Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
Thanks 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.
As it so happens those things clearly didn't exist. We only know those things didn't exist in hindsight.
Not that any of that really matters as it's in the hands of the courts now.
PurpleAki said:
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?
Greendubber said:
PurpleAki said:
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?
XCP said:
I worked with a number of officers I didn't trust further than I could throw them. More often than not senior ranks. Being captured on video apparently losing it and being charged with criminal offences were not a prerequisite.
So you had the criminal element on one side of you and senior officers of doubtful integrity above you?Job like no other.
Are police issued with a blunt ended knife for cutting stuff like seatbelts or is that a task that a police officer wouldn't be epxected to perform at a road accident, hypothetically if there's someone belted into a car that's about to catch fire?
Would any deformation of a vehicle, size of the drivers or passengers and their injuries mean it's difficult or more risky to reach a seatbelt buckle to undo it than cut through a seatbelt by the shoulder near the pillar bolt for the seatbelt?
Would any deformation of a vehicle, size of the drivers or passengers and their injuries mean it's difficult or more risky to reach a seatbelt buckle to undo it than cut through a seatbelt by the shoulder near the pillar bolt for the seatbelt?
Greendubber said:
Is he not entitled to a trial then?
No lynch him. PH judge, jury and executioner have spoken.Whilst we don't know all the things that went on, I think him having a bladed article is a joke. If you going to have officers bringing their own pen knifes which is a reasonable pice of kit and be prosecuted for it
If the smashing the window in light of curcumstances is disproportionate then so be it.
Ditch my safety knife for emergencies if this is the legal position on them and my seatbelt cutter.
PC certainly appears to have overstepped the mark.
Car driver appears to have set off a chain of events with his unhelpful attitude though. If he knew it was a case of mistaken identity, why not just go along with the officers commands and let things play out?
It will be interesting to see what else comes out at the trial.
Car driver appears to have set off a chain of events with his unhelpful attitude though. If he knew it was a case of mistaken identity, why not just go along with the officers commands and let things play out?
It will be interesting to see what else comes out at the trial.
carinaman said:
So what's the Professional Standards angle regarding officers carrying kit they've not been officially issued with?
Like a decent torch or belt?carinaman said:
I can see some situations in which officers having a knife about their person may be useful, but it seems inconsistent when other people aren't supposed to carry them.
People can carry certain types of knives, but not others. That's consistent.Why is it when its a member of the public supposedly doing something wrong then there's no smoke without fire, you can tell he is up to no good by looking at him/her, got previous etc etc. But when its a coppers turn then we shouldn't judge, we should wait for the enquiry and so on and so forth?
carinaman said:
So you had the criminal element on one side of you and senior officers of doubtful integrity above you?
Job like no other.
Some senior officers were superb. Some were adequate. Some were simply not up to the job. A few were not to be trusted. Like any other organisation I suppose.Job like no other.
mickmcpaddy said:
Why is it when its a member of the public supposedly doing something wrong then there's no smoke without fire, you can tell he is up to no good by looking at him/her, got previous etc etc. But when its a coppers turn then we shouldn't judge, we should wait for the enquiry and so on and so forth?
I suppose the answer could be that we expect police officers to be selected from the law abiding and therefore less likely to be wrong 'uns.However you are of course right that we should not prejudge anyone, police or not, without knowing all the circumstances.
As seems to be the case in so many of these dodgy copper cases, how on earth is this still going on? How have they not just sorted this and sacked him?
6 months on from something that would have had someone in a normal profession just walked off the premises, and we are still paying for this muppet..
Glacial progress by the cops, and to be fair it is far quicker than most similar cases.
6 months on from something that would have had someone in a normal profession just walked off the premises, and we are still paying for this muppet..
Glacial progress by the cops, and to be fair it is far quicker than most similar cases.
La Liga said:
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
Thanks 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.
As it so happens those things clearly didn't exist. We only know those things didn't exist in hindsight.
Not that any of that really matters as it's in the hands of the courts now.
We should all bear in mind, that whilst a Court is likely to be given more evidence than we have, it's rarely 20:20, perfect information. Things are decided on the balance of probabilities. The first leg of which is the decision to prosecute, the test for which is that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, ie, that a jury with the correct advice about the law, is more likely than not to find the defendant guilty.
mickmcpaddy said:
Why is it when its a member of the public supposedly doing something wrong then there's no smoke without fire, you can tell he is up to no good by looking at him/her, got previous etc etc. But when its a coppers turn then we shouldn't judge, we should wait for the enquiry and so on and so forth?
Or he is anti police and obstructive.What ever your thoughts there is a person behind the uniform and they are doing a job.
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
Thanks 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.
As it so happens those things clearly didn't exist. We only know those things didn't exist in hindsight.
Not that any of that really matters as it's in the hands of the courts now.
We should all bear in mind, that whilst a Court is likely to be given more evidence than we have, it's rarely 20:20, perfect information. Things are decided on the balance of probabilities. The first leg of which is the decision to prosecute, the test for which is that there is a realistic prospect of conviction, ie, that a jury with the correct advice about the law, is more likely than not to find the defendant guilty.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff