!
He deserved everything he got, the potential for death and destruction was huge!!
There was nothing wrong with his driving.
oldsoak said:
So let's see, he gets stopped for no seat belt and whilst being dealt with makes off and is pursued for 8 miles and only stops because a stinger is waiting for him...
I'm not impressed either, I'd like to bet that his windscreen was smashed because he'd locked himself in and the police couldn't ensure he wouldn't be able to drive off again by taking the vehicle keys.
What the hell was he thinking to drive off in the middle of being dealt with in the first place?
Makes off and is pursued for 8 miles, without breaking the speed limit? Hardly an exciting car chase.I'm not impressed either, I'd like to bet that his windscreen was smashed because he'd locked himself in and the police couldn't ensure he wouldn't be able to drive off again by taking the vehicle keys.
What the hell was he thinking to drive off in the middle of being dealt with in the first place?
mybrainhurts said:
Dibble said:
mybrainhurts said:
Did you not view the video, or are you being obtuse..?
There was nothing wrong with his driving.
Apart from the rather obvious failing to stop...There was nothing wrong with his driving.
Mail writes article to get a certain response. Mail gets response.
Mail writes article to get readers to insert own facts. Readers as evidenced here do just that based on the very ill informed prejudices against the police the mail has already worked hard on to inflate and grow.
He hadn't given his name. His age and disability ( if it exists) were claimed later. Yet still posters here manage to make the leap the officers knew of them.
Is it worth trying to point out to posters the other possible side?
Not really as those deep seated prejudices are quite alive and well.
Daily mail. Truths what you make it.
I'm shocked the driver wasn't a promising footballer.
Mail writes article to get readers to insert own facts. Readers as evidenced here do just that based on the very ill informed prejudices against the police the mail has already worked hard on to inflate and grow.
He hadn't given his name. His age and disability ( if it exists) were claimed later. Yet still posters here manage to make the leap the officers knew of them.
Is it worth trying to point out to posters the other possible side?
Not really as those deep seated prejudices are quite alive and well.
Daily mail. Truths what you make it.
I'm shocked the driver wasn't a promising footballer.
Dibble said:
mybrainhurts said:
Dibble said:
mybrainhurts said:
Did you not view the video, or are you being obtuse..?
There was nothing wrong with his driving.
Apart from the rather obvious failing to stop...There was nothing wrong with his driving.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff