Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
dondadda said:
Because the law allows him to be a dick. I shouldn't have to get out of my car if I don't want to and I am not legally required to.
The law doesn't allow any policeman to start smashing up other peoples property because his unlawful commands have not been obeyed.
He had reason to believe that the driver was disqual and therefore should not be driving, asking him to leave the car would be reasonable request. We didn't see in the video any evidence the driver offered any credentials! He just said thats not him! Amount of nobs who say there are someone else on a daily basis. The officer couldn't establish who he was and the belief was he was disqual so the driver can't remain in control of a vehicle. If the guy dropped the window a bit more he could of grabbed the keys. I would want to him out to identify and maybe use lantern device to check his figure prints. None of which could be done in the car with a inch gap through the window.The law doesn't allow any policeman to start smashing up other peoples property because his unlawful commands have not been obeyed.
End of the day the officer seemed to lose his cool but the driver made it very difficult for the officer to do anything given the circumstances. You can't have unidentified potentially disqual driver in charge of a car end of.
The officer could of been cooler and clearer about the consequences of remaining in the vehicle but the camera was always going to be the end game for the driver, getting you youtube footage was always the aim. They deliberately made it very difficult for the officer to do their job. We also don't know if the driver was drivign dangerously or failed to stop as the police car seems in a hard stop position.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 21st September 13:26
surveyor_101 said:
He had reason to believe that the driver was disqual and therefore should not be driving, asking him to leave the car would be reasonable request.
But not a legal obligation. surveyor_101 said:
If the guy dropped the window a bit more he could of grabbed the keys.
Theft instead of criminal damage. I like your style.surveyor_101 said:
I would want to him out to identify and maybe use lantern device to check his figure prints. None of which could be done in the car with a inch gap through the window.
None of which could be done legally under the circumstances. But hey, why bother with inconveniences like legality?surveyor_101 said:
the officer seemed to lose his cool
Seemed? surveyor_101 said:
the driver made it very difficult for the officer to do anything given the circumstances.
Tough titty.surveyor_101 said:
The officer could of been cooler
You think?surveyor_101 said:
the consequences of remaining in the vehicle
Tell me the consequences of acting within one's legal rights....surveyor_101 said:
They deliberately made it very difficult for the officer to do their job.
TBF the policeman didn't make his situation any easier.surveyor_101 said:
We also don't know if the driver was drivign dangerously or failed to stop as the police car seems in a hard stop position.
Just suppose he was:1 I'm surprised it didn't come up in conversation
2 It still wouldn't justify the bats
t mental response & carving the windscreen with a penknife.Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 21st September 13:26[/footnote]
[footnote]Edited by Rovinghawk on Wednesday 21st September 13:43Rovinghawk said:
What your saying that you want all police to stand down and walk away from any road traffic stops if a the driver stops, but then locks themselves in the car cracks the window an inch and refuses to do anything the officer asks them to do?
Since you believe nothing the officer asked the driver was lawful or reasonable under the circumstances.
Ok whilst it seems a bit over the top and like some red mist may of set in!
The officer has stopped a car hard in circumstances we don't fully understand. Officer is in stressful situation and has asked for the driver to step out of the vehicle whilst they establish who they are and whether they are entitled to be driving. The intel the police have is of a disqual driver either being linked to the car or the registered from what I can gather.
If the driver refuses to cease being in control of a car or provide proof of identity of who they are, officer has two choices, do nothing of as he choose here force-ably gain entry as he did in this case. There are no other real options and the intel the officer had my of been of a death by dangerous for all we know.
In 9-10 occasions if the driver has nothing to hide they will not behave in this disrespectful/obstructive manor.
The ramifications of this case had the officer not took control of the situation is :
a) people would lock doors crack window and think happy days they can't do their job if I do this!
b) people could think they can film officers trying to do a job and they won't take any action for fear of being filmed.
Either way it undermines the police for just doing their duty.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 21st September 13:54
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 21st September 13:58
^ you missed one bit:
When asked by an officer of the law to do something and you effectively refuse the assumption is one that you have something to hide.
In the absence of any information on what the run-up to the confrontation was, why defend the occupant so forcefully? Your assumption is that the officer is in the wrong based on rather staged camera work from one side only and after the initial events.
When asked by an officer of the law to do something and you effectively refuse the assumption is one that you have something to hide.
In the absence of any information on what the run-up to the confrontation was, why defend the occupant so forcefully? Your assumption is that the officer is in the wrong based on rather staged camera work from one side only and after the initial events.
V6Pushfit said:
^ you missed one bit:
When asked by an officer of the law to do something and you effectively refuse the assumption is one that you have something to hide.
In the absence of any information on what the run-up to the confrontation was, why defend the occupant so forcefully? Your assumption is that the officer is in the wrong based on rather staged camera work from one side only and after the initial events.
Sorry was adding that bin in after!When asked by an officer of the law to do something and you effectively refuse the assumption is one that you have something to hide.
In the absence of any information on what the run-up to the confrontation was, why defend the occupant so forcefully? Your assumption is that the officer is in the wrong based on rather staged camera work from one side only and after the initial events.
RobinOakapple said:
What Rovinghawk is saying is that he hates the police to the bottom of his soul. Best to ignore him, he will do nothing but snipe at the police and anybody who he thinks supports them.
Thnaks for the clarification. Whats happened to him in the past then? Caught out for real? C70R said:
spookly said:
Coppers are not meant to dole out attitude, aggression and violence as retribution for offences... that is for the courts to enforce. The police should be making sure they have grounds to arrest, arresting people, and booking them into the nick. And they should be doing that with the bare minimum of force.
Absolutely this. People sometimes forget that the police don't exist to apply the law, but to oversee its application. Intelligent officers know that violence/force should be the absolute last resort, and certainly never used as a form of retribution or punishment. However, PC YouTube seems to have missed that day of training.k me. Did we just agree on something 
V6Pushfit said:
^ you missed one bit:
When asked by an officer of the law to do something and you effectively refuse the assumption is one that you have something to hide.
You can assume that but that is not the training they receive. I went to a police station for a voluntary interview and when questioned I asked for a solicitor to be present before answering any questions. This simple exercise of my right meant I was arrested, booked in and locked up for several hours. Did I have anything to hide? hell NO but did I trust the police to not put words in my mouth? bloody HELL NO. When asked by an officer of the law to do something and you effectively refuse the assumption is one that you have something to hide.
If angry man suspected the driver was disqualified, he should have asked for ID. There WAS no NEED for the driver to exit his vehicle. There is a longer video in which the driver places his key on the the dash to confirm to the angry man that he was going nowhere. The driver also informed the angry man that he was happy for all checks to be completed whilst he was sat in his car. It does seem angry man has a penchant for putting young black boys in handcuffs while he checks if they are innocent of his dreamt up crimes. Did he want the driver out so he could put him in handcuffs and humiliate him a bit?
Names didn't come into play until the driver exited the vehicle (possibly in fear of his life due to the angry man cutting his windscreen with a knife) and was called TJ to which he replied I am not TJ.
The policeman simply assumed he had the right person (TJ) and made no attempt to establish the identity of the driver.
V6Pushfit said:
^ you missed one bit:
When asked by an officer of the law to do something and you effectively refuse the assumption is one that you have something to hide.
In the absence of any information on what the run-up to the confrontation was, why defend the occupant so forcefully? Your assumption is that the officer is in the wrong based on rather staged camera work from one side only and after the initial events.
The police can make all the assumptions they like, that does not mean they should act on them without corroborating them.When asked by an officer of the law to do something and you effectively refuse the assumption is one that you have something to hide.
In the absence of any information on what the run-up to the confrontation was, why defend the occupant so forcefully? Your assumption is that the officer is in the wrong based on rather staged camera work from one side only and after the initial events.
The police are given certain powers to use, and I agree that they should use them. With discretion.
They should not try and demand things of the public that are not within their powers to demand. They especially should not do this through the use of losing their rag, violence, force or destruction of property.
If there is something the police would like someone to do that they are not legally obliged to do then they really should ask very politely. They will be more likely to get the same respect in return.
If the policeman had reasonable grounds to arrest then maybe he should have done so. if he didn't have reasonable grounds for arrest then why get his panties in a wad over a perfectly reasonable stance in the circumstances of not wanting to get out of the car and face a likely manhandling and cuffing?
And, how can this be described as staged? He filmed actual events that were happening entirely outside his control? how can you describe someone filming what happens outside their control as 'rather staged'?
Edited by spookly on Wednesday 21st September 14:33
V6Pushfit said:
RobinOakapple said:
What Rovinghawk is saying is that he hates the police to the bottom of his soul. Best to ignore him, he will do nothing but snipe at the police and anybody who he thinks supports them.
Thnaks for the clarification. Whats happened to him in the past then? Caught out for real? At the end of the day the manner in which PC Savage conducted himself when he dealt with Mr Leon Fontana and Mr Adair-Whyte has nothing to do with anything anybody has posted on PH.
Just for balance and clarification, all of the corrupt police officers I've had the misfortune to encounter are white.
Edited by carinaman on Wednesday 21st September 14:48
dondadda said:
The PC that was the subject of my lawsuit is now in bigger trouble so also is the PC who made false statements on his behalf and the investigating officer who dealt with my complaint. What was a simple complaint which could have been resolved with a 'sorry we got things wrong, this is what we will do to remedy it' became a lawsuit and has now turned into a full scale IPCC investigation into the integrity of several officers accused of tampering with video evidence, deliberately providing false information e.t.c.
Thanks for sharing your experience with others so they may benefit from it.V6Pushfit said:
RobinOakapple said:
What Rovinghawk is saying is that he hates the police to the bottom of his soul. Best to ignore him, he will do nothing but snipe at the police and anybody who he thinks supports them.
Thnaks for the clarification. Whats happened to him in the past then? Caught out for real? Alpinestars said:
roofer said:
As previously, I come across them every day. Are his actions justified ? Yes. Because he's trying to uphold the law and being obstructed. If the police had a bit more support from the left wing pc nambite pambie do gooders, these situations wouldn't occur in the first place.
Scumtard in car wouldn't need a new windscreen if he had complied with coppers request. Coppers, and inner London ones especially, have to deal with the absolute scum of society on an hourly basis.
I've had a similar scumtard come out of his flat threatening my scaffolders with a table leg because they woke him up at 10 am.
These people are scum, they just want to work the system to their advantage, nobody else counts. Copper is a grafter who does an honest day's work to feed his kids, but all of a sudden, he's a rascist nut. No he's not, he's a human being, who is fed up having the piss taken out of him, and what he's trying to do, keep decent folk safe. So enough of the copper bashing, I' m no saint, never have been, but when I got a thick ear of the local Bobby , I gave the man a bit of respect, and therein lies the fault, the erosion of society has loaded opinion in the scums favour, but if any one of the condemners has the balls ls to do what the copper does every day, then go for it ....nah, there ain't none.
That makes it clearer why you hold the views you do. Scumtard in car wouldn't need a new windscreen if he had complied with coppers request. Coppers, and inner London ones especially, have to deal with the absolute scum of society on an hourly basis.
I've had a similar scumtard come out of his flat threatening my scaffolders with a table leg because they woke him up at 10 am.
These people are scum, they just want to work the system to their advantage, nobody else counts. Copper is a grafter who does an honest day's work to feed his kids, but all of a sudden, he's a rascist nut. No he's not, he's a human being, who is fed up having the piss taken out of him, and what he's trying to do, keep decent folk safe. So enough of the copper bashing, I' m no saint, never have been, but when I got a thick ear of the local Bobby , I gave the man a bit of respect, and therein lies the fault, the erosion of society has loaded opinion in the scums favour, but if any one of the condemners has the balls ls to do what the copper does every day, then go for it ....nah, there ain't none.
Who exactly are "these people"? An innocent driver who didn't get out of his car when he had no obligation to? Or am I missing something (obvious) about the reference to "these people"?
Pothole said:
Alpinestars said:
roofer said:
As previously, I come across them every day. Are his actions justified ? Yes. Because he's trying to uphold the law and being obstructed. If the police had a bit more support from the left wing pc nambite pambie do gooders, these situations wouldn't occur in the first place.
Scumtard in car wouldn't need a new windscreen if he had complied with coppers request. Coppers, and inner London ones especially, have to deal with the absolute scum of society on an hourly basis.
I've had a similar scumtard come out of his flat threatening my scaffolders with a table leg because they woke him up at 10 am.
These people are scum, they just want to work the system to their advantage, nobody else counts. Copper is a grafter who does an honest day's work to feed his kids, but all of a sudden, he's a rascist nut. No he's not, he's a human being, who is fed up having the piss taken out of him, and what he's trying to do, keep decent folk safe. So enough of the copper bashing, I' m no saint, never have been, but when I got a thick ear of the local Bobby , I gave the man a bit of respect, and therein lies the fault, the erosion of society has loaded opinion in the scums favour, but if any one of the condemners has the balls ls to do what the copper does every day, then go for it ....nah, there ain't none.
That makes it clearer why you hold the views you do. Scumtard in car wouldn't need a new windscreen if he had complied with coppers request. Coppers, and inner London ones especially, have to deal with the absolute scum of society on an hourly basis.
I've had a similar scumtard come out of his flat threatening my scaffolders with a table leg because they woke him up at 10 am.
These people are scum, they just want to work the system to their advantage, nobody else counts. Copper is a grafter who does an honest day's work to feed his kids, but all of a sudden, he's a rascist nut. No he's not, he's a human being, who is fed up having the piss taken out of him, and what he's trying to do, keep decent folk safe. So enough of the copper bashing, I' m no saint, never have been, but when I got a thick ear of the local Bobby , I gave the man a bit of respect, and therein lies the fault, the erosion of society has loaded opinion in the scums favour, but if any one of the condemners has the balls ls to do what the copper does every day, then go for it ....nah, there ain't none.
Who exactly are "these people"? An innocent driver who didn't get out of his car when he had no obligation to? Or am I missing something (obvious) about the reference to "these people"?
spookly said:
The police can make all the assumptions they like, that does not mean they should act on them without corroborating them.
The police are given certain powers to use, and I agree that they should use them. With discretion.
They should not try and demand things of the public that are not within their powers to demand. They especially should not do this through the use of losing their rag, violence, force or destruction of property.
If there is something the police would like someone to do that they are not legally obliged to do then they really should ask very politely. They will be more likely to get the same respect in return.
If the policeman had reasonable grounds to arrest then maybe he should have done so. if he didn't have reasonable grounds for arrest then why get his panties in a wad over a perfectly reasonable stance in the circumstances of not wanting to get out of the car and face a likely manhandling and cuffing?
And, how can this be described as staged? He filmed actual events that were happening entirely outside his control? how can you describe someone filming what happens outside their control as 'rather staged'?
One of three things happened here I think.The police are given certain powers to use, and I agree that they should use them. With discretion.
They should not try and demand things of the public that are not within their powers to demand. They especially should not do this through the use of losing their rag, violence, force or destruction of property.
If there is something the police would like someone to do that they are not legally obliged to do then they really should ask very politely. They will be more likely to get the same respect in return.
If the policeman had reasonable grounds to arrest then maybe he should have done so. if he didn't have reasonable grounds for arrest then why get his panties in a wad over a perfectly reasonable stance in the circumstances of not wanting to get out of the car and face a likely manhandling and cuffing?
And, how can this be described as staged? He filmed actual events that were happening entirely outside his control? how can you describe someone filming what happens outside their control as 'rather staged'?
Edited by spookly on Wednesday 21st September 14:33
Either the person they thought they were dealing with his serious form and it's why the officers are in edge and the car has been stopped in a hard stop manor. I.e. Oncoming blocking the path with police car.
The car was being driven in a manner that caused alarm and my of be trying to avoid the police
The final and less likely option is the officers just decided to come down on this car like a ton of bricks are were just in one.
Since we don't know all the details it's very hard to judge.
Innocent people don't tend to behave like this.
RobinOakapple said:
Indeed. And AIUI if a policeman asks you to get out of a vehicle then you are under an obligation to do so.
Same as if you pay at the tills in Argos for your new TVs you are under no legal obligation to comply with the sales assistants request that you collect your item from collection point 'b' , but those people are only trying to do their job so most people comply.How many people make a scene and refuse, yet when a police officer is doing their job many thinks this sort of thing is ok.
People forget most coppers are just doing a job.
Pothole said:
How are you sure he's "an innocent driver"?
1. innocent until proven guilty.... so he is innocent until he is proven guilty in a court of law2. according to the BBC news report nobody was arrested after the angry man realised it was a case of mistaken identity
Why are people introducing so many ifs/maybes. Maybe he has form, Maybe he was driving dangerously, Maybe he was on his way to kill the Queen? Rather surprising that the angry man didn't mention any of these. The alleged crime mentioned by the angry man was 'driving whilst disqualified'
https://youtu.be/LdH5YK9haKQ
Watch the above video and see what police who know the law did when a driver rightly refused to exit his vehicle. They didn't start smashing things up. They used their powers to screw him over. Not that its right but at least they didn't break the law. Well played
Edited by dondadda on Wednesday 21st September 19:33
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff