Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

If there are grounds for arrest & the person won't get out of the car, then forcing entry to the car is reasonable .........

Arresting them first to give them the lawful power to do so might also be considered reasonable?

[vonhosen]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

If there are grounds for arrest & the person won't get out of the car, then forcing entry to the car is reasonable .........

Arresting them first to give them the lawful power to do so might also be considered reasonable?

As I said earlier, the lawful power exists even if the words aren't uttered first, provided they are as soon as practicable afterwards.

[Bigends]

Bigyoke said:

Bigends said:

You compared forcing entry to a building to forcing entry to a car -not quite sure how that works.

I never mentioned a building. I'm pretty sure this has been covered ad nausium with reference to this particular situation so to be clear I'm not referring to what happened in the video but AFAIK there is no requirement to advise the occupant(s) of a premises, whether that's a building, a car, a ship or an aeroplane, that they are under arrest before forcing entry.

You have suggested that it is in fact a breach of PACE - on what basis? The Bigends Big Book of made up law? Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong & will eat the pie made of humble.

I don't know if this link works but I'm pretty sure the occupants of the blue car weren't 'told' they were under arrest until some time after they had been removed from the vehicle.

http://youtu.be/_2taW2oBWQY

TOTALLY different circumstances. Joy riding car in Northern Ireland which the cops had to ram to a halt- youre not comparing that to the calm, controlled situation this thread is about are you? Did I mention a breach of PACE? The driver in this case was never arrested either before after wrecking his car

Edited by Bigends on Monday 3rd October 20:40

[Red Devil]

frankenstein12 said:

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

Listen to the video carefully. 1st off the officer is quite calm awaiting pnc check. PNC comes back as provisional license. Officer then gets very aggressive and demands he get out of the car. The guy in the car asks why and is told he not allowed to drive it. If you listen carefully it sounds like he or someone else in the car makes an "Oooh" noise like as if to say sarcastically Oh you are sooo scary.

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.

The word in bold is yet another example of the blatant prejudice which permeates all of your posts on this thread. You have no evidence whatsoever on which to base this accusation. Fontana becomes quite agitated once he is out of the vehicle. I can't say I blame him after having being confronted by a copper wielding a penknife.

The one fact that has emerged is that this is a case of mistaken identity. The police appear to think he is TJ. On what basis is yet to be determined. We have no way of knowing what information was given to the operations room to perform a PNC check or the source. If Leon Fontana does, as he claims, have a full licence where did the incorrect information come from? You claim it was Fontana. Where is your proof?

Whatever the source the answer comes back as a provisional licence holder yet PC Savage can be clearly heard shouting "you're disqualified". One might be forgiven for thinking that a police officer ought to know the difference between that and driving 'not in accordance with'. I think the red mist had by that time utterly scrambled his rational thinking ability.

One thing I have no doubt about is that we will get yet more interminable pages of entrenched positions being defended until the DPS investigation is completed.
To the 'no smoke without fire' brigade, there is no special significance about PC Savage being put on restricted duties while it is ongoing.

[surveyor_101]

spookly said:

I think the worrying elephant in the room here is that;

• The use of force was not really justified for driving otherwise than in accordance with a license
• PC Savage, if he was using said force due to suspecting this bloke was a violent rapist/murderer/paedo/robber, then he still failed to verify identity first

If the police use force like this without first checking who they are applying it to, then it could happen to any one of us with no reason or justification. All it would take is mistaken identity, a bit of confirmation bias and a gung-ho officer.

Applying that kind of force to an innocent person or their property is clearly not going to be acceptable to society. Even if the police decide PC Savage has done nothing wrong, I would respectfully disagree.
He lost his temper, not a good look.
He failed to verify who he had stopped.
The force appears completely disproportionate to a driving offence.
Ultimately, he did all of this to someone who it seems was innocent of any offence as he was never arrested.

If the person is innocent why ack of suspicious.

Your conclusions are based on a complaints video uploaded to support their side of the complaint.

We don't know what happened prior to video.

Whether the driver refuse to identify themselves or gave false details.

So Your conclusions are based on not having all the facts.

[Alpinestars]

Bigyoke said:

I never mentioned a building. I'm pretty sure this has been covered ad nausium with reference to this particular situation so to be clear I'm not referring to what happened in the video but AFAIK there is no requirement to advise the occupant(s) of a premises, whether that's a building, a car, a ship or an aeroplane, that they are under arrest before forcing entry.

You have suggested that it is in fact a breach of PACE - on what basis? The Bigends Big Book of made up law? Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong & will eat the pie made of humble.

I don't know if this link works but I'm pretty sure the occupants of the blue car weren't 'told' they were under arrest until some time after they had been removed from the vehicle.

http://youtu.be/_2taW2oBWQY

Whilst the definition of premises includes vehicles, do you accept that premises, vehicle in this case, can only be searched under certain specified conditions? Eg search for stolen items or following a JP being satisfied that a search is warranted?

Notwithstanding, this wasn't a search case.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

If there are grounds for arrest & the person won't get out of the car, then forcing entry to the car is reasonable .........

Arresting them first to give them the lawful power to do so might also be considered reasonable?

As I said earlier, the lawful power exists even if the words aren't uttered first, provided they are as soon as practicable afterwards.

And as I said, uttering the words first might be considered reasonable in a situation like the one in the video where there is no urgency. A judge might even presume that in these circumstances forceful removal prior to saying the words would be unreasonable, perhaps to the extent that the forced removal would be unlawful.

[Alpinestars]

Rovinghawk said:

And as I said, uttering the words first might be considered reasonable in a situation like the one in the video where there is no urgency. A judge might even presume that in these circumstances forceful removal prior to saying the words would be unreasonable, perhaps to the extent that the forced removal would be unlawful.

Nail. Head.

[vonhosen]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

If there are grounds for arrest & the person won't get out of the car, then forcing entry to the car is reasonable .........

Arresting them first to give them the lawful power to do so might also be considered reasonable?

As I said earlier, the lawful power exists even if the words aren't uttered first, provided they are as soon as practicable afterwards.

And as I said, uttering the words first might be considered reasonable in a situation like the one in the video where there is no urgency. A judge might even presume that in these circumstances forceful removal prior to saying the words would be unreasonable, perhaps to the extent that the forced removal would be unlawful.

It could only be unlawful where reasonableness was a requirement & it not found to be reasonable.
The test is whether the force used is reasonable & proportionate to secure an arrest, not whether you could consider it reasonable to utter the words 'you are under arrest' first.

[spookly]

vonhosen said:

spookly said:

I think the worrying elephant in the room here is that;

• The use of force was not really justified for driving otherwise than in accordance with a license
• PC Savage, if he was using said force due to suspecting this bloke was a violent rapist/murderer/paedo/robber, then he still failed to verify identity first

If the police use force like this without first checking who they are applying it to, then it could happen to any one of us with no reason or justification. All it would take is mistaken identity, a bit of confirmation bias and a gung-ho officer.

Applying that kind of force to an innocent person or their property is clearly not going to be acceptable to society. Even if the police decide PC Savage has done nothing wrong, I would respectfully disagree.
He lost his temper, not a good look.
He failed to verify who he had stopped.
The force appears completely disproportionate to a driving offence.
Ultimately, he did all of this to someone who it seems was innocent of any offence as he was never arrested.

Again not applying this to this particular incident but to the points you are making instead.

Plenty of people don't have their ID verified until they've had a fingerprint ID etc come back (i.e. they have given details but these have not been confirmed to be false until fingerprint confirmed & who they in fact were.)
If there are grounds for arrest & the person won't get out of the car, then forcing entry to the car is reasonable even if the offence there are grounds to arrest for is a relatively minor (traffic) matter.

If you haven't verified who they are, and that you have reasonable grounds to suspect they have committed a crime, then why would they be subject to a fingerprint ID? Surely that would only happen if they have been arrested?

Genuinely asking - how would you normally expect someone to prove who they are at the roadside? In the past when I have been asked to ID myself they just verbally asked for my name, which I assume they then verified against DVLA records for the car.

[Bigends]

Red Devil said:

frankenstein12 said:

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

Listen to the video carefully. 1st off the officer is quite calm awaiting pnc check. PNC comes back as provisional license. Officer then gets very aggressive and demands he get out of the car. The guy in the car asks why and is told he not allowed to drive it. If you listen carefully it sounds like he or someone else in the car makes an "Oooh" noise like as if to say sarcastically Oh you are sooo scary.

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.

The word in bold is yet another example of the blatant prejudice which permeates all of your posts on this thread. You have no evidence whatsoever on which to base this accusation. Fontana becomes quite agitated once he is out of the vehicle. I can't say I blame him after having being confronted by a copper wielding a penknife.

The one fact that has emerged is that this is a case of mistaken identity. The police appear to think he is TJ. On what basis is yet to be determined. We have no way of knowing what information was given to the operations room to perform a PNC check or the source. If Leon Fontana does, as he claims, have a full licence where did the incorrect information come from? You claim it was Fontana. Where is your proof?

Whatever the source the answer comes back as a provisional licence holder yet PC Savage can be clearly heard shouting "you're disqualified". One might be forgiven for thinking that a police officer ought to know the difference between that and driving 'not in accordance with'. I think the red mist had by that time utterly scrambled his rational thinking ability.

One thing I have no doubt about is that we will get yet more interminable pages of entrenched positions being defended until the DPS investigation is completed.
To the 'no smoke without fire' brigade, there is no special significance about PC Savage being put on restricted duties while it is ongoing.

Yes the name was provided by the cop carrying out the check who thought he knew who the driver was - clearly mistaken unfortunately

[spookly]

surveyor_101 said:

spookly said:

I think the worrying elephant in the room here is that;

• The use of force was not really justified for driving otherwise than in accordance with a license
• PC Savage, if he was using said force due to suspecting this bloke was a violent rapist/murderer/paedo/robber, then he still failed to verify identity first

If the police use force like this without first checking who they are applying it to, then it could happen to any one of us with no reason or justification. All it would take is mistaken identity, a bit of confirmation bias and a gung-ho officer.

Applying that kind of force to an innocent person or their property is clearly not going to be acceptable to society. Even if the police decide PC Savage has done nothing wrong, I would respectfully disagree.
He lost his temper, not a good look.
He failed to verify who he had stopped.
The force appears completely disproportionate to a driving offence.
Ultimately, he did all of this to someone who it seems was innocent of any offence as he was never arrested.

If the person is innocent why ack of suspicious.

Your conclusions are based on a complaints video uploaded to support their side of the complaint.

We don't know what happened prior to video.

Whether the driver refuse to identify themselves or gave false details.

So Your conclusions are based on not having all the facts.

Ok, I'll bite.

1. You don't seem to be able to English, so I can't possibly comment on your first line, as I have no idea what you are trying to communicate
2. It is not a "complaints" video. Unless you are saying the video has somehow been edited, then the video is probably the only real evidence that will be possible. What happens in the video is incontrovertible. Yes, it might not have covered everything, and things may have happened before the recording starts. But unless you are suggesting the video is doctored then it is as truthful an account of those moments as you can get. The recording device has no bias.
3. Agreed, we don't know what happened prior to the start of the video. Some of the things said and seen after the start of the video point firmly towards it being mistaken identity, and does not at any point show PC Savage trying to verify identity. It definitely does show the bloke taking the keys out and putting them on the dash.
4. I saw enough to know that is not a policeman I would like to meet. Especially if he has mistaken me for someone else.

[vonhosen]

spookly said:

vonhosen said:

spookly said:

I think the worrying elephant in the room here is that;

• The use of force was not really justified for driving otherwise than in accordance with a license
• PC Savage, if he was using said force due to suspecting this bloke was a violent rapist/murderer/paedo/robber, then he still failed to verify identity first

If the police use force like this without first checking who they are applying it to, then it could happen to any one of us with no reason or justification. All it would take is mistaken identity, a bit of confirmation bias and a gung-ho officer.

Applying that kind of force to an innocent person or their property is clearly not going to be acceptable to society. Even if the police decide PC Savage has done nothing wrong, I would respectfully disagree.
He lost his temper, not a good look.
He failed to verify who he had stopped.
The force appears completely disproportionate to a driving offence.
Ultimately, he did all of this to someone who it seems was innocent of any offence as he was never arrested.

Again not applying this to this particular incident but to the points you are making instead.

Plenty of people don't have their ID verified until they've had a fingerprint ID etc come back (i.e. they have given details but these have not been confirmed to be false until fingerprint confirmed & who they in fact were.)
If there are grounds for arrest & the person won't get out of the car, then forcing entry to the car is reasonable even if the offence there are grounds to arrest for is a relatively minor (traffic) matter.

If you haven't verified who they are, and that you have reasonable grounds to suspect they have committed a crime, then why would they be subject to a fingerprint ID? Surely that would only happen if they have been arrested?

That's what I'm saying, arrested no reason to suspect that details given were false, until fingerprints taken & showed that they weren't who the said they were.

spookly said:

Genuinely asking - how would you normally expect someone to prove who they are at the roadside? In the past when I have been asked to ID myself they just verbally asked for my name, which I assume they then verified against DVLA records for the car.

It's for the officer to be satisfied, through Q&As, ID etc. It's a judgement call on their part.
You could know the registered keepers details, give his details, but that doesn't mean you are he.
However do you know what categories he has on his licence, when he passed them etc?

[surveyor_101]

Spookily do you normally lock yourself in the car and open the window and inch while telling who,you are without I'd?

Half the problem is the way in which the driver conducts themselve gives cause for suspicion.

You are entitled to remain in the car but the fact the driver locked his do and did not open the window gives For concern.

[spookly]

surveyor_101 said:

Spookily do you normally lock yourself in the car and open the window and inch while telling who,you are without I'd?

Half the problem is the way in which the driver conducts themselve gives cause for suspicion.

You are entitled to remain in the car but the fact the driver locked his do and did not open the window gives For concern.

"and inch"
"who,you"
"I'd"
"themselve"
"locked his do"
"gives For concern"

Are you completely pissed or is English not your first language? If it is your second language, then good luck and get some more lessons. If you're pissed, then wait to sober up before you post.


The driver seems to have been worried about the conduct of the police officer. In hindsight it appears that was a perfectly valid fear. You also haven't seen what happened before the start of the video. We can assume it involved a 'hard stop' with a police car swerving in front of the young lad. Most likely followed up by PC Savage screaming at him to get out of the car.... very reassuring for him if he has been a previous victim of "overzealous" policing.

Also, anyone doing anything that is within their lawful rights should not cause a police officer too much concern. He should follow his training and deal with it in the most appropriate way. Usually this would involve force as a last resort, and only proportionate to the circumstances, as he may be called to account for the use of force.
PC Savage is now being called to justify his use of force..... so it seems fairly likely that some senior officers or the IPCC think there is a possibility that his use of force was either unlawful or not proportionate.

[Bigyoke]

Bigends said:

TOTALLY different circumstances. Joy riding car in Northern Ireland which the cops had to ram to a halt- youre not comparing that to the calm, controlled situation this thread is about are you? Did I mention a breach of PACE? The driver in this case was never arrested either before after wrecking his car

Edited by Bigends on Monday 3rd October 20:40

Absolutely not intended as a direct comparison but merely an illustration of a situation in which force was applied before the words 'you're under arrest' were uttered. As you brought it up, despite the initial excitement it seems pretty calm when the officer on the left is hitting the windscreen with his baton.

You called it a 'major misapplication of the rules', if you didn't mean a breach what did you mean?

[spookly]

vonhosen said:

That's what I'm saying, arrested no reason to suspect that details given were false, until fingerprints taken & showed that they weren't who the said they were.

It's for the officer to be satisfied, through Q&As, ID etc. It's a judgement call on their part.
You could know the registered keepers details, give his details, but that doesn't mean you are he.
However do you know what categories he has on his licence, when he passed them etc?

So, are you saying you arrest them just to check their identity via fingerprints?

Seems a bit over the top. Is this normal practice?

Some professions require criminal record and vetting checks where arrests on their record can be problematic. Given that arresting someone could cause them to lose their jobs, you'd hope that the powers of arrest are only used when there are good grounds to suspect you have the right person and have reasonable grounds to suspect something criminal.

[vonhosen]

spookly said:

vonhosen said:

That's what I'm saying, arrested no reason to suspect that details given were false, until fingerprints taken & showed that they weren't who the said they were.

It's for the officer to be satisfied, through Q&As, ID etc. It's a judgement call on their part.
You could know the registered keepers details, give his details, but that doesn't mean you are he.
However do you know what categories he has on his licence, when he passed them etc?

So, are you saying you arrest them just to check their identity via fingerprints?

No
You have to have sufficient grounds to arrest in the first place.
I'm just saying that just because somebody gives details which you might initially consider plausible it doesn't necessarily mean they are who they say they are & giving you an example.
Your initial post of 'he should have verified who he was' , isn't as simple as you make out. verifying someone's ID requires co-operation on their part & truthfulness. If you aren't getting that it may come down to arrest where you were initialling dealing with an offence.

spookly said:

Some professions require criminal record and vetting checks where arrests on their record can be problematic. Given that arresting someone could cause them to lose their jobs, you'd hope that the powers of arrest are only used when there are good grounds to suspect you have the right person and have reasonable grounds to suspect something criminal.

Wherever a Police officer decides to report you for an offence, no matter how minor, they need to satisfy themselves who you are. Where they have sufficient doubt they may end up arresting. In light of what you said above, it's in your interest to be as helpful as possible in confirming your bona fide ID.

[Rovinghawk]

vonhosen said:

It could only be unlawful where reasonableness was a requirement & it not found to be reasonable.
The test is whether the force used is reasonable & proportionate to secure an arrest, not whether you could consider it reasonable to utter the words 'you are under arrest' first.

If you see PC Savage, please advise him how can can weasel his way past the law and the consequences of going batst crazy.

[vonhosen]

Rovinghawk said:

vonhosen said:

It could only be unlawful where reasonableness was a requirement & it not found to be reasonable.
The test is whether the force used is reasonable & proportionate to secure an arrest, not whether you could consider it reasonable to utter the words 'you are under arrest' first.

If you see PC Savage, please advise him how can can weasel his way past the law and the consequences of going batst crazy.

1) I won't be seeing PC Savage.
2) I'll be offering no advice.
3) I'll await with interest updates on what happened outside of the video & the result of the investigation.