Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[spookly]

otolith said:

If I thought that there were legal grounds to force him out of the car, I wouldn't be saying the officer was wrong to force entry to the car.

I'm saying that there was no reason not to comply with a reasonable request to get out of the car and have a face to face conversation like civilised human beings, other than a desire to be a stroppy prick.

So, no legal reason to do so. The police officer does not then have to get all crazy does he?

And how is staying exactly where you are and staying calm being 'a stroppy prick'?

The police have rules that they need to follow. They are trained to follow those rules. I'm sure most of them are aware that they put themselves and their careers at risk if they do not follow those rules.
They are probably also aware that a certain portion of the population are not exactly trusting of the police. Smashing someone's car up without legal justification isn't exactly going to build bridges is it? I'd say that the police are better off without this kind of officer. He seems capable of generating enough negative media coverage to undo the good work of many of his colleagues.

[stupidbutkeen]

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

[tumble dryer]

otolith said:

Rovinghawk said:

otolith said:

And his behaviour improves the situation how?

In this instance by videoing a raging madman, hopefully leading to either an adjustment to his attitude or removal from post. Don't you want the bad apples identified & dealt with?

Is that worth pissing off every officer he meets?

I'd like to be clear on the point you made there; are you meaning that the person taking the video should now be fearful of future police 'attention'?

[Bigends]

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

I'd disagree with that.

I have 10 years in, so not new but no old sweat and I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies who are routinely ignoring offences, statement taking is beneath them, shocking primary investigstion, not closing logs off properly and ignoring policy with things such as sexual offences and failing victims.

[anonymous-user]

Bigends said:

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

This is what stood out for me in the clip, the young cop has clearly been failed with piss poor training and/or piss poor recruitment. That situation could have been handled without incident, but it escalated way too quickly.

As I was reading through the thread I thought that this cop could benefit from further training in threat assessment and unconscious biases but it seems from your post and others that incidences like this are just a small symptom of a much wider issue.

[Rovinghawk]

Greendubber said:

I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies.

Including or excluding PC Savage?

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

I'd disagree with that.

I have 10 years in, so not new but no old sweat and I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies who are routinely ignoring offences, statement taking is beneath them, shocking primary investigstion, not closing logs off properly and ignoring policy with things such as sexual offences and failing victims.

Thats all down to poor supervision both by their own supervisors and FCR supervisors if that is the case. Nothing to do with new or old generation cops I did some NCRS and crime management training with two experienced DI's last Friday afternoon. Theyve both just returned to area having both spent the last 6/7 years on major crime squads. They were appalled at the state things have got to and the attitude of the younger officers. Crime workloads unmanaged, paperwork and reports substandard, poor knowledge of law and procedure - much of whuich has been passed on anecdotally by older officers who often have little more knowledge themselves. Their opinions - theyre out here managing now. Of course theres still some excellent work going on out there

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 20th September 20:40

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

I'd disagree with that.

I have 10 years in, so not new but no old sweat and I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies who are routinely ignoring offences, statement taking is beneath them, shocking primary investigstion, not closing logs off properly and ignoring policy with things such as sexual offences and failing victims.

Thats all down to poor supervision both by their own supervisors and FCR supervisors if that is the case. Nothing to do with new or old generation cops I did some NCRS and crime management training with two experienced DI's last Friday afternoon. Theyve both just returned to area having both spent the last 6/7 years on major crime squads. They were appalled at the state things have got to and the attitude of the younger officers. Crime workloads unmanaged, paperwork and reports substandard, poor knowledge of law and procedure - much of whuich has been passed on anecdotally by older officers who often have little more knowledge themselves. Their opinions - theyre out here managing now. Of course theres still some excellent work going on out there

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 20th September 20:40

Surely most of that can be put down to poor/weak supervision too then?

[otolith]

tumble dryer said:

otolith said:

Rovinghawk said:

otolith said:

And his behaviour improves the situation how?

In this instance by videoing a raging madman, hopefully leading to either an adjustment to his attitude or removal from post. Don't you want the bad apples identified & dealt with?

Is that worth pissing off every officer he meets?

I'd like to be clear on the point you made there; are you meaning that the person taking the video should now be fearful of future police 'attention'?

No, I am saying that the vast majority of police officers are decent human beings doing an important and difficult job, and deliberately treating them like the enemy doesn't do anyone any favours.

[otolith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

And I can legally say that such an attitude makes him a dick. Did your parents teach you that the only important consideration in your interactions with strangers is legality?

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

I'd disagree with that.

I have 10 years in, so not new but no old sweat and I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies who are routinely ignoring offences, statement taking is beneath them, shocking primary investigstion, not closing logs off properly and ignoring policy with things such as sexual offences and failing victims.

Thats all down to poor supervision both by their own supervisors and FCR supervisors if that is the case. Nothing to do with new or old generation cops I did some NCRS and crime management training with two experienced DI's last Friday afternoon. Theyve both just returned to area having both spent the last 6/7 years on major crime squads. They were appalled at the state things have got to and the attitude of the younger officers. Crime workloads unmanaged, paperwork and reports substandard, poor knowledge of law and procedure - much of whuich has been passed on anecdotally by older officers who often have little more knowledge themselves. Their opinions - theyre out here managing now. Of course theres still some excellent work going on out there

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 20th September 20:40

Surely most of that can be put down to poor/weak supervision too then?

Exactly - unfortunately many of the younger Sgts have little more idea than the PC's

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

I'd disagree with that.

I have 10 years in, so not new but no old sweat and I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies who are routinely ignoring offences, statement taking is beneath them, shocking primary investigstion, not closing logs off properly and ignoring policy with things such as sexual offences and failing victims.

Thats all down to poor supervision both by their own supervisors and FCR supervisors if that is the case. Nothing to do with new or old generation cops I did some NCRS and crime management training with two experienced DI's last Friday afternoon. Theyve both just returned to area having both spent the last 6/7 years on major crime squads. They were appalled at the state things have got to and the attitude of the younger officers. Crime workloads unmanaged, paperwork and reports substandard, poor knowledge of law and procedure - much of whuich has been passed on anecdotally by older officers who often have little more knowledge themselves. Their opinions - theyre out here managing now. Of course theres still some excellent work going on out there

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 20th September 20:40

Surely most of that can be put down to poor/weak supervision too then?

Exactly - unfortunately many of the younger Sgts have little more idea than the PC's

You can thank the HPDS for that, uni leavers with no life experience are being promoted with 3 years in the job.

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

I'd disagree with that.

I have 10 years in, so not new but no old sweat and I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies who are routinely ignoring offences, statement taking is beneath them, shocking primary investigstion, not closing logs off properly and ignoring policy with things such as sexual offences and failing victims.

Thats all down to poor supervision both by their own supervisors and FCR supervisors if that is the case. Nothing to do with new or old generation cops I did some NCRS and crime management training with two experienced DI's last Friday afternoon. Theyve both just returned to area having both spent the last 6/7 years on major crime squads. They were appalled at the state things have got to and the attitude of the younger officers. Crime workloads unmanaged, paperwork and reports substandard, poor knowledge of law and procedure - much of whuich has been passed on anecdotally by older officers who often have little more knowledge themselves. Their opinions - theyre out here managing now. Of course theres still some excellent work going on out there

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 20th September 20:40

Surely most of that can be put down to poor/weak supervision too then?

Exactly - unfortunately many of the younger Sgts have little more idea than the PC's

You can thank the HPDS for that, uni leavers with no life experience are being promoted with 3 years in the job.

Plus no regional residential training centres with ongoing training afterwards for 18 months - gave a superb omnicompetent grounding.

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

I'd disagree with that.

I have 10 years in, so not new but no old sweat and I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies who are routinely ignoring offences, statement taking is beneath them, shocking primary investigstion, not closing logs off properly and ignoring policy with things such as sexual offences and failing victims.

Thats all down to poor supervision both by their own supervisors and FCR supervisors if that is the case. Nothing to do with new or old generation cops I did some NCRS and crime management training with two experienced DI's last Friday afternoon. Theyve both just returned to area having both spent the last 6/7 years on major crime squads. They were appalled at the state things have got to and the attitude of the younger officers. Crime workloads unmanaged, paperwork and reports substandard, poor knowledge of law and procedure - much of whuich has been passed on anecdotally by older officers who often have little more knowledge themselves. Their opinions - theyre out here managing now. Of course theres still some excellent work going on out there

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 20th September 20:40

Surely most of that can be put down to poor/weak supervision too then?

Exactly - unfortunately many of the younger Sgts have little more idea than the PC's

You can thank the HPDS for that, uni leavers with no life experience are being promoted with 3 years in the job.

Plus no regional residential training centres with ongoing training afterwards for 18 months - gave a superb omnicompetent grounding.

Rytons still going, I cant remember what it was called when I did my Polsa course a while back but I think budget cuts have put an end to uniform training being residential. My force wont even buy a toaster let alone people being put up overnight.

I didnt do any residential at all, they stopped it before the recruitment drive when I joined. We had 18 weeks classroom, 9 weeks with a tutor and then 3 x 1 week post foundation courses before being signed off at 2 years.

[stuarthat]

Bigends said:

spookly said:

otolith said:

Alpinestars said:

otolith said:

Personally, I'm not supporting the copper. He screwed up. Why are people supporting the kid, who was being a dick to provoke a reaction?

Was the reaction justified? And what legal grounds does the "copper" have to REQUIRE the guy to get out of his car?

No, the reaction was not justified. The officer screwed up, as I've said repeatedly.

Why not get out of the car? Why make an issue of it? Why try to provoke a confrontation unnecessarily? "I'm filming you, you can't make me" attitude - it's intended to antagonise. Just a terrible attitude - kind of nonsense you expect from children who know how limited the teacher's powers are and like to push the boundaries.

You didn't answer the question though. What legal grounds does the copper have to require him to get out of the car?

Genuinely interested.

He does not seem to have been told he is under arrest at that point. He is verbally communicating with the police officer. The officer does not seem to like being told he doesn't want to get out of his car, quite understandably based on his attitude and the previous cases of police violence and roughness that I'm sure we've all seen (yes, I know not all police are like that, but some are, and I have seen some very rough policing first hand).

So the question remains.... do the police have powers to require you to get out of your car when you are not under arrest?

I can see why people may not want to comply with police requests which they are not legally obliged to. Maybe the police should make very sure that they only request things of the public in a more friendly manner, and do not attempt to use force to enforce a request which does not legally have to complied with?

Drivers dont have to get out of the car to speak to the officer - if they choose to its down to them. Thers also no obligation to get into the back of a Police car to answer questions. All questions and answers can be carried out by the officer through an open window. A breath test can also be administered through an open window. To put the officer at ease, the driver may want to remove the keys from the ignition - theres also no obligation to hand them over either. Once arrest comes into play or the cars going to be seized (no insurance etc) - different story - the driver should do as requested - comply with any instructions and hand the car key over.

How can you carry out a safe secure breath test through the window, with the policeman standing in the road ?,no best to be conducted on the footpath or a safe location if someone locks the car door why something to hide ?

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

Greendubber said:

Bigends said:

stupidbutkeen said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

Yes but in real life there are a good lot of pricks and if your a policeman you would deal with more than your fair share of them day to day. BUT your trained to a high standard to deal with said people.

No, USED to be trained to a high standard - training isnt a patch on what it used to be

I'd disagree with that.

I have 10 years in, so not new but no old sweat and I'd say the younger breed are far more professional than the long in service bobbies who are routinely ignoring offences, statement taking is beneath them, shocking primary investigstion, not closing logs off properly and ignoring policy with things such as sexual offences and failing victims.

Thats all down to poor supervision both by their own supervisors and FCR supervisors if that is the case. Nothing to do with new or old generation cops I did some NCRS and crime management training with two experienced DI's last Friday afternoon. Theyve both just returned to area having both spent the last 6/7 years on major crime squads. They were appalled at the state things have got to and the attitude of the younger officers. Crime workloads unmanaged, paperwork and reports substandard, poor knowledge of law and procedure - much of whuich has been passed on anecdotally by older officers who often have little more knowledge themselves. Their opinions - theyre out here managing now. Of course theres still some excellent work going on out there

Edited by Bigends on Tuesday 20th September 20:40

Surely most of that can be put down to poor/weak supervision too then?

Exactly - unfortunately many of the younger Sgts have little more idea than the PC's

You can thank the HPDS for that, uni leavers with no life experience are being promoted with 3 years in the job.

Plus no regional residential training centres with ongoing training afterwards for 18 months - gave a superb omnicompetent grounding.

Rytons still going, I cant remember what it was called when I did my Polsa course a while back but I think budget cuts have put an end to uniform training being residential. My force wont even buy a toaster let alone people being put up overnight.

I didnt do any residential at all, they stopped it before the recruitment drive when I joined. We had 18 weeks classroom, 9 weeks with a tutor and then 3 x 1 week post foundation courses before being signed off at 2 years.

Our in-force training isnt up to a lot.

I had a weeks initial training at force HQ, then 10 weeks residential with weekly exams - two exam fails and you were out. Back to force for another two weeks, then out to station. Four hours law training every Monday afternoon regardless of what shift you wee on, with monthly written exam - for the next 18 months followed by a two week continuation course,prior to being signed out of probation. We could be given the boot at any time without appeal. We then had two weeks a year at HQ for refresher training on law and procedure. Shame itll never go back to that.

[Bigends]

stuarthat said:

Bigends said:

spookly said:

otolith said:

Alpinestars said:

otolith said:

Personally, I'm not supporting the copper. He screwed up. Why are people supporting the kid, who was being a dick to provoke a reaction?

Was the reaction justified? And what legal grounds does the "copper" have to REQUIRE the guy to get out of his car?

No, the reaction was not justified. The officer screwed up, as I've said repeatedly.

Why not get out of the car? Why make an issue of it? Why try to provoke a confrontation unnecessarily? "I'm filming you, you can't make me" attitude - it's intended to antagonise. Just a terrible attitude - kind of nonsense you expect from children who know how limited the teacher's powers are and like to push the boundaries.

You didn't answer the question though. What legal grounds does the copper have to require him to get out of the car?

Genuinely interested.

He does not seem to have been told he is under arrest at that point. He is verbally communicating with the police officer. The officer does not seem to like being told he doesn't want to get out of his car, quite understandably based on his attitude and the previous cases of police violence and roughness that I'm sure we've all seen (yes, I know not all police are like that, but some are, and I have seen some very rough policing first hand).

So the question remains.... do the police have powers to require you to get out of your car when you are not under arrest?

I can see why people may not want to comply with police requests which they are not legally obliged to. Maybe the police should make very sure that they only request things of the public in a more friendly manner, and do not attempt to use force to enforce a request which does not legally have to complied with?

Drivers dont have to get out of the car to speak to the officer - if they choose to its down to them. Thers also no obligation to get into the back of a Police car to answer questions. All questions and answers can be carried out by the officer through an open window. A breath test can also be administered through an open window. To put the officer at ease, the driver may want to remove the keys from the ignition - theres also no obligation to hand them over either. Once arrest comes into play or the cars going to be seized (no insurance etc) - different story - the driver should do as requested - comply with any instructions and hand the car key over.

How can you carry out a safe secure breath test through the window, with the policeman standing in the road ?,no best to be conducted on the footpath or a safe location if someone locks the car door why something to hide ?

Whats a safe secure breath test -just hold the kit through the window - not ideal but not illegal either. As long as the driver can blow sitting down

[Alpinestars]

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

But he did react badly. Acting like a prick is subjective. But even if he did act like a prick, and for the second time, what action do you think would be justifiable?

[Mr Snrub]

Bigends said:

stuarthat said:

Bigends said:

spookly said:

otolith said:

Alpinestars said:

otolith said:

Personally, I'm not supporting the copper. He screwed up. Why are people supporting the kid, who was being a dick to provoke a reaction?

Was the reaction justified? And what legal grounds does the "copper" have to REQUIRE the guy to get out of his car?

No, the reaction was not justified. The officer screwed up, as I've said repeatedly.

Why not get out of the car? Why make an issue of it? Why try to provoke a confrontation unnecessarily? "I'm filming you, you can't make me" attitude - it's intended to antagonise. Just a terrible attitude - kind of nonsense you expect from children who know how limited the teacher's powers are and like to push the boundaries.

You didn't answer the question though. What legal grounds does the copper have to require him to get out of the car?

Genuinely interested.

He does not seem to have been told he is under arrest at that point. He is verbally communicating with the police officer. The officer does not seem to like being told he doesn't want to get out of his car, quite understandably based on his attitude and the previous cases of police violence and roughness that I'm sure we've all seen (yes, I know not all police are like that, but some are, and I have seen some very rough policing first hand).

So the question remains.... do the police have powers to require you to get out of your car when you are not under arrest?

I can see why people may not want to comply with police requests which they are not legally obliged to. Maybe the police should make very sure that they only request things of the public in a more friendly manner, and do not attempt to use force to enforce a request which does not legally have to complied with?

Drivers dont have to get out of the car to speak to the officer - if they choose to its down to them. Thers also no obligation to get into the back of a Police car to answer questions. All questions and answers can be carried out by the officer through an open window. A breath test can also be administered through an open window. To put the officer at ease, the driver may want to remove the keys from the ignition - theres also no obligation to hand them over either. Once arrest comes into play or the cars going to be seized (no insurance etc) - different story - the driver should do as requested - comply with any instructions and hand the car key over.

How can you carry out a safe secure breath test through the window, with the policeman standing in the road ?,no best to be conducted on the footpath or a safe location if someone locks the car door why something to hide ?

Whats a safe secure breath test -just hold the kit through the window - not ideal but not illegal either. As long as the driver can blow sitting down

Where he could easily drive off, slam the door into the Officer or be concealing a weapon