Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Despite all the protestations from a couple of PC posters on this thread, it was assault. Know the law chaps, unless it's an arrest or stop and search, violence is not allowed. And don't try bulls
tting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you.
He should be dismissed for his actions.
tting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you. He should be dismissed for his actions.
Alpinestars said:
Despite all the protestations from a couple of PC posters on this thread, it was assault. Know the law chaps, unless it's an arrest or stop and search, violence is not allowed. And don't try bullstting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you.
He should be dismissed for his actions.
Is he not entitled to a trial then? tting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you. He should be dismissed for his actions.
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Despite all the protestations from a couple of PC posters on this thread, it was assault. Know the law chaps, unless it's an arrest or stop and search, violence is not allowed. And don't try bullstting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you.
He should be dismissed for his actions.
Is he not entitled to a trial then? tting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you. He should be dismissed for his actions.
You got it wrong big time with your analysis of the law. Don't try and nit pick now.
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Despite all the protestations from a couple of PC posters on this thread, it was assault. Know the law chaps, unless it's an arrest or stop and search, violence is not allowed. And don't try bullstting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you.
He should be dismissed for his actions.
Is he not entitled to a trial then? tting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you. He should be dismissed for his actions.
You got it wrong big time with your analysis of the law. Don't try and nit pick now.
Greendubber said:
XCP said:
No need. It's on Youtube.
Good job its down to a court to decide if what he did falls outside of his lawful authority.I'm making an early call for a verdict of not guilty.
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Despite all the protestations from a couple of PC posters on this thread, it was assault. Know the law chaps, unless it's an arrest or stop and search, violence is not allowed. And don't try bullstting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you.
He should be dismissed for his actions.
Is he not entitled to a trial then? tting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you. He should be dismissed for his actions.
You got it wrong big time with your analysis of the law. Don't try and nit pick now.
. But someone has not agreed with your view that it's "business as usual" and he was entitled to do what he did under the protection of the law.
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Despite all the protestations from a couple of PC posters on this thread, it was assault. Know the law chaps, unless it's an arrest or stop and search, violence is not allowed. And don't try bullstting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you.
He should be dismissed for his actions.
Is he not entitled to a trial then? tting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you. He should be dismissed for his actions.
You got it wrong big time with your analysis of the law. Don't try and nit pick now.
. But someone has not agreed with your view that it's "business as usual" and he was entitled to do what he did under the protection of the law.
SkrrSkrr said:
I'm so glad the brave victim manged to film his ordeal. Hopefully PC savage gets found guilty and sentenced to prison.
IMO the "victim" wasnt brave they were belligerent and difficult but thats par for the course these days. Everyone know their "rights" and is happy to if need be die for their perceived rights rather than adopt a degree of common sense.If he's committed the offences then he deserves to be held to account for it.
Hindsight bias is really useful during investigations.
Alpinestars said:
Despite all the protestations from a couple of PC posters on this thread, it was assault. Know the law chaps, unless it's an arrest or stop and search, violence is not allowed. And don't try bullstting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you.
He should be dismissed for his actions.
Thanks for your expert insight. I'll be sure to call you if I ever need legal advice. tting your way through the rules if you don't know them, and don't call out anyone who explains it to you. He should be dismissed for his actions.
Hindsight bias is really useful during investigations.
frankenstein12 said:
SkrrSkrr said:
I'm so glad the brave victim manged to film his ordeal. Hopefully PC savage gets found guilty and sentenced to prison.
IMO the "victim" wasnt brave they were belligerent and difficult but thats par for the course these days. Everyone know their "rights" and is happy to if need be die for their perceived rights rather than adopt a degree of common sense.Whoosh parrot anybody ?
PurpleAki said:
Greendubber & La Liga, genuine question...
Would you want to work alongside him everyday? You'd trust his judgement and temperament implicitly and entrust him with your safety?
Not willing to chuck him under the bus from the video alone. Happy to wait and see where it goes. Would you want to work alongside him everyday? You'd trust his judgement and temperament implicitly and entrust him with your safety?
La Liga said:
hanks for your expert insight. I'll be sure to call you if I ever need legal advice.
Hindsight bias is really useful during investigations.
Read back chap. All the crap coming from some PCs who clearly didn't know the law. I made it clear what my understanding was, to be told again and again I'm wrong. But no explanation as to why - because the PCs didn't know it themselves. It's called vindication. Not confirmation bias. Hindsight bias is really useful during investigations.
I can think of a complaint made against someone I used to work with.
The short clip submitted be the 'victim' looked awful, the bigger picture and other evidence painted a very different picture. The officer in question was spot on in every way, had I judged him purely on that video I'd have been wrong about it which is why I'd rather wait it out and let a court decide.
That complaint went nowhere.
The short clip submitted be the 'victim' looked awful, the bigger picture and other evidence painted a very different picture. The officer in question was spot on in every way, had I judged him purely on that video I'd have been wrong about it which is why I'd rather wait it out and let a court decide.
That complaint went nowhere.
Greendubber said:
PurpleAki said:
Greendubber & La Liga, genuine question...
Would you want to work alongside him everyday? You'd trust his judgement and temperament implicitly and entrust him with your safety?
Not willing to chuck him under the bus from the video alone. Happy to wait and see where it goes. Would you want to work alongside him everyday? You'd trust his judgement and temperament implicitly and entrust him with your safety?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff