Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Rovinghawk said:
The law says that he can.
Which bit of law?The officer can argue his reasoning for suspecting he is not suppose to drive, therefore its reasonable for him to be asked to get out of the car. It was the officers intention (I SUSPECT) to arrest the driver once he had control over the suspect. He doesn't have to state he is under arrest before getting him out of the car.
Drive fails to identify themselves or provide a name in the video! Only states they have a licence!
RTA 1988
Powers of a constable>
163
(1) A person driving a motor car on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.
Then you look at the definition of driving>
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/drivi...
DRIVING Noun>
The control and operation of a motor vehicle.
My understanding is>
Law has already established sat in a car with keys, you are in control!
They can be in your pocket, the dashboard, doesn't matter your in control of the car and keys.
If the driver had >
a) got out, things would of been different.
b) Opened their window fully they could of remained in the car and commonly the officer removes the keys and crucially the control.
This guy new this and decided to play games end of!
Savage is far from text book but I believe the law is on his side!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 4th October 13:31
surveyor_101 said:
Rovinghawk said:
The law says that he can.
Which bit of law?The officer can argue his reasoning for suspecting he is not suppose to drive, therefore its reasonable for him to be asked to get out of the car. It was the officers intention (I SUSPECT) to arrest the driver once he had control over the suspect. He doesn't have to state he is under arrest before getting him out of the car.
Drive fails to identify themselves or provide a name in the video! Only states they have a licence!
RTA 1988
Powers of a constable>
163
(1) A person driving a motor car on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.
Then you look at the definition of driving>
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/drivi...
DRIVING Noun>
The control and operation of a motor vehicle.
My understanding is>
Law has already established sat in a car with keys, you are in control!
They can be in your pocket, the dashboard, doesn't matter your in control of the car and keys.
If the driver had >
a) got out, things would of been different.
b) Opened their window fully they could of remained in the car and commonly the officer removes the keys and crucially the control.
This guy new this and decided to play games end of!
Savage is far from text book but I believe the law is on his side!
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 4th October 13:31
S163 - A person must stop when requested to. He did.
S164 - Production of licence and in certain cases state his DOB.
S165 - Driver to give his name and address, and insurance and test certificate.
Where's the bit of law that says he must get out of the car to do this?
Rovinghawk said:
e21Mark said:
Was it A) this is the officers first contact / conversation with the driver? or B) there was prior interaction that led to the officer approaching the vehicle with his baton drawn?
I believe it was first contact as identity was in question and any prior contact would have come up in subsequent debate.surveyor_101 said:
There is a strong anti met section of people who are mostly black in parts of London and when dealing with officers they drag out and play games for ad long as possible.
Then the police need to have a carefully thought out strategy for dealing with it and PC Savage's actions are not helpful in this regard. Some white folk remain steadfastly prejudiced against people of colour. It only takes a few to be wearing the uniform to be bad news (PC Savage may or may not be one of them, it is impossible for us to know). Those of us who are not in the BAME demographic cannot directly experience what it is like to be on the receiving end. I have been told by someone who has that you do not need to be a scrote to suffer from it. surveyor_101 said:
The driver asked why he has to get out/has been stopped savage answers because your not supposed to be driving your disqualified.
Yet the PNC check came back as a provisional. What basis does PC Savage have to say he is disqualified? We don't know what was asked of the computer and what the information source was. We can all speculate but we simply don't have the facts about that.Red Devil said:
Yet the PNC check came back as a provisional. What basis does PC Savage have to say he is disqualified? We don't know what was asked of the computer and what the information source was. We can all speculate but we simply don't have the facts about that.
I am BAME and have experienced oppressive and discriminatory policing. It does happen whether some choose to believe it or not. How does Stephen Lawrence's brother get stopped 15 times and never have been cited for even a minor violation? Thanks to a friend who had also experienced it in the past but wasnt savvy enough back then, but wanted to get one back at the police we took my case to court and 'won' costing the police (tax payers) over £40,000.
It is obvious to me that savage is a bigot if the 2 videos he has recently starred in are anything to go buy. I'd bet my house that he doesnt treat a white man in a bowler hat and pin stripe suit the same.
Alpinestars said:
You're asserting the driver needs to get out of the car. That is wrong.
S163 - A person must stop when requested to. He did.
S164 - Production of licence and in certain cases state his DOB.
S165 - Driver to give his name and address, and insurance and test certificate.
Where's the bit of law that says he must get out of the car to do this?
Section 163 says stop driving.S163 - A person must stop when requested to. He did.
S164 - Production of licence and in certain cases state his DOB.
S165 - Driver to give his name and address, and insurance and test certificate.
Where's the bit of law that says he must get out of the car to do this?
It's all set out in my response but you chose to ignore.
Driving is defined by being in control i.e. In car with keys. Officer could not get the keys so driver is deemed in control under law and therefore he can be extracted from the vehicle.
You want to play silly games the prizes aren't great!
Driving is not defined as moving with engine running.
surveyor_101 said:
Alpinestars said:
You're asserting the driver needs to get out of the car. That is wrong.
S163 - A person must stop when requested to. He did.
S164 - Production of licence and in certain cases state his DOB.
S165 - Driver to give his name and address, and insurance and test certificate.
Where's the bit of law that says he must get out of the car to do this?
Section 163 says stop driving.S163 - A person must stop when requested to. He did.
S164 - Production of licence and in certain cases state his DOB.
S165 - Driver to give his name and address, and insurance and test certificate.
Where's the bit of law that says he must get out of the car to do this?
It's all set out in my response but you chose to ignore.
Driving is defined by being in control i.e. In car with keys. Officer could not get the keys so driver is deemed in control under law and therefore he can be extracted from the vehicle.
You want to play silly games the prizes aren't great!
Driving is not defined as moving with engine running.
surveyor_101 said:
Section 163 says stop driving.
It's all set out in my response but you chose to ignore.
Driving is defined by being in control i.e. In car with keys. Officer could not get the keys so driver is deemed in control under law and therefore he can be extracted from the vehicle.
You want to play silly games the prizes aren't great!
Driving is not defined as moving with engine running.
It's got nothing to do with the definition of driving. The stop bit relates to the vehicle. So you need to know the definition of stop the vehicle. Not stop driving. It's all set out in my response but you chose to ignore.
Driving is defined by being in control i.e. In car with keys. Officer could not get the keys so driver is deemed in control under law and therefore he can be extracted from the vehicle.
You want to play silly games the prizes aren't great!
Driving is not defined as moving with engine running.
S163 says "A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].
He stopped the vehicle. In law, stop, unless defined in the Act, takes it's common English meaning. It's not defined in the Act, see S193. He stopped under any definition. Case Law can test the definition of words, I don't know of any Case that has tested the word in the context of S163. Do you?
Just to be totally clear, not only did he stop, he switched his engine off (not a legal requirement) and put his keys on the dash (not a legal requirement). He satisfied S163.
But let's go with he didn't stop, under S163(3) he commited a crime. The recourse for PC was to arrest him. He didn't. Or possibly use REASONABLE force to PREVENT a crime being committed. The latter point has been tested in the Courts and applies in circumstances where there is a danger to people or property which requires intervention by force.
You'd really struggle to say the guy had not stopped, never mind move on to using force.
And to highlight the point in a noddy way, here's a guide on what to do when stopped by police from that anarchist organisation, Saga;
http://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/using...
Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 4th October 19:27
Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 4th October 19:41
Rovinghawk said:
frankenstein12 said:
The officer may have therefore felt there were grounds to place him under arrest for the actions of the persons whos name he had given.
So why didn't he arrest if he felt he had grounds to do so?Chap in car gives false name leading officer to believe chap in car is wanted. It then transpires false name was given and officer has no grounds for arrest....
Quite simple really.
Rovinghawk said:
e21Mark said:
Was it A) this is the officers first contact / conversation with the driver? or B) there was prior interaction that led to the officer approaching the vehicle with his baton drawn?
I believe it was first contact as identity was in question and any prior contact would have come up in subsequent debate.I find it incredibly hard to believe that a police officer would behave in that way without being severely provoked as he would know his job and possibly freedom is on the line as officers are held heavily accountable for even the tiniest little perceived wrongdoing.
surveyor_101 said:
There is a strong anti met section of people who are mostly black in parts of London and when dealing with officers they drag out and play games for ad long as possible.
The officer has made it clear the driver is suspected to not entitled to drive. Therefore he cannot remain in the car. Seems reasonable at this point to get out and clear up this matter if the driver has nothing to hide.
The driver asked why he has to get out/has been stopped savage answers because your not supposed to be driving your disqualified. The driver says without giving a name he has a licence. How many times a copper heard that.
Not my name is mr James smith please check if I have a licence.
His gives the officer no information to help calm his suspicions.
100% Bang on the money.The officer has made it clear the driver is suspected to not entitled to drive. Therefore he cannot remain in the car. Seems reasonable at this point to get out and clear up this matter if the driver has nothing to hide.
The driver asked why he has to get out/has been stopped savage answers because your not supposed to be driving your disqualified. The driver says without giving a name he has a licence. How many times a copper heard that.
Not my name is mr James smith please check if I have a licence.
His gives the officer no information to help calm his suspicions.
Alpinestars said:
It's got nothing to do with the definition of driving. The stop bit relates to the vehicle. So you need to know the definition of stop the vehicle. Not stop driving.
S163 says "A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].
He stopped the vehicle. In law, stop, unless defined in the Act, takes it's common English meaning. It's not defined in the Act, see S193. He stopped under any definition. Case Law can test the definition of words, I don't know of any Case that has tested the word in the context of S163. Do you?
Just to be totally clear, not only did he stop, he switched his engine off (not a legal requirement) and put his keys on the dash (not a legal requirement). He satisfied S163.
But let's go with he didn't stop, under S163(3) he commited a crime. The recourse for PC was to arrest him. He didn't. Or possibly use REASONABLE force to PREVENT a crime being committed. The latter point has been tested in the Courts and applies in circumstances where there is a danger to people or property which requires intervention by force.
You'd really struggle to say the guy had not stopped, never mind move on to using force.
And to highlight the point in a noddy way, here's a guide on what to do when stopped by police from that anarchist organisation, Saga;
http://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/using...
Your saga post sounds a bit American in its use of traffic stop but it demonstrates my point that the driver failed. He did not drop the window as advised. It's not uncomomon if you think you are going to give bad news to invite the driver into your car. If the officer believes or suspects your not supposed to be driving you can't stay in control of a car with keys.S163 says "A person driving a [F1mechanically propelled vehicle] on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform [F2or a traffic officer].
He stopped the vehicle. In law, stop, unless defined in the Act, takes it's common English meaning. It's not defined in the Act, see S193. He stopped under any definition. Case Law can test the definition of words, I don't know of any Case that has tested the word in the context of S163. Do you?
Just to be totally clear, not only did he stop, he switched his engine off (not a legal requirement) and put his keys on the dash (not a legal requirement). He satisfied S163.
But let's go with he didn't stop, under S163(3) he commited a crime. The recourse for PC was to arrest him. He didn't. Or possibly use REASONABLE force to PREVENT a crime being committed. The latter point has been tested in the Courts and applies in circumstances where there is a danger to people or property which requires intervention by force.
You'd really struggle to say the guy had not stopped, never mind move on to using force.
And to highlight the point in a noddy way, here's a guide on what to do when stopped by police from that anarchist organisation, Saga;
http://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motoring/cars/using...
Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 4th October 19:27
Edited by Alpinestars on Tuesday 4th October 19:41
if you are suspect them of driving when you shouldn't you don't risk them staying in control of their car. the law is not clear the pc isn't allowed and has to justify his use of force based on the circumstances.
You can't just say he isn't allowed.
He is until proved excessive.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 4th October 20:40
surveyor_101 said:
Your saga post sounds a bit American in its use of traffic stop but it demonstrates my point that th driver failed. He did drop the window as advised. It's not uncomomon if your u think you are going to give bad news to invite the driver into your car. If the officer agrees they suspects your not supposed to be driving you can't stay in control of a car with keys.
if you are suspected of driving when you shouldn't you don't risk them staying in control of their. Car the law is not clear pc,isn't allowed and has to justify his use of force based on the circumstances.
You can't just say he isn't allowed.
He is until proved excessive.
You said stop meant stop driving, which I think you said meant getting out of the car. That's wrong. That's my main point. The stop bit relates to the vehicle. Not the driving. So he complied with S163. No question. if you are suspected of driving when you shouldn't you don't risk them staying in control of their. Car the law is not clear pc,isn't allowed and has to justify his use of force based on the circumstances.
You can't just say he isn't allowed.
He is until proved excessive.
surveyor_101 said:
Rovinghawk said:
The presumptive bit that reckons you're allowed to do that which isn't prohibited.
Don't go to court with that amazing argument will you.PC Savage might not go along with the legal rights of the individual but judges tend to be quite good at knowing the law & applying it.
frankenstein12 said:
Rovinghawk said:
e21Mark said:
Was it A) this is the officers first contact / conversation with the driver? or B) there was prior interaction that led to the officer approaching the vehicle with his baton drawn?
I believe it was first contact as identity was in question and any prior contact would have come up in subsequent debate.I find it incredibly hard to believe that a police officer would behave in that way without being severely provoked as he would know his job and possibly freedom is on the line as officers are held heavily accountable for even the tiniest little perceived wrongdoing.
Alpinestars said:
You said stop meant stop driving, which I think you said meant getting out of the car. That's wrong. That's my main point. The stop bit relates to the vehicle. Not the driving. So he complied with S163. No question.
My understanding is that if in a car with keys your deemed in control.If the driver had opened the window reducing suspicion the officer could of taken the keys.
frankenstein12 said:
Rovinghawk said:
frankenstein12 said:
The officer may have therefore felt there were grounds to place him under arrest for the actions of the persons whos name he had given.
So why didn't he arrest if he felt he had grounds to do so?Chap in car gives false name leading officer to believe chap in car is wanted. It then transpires false name was given and officer has no grounds for arrest....
Quite simple really.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff