Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
If he honestly believes he did nothing wrong then perhaps not.
As far as a misconduct hearing goes it is irrelevant what Savage believes.It is what the panel believe.
The not guilty verdict certainly puts Savage in a (much) better position but I don't think he's out of the woods just yet.
That puts him in a (much) better position.
His beliefs are most relevant when it comes to future behaviour (which was what was being talked about), because they will influence most his future choices.
vonhosen said:
If he honestly believes he did nothing wrong then perhaps not.
You’re missing the EI point again. It would not have changed his legal position had he admitted to some simple errors that are clear for everyone else to see. Including the Judge. It would however, have perhaps appeased some in the community he works in. Alpinestars said:
vonhosen said:
If he honestly believes he did nothing wrong then perhaps not.
You’re missing the EI point again. It would not have changed his legal position had he admitted to some simple errors that are clear for everyone else to see. Including the Judge. It would however, have perhaps appeased some in the community he works in. Now that's conjecture, as was yours.
Alpinestars thanks for your posts. I've spent a few days in a public gallery. In one case I sat through in a Magistrates Courts the defendant admitted their wrongdoing at the earliest opportunity.
That Members of the Public find themselves in Court because they've done something wrong, yet police officers by virtue of their training and/or job title are somehow infallible is completely without logic.
To err is human.
That Members of the Public find themselves in Court because they've done something wrong, yet police officers by virtue of their training and/or job title are somehow infallible is completely without logic.
To err is human.
[quote=Greendubber]
There's maybe a suggestion to be made that you should have been on the prosecution based on the last 10 pages or so, you've plenty to say about how wrong it all is that he was found NG [quote]
How wrong it all was? I’m pretty sure he made the weapons bit up. Look at it critically and you might land at the same place.
Weren’t you one of the PCs that were trying to convince us all of the law when it happened? And you had no clue. Hopefully you’re a bit more enlightened now.
There's maybe a suggestion to be made that you should have been on the prosecution based on the last 10 pages or so, you've plenty to say about how wrong it all is that he was found NG [quote]
How wrong it all was? I’m pretty sure he made the weapons bit up. Look at it critically and you might land at the same place.
Weren’t you one of the PCs that were trying to convince us all of the law when it happened? And you had no clue. Hopefully you’re a bit more enlightened now.
carinaman said:
Alpinestars thanks for your posts. I've spent a few days in a public gallery. In one case I sat through in a Magistrates Courts the defendant admitted their wrongdoing at the earliest opportunity.
That Members of the Public find themselves in Court because they've done something wrong, yet police officers by virtue of their training and/or job title are somehow infallible is completely without logic.
There is no logic in that. Police officers get convicted where the case is proven in law against them, just like members of the public. That Members of the Public find themselves in Court because they've done something wrong, yet police officers by virtue of their training and/or job title are somehow infallible is completely without logic.
Where there isn't sufficient evidence to prove a case they get acquitted, just like members of the public.
carinaman said:
Alpinestars thanks for your posts. I've spent a few days in a public gallery. In one case I sat through in a Magistrates Courts the defendant admitted their wrongdoing at the earliest opportunity.
That Members of the Public find themselves in Court because they've done something wrong, yet police officers by virtue of their training and/or job title are somehow infallible is completely without logic.
The officer seems to have gone through a more detailed process than a member of the public would go through. Not sure that makes him infallible unless you count his knowledge of the law in order to have a defence? And in which case we can all pick up a book and learn that. That Members of the Public find themselves in Court because they've done something wrong, yet police officers by virtue of their training and/or job title are somehow infallible is completely without logic.
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
There's maybe a suggestion to be made that you should have been on the prosecution based on the last 10 pages or so, you've plenty to say about how wrong it all is that he was found NG
How wrong it all was? I’m pretty sure he made the weapons bit up. Look at it critically and you might land at the same place. Weren’t you one of the PCs that were trying to convince us all of the law when it happened? And you had no clue. Hopefully you’re a bit more enlightened now.
I was one of the ones that explained depending on what information he was given could have triggered various law that allowed a him to act how he did, looks like it wasn't far off now.
A court has heard all the evidence, he's been on trial and he's been found not guilty. Still, you've made notes in the public gallery which makes you the authority on it I suppose.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 31st July 14:42
Greendubber said:
Yes, you're bleating on about how you don't agree with it all, we all read and understood that about 10 pages ago yet you keep on ramming it down everyone's throats.
I was one of the ones that explained depending on what information he was given could have triggered various law that allowed a him to act how he did, looks like it wasn't far off now.
A court has heard all the evidence, he's been on trial and he's been found not guilty. Still, you've made notes in the public gallery which makes you the authority on it I suppose.
Daily Mail style journalism i thinkI was one of the ones that explained depending on what information he was given could have triggered various law that allowed a him to act how he did, looks like it wasn't far off now.
A court has heard all the evidence, he's been on trial and he's been found not guilty. Still, you've made notes in the public gallery which makes you the authority on it I suppose.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 31st July 14:42
pavarotti1980 said:
Greendubber said:
Yes, you're bleating on about how you don't agree with it all, we all read and understood that about 10 pages ago yet you keep on ramming it down everyone's throats.
I was one of the ones that explained depending on what information he was given could have triggered various law that allowed a him to act how he did, looks like it wasn't far off now.
A court has heard all the evidence, he's been on trial and he's been found not guilty. Still, you've made notes in the public gallery which makes you the authority on it I suppose.
Daily Mail style journalism i thinkI was one of the ones that explained depending on what information he was given could have triggered various law that allowed a him to act how he did, looks like it wasn't far off now.
A court has heard all the evidence, he's been on trial and he's been found not guilty. Still, you've made notes in the public gallery which makes you the authority on it I suppose.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 31st July 14:42
I wasn't willing to chuck him under the bus based on the video and press coverage, legislation was suggested by officers that could come into play, yet we're incorrect?
He's been to court, had his day and was found not guilty much to the dissapointment of alpinestars.
It's onto the discipline side of it now so we'll see how that ends up for him
vonhosen said:
Didn't the Met not even want to go misconduct route?
That puts him in a (much) better position.
His beliefs are most relevant when it comes to future behaviour (which was what was being talked about), because they will influence most his future choices.
Re; your first point - No.That puts him in a (much) better position.
His beliefs are most relevant when it comes to future behaviour (which was what was being talked about), because they will influence most his future choices.
There will be a misconduct hearing and that's that.
It's irrelevant how The Met wanted to deal with the case in the first instance.
Do you think Savage was right to act in the way he did ?
He may have been found not guilty on the criminal changes but that does not mean there is no case to answer for misconduct.
And, as you know, misconduct hearings have a lower standard of proof than criminal proceedings.
Savage will keep his job.
I think there will be some form of sanction.
Not just for his benefit, if you see what I mean.
It's been a high profile case and The Met will want to be seen "doing the right thing".
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 31st July 15:04
Greendubber said:
Who knows.
I wasn't willing to chuck him under the bus based on the video and press coverage, legislation was suggested by officers that could come into play, yet we're incorrect?
He's been to court, had his day and was found not guilty much to the dissapointment of alpinestars.
It's onto the discipline side of it now so we'll see how that ends up for him
You’re still missing the point. As you have done all along. I wasn't willing to chuck him under the bus based on the video and press coverage, legislation was suggested by officers that could come into play, yet we're incorrect?
He's been to court, had his day and was found not guilty much to the dissapointment of alpinestars.
It's onto the discipline side of it now so we'll see how that ends up for him
No disappointment from me - as you’ll see from my post before the verdict.
But do I believe he lied, to fall into a part of the law that might protect him, yes.
Do you have anything constructive or even accurate to add? Do you even understand the law at point?
Alpinestars said:
You’re still missing the point. As you have done all along.
No disappointment from me - as you’ll see from my post before the verdict.
But do I believe he lied, to fall into a part of the law that might protect him, yes.
Do you have anything constructive or even accurate to add? Do you even understand the law at point?
On what basis do you conclude he lied? Clearly a group of 12 jurors believed him more than youNo disappointment from me - as you’ll see from my post before the verdict.
But do I believe he lied, to fall into a part of the law that might protect him, yes.
Do you have anything constructive or even accurate to add? Do you even understand the law at point?
What experience have you got to come to that conclusion?
Were you present at the scene to determine his version of events was different to reality?
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Who knows.
I wasn't willing to chuck him under the bus based on the video and press coverage, legislation was suggested by officers that could come into play, yet we're incorrect?
He's been to court, had his day and was found not guilty much to the dissapointment of alpinestars.
It's onto the discipline side of it now so we'll see how that ends up for him
You’re still missing the point. As you have done all along. I wasn't willing to chuck him under the bus based on the video and press coverage, legislation was suggested by officers that could come into play, yet we're incorrect?
He's been to court, had his day and was found not guilty much to the dissapointment of alpinestars.
It's onto the discipline side of it now so we'll see how that ends up for him
No disappointment from me - as you’ll see from my post before the verdict.
But do I believe he lied, to fall into a part of the law that might protect him, yes.
Do you have anything constructive or even accurate to add? Do you even understand the law at point?
I understand just fine thanks, I'm just picking up on the fact that you jumped in against Pavarotti and said he should have been on Savages legal team.
Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 31st July 15:16
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
Didn't the Met not even want to go misconduct route?
That puts him in a (much) better position.
His beliefs are most relevant when it comes to future behaviour (which was what was being talked about), because they will influence most his future choices.
Re; your first point - No.That puts him in a (much) better position.
His beliefs are most relevant when it comes to future behaviour (which was what was being talked about), because they will influence most his future choices.
Red 4 said:
There will be a misconduct hearing and that's that.
It's irrelevant how The Met wanted to deal with the case in the first instance.
Do you think Savage was right to act in the way he did ?
That's irrelevant, it has no bearing.It's irrelevant how The Met wanted to deal with the case in the first instance.
Do you think Savage was right to act in the way he did ?
I have insufficient information to judge him.
What's relevant to his future choices is what he believes about the way he acted.
Red 4 said:
He may have been found not guilty on the criminal changes but that does not mean there is no case to answer for misconduct.
And, as you know, misconduct hearings have a lower standard of proof than criminal proceedings.
Savage will keep his job.
I think there will be some form of sanction.
Not just for his benefit, if you see what I mean.
It's been a high profile case and The Met will want to be seen "doing the right thing".
If it's misconduct & not a gross misconduct hearing their sanction options are now pretty limited. Whatever they do won't appease those that are hell bent on blood (Assuming they find him guilty that is).And, as you know, misconduct hearings have a lower standard of proof than criminal proceedings.
Savage will keep his job.
I think there will be some form of sanction.
Not just for his benefit, if you see what I mean.
It's been a high profile case and The Met will want to be seen "doing the right thing".
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 31st July 16:33
pavarotti1980 said:
Alpinestars said:
You’re still missing the point. As you have done all along.
No disappointment from me - as you’ll see from my post before the verdict.
But do I believe he lied, to fall into a part of the law that might protect him, yes.
Do you have anything constructive or even accurate to add? Do you even understand the law at point?
On what basis do you conclude he lied? Clearly a group of 12 jurors believed him more than youNo disappointment from me - as you’ll see from my post before the verdict.
But do I believe he lied, to fall into a part of the law that might protect him, yes.
Do you have anything constructive or even accurate to add? Do you even understand the law at point?
What experience have you got to come to that conclusion?
Were you present at the scene to determine his version of events was different to reality?
Lots of reasons, as I set out earlier. Examples include.
- changing his statement from initially being worried about drugs, to weapons
- starting the violence as soon as he is told the licence was a provisional one. That does not heighten the risk of weapons
- missing the opportunity to search the car whilst it was stationary with Fontana stood outside it, a couple of mins before the incident
- putting his hand into the car as soon as he starts the use of force, not that clever if he believes the guy has a big knife or firearms
- not once informing anyone on his radio that he fears the driver might have weapons
- not once telling his accompanying officer that he fears the driver might have weapons
- taking his eye off the footwell where he said TJ/Fontana dived to for the potential weapon - you’d be fixated on that spot as it’s a life threatening incident.
Etc
You may well believe his story. On what basis?
vonhosen said:
If it's misconduct & not a gross misconduct hearing their sanction options are now pretty limited. Whatever they do won't appease those that are hell bent on blood (Assuming they find him guilty that is).
That's not entirely correct.It turns out you can be dismissed for misconduct if one proviso is met.
If an officer is already subject to a Final Written Warning and is found guilty of Misconduct, then he/ she can be dismissed.
I have no idea about Savage's previous discipline record ( if any) but other than in the circs above a finding of misconduct will result in management advice, written warning, final written warning or an extension of a final written warning (can only be done once and will last for 18 months beyond the expiry of the previous final written warning).
P.S. Nice cop-out concerning whether or not you thought Savage's actions were correct in the circumstances.
The video (and another where he is also the star) is available online.
As is lots of other info, should you care to look.
Red 4 said:
vonhosen said:
If it's misconduct & not a gross misconduct hearing their sanction options are now pretty limited. Whatever they do won't appease those that are hell bent on blood (Assuming they find him guilty that is).
That's not entirely correct.It turns out you can be dismissed for misconduct if one proviso is met.
If an officer is already subject to a Final Written Warning and is found guilty of Misconduct, then he/ she can be dismissed.
I have no idea about Savage's previous discipline record ( if any) but other than in the circs above a finding of misconduct will result in management advice, written warning, final written warning or an extension of a final written warning (can only be done once and will last for 18 months beyond the expiry of the previous final written warning).
P.S. Nice cop-out concerning whether or not you thought Savage's actions were correct in the circumstances.
The video (and another where he is also the star) is available online.
As is lots of other info, should you care to look.
Even if I did, other than piquing your interest it still has no bearing on how he will act in future. It's whether he believes his actions are correct that will. Previously starring in a video didn't stop him behaving this way this time.
vonhosen said:
But I don't have access to all the info that exists on which to make a fair judgement, so I'll leave it to the professional bodies that do.
Even if I did, other than piquing your interest it still has no bearing on how he will act in future. It's whether he believes his actions are correct that will. Previously starring in a video didn't stop him behaving this way this time.
That video was nowhere near as emotive as the Fontana one, and didn’t result in a court case that was pretty well publicised, and bad PR for him and the Met. Even if I did, other than piquing your interest it still has no bearing on how he will act in future. It's whether he believes his actions are correct that will. Previously starring in a video didn't stop him behaving this way this time.
Alpinestars said:
vonhosen said:
But I don't have access to all the info that exists on which to make a fair judgement, so I'll leave it to the professional bodies that do.
Even if I did, other than piquing your interest it still has no bearing on how he will act in future. It's whether he believes his actions are correct that will. Previously starring in a video didn't stop him behaving this way this time.
That video was nowhere near as emotive as the Fontana one, and didn’t result in a court case that was pretty well publicised, and bad PR for him and the Met. Even if I did, other than piquing your interest it still has no bearing on how he will act in future. It's whether he believes his actions are correct that will. Previously starring in a video didn't stop him behaving this way this time.
The Met didn't want to put it through a misconduct hearing did they?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff