Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
surveyor_101 said:
singlecoil said:
Wrong. A police officer in the UK is empowered to require a driver to exit a car on request. Whether he has a good reason or not is something that can be gone into afterwards if necessary. At the time that it is made, the request is lawful and should be complied with. If it not complied with then the police officer has the powers to compel the driver to exit.
In most traffic stops you are always asked to sit in the back of a police car so the officer has control over what is happening and if you are not supposed to be driving you need to be told when your not in your driving seat, as it's safer.Any police officer can stop any car and ask for driving documents, they can also search the car, again that's can't be done whilst our stay in it.
If the guy had got out this would of been a none event and all this drama could of avoided. This Leon is anti police and so was after some footage tomale out the met are racist.
If your watch the other video the stop goes pretty well and pc savage seems reasonable.
The police can request that you join them in their car. That does not mean that you have to unless under arrest, or there is some other power used with reasonable grounds.... like stop and search. Most people would comply if they have committed an offence as it is pointless to get arrested when you can get it disposed of at the roadside.
But if you were genuinely scared by the behaviour of the policeman, had not been told you are under arrest, and not been told you've been stopped for a search.... then why would you get out of the car? Especially if, as would appear to be the case here, you have done nothing wrong.
RobinOakapple said:
Terzo123 said:
singlecoil said:
Terzo123 said:
singlecoil said:
Wrong. A police officer in the UK is empowered to require a driver to exit a car on request. Whether he has a good reason or not is something that can be gone into afterwards if necessary. At the time that it is made, the request is lawful and should be complied with. If it not complied with then the police officer has the powers to compel the driver to exit.
This is not correct.There are however instances where a police officer can remove a person from a vehicle using reasonable force. Generally this happens when that person is under arrest, or detained for the purpose of a search under specific legislation.
But i'd be happy to be proved wrong if you could show me the specific legislation.
spookly said:
Yeah, police websites... not going to trust that. Primary legislation sources please. Acts of parliament or references to them.
Again, +1. Something that stacks up in court. He said, she said and google wouldn't. If the law is there, it should be really really straightforward for someone who knows it's there, to quote the statutory references (or case law).
No one has managed to do that so far.
For people like v6, there's no requirement for a law which says a PC can't require you to get out of the car.
spookly said:
Yeah, police websites... not going to trust that. Primary legislation sources please. Acts of parliament or references to them.
Quite honestly I couldn't care less if you trust police websites or not, it won't change the fact that they are right. I'm only posting to put you right, whether you accept the correction is up to you.Alpinestars said:
For people like v6, there's no requirement for a law which says a PC can't require you to get out of the car.
Tbh I've no idea whether the law means you have to or you don't, but one thing I'm reasonably sure of is that if enough people decide not to cooperate with the Police when there should be no reason for them not to do so, at some point there will be a law.That's the odd paradox with the "I don't have to" approach taken by yourself and some others, if you're not careful it can lead to sleepwalking into giving the Police more legal powers so you do have to rather than relying on common sense over legislation.
Alpinestars said:
singlecoil said:
Wrong. A police officer in the UK is empowered to require a driver to exit a car on request. Whether he has a good reason or not is something that can be gone into afterwards if necessary. At the time that it is made, the request is lawful and should be complied with. If it not complied with then the police officer has the powers to compel the driver to exit.
Can you prove that?
Under the RTA, the power of police officers is set out under Ss 163-167. None of those sections allow an officer to require a driver to get out of the car.
Under stop and search powers, a driver would probably be required to get out, but there are a number of requirements of the office both before and after a stop and search, none of which are evident.
Under S3, as previously discussed, force can be used (note not a requirement to get out of a car, where the force is used in the process of an arrest, or if preventing a crime (which in the stationary vehicle and what is being alleged by the police, is not possible).
Genuine interested if you can point to something which requires the guy to get out of the car. As stated numerous times.
Alpinestars said:
Bigends said:
There is NO requirement unless under arrest or remaining in the car will obstruct a LAWFUL search
That's my understanding. Cat
Cat said:
Alpinestars said:
Bigends said:
There is NO requirement unless under arrest or remaining in the car will obstruct a LAWFUL search
That's my understanding. Cat
Bigends said:
Cat said:
Alpinestars said:
Bigends said:
There is NO requirement unless under arrest or remaining in the car will obstruct a LAWFUL search
That's my understanding. Cat
Cat
Cat said:
Bigends said:
Cat said:
Alpinestars said:
Bigends said:
There is NO requirement unless under arrest or remaining in the car will obstruct a LAWFUL search
That's my understanding. Cat
Cat
Cat said:
Alpinestars said:
Bigends said:
There is NO requirement unless under arrest or remaining in the car will obstruct a LAWFUL search
That's my understanding. Cat
Aa far as force goes, It can be used in the following circumstances, all of which don't appear to apply. it appeara that not only was there no requirement to get out of the car, the use of force was also illegal.
Section 3, Criminal Law Act 1967
“A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in the effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders, or of persons unlawfully at large”. This is only relevant in this case if there was an arrest. There was no crime being prevented once the car had stopped.
Common Law (R v Griffiths 1988)
Common Law allow force to be used if you are in imminent danger. No relevant in this case.
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Section 117 provides the authority for the use of force, when executing the powers found in the act. S1(2) of the act allows a PC to search a person and/or car, but only if he believes he will find stolen goods. Not relevant in this case.
Article 2 ECHR
“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article, when it results from the use of force, which is no more than absolutely necessary: -
a) In defence of any person from unlawful violence.
b) In order to affect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained.
c) To quell a riot or insurrection".
Again not relevant.
S76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Section 76 is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences above. E.g. it reaffirms that a person who uses force is to be judged on the basis of the circumstances, as he/she perceived them.
Not relevant.
Individual Responsibility
The responsibility for the use of Force is an individual decision, which may have to be justified in legal / disciplinary proceedings.
The three core questions for police (as to when force may be used, and to what extent)
1. Would the use of force have a lawful objective (e.g. the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed?
2. Are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
3. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm), what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?
Bigends said:
No its not! Otherwise there'd be an offence of failing to quit a vehicle when requested
More semantics - it is an offence to fail to comply with a reasonable instruction given in the course of vehicle exam. If that reasonable instruction is to get out of the car then there doesn't need to be a specific offence of failing to quit the vehicle. Cat
Cat said:
More semantics - it is an offence to fail to comply with a reasonable instruction given in the course of vehicle exam. If that reasonable instruction is to get out of the car then there doesn't need to be a specific offence of failing to quit the vehicle.
Cat
Only certain officers can carry out a vehicle exam. Well in Scotland anyway. Your average Bobby wouldn't be permitted to do so.Cat
Alpinestars said:
Either way, it doesn't apply in these circumstances.
Looking like there was no requirement to get out and the use of force was illegal.
If you're referring to the video in the op, then there are a few ways in which that driver could have been required to leave the car. Looking like there was no requirement to get out and the use of force was illegal.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff