Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[dondadda]

Anti-police trolls indeed. I guess the superiors investigating the lunatic's conduct are anti-police trolls too.

[Bigends]

vonhosen said:

Bigends said:

vonhosen said:

Bigends said:

vonhosen said:

dondadda said:

vonhosen said:

Was he arrested after they got him out of the vehicle?

Arrest takes two forms
a) Being informed you are under arrest OR
b) Hands on & being informed you are under arrest as soon as reasonably practicable 'after' that.

He wasnt arrested.

Its a bit disingeneous to try to claim this as a 'hands on' arrest. What was the driver doing that would have necessitated such a loony 'hands on' arrest?

It's not disingenuous, I'm merely point out that the words don't have to precede the act of arrest.
The words can mean you are under arrest, or the laying of hands can amount to arrest (the laying of hands having to be followed by the verbal requirements under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as soon as reasonably practicable after that.)

But theres no need for the words not to have been said here if the cop had grounds. Its not as if they were rolling around fighting on the floor and the cop was waiting for a pause in proceedings in order to do so was he?

He may argue that he doesn't have control of 'the suspect' & therefore did not want to be uttering the words until he has, after all he may argue 'the suspect' was not co-operating in him being able to have (what he considered) to be satisfactory control (i.e. flight risk).

Perrlease- do you honestly think he thought that..really? Saying the words - getting another refusal to get out then gives him carte blanche to take whatever action he wants to get him out. Only problem is he had nothing to arrest him for..TJ - whoever he is - not the driver in this case -was merely a provisional licence holder-therefore this turned out to be a pretty minor traffic stop in the great scheme of things

I don't know what grounds he had, ( I didn't even know if the person was arrested post incident & I don't know what happened or was said before it all), but I'm not really arguing about that, any actions are for the officer to justify.

I'm merely pointing out that he doesn't have to utter the words prior to laying hands & if he does go for laying hands first he only has to utter the words as soon as reasonably practicable after the event.

This was built into PACE -same as Judges rules back in the day -in the events of a situation where it wouldnt be practical to say the words to the suspect eg a violent struggle prior to arrest or because of the situation it may not be clear they were under arrest. Certainly not the case here, he had a calm subject he was dealing with in the car . He should have been told as soon as practicable he was under arrest i.e. as soon as the results of the radio message were received and confirmed. -Only in this case - he had nothing to arrest him for - hence the problems

[Alpinestars]

Bigends said:

This was built into PACE -same as Judges rules back in the day -in the events of a situation where it wouldnt be practical to say the words to the suspect eg a violent struggle prior to arrest or because of the situation it may not be clear they were under arrest. Certainly not the case here, he had a calm subject he was dealing with in the car . He should have been told as soon as practicable he was under arrest i.e. as soon as the results of the radio message were received and confirmed. -Only in this case - he had nothing to arrest him for - hence the problems

He COULD have arrested him for not giving his name and address (S165 RTA 1988).

[vonhosen]

Bigends said:

This was built into PACE -same as Judges rules back in the day -in the events of a situation where it wouldnt be practical to say the words to the suspect eg a violent struggle prior to arrest or because of the situation it may not be clear they were under arrest. Certainly not the case here, he had a calm subject he was dealing with in the car . He should have been told as soon as practicable he was under arrest i.e. as soon as the results of the radio message were received and confirmed. -Only in this case - he had nothing to arrest him for - hence the problems

Nothing in PACE says the words have to be uttered before laying hands, only that where laying hands first is used that the words must uttered as soon as practicable afterwards.

PACE said:

28. - (1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest.

(2) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious.

(3) Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.

(4) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious.

(5) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed -

(a) that he is under arrest; or
(b) of the ground for the arrest,
if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given.

[Bigends]

vonhosen said:

Bigends said:

This was built into PACE -same as Judges rules back in the day -in the events of a situation where it wouldnt be practical to say the words to the suspect eg a violent struggle prior to arrest or because of the situation it may not be clear they were under arrest. Certainly not the case here, he had a calm subject he was dealing with in the car . He should have been told as soon as practicable he was under arrest i.e. as soon as the results of the radio message were received and confirmed. -Only in this case - he had nothing to arrest him for - hence the problems

Nothing in PACE says the words have to be uttered before laying hands, only that where laying hands first is used that the words must uttered as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards.

PACE said:

28. - (1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest.

(2) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious.

(3) Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.

(4) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious.

(5) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed -

(a) that he is under arrest; or
(b) of the ground for the arrest,
if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given.

So, youre saying it was ok for the Cop to bash his way into the car - grab the driver and pull him out without mentioning the word 'Arrest' Major misapplication of PACE rules here i'm afraid

[Terzo123]

Bigends said:

So, youre saying it was ok for the Cop to bash his way into the car - grab the driver and pull him out without mentioning the word 'Arrest' Major misapplication of PACE rules here i'm afraid

Who is to say he didn't?

Prior to the video starting he may have told the driver exactly what was going to happen depending on the outcome of the check.

[vonhosen]

Bigends said:

vonhosen said:

Bigends said:

This was built into PACE -same as Judges rules back in the day -in the events of a situation where it wouldnt be practical to say the words to the suspect eg a violent struggle prior to arrest or because of the situation it may not be clear they were under arrest. Certainly not the case here, he had a calm subject he was dealing with in the car . He should have been told as soon as practicable he was under arrest i.e. as soon as the results of the radio message were received and confirmed. -Only in this case - he had nothing to arrest him for - hence the problems

Nothing in PACE says the words have to be uttered before laying hands, only that where laying hands first is used that the words must uttered as soon as reasonably practicable afterwards.

PACE said:

28. - (1) Subject to subsection (5) below, where a person is arrested, otherwise than by being informed that he is under arrest, the arrest is not lawful unless the person arrested is informed that he is under arrest as soon as is practicable after his arrest.

(2) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (1) above applies regardless of whether the fact of the arrest is obvious.

(3) Subject to subsection (5) below, no arrest is lawful unless the person arrested is informed of the ground for the arrest at the time of, or as soon as is practicable after, the arrest.

(4) Where a person is arrested by a constable, subsection (3) above applies regardless of whether the ground for the arrest is obvious.

(5) Nothing in this section is to be taken to require a person to be informed -

(a) that he is under arrest; or
(b) of the ground for the arrest,
if it was not reasonably practicable for him to be so informed by reason of his having escaped from arrest before the information could be given.

So, youre saying it was ok for the Cop to bash his way into the car - grab the driver and pull him out without mentioning the word 'Arrest' Major misapplication of PACE rules here i'm afraid

No

I'm pointing out that the choice of words followed by laying hands, or laying hands followed by words is the officer's choice & if he goes for laying hands first that the words must follow as soon as practicable after. That's the obligations under PACE to make the arrest lawful.
PACE doesn't require that words come first where they could have, only that if words follow laying hands that they must come as soon as practicable after.

I'm saying that to point out what the legislation is, rather than anything to do with this particular case because it appeared some were not aware of it. With regard to this particular case I've already made my position clear, I'll be interested to hear what other information there is in relation to the incident & what the outcome of the investigation is.

[Bigends]

Terzo123 said:

Bigends said:

So, youre saying it was ok for the Cop to bash his way into the car - grab the driver and pull him out without mentioning the word 'Arrest' Major misapplication of PACE rules here i'm afraid

Who is to say he didn't?

Prior to the video starting he may have told the driver exactly what was going to happen depending on the outcome of the check.

Listen to the Video - do you hear the Cop saying anything the the effect of - Hed warned him hed be under arrest depending on the result of the PNC check p no you dont.
In any case - simply holding a Provisional licence ISNT grounds for arrest on its own

[Bigyoke]

Bigends said:

So, youre saying it was ok for the Cop to bash his way into the car - grab the driver and pull him out without mentioning the word 'Arrest' Major misapplication of PACE rules here i'm afraid

Police officers force entry to premises* all the time without mentioning arrest until the occupants of said premises are secured and under control.

• ( as an experienced former officer you'll know that PACE defines a vehicle as premises )

[Bigends]

Bigyoke said:

Bigends said:

So, youre saying it was ok for the Cop to bash his way into the car - grab the driver and pull him out without mentioning the word 'Arrest' Major misapplication of PACE rules here i'm afraid

Police officers force entry to premises* all the time without mentioning arrest until the occupants of said premises are secured and under control.

• ( as an experienced former officer you'll know that PACE defines a vehicle as premises )

Youre really NOT comparing the two are you?? Its different battering your way into a house and locating the occupants before arresting somebody. The Cop was in full view and within two feet of the suspect here - this is a real straw clutching exercise here folks

[Alpinestars]

Terzo123 said:

Who is to say he didn't?

Prior to the video starting he may have told the driver exactly what was going to happen depending on the outcome of the check.

Apparently a quote from the MET - no arrest was made. PC Savage is being investigated for the use of force.

"Although the investigation is in its early stages, it has been established that the officers stopped the vehicle based on information relating to a man who is of interest to police. On conclusion of the incident the officers identified that the driver was not the man in question and he was not arrested.

"The investigation will examine the officer's use of force during the incident."

Edited by Alpinestars on Monday 3rd October 19:35

[Terzo123]

Alpinestars said:

Apparently a quote from the MET - no arrest was made. PC Savage is being investigated for the use of force.

"Although the investigation is in its early stages, it has been established that the officers stopped the vehicle based on information relating to a man who is of interest to police. On conclusion of the incident the officers identified that the driver was not the man in question and he was not arrested.

"The investigation will examine the officer's use of force during the incident."

Edited by Alpinestars on Monday 3rd October 19:35

Thanks.

Wasn't aware of that.

Bigends would have done well to read my post properly.

[Bigyoke]

Bigends said:

Youre really NOT comparing the two are you?? Its different battering your way into a house and locating the occupants before arresting somebody. The Cop was in full view and within two feet of the suspect here - this is a real straw clutching exercise here folks

Comparing what Walter? YOU suggested that forcing entry without mentioning arrest was in some way a breach of PACE, I pointed out that, if it is, it is one that occurs on a daily basis, so maybe you're mistaken.

As for clutching at straws, I don't have a dog in this fight & couldn't really give a fiddlers about PC Savage, TJ or his cousin.

[Bigends]

Terzo123 said:

Alpinestars said:

Apparently a quote from the MET - no arrest was made. PC Savage is being investigated for the use of force.

"Although the investigation is in its early stages, it has been established that the officers stopped the vehicle based on information relating to a man who is of interest to police. On conclusion of the incident the officers identified that the driver was not the man in question and he was not arrested.

"The investigation will examine the officer's use of force during the incident."

Edited by Alpinestars on Monday 3rd October 19:35

Thanks.

Wasn't aware of that.

Bigends would have done well to read my post properly.

Which bit did I get wrong. Looks like the car was stopped on spec - assuming the driver was TJ without actually checking who the driver was - just as ive said all along

Edited by Bigends on Monday 3rd October 19:47

[Bigends]

Bigyoke said:

Bigends said:

Youre really NOT comparing the two are you?? Its different battering your way into a house and locating the occupants before arresting somebody. The Cop was in full view and within two feet of the suspect here - this is a real straw clutching exercise here folks

Comparing what Walter? YOU suggested that forcing entry without mentioning arrest was in some way a breach of PACE, I pointed out that, if it is, it is one that occurs on a daily basis, so maybe you're mistaken.

As for clutching at straws, I don't have a dog in this fight & couldn't really give a fiddlers about PC Savage, TJ or his cousin.

You compared forcing entry to a building to forcing entry to a car -not quite sure how that works.

[Terzo123]

Bigends said:

Terzo123 said:

Alpinestars said:

Apparently a quote from the MET - no arrest was made. PC Savage is being investigated for the use of force.

"Although the investigation is in its early stages, it has been established that the officers stopped the vehicle based on information relating to a man who is of interest to police. On conclusion of the incident the officers identified that the driver was not the man in question and he was not arrested.

"The investigation will examine the officer's use of force during the incident."

Edited by Alpinestars on Monday 3rd October 19:35

Thanks.

Wasn't aware of that.

Bigends would have done well to read my post properly.

Which bit did I get wrong

I suggested he could have said something prior to the video starting. You then quoted me saying that you never heard him say anything of the sort on the video clip. Kind of my point " prior to the video starting"

It would appear though, the point is neither here nor there, as Alpinestars provided clarification.

[Rovinghawk]

frankenstein12 said:

Tell me how the officer could have arrested him since he refused to exit his vehicle and locked the doors?

I'll go with what VonHosen said, ie using the words "You're under arrest" or similar. Quite simple, really.

frankenstein12 said:

No I am saying that sometimes common sense trumps being an asshole determined to stick to the very letter of the law just because you have a chip on your shoulder.

Why shouldn't someone conform to the law? Why should someone else act unlawfully as a consequence? Based on this, which of the two appeared to have the chip?

frankenstein12 said:

Well I would suggest the officer only lost control of his temper after dealing having to deal with the non compliant douchebag.One in a long line of know it all arrogant douchebags

So it's ok for him to lose his temper because he's been upset, possibly on a regular basis? Why didn't you say? That justifies everything.

Jesus wept

[Bigyoke]

Bigends said:

You compared forcing entry to a building to forcing entry to a car -not quite sure how that works.

I never mentioned a building. I'm pretty sure this has been covered ad nausium with reference to this particular situation so to be clear I'm not referring to what happened in the video but AFAIK there is no requirement to advise the occupant(s) of a premises, whether that's a building, a car, a ship or an aeroplane, that they are under arrest before forcing entry.

You have suggested that it is in fact a breach of PACE - on what basis? The Bigends Big Book of made up law? Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong & will eat the pie made of humble.

I don't know if this link works but I'm pretty sure the occupants of the blue car weren't 'told' they were under arrest until some time after they had been removed from the vehicle.

http://youtu.be/_2taW2oBWQY

[spookly]

I think the worrying elephant in the room here is that;

• The use of force was not really justified for driving otherwise than in accordance with a license
• PC Savage, if he was using said force due to suspecting this bloke was a violent rapist/murderer/paedo/robber, then he still failed to verify identity first

If the police use force like this without first checking who they are applying it to, then it could happen to any one of us with no reason or justification. All it would take is mistaken identity, a bit of confirmation bias and a gung-ho officer.

Applying that kind of force to an innocent person or their property is clearly not going to be acceptable to society. Even if the police decide PC Savage has done nothing wrong, I would respectfully disagree.
He lost his temper, not a good look.
He failed to verify who he had stopped.
The force appears completely disproportionate to a driving offence.
Ultimately, he did all of this to someone who it seems was innocent of any offence as he was never arrested.

[vonhosen]

spookly said:

I think the worrying elephant in the room here is that;

• The use of force was not really justified for driving otherwise than in accordance with a license
• PC Savage, if he was using said force due to suspecting this bloke was a violent rapist/murderer/paedo/robber, then he still failed to verify identity first

If the police use force like this without first checking who they are applying it to, then it could happen to any one of us with no reason or justification. All it would take is mistaken identity, a bit of confirmation bias and a gung-ho officer.

Applying that kind of force to an innocent person or their property is clearly not going to be acceptable to society. Even if the police decide PC Savage has done nothing wrong, I would respectfully disagree.
He lost his temper, not a good look.
He failed to verify who he had stopped.
The force appears completely disproportionate to a driving offence.
Ultimately, he did all of this to someone who it seems was innocent of any offence as he was never arrested.

Again not applying this to this particular incident but to the points you are making instead.

Plenty of people don't have their ID verified until they've had a fingerprint ID etc come back (i.e. they have given details but these have not been confirmed to be false until fingerprint confirmed & who they in fact were.)
If there are grounds for arrest & the person won't get out of the car, then forcing entry to the car is reasonable even if the offence there are grounds to arrest for is a relatively minor (traffic) matter.