Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[Bigends]

surveyor_101 said:

Bigends said:

Why do you need to get out of the car to give your name, address and date of birth?

We don't no the reading behind the hard stop but normally it's due to risk the driver might flee. So there path is blocked to avoid a pursuit developing.

Also you can't question people in a car with keys if your have reason to believe they are dodgy as they could attempt to flee risking your life and others.

They need to see the person so they can review description, and if the guy had no credentials they will want to scan his finger print on a mobile lantern device to pnc him.

You can't question someone suspected of a motoring offence whilst they are in control of a vehicle through an inch crack in the window.

Police can only take prints if they reasonably suspect the driver of committing a criminal offence - or suspect the drivers given incorrect details having committed a criminal offence - not merely just to check for i.d. This must be for a recordable offence - NOT just minor traffic matters
I dont carry any id with an address on - so if i'm stopped i'd be fingerprinted?
You can caution and ask questions through an open window.
As ive said before- not ideal but also not illegal on the part of the driver to remain in the car and retain their keys

[otolith]

Nanook said:

otolith said:

I'd definitely tell them through my letterbox that I wasn't legally obliged to open the door, while filming them on my phone.

I feel like maybe you're trying to make a point?

But I'm not sure what it is.

You mean that's not normal? There's no law against it!

[Zod]

wibblebrain said:

swindler said:

Perhaps when initially requested the chap should have got out of his car. Is that so complex?

exactly.

If he just got out of the car and spoke to the officer in a civil manner all this could have been avoided.

I think it's crap that we see these selective clips and condemn the policeman based on incomplete information, rather than supporting them in doing a very difficult job.

I don't believe the policeman would have go to such a state of foreculness without having been severely provoked first.

Does that make it OK? I'm not a police-basher, but defending this behaviour is an odd thing to do.

[Red Devil]

dondadda said:

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

I would do if clicking on it didn't display a 404 error...

The common theme in both of the videos in which the officer who is the subject of this thread features is that those he is interacting with are people of colour. How far the Met has moved on since the murder of Stephen Lawrence? What mechanism exists for determining at the recruiting stage, or subsequently discovering, whether an officer harbours the same sort of prejudices as roofer has already demonstrated on here?

Only 15 months ago the Commissioner admitted in an interview that young black men were 'very much more likely' to be stopped and searched than young whites.

[Digby]

Autoglass need to use this as the basis for their next advert.

[Rovinghawk]

otolith said:

Rovinghawk said:

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.

Intent to permanently deprive?

TWOC, sir.

[Rovinghawk]

RobinOakapple said:

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?

The consensus appears to be that he wasn't allowed to join the regulars, and CM was turned down by the specials (or whatever they call them these days).

FYI:
I don't hate the police. I think the good ones are fine & the bad ones need dealing with.

I've never tried to join the police as I've never wanted to.

RobinOA would appear to have an issue but I won't lower myself to his level.

[Pothole]

carinaman said:

Pothole said:

Hardly surprising (lovely use of "all" by the way, implying a huge number - inadvertently I'm sure) when the vast majority of officers is white, like the population as a whole.

Did you have a point?

I didn't type that all police officers I've met are corrupt.

It just happens the corrupt police that I've encountered are white.

So corrupt officers keep themselves out of harm's way or do they conduct themselves in a manner that brings attention upon themselves and raises questions about their integrity and motives?

How corrupt are officers that don't finger, inform on or tackle their corrupt colleagues?

Some police officers are incompetent. Some police officers are corrupt. That's not my fault.

I haven't said you did.

You]all of the corrupt police officers I've had the misfortune to encounter are white[quote said:

[Alpinestars]

Pothole said:

carinaman said:

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?

Hasn't the same been said about me?

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

Hardly surprising (lovely use of "all" by the way, implying a huge number - inadvertently I'm sure) when the vast majority of officers is white, like the population as a whole.

Did you have a point?

Edited by Pothole on Wednesday 21st September 16:55

What a complete lack of understanding of the English language. The use of his words "all" and "officers" could mean as little as two corrupt officers. All the corrupt ones he's come across does not mean he's come across a lot, ergo not necessarily a huge number.

All the BMWs I've see today have been black. All 2 of them.

[Rovinghawk]

surveyor_101 said:

Look at it from this perspective, the guy is guilty and should not be driving.

What exactly is he guilty of?

surveyor_101 said:

What do you do when he locks himself in the car and refuses to cooperate?
What would you do?

The policeman has the right to demand proof of identity. He may do so.

If he feels the need to remove from the vehicle then he can arrest & force entry.

He may not exceed the law or his authority.If he is found to have done so then he deserves to be punished accordingly.

[Greendubber]

Rovinghawk said:

otolith said:

Rovinghawk said:

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.

Intent to permanently deprive?

TWOC, sir.

Nope.

[Alpinestars]

wibblebrain said:

I don't believe the policeman would have go to such a state of foreculness without having been severely provoked first.

Based on what

[Rovinghawk]

Greendubber said:

Rovinghawk said:

otolith said:

Rovinghawk said:

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.

Intent to permanently deprive?

TWOC, sir.

Nope.

On what grounds might a policeman forcibly remove legally held property when someone isn't under arrest?

[Gary C]

otolith said:

Nanook said:

otolith said:

I'd definitely tell them through my letterbox that I wasn't legally obliged to open the door, while filming them on my phone.

I feel like maybe you're trying to make a point?

But I'm not sure what it is.

You mean that's not normal? There's no law against it!

But why would you ?, it's not normal and it's bound to give rise to suspicion.

If then you are subsequently arrested then you would be legally obliged to open the door, or the policeman CAN use force to remove you from the car, as long as it's reasonable and proportional.

Not denying that what the policeman did was wrong, but why would any driver refuse to talk face to face with a police officer?, serious question. I wouldn't, but I have not had to suffer any prejudice, is it genuine fear or a "fk you" attitude?

[Gary C]

Rovinghawk said:

Greendubber said:

Rovinghawk said:

otolith said:

Rovinghawk said:

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.

Intent to permanently deprive?

TWOC, sir.

Nope.

On what grounds might a policeman forcibly remove legally held property when someone isn't under arrest?

Nail and head. If he was not under arrest, then the policemans actions were not permitted and constitutes assault.

[dondadda]

Red Devil said:

I would do if clicking on it didn't display a 404 error...

https://youtu.be/LdH5YK9haKQ

The problem was the full stop I had inadvertently added at the end.

Edited by dondadda on Wednesday 21st September 19:48

[Bigends]

Rovinghawk said:

surveyor_101 said:

Look at it from this perspective, the guy is guilty and should not be driving.

What exactly is he guilty of?

surveyor_101 said:

What do you do when he locks himself in the car and refuses to cooperate?
What would you do?

The policeman has the right to demand proof of identity. He may do so.

If he feels the need to remove from the vehicle then he can arrest & force entry.

He may not exceed the law or his authority.If he is found to have done so then he deserves to be punished accordingly.

So we all have to carry i.d. now do we?

[surveyor_101]

Bigends said:

So we all have to carry i.d. now do we?

No but if your not going to, when a police ask you to stop being in control of a car because they believe you have a committed an offence or are someone wanted you.

There was no reason to comply with the officer he was just being awkward to the situation could of gone a lot different if he was indeed innocent.

Police as usual are dammed if the do dimmed if they don't. If every suspected who stopped locked their doors and refused to get out the police would struggle to do their job.

[Rovinghawk]

surveyor_101 said:

No but if your not going to, when a police ask you to stop being in control of a car because they believe you have a committed an offence or are someone wanted you.

Were you unable to find words to finish the sentence?

surveyor_101 said:

There was no reason to comply with the officer

Exactly.

surveyor_101 said:

he was just being awkward

To which one are you referring?

surveyor_101 said:

the situation could of gone a lot different if he was indeed innocent.

1 It's HAVE
2 He was innocent unless you can prove he's guilty of something.

surveyor_101 said:

Police as usual are dammed if the do dimmed if they don't.

Damned if they go crazy when someone wishes to have their legal rights observed?

surveyor_101 said:

If every suspected who stopped locked their doors and refused to get out the police would struggle to do their job.

Rights exist for a reason. I do not wish to live in a world where rights are suspended because they inconvenience those who would abuse power.

[surveyor_101]

Rovinghawk said:

The policeman has the right to demand proof of identity. He may do so.

If he feels the need to remove from the vehicle then he can arrest & force entry.

He may not exceed the law or his authority.If he is found to have done so then he deserves to be punished accordingly.

Head against brick wall.

It's normal practice when a driver is suspected of driving offences, drink, dangerous disqual to make sure they can't drive off.