Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[Red 4]

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.

Well, I'd like to know how sawing through a windscreen with a small knife will enable him to stop the driver driving off or how, exactly, he intended to extract the driver.

I'd also like to know why Savage thinks a damaged mudguard on a moped gives him grounds to search the owner/ rider - there does not appear to be grounds other than that - see the other video (that's what he says).

Based on what I've seen I'm not sure I would have been comfortable working with PC Savage.
He seems like a liability to me - but that's just my opinion based on what's available on the interweb.

[Graveworm]

Red 4 said:

Well, I'd like to know how sawing through a windscreen with a small knife will enable him to stop the driver driving off or how, exactly, he intended to extract the driver.

I'd also like to know why Savage thinks a damaged mudguard on a moped gives him grounds to search the owner/ rider - there does not appear to be grounds other than that - see the other video (that's what he says).

I am not a fan especially the saw video. But on the moped he did a little better, based just on what is online, I think he could still have done better.
He saw someone pushing a damaged moped. He initially said that he stopped him, to make sure he hadn't just pushed it away. He was trying to ascertain ownership and insurance all of which is not an issue for me and I would have liked him to have stuck with that. We then get into the rider not wanting to tell him his full name, address etc and being evasive. That is odd and can legitimately add to his suspicions. If it was a prevalent offence in that area, at that time of day, the rider and the bike matched the description of persons involved (Which it well may) then he was close to getting over the line. But just because he could possibly get enough to justify the search I am not sure why you would bother? Pushing a moped and stopping to talk to police, whilst videoing it all is not really in keeping with what you would expect. What did he hope to find? The rider wasn't acting like someone who was worried about being searched, I get the impression he wanted to be searched so all he did was play into the guys hands.

[Alpinestars]

vonhosen said:

And he hasn't shown any signs yet that he considered his choice of behaviour regrettable or inappropriate this time, has he?
The Met didn't want to put it through a misconduct hearing did they?

The case was last week. Give him a chance.

[anonymous-user]

The Met wanted to keep it as a misconduct meeting, the IOPC have directed it be a misconduct hearing. So dismissal is an option.

[Red 4]

Graveworm said:

.
I am not a fan especially the saw video. But on the moped he did a little better, based just on what is online, I think he could still have done better.
He saw someone pushing a damaged moped. He initially said that he stopped him, to make sure he hadn't just pushed it away. He was trying to ascertain ownership and insurance all of which is not an issue for me and I would have liked him to have stuck with that. We then get into the rider not wanting to tell him his full name, address etc and being evasive. That is odd and can legitimately add to his suspicions. If it was a prevalent offence in that area, at that time of day, the rider and the bike matched the description of persons involved (Which it well may) then he was close to getting over the line. But just because he could possibly get enough to justify the search I am not sure why you would bother? Pushing a moped and stopping to talk to police, whilst videoing it all is not really in keeping with what you would expect. What did he hope to find? The rider wasn't acting like someone who was worried about being searched, I get the impression he wanted to be searched so all he did was play into the guys hands.

Yep, I understand with what you are saying and I agree with most of it.

However, Savage said the grounds for the search were because the mudguard was damaged.
There was no mention of anything else. No mention of a bike matching the description of that bike being stolen or anything else
There were no grounds for a search.
Savage was making it up as he went along IMO.

"The mudguard is damaged so I suspect the bike may be stolen or have been used in crime"
Er, yeah, ok, how does that work then ?

Regarding being baited and/ or filmed I'd say that's just part and parcel of the job nowadays.
In fact, it makes it a bit more concerning that Savage knew he was being filmed but still blagged his way through anyway.
All IMHO of course.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

Were the jury?

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?

SO because he didnt do any of the bullted points he is lying? Thats an interesting conclusion to come to.

I am apothetic to it all and not in either camp to be honest, however i am sitting on the fence and wondering how you come to such a certain conclusion despite hearing the evidence in person. 12 people also heard the same evidence and came to a different conclusion. Is that becuase they are all wrong or you are wrong?

Your posts at the beginning of this thread were indicative of your view on it. And now after the trial your views remain similar in that you think he lied.

[Alpinestars]

pavarotti1980 said:

SO because he didnt do any of the bullted points he is lying? Thats an interesting conclusion to come to.

I am apothetic to it all and not in either camp to be honest, however i am sitting on the fence and wondering how you come to such a certain conclusion despite hearing the evidence in person. 12 people also heard the same evidence and came to a different conclusion. Is that becuase they are all wrong or you are wrong?

Your posts at the beginning of this thread were indicative of your view on it. And now after the trial your views remain similar in that you think he lied.

Would you like me to kowtow to your view or will you allow me to have mine?

Read back, and you’ll realise that I stated the law on force pretty much as it was despite a lot of the plodders on here insisting the guy had to get out of his car. I stated that without danger to him or others, or an arrest or a stop and search, force cannot be used. I was told I was wrong. And a bit like you now, they didn’t know why. That fence must be a big one.

Also read the bullet points and come to your own view as to whether you would have believed Savage. I look forward to an alternative analysis.

Also do you know the law that was at point here? Because if you don’t, a blunt, “so you don’t believe him, but the jurors did” is bks, to use a technical term. The jurors could also have thought “I don’t believe you” and still found him guilty.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

Would you like me to kowtow to your view or will you allow me to have mine?

Read back, and you’ll realise that I stated the law on force pretty much as it was despite a lot of the plodders on here insisting the guy had to get out of his car. I stated that without danger to him or others, or an arrest or a stop and search, force cannot be used. I was told I was wrong. And a bit like you now, they didn’t know why. That fence must be a big one.

Also read the bullet points and come to your own view as to whether you would have believed Savage. I look forward to an alternative analysis.

Also do you know the law that was at point here? Because if you don’t, a blunt, “so you don’t believe him, but the jurors did” is bks, to use a technical term. The jurors could also have thought “I don’t believe you” and still found him guilty.

Its not a case of knowing the law, they clearly believed his version of events. Sorry if that troubles you.

Just for the record what is exactly is your background to give you such forthright views on something? Do you have a legal background?

[Greendubber]

Alpinestars said:

pavarotti1980 said:

SO because he didnt do any of the bullted points he is lying? Thats an interesting conclusion to come to.

I am apothetic to it all and not in either camp to be honest, however i am sitting on the fence and wondering how you come to such a certain conclusion despite hearing the evidence in person. 12 people also heard the same evidence and came to a different conclusion. Is that becuase they are all wrong or you are wrong?

Your posts at the beginning of this thread were indicative of your view on it. And now after the trial your views remain similar in that you think he lied.

Would you like me to kowtow to your view or will you allow me to have mine?

Read back, and you’ll realise that I stated the law on force pretty much as it was despite a lot of the plodders on here insisting the guy had to get out of his car. I stated that without danger to him or others, or an arrest or a stop and search, force cannot be used. I was told I was wrong. And a bit like you now, they didn’t know why. That fence must be a big one.

Also read the bullet points and come to your own view as to whether you would have believed Savage. I look forward to an alternative analysis.

Also do you know the law that was at point here? Because if you don’t, a blunt, “so you don’t believe him, but the jurors did” is bks, to use a technical term. The jurors could also have thought “I don’t believe you” and still found him guilty.

At the risk of sending you into the stratosphere and spark another 30 or so pages of posts from you, I've just read the first 40 or so pages of this thread to refresh my memory.

I can't see where any police officers (that I know of anyway) said there was any requirement to get out of a car when stopped. I have seen use of force explained to you and how Savage may have used force based on what his understanding of the situation was at the time though.

It was also interesting to read how everyone thought he was guilty and how the police officers were slightly more open minded about it all and stated it would all come out in the wash, looks like it pretty much has now (with the exception of the discipline side of things)

You're of the opinion he lied, you're welcome to that but ultimately the court think otherwise. Had the court thought his use of force was unlawful they would have found him guilty.

[Alpinestars]

pavarotti1980 said:

Alpinestars said:

Would you like me to kowtow to your view or will you allow me to have mine?

Read back, and you’ll realise that I stated the law on force pretty much as it was despite a lot of the plodders on here insisting the guy had to get out of his car. I stated that without danger to him or others, or an arrest or a stop and search, force cannot be used. I was told I was wrong. And a bit like you now, they didn’t know why. That fence must be a big one.

Also read the bullet points and come to your own view as to whether you would have believed Savage. I look forward to an alternative analysis.

Also do you know the law that was at point here? Because if you don’t, a blunt, “so you don’t believe him, but the jurors did” is bks, to use a technical term. The jurors could also have thought “I don’t believe you” and still found him guilty.

Its not a case of knowing the law, they clearly believed his version of events. Sorry if that troubles you.

Just for the record what is exactly is your background to give you such forthright views on something? Do you have a legal background?

They didn’t need to believe his version of events to find him not guilty. So with all due respect, it’s essential you understand the law - because you’re coming to the wrong conclusion.

[Alpinestars]

Greendubber said:

At the risk of sending you into the stratosphere and spark another 30 or so pages of posts from you, I've just read the first 40 or so pages of this thread to refresh my memory.

I can't see where any police officers (that I know of anyway) said there was any requirement to get out of a car when stopped. I have seen use of force explained to you and how Savage may have used force based on what his understanding of the situation was at the time though.

It was also interesting to read how everyone thought he was guilty and how the police officers were slightly more open minded about it all and stated it would all come out in the wash, looks like it pretty much has now (with the exception of the discipline side of things)

You're of the opinion he lied, you're welcome to that but ultimately the court think otherwise. Had the court thought his use of force was unlawful they would have found him guilty.

Plenty of times you and others told me I was wrong about the law.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

They didn’t need to believe his version of events to find him not guilty. So with all due respect, it’s essential you understand the law - because you’re coming to the wrong conclusion.

So what do they need to do? They need to believe one side of the argument to come to a conslusion of which they did. Not guilty.

Are you suggesting they believed someone else?

[Alpinestars]

pavarotti1980 said:

Alpinestars said:

They didn’t need to believe his version of events to find him not guilty. So with all due respect, it’s essential you understand the law - because you’re coming to the wrong conclusion.

So what do they need to do? They need to believe one side of the argument to come to a conslusion of which they did. Not guilty.

Are you suggesting they believed someone else?

Given your approach to this, why don't you do a bit of research and come back with what (law) the jury were asked to consider incoming to a not guilty conclusion. Because it's goes to the heart of your proposition that they believed him (and I didn't).

As a matter of fact, they didn't need to believe that Savage thought there was a weapon.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

Given your approach to this, why don't you do a bit of research and come back with what (law) the jury were asked to consider incoming to a not guilty conclusion. Because it's goes to the heart of your proposition that they believed him (and I didn't).

As a matter of fact, they didn't need to believe that Savage thought there was a weapon.

jesus wept man. He was found not guilty because the prosectuion case was was not proven. That will be due to a number of factors. Im not interested in what you thought. You are irrelevant to the process and now floundering to try and not lose face from you initial assertion after the incident that he was bang to rights (not quoted but paraphrased). Just give it up.

he was found not guilty and will face a misconduct hearing in relation to his action.

[Alpinestars]

pavarotti1980 said:

Alpinestars said:

Given your approach to this, why don't you do a bit of research and come back with what (law) the jury were asked to consider incoming to a not guilty conclusion. Because it's goes to the heart of your proposition that they believed him (and I didn't).

As a matter of fact, they didn't need to believe that Savage thought there was a weapon.

jesus wept man. He was found not guilty because the prosectuion case was was not proven. That will be due to a number of factors. Im not interested in what you thought. You are irrelevant to the process and now floundering to try and not lose face from you initial assertion after the incident that he was bang to rights (not quoted but paraphrased). Just give it up.

he was found not guilty and will face a misconduct hearing in relation to his action.

If you're not interested, don't respond to the posts? Simple?

Also, you're back tracking now. I'll repeat, the jury did not need to believe Savage thought there was a weapon to find him not guilty.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

If you're not interested, don't respond to the posts? Simple?

Also, you're back tracking now. I'll repeat, the jury did not need to believe Savage thought there was a weapon to find him not guilty.

i also never mentioned anything about a weapon so no backtracking here .

There is only one weapon!!!

[Alpinestars]

pavarotti1980 said:

Alpinestars said:

If you're not interested, don't respond to the posts? Simple?

Also, you're back tracking now. I'll repeat, the jury did not need to believe Savage thought there was a weapon to find him not guilty.

i also never mentioned anything about a weapon so no backtracking here .

There is only one weapon!!!

There is only one tool .

No defence involving a weapon, and he has virtually no defence.

[pavarotti1980]

Alpinestars said:

There is only one tool .

At least you are self aware

[Red Devil]

Red 4 said:

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.

I reckon you can safely bet your shirt on both and it would be the right outcome.
The crux of it in my mind though is the level of sanction which should be imposed.

Red 4 said:

It's been a high profile case and The Met will want to be seen "doing the right thing".

Really? The Met was very keen to keep things behind closed doors until directed otherwise by the IOPC.
https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Off...
Its 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality isn't conducive to winning hearts and minds..

Any MoP can apply to attend - https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-inform...
First come first served, so anyone fancying it should check the link to the upcoming hearings list.

Those who think Savage is being 'tried twice' are misunderstanding the primary purpose of the hearing.
See paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11 here - https://www.app.college.police.uk/wp-content/uploa...

My take on it is that PC Savage hasn't done the Met's reputation a great service.
How that will play out in the thought processes of those conducting the hearing remains to be seen.

On a lighter note: life imitating art*?

 * NTNON.

[Red 4]

Red Devil said:

Really? The Met was very keen to keep things behind closed doors until directed otherwise by the IOPC.
https://www.wired-gov.net/wg/news.nsf/articles/Off...
Its 'pull up the drawbridge' mentality isn't conducive to winning hearts and minds.

Yes, because that was then, this is now and there has been lots more coverage in the press.

Or is it a safer bet that Alpinestars will be first in the queue at the misconduct hearing ?