Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[anonymous-user]

Agreed. Pointless to rise.

If I dealt with a police officer who was acting unprofessionally then I'd consider a complaint after the event.

[Red 4]

vonhosen said:

I think you are the one missing the point.

You think they are a knob, so you act like a knob, they then think you are a knob & because they are a knob who thinks you are a knob they up the knob ante & so the cycle goes on.

Everyone else just thinks, look at that pair of knobs.

A better situation than that is one knob & one sensible person, then everybody else thinks look at that knob (singular rather than plural).
By responding in kind you just up the knob count & that doesn't improve the situation. Far better to win without being a knob. You don't have to be a knob to beat a knob, you just have two losers.

I didn't get out of my car and I pointed out his errors/ lack of knowledge of road traffic legislation and grounds for a search.

That was about as far as I got with being an arse.

He got wet. I didn't.

He wouldn't have got quite so wet or looked like a pillock if he'd had a different approach.

Simple really.

I,ve sat in the back of a couple of police cars over the years - when I was off duty - and I was quite happy to do so. I just didn't want to join this officer in his.

Conversely, I've also had off duty police officers sat in the back of my police vehicle and never had a problem.

Edited by Red 4 on Sunday 29th July 13:16

[Alpinestars]

La Liga said:

n the public gallery?

Yes.

[anonymous-user]

Alpinestars said:

La Liga said:

In the public gallery?

Yes.

Interesting. I've never sat through a trial other than to give evidence.

In terms of the 'not arrestable' comment you made notes on, I'm not sure what they meant exactly.

[Alpinestars]

La Liga said:

nteresting. I've never sat through a trial other than to give evidence.

In terms of the 'not arrestable' comment you made notes on, I'm not sure what they meant exactly.

It’s literally around the corner from work, which made it very convenient.

It was also fascinating - I have an interest in law and in cars, which made it even more so for me.

I still think you’re right re a provisional licence and arrest. My notes aren’t clear when I look back. P did state that S had the power to stop the vehicle, but no legal right to ask F to get out. And said S had no right to legally use force when he started to use it - I’ve got “provisional licence” written next to it, but I can’t recall whether P was making the point that force started when it was made clear F had a provisional licence.

Another point which was mentioned is that S changed his story from suspecting drugs to suspecting weapons. When examined by P, S said he got confused because of the stress of the situation. It was pretty clear to me that S didn’t believe their to be weapons in the car, at one point P humoured S by saying “if TJ had a firearm or large knife, what were you going to do, wave your penknife?”

Sat next to F and Savage at one point as well.

This incidence won’t be good for his career, so when you get “two dicks together”, one has more to lose than the other. A bit of EI should kick in. And perhaps some professional training.

[Bigends]

Alpinestars said:

La Liga said:

nteresting. I've never sat through a trial other than to give evidence.

In terms of the 'not arrestable' comment you made notes on, I'm not sure what they meant exactly.

It’s literally around the corner from work, which made it very convenient.

It was also fascinating - I have an interest in law and in cars, which made it even more so for me.

I still think you’re right re a provisional licence and arrest. My notes aren’t clear when I look back. P did state that S had the power to stop the vehicle, but no legal right to ask F to get out. And said S had no right to legally use force when he started to use it - I’ve got “provisional licence” written next to it, but I can’t recall whether P was making the point that force started when it was made clear F had a provisional licence.

Another point which was mentioned is that S changed his story from suspecting drugs to suspecting weapons. When examined by P, S said he got confused because of the stress of the situation. It was pretty clear to me that S didn’t believe their to be weapons in the car, at one point P humoured S by saying “if TJ had a firearm or large knife, what were you going to do, wave your penknife?”

Sat next to F and Savage at one point as well.

This incidence won’t be good for his career, so when you get “two dicks together”, one has more to lose than the other. A bit of EI should kick in. And perhaps some professional training.

Did the second officer at the scene give evidence?

[Alpinestars]

Bigends said:

Did the second officer at the scene give evidence?

Yes.

[carinaman]

Thank you for the Court report Alpinestars. Most useful.

[Alpinestars]

carinaman said:

Thank you for the Court report Alpinestars. Most useful.

No problem. The nuances are very important.

[stitched]

vonhosen said:

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

But there is no moral high ground for an arse to criticise an arse..To an outside observer they are just two of a kind, they are both the problem & as bad as each other.
Best case is to be/remain in control & not resort to being one.

Who is talking about moral high ground ?

I fear you are deliberately missing the point.

If a police officer wants someone to do something that he is not legally obliged to do then it is unwise to go in all guns blazing.

Simply put - if you want someone to cooperate then don't be a knob.

If you are then don't be surprised if your job is made more difficult than it needs to be.

I think you are the one missing the point.
I'm not suggesting that it is wise for a Police officer at all (or any other person in any other role).

I'm saying you think they are a knob, so you act like a knob, they then think you are a knob & because they are a knob who thinks you are a knob, they up the knob ante & so the cycle goes on.

Everyone else just thinks, look at that pair of knobs.

A better situation than that, if you encounter a knob, is don't act like a knob yourself, then everybody else thinks look at that knob (singular rather than plural).
By responding in kind you just up the knob count & that doesn't improve the situation. Far better to win without being a knob. You don't have to be a knob to beat a knob, resorting to being a knob yourself just results in two losers.

When you deal with disputes is your professional advice to the parties involved 'He's being a knob, so you be one too?'

I think most people would think a lot less of a paid professional police officer being a knob than they would a member of the public, or should I accept that the police employ overzealous knobs and be a bigger person?

[vonhosen]

stitched said:

vonhosen said:

Red 4 said:

vonhosen said:

But there is no moral high ground for an arse to criticise an arse..To an outside observer they are just two of a kind, they are both the problem & as bad as each other.
Best case is to be/remain in control & not resort to being one.

Who is talking about moral high ground ?

I fear you are deliberately missing the point.

If a police officer wants someone to do something that he is not legally obliged to do then it is unwise to go in all guns blazing.

Simply put - if you want someone to cooperate then don't be a knob.

If you are then don't be surprised if your job is made more difficult than it needs to be.

I think you are the one missing the point.
I'm not suggesting that it is wise for a Police officer at all (or any other person in any other role).

I'm saying you think they are a knob, so you act like a knob, they then think you are a knob & because they are a knob who thinks you are a knob, they up the knob ante & so the cycle goes on.

Everyone else just thinks, look at that pair of knobs.

A better situation than that, if you encounter a knob, is don't act like a knob yourself, then everybody else thinks look at that knob (singular rather than plural).
By responding in kind you just up the knob count & that doesn't improve the situation. Far better to win without being a knob. You don't have to be a knob to beat a knob, resorting to being a knob yourself just results in two losers.

When you deal with disputes is your professional advice to the parties involved 'He's being a knob, so you be one too?'

I think most people would think a lot less of a paid professional police officer being a knob than they would a member of the public, or should I accept that the police employ overzealous knobs and be a bigger person?

I'm not excusing anyone being a knob, the fewer all round the better.

[carinaman]

Imagine how jumpy Savage would've been if he'd been single crewed.

And why didn't the other officer intervene, de-escalate Savage?


Regarding sworn officers versus members of the public being knobish, members of the public don't have to refresh their personal safety training annually do they?

[Alpinestars]

stitched said:

I think most people would think a lot less of a paid professional police officer being a knob than they would a member of the public, or should I accept that the police employ overzealous knobs and be a bigger person?

It’s not just that, Savage has a job to do. He’s made it a lot more difficult for himself.

[stitched]

Alpinestars said:

stitched said:

I think most people would think a lot less of a paid professional police officer being a knob than they would a member of the public, or should I accept that the police employ overzealous knobs and be a bigger person?

It’s not just that, Savage has a job to do. He’s made it a lot more difficult for himself.

You became noticeably less critical after the trial, might I ask why?

[Alpinestars]

stitched said:

Alpinestars said:

stitched said:

I think most people would think a lot less of a paid professional police officer being a knob than they would a member of the public, or should I accept that the police employ overzealous knobs and be a bigger person?

It’s not just that, Savage has a job to do. He’s made it a lot more difficult for himself.

You became noticeably less critical after the trial, might I ask why?

Did I?

I have some empathy towards people, and I didn’t think a one off incident warranted the loss of a career. Seeing someone in person reinforces empathy. Or at least mine.

But I still believe he was guilty. He made up all the stuff about weapons imv. And he should have been punished in some way for the way he acted. Especially against an innocent member of the public.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

Did I?

I have some empathy towards people, and I didn’t think a one off incident warranted the loss of a career. Seeing someone in person reinforces empathy. Or at least mine.

But I still believe he was guilty. He made up all the stuff about weapons imv. And he should have been punished in some way for the way he acted. Especially against an innocent member of the public.

So he should have been punished in some way despite the fact they were unable to prove any guilt?

How does that work then?

[Alpinestars]

pavarotti1980 said:

So he should have been punished in some way despite the fact they were unable to prove any guilt?

How does that work then?

I’m expressing a view. Not a legal opinion.

i was torn between him being found guilty, which I assume would mean he lost his career, and the fact that he assaulted an innocent man, and vandalised his car. I’ve no idea what a half way house is. Perhaps a misconduct charge.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

I’m expressing a view. Not a legal opinion.

i was torn between him being found guilty, which I assume would mean he lost his career, and the fact that he assaulted an innocent man, and vandalised his car. I’ve no idea what a half way house is. Perhaps a misconduct charge.

Which is exactly what is happening at the behest of the IOPC.

[Alpinestars]

pavarotti1980 said:

Alpinestars said:

I’m expressing a view. Not a legal opinion.

i was torn between him being found guilty, which I assume would mean he lost his career, and the fact that he assaulted an innocent man, and vandalised his car. I’ve no idea what a half way house is. Perhaps a misconduct charge.

Which is exactly what is happening at the behest of the IOPC.

Good.

So that’s how it works.

He was asked whether he’d do anything differently with the benefit of hindsight. He said no - that doesn’t bode well, and was a pretty poor response.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

Good.

So that’s how it works.

He was asked whether he’d do anything differently with the benefit of hindsight. He said no - that doesn’t bode well, and was a pretty poor response.

IOPC wait for the conclusion on criminal trial before forcing a misconduct hearing on the Met in this instance (they didnt want to instigate misconduct proceedings at all)

In hindsight his response of not doing anything differently was right since he was found not guilty