Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
frankenstein12 said:
if needs be arrest you which means you are legally obliged to exit your vehicle.
Such a pity this wasn't what happened, isn't it?Tell me how the officer could have arrested him since he refused to exit his vehicle and locked the doors?
frankenstein12 said:
You do not have to identify yourself but you do need to exit your vehicle when told to do so.
I like you- you're funny. Read the last 50 pages of the thread.frankenstein12 said:
Regardless of law
So when you have it pointed out that the law doesn't actually suit you it can be disregarded?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.
frankenstein12 said:
the only people who would fail to assist an officer and follow their request are those with a huge attitude and arrogance problem.
What about those afraid of a beating or similar from someone who has clearly lost control of their temper? 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
frankenstein12 said:
Alpinestars said:
I agree with your Stop and Search analysis.
It's covered in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S1, 2, S17, S24 and S117. Pay particular attention to S1(3).
It wasn't a Stop and Search given what we know. But I accept we don't know everything. How about a wager on whether it was a Stop and Search, complying with the PCEA1984?
Under the RTA, he was obliged to give his name. And the course of action open to PC Savage was to arrest him if that wasn't forthcoming. He could have used force in arresting him.
There was no arrest.
And a lot of Common Law is shaped by single words.
Ok so tell me this. How was the officer to know who he was? Now I know you say he was obliged to give his name however frankly he could have claimed to be donald duck the officer needs to verify he is telling the truth as crims nearly never do. How would you propose the officer do that when dumbass refused to cooperate?It's covered in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S1, 2, S17, S24 and S117. Pay particular attention to S1(3).
It wasn't a Stop and Search given what we know. But I accept we don't know everything. How about a wager on whether it was a Stop and Search, complying with the PCEA1984?
Under the RTA, he was obliged to give his name. And the course of action open to PC Savage was to arrest him if that wasn't forthcoming. He could have used force in arresting him.
There was no arrest.
And a lot of Common Law is shaped by single words.
Terzo123 said:
Bigends said:
Listen to the video - it doesnt sound like he was ever asked
The cop carries out a PNC check, so a name must have been provided at some point Right from the start of the video the driver asks why hes been stopped.Listen to the video - the second cop says as he drags him out..'Get out of the car T.J . Driver says twice hes 'not T.J.' Followed by 'Whats your name..lets find out who you are then' Then asks him again for his name - indicates little or no conversation prior to the recording
Mad cop makes no mention of his name during the stop other than to say he wants him out of the car so he can check his details - indicates he possibly hasnt already asked for them. Driver never states hes already given them to the cop. PNC check still comes back on the radio as provisional licence holder NOT disqualified driver. Mad cop says hes disqualified - second cop shouts hes a provisonal licence holder - a right old mess of a job. Odds are hes PNC checked who he thought the driver was at the point of stop or prior to the stop before checking- i'm sure itll all come out in the wash
frankenstein12 said:
Ok so tell me this. How was the officer to know who he was? Now I know you say he was obliged to give his name however frankly he could have claimed to be donald duck the officer needs to verify he is telling the truth as crims nearly never do. How would you propose the officer do that when dumbass refused to cooperate?
Angryman savage doesnt get to do things his way. He must follow laid down rules and procedures. Angryman savage was following a car which showed that the registered keeper was a disqualified/provisional license holder
Angry Savage did the right thing by initiating a traffic stop.
Angryman savage walked up to the window. At this point he requests that the driver exit the car without having made any attempt to identify the driver.
The driver knew his rights and told angryman savage he would rather the traffic stop was conducted in the comforr of his car. He allayed angryman savage's unfounded fear that he would drive away by placing his key on the dash.
He informed angryman savage that hecwas licensed and insured to drive. He could have been lying but it was up to the angryman to take the necessary steps to verify if what the driver was saying was the truth.
Angryman savage wanted to 'win' at all costs by making the driver exit the vehicle so he started smashing up the windscreen. Was he really going to extract a non aggresive driver through that little hole he was making in the windscreen.
This whole incident would mot have happened if angryman savage treated everyone he came across like a human being and not based on prejudiced opinions he has of a certain demographic.
If he walked up to the Mr Fontana and simply asked for his drivers license or ID, he would have quickly realised he was mistaken but his typical 'I am police and never wrong' attitude made him look a fool and put him in a spot of bother too.
Even the crazy American cops always ask for ID FIRST.
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
It may be that there were grounds for an arrest (it doesn't take much if you're not satisfied with a person's details), but an arrest was not may prior to, or during the force being applied.
Sorry La Liga, edited to add no arrest was made from what I recall. 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.
vonhosen said:
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
It may be that there were grounds for an arrest (it doesn't take much if you're not satisfied with a person's details), but an arrest was not may prior to, or during the force being applied.
Sorry La Liga, edited to add no arrest was made from what I recall. 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.
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.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.
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?
Terzo123 said:
Bigends said:
Listen to the video - it doesnt sound like he was ever asked
The cop carries out a PNC check, so a name must have been provided at some point So lets analyse a bit further. There is previous video to this as the officer was waiting on pnc check to come back. It is at this point important to note the driver states he has a license and insurance for the car at the point the officer tries to get him out the car but yet the pnc check that came back stated the person pnc checked only had a provisional license.
The person pnc checked was the name given by the person in the car. If he was indeed entitled to drive the car why did the PNC check came back as him only being provisional? My money says he gave the name of someone else he knew.
So i would theorise it like this..
Police stopped the car on suspicion driver was not entitled to drive it.
Police asked person in car to get out for a chat. Person in car refused.
Police advised why he had been stopped and requested he identify himself repeatedly. He gave a name and DOB.
Police asked him for proof of ID. Proof was refused.
Police ran a pnc check to see if he was entitled to drive the car. PNC came back as a no.
Officer at that point had had enough of belligerent and difficult idiot in car and knowing that asking him to exit the vehicle would result in him refusing to do so he progressed straight to removing him from the vehicle.
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.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.
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?
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.)
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.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.
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?
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.)
Bigends said:
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?
My point exactly. That second type of arrest would be for violent suspects, after a footchase, covert operations e.t.c. Not for a passive driver sitting in a switched off car.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.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.
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?
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.)
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.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.
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?
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.)
Edited by Bigends on Monday 3rd October 18:36
vonhosen said:
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).
LoLWas the driver more likely to flee if he was told 'You are under arrest' or when savage 'tried to smash the side window'
savage gave himself less chance of arresting the driver (if he had any plans to flee) when he attempted to smash the side window.
I doubt he'd be able to claim he was scared the driver was going to drive away when he put himself in danger (what a hero) by standing in a dangerous zone to smash the windscreen. Very easy for a fleeing driver to mow him down.
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.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.
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?
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.)
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.
dondadda said:
vonhosen said:
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).
LoLWas the driver more likely to flee if he was told 'You are under arrest' or when savage 'tried to smash the side window'
savage gave himself less chance of arresting the driver (if he had any plans to flee) when he attempted to smash the side window.
I doubt he'd be able to claim he was scared the driver was going to drive away when he put himself in danger (what a hero) by standing in a dangerous zone to smash the windscreen. Very easy for a fleeing driver to mow him down.
vonhosen said:
I've seen videos of exactly that, drivers trying to flee & officers putting themselves in dangerous positions trying to smash the windows whilst the vehicle driver is trying to ram their way out.
von don't feed the anti police trolls!They will have you going round in circles!
They want him told whilst locked in his car, with the keys and able to make off that he is being arrested. That is no way more dangerous than getting him out the car first!
frankenstein12 said:
My understanding is the officer in this case had reasonable grounds of suspicion and wanted to verify whether he was correct about who the person in the car was. All it would have required was the idiot in the car identifying himself. Nothing more nothing less and this would never have happened.
The officer was wrong about who the person in the car was but that is neither here nor there unless you are suggesting that if an officer suspects someone of being a criminal they should not verify or detain that person until their identity is confirmed?
He wasn't arrested. Which would have been the obvious course of action. The officer was wrong about who the person in the car was but that is neither here nor there unless you are suggesting that if an officer suspects someone of being a criminal they should not verify or detain that person until their identity is confirmed?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff