Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

Author
Discussion

Bigends

5,418 posts

128 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Cat said:
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
..and if they didnt respond to that reasonable instruction theyd be obstructing the officer.

Sunnysider

106 posts

92 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all


Just imagine being of a mindset where you honestly believed that this police officer hadn't behaved deplorably.

This place is like a lunatic asylum sometimes.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

244 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Sunnysider said:
Just imagine being of a mindset where you honestly believed that this police officer hadn't behaved deplorably.

This place is like a lunatic asylum sometimes.
There's a few on here, including some coppers. Frightening.

Digby

8,237 posts

246 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Sunnysider said:
Just imagine being of a mindset where you honestly believed that this police officer hadn't behaved deplorably.
He did, but, some people deserve it. hehe

singlecoil

33,601 posts

246 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Sunnysider said:
Just imagine being of a mindset where you honestly believed that this police officer hadn't behaved deplorably.

This place is like a lunatic asylum sometimes.
My mindset is one of a person who doesn't know the full story, and who doesn't believe anything about an even until he has all the relevant information.

Cat

3,020 posts

269 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Bigends said:
..and if they didnt respond to that reasonable instruction theyd be obstructing the officer.
...and your point is? It is a specific offence to obstruct a vehicle examiner or to fail to comply with their reasonable instruction in connection with an exam.

A driver can be required to get out of the vehicle as part of a vehicle exam they don't need to need to be arrested for this to happen.

Therefore your claim that someone cannot be required "unless under arrest or remaining in the car will obstruct a LAWFUL search" is wrong.

Cat


Bigends

5,418 posts

128 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Cat said:
Bigends said:
..and if they didnt respond to that reasonable instruction theyd be obstructing the officer.
...and your point is? It is a specific offence to obstruct a vehicle examiner or to fail to comply with their reasonable instruction in connection with an exam.

A driver can be required to get out of the vehicle as part of a vehicle exam they don't need to need to be arrested for this to happen.

Therefore your claim that someone cannot be required "unless under arrest or remaining in the car will obstruct a LAWFUL search" is wrong.

Cat
...what happens when they refuse to get out then .

Bigends

5,418 posts

128 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
singlecoil said:
Sunnysider said:
Just imagine being of a mindset where you honestly believed that this police officer hadn't behaved deplorably.

This place is like a lunatic asylum sometimes.
My mindset is one of a person who doesn't know the full story, and who doesn't believe anything about an even until he has all the relevant information.
The officer may be able to justify his actions..but not his behaviour and demeanour toward the driver

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

244 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Bigends said:
...what happens when they refuse to get out then .
Check mate.

Terzo123

4,312 posts

208 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Alpinestars said:
Terzo123 said:
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.
Like?

Stop and search.
In the course of arrest.
Prevention of a crime.

Anything else?
From a Scottish point of view, if the officer has reasonable cause to suspect the male is driving otherwise in accordance with a licence, although not an arrestable offence in itself, if the officer believes the driver is refusing to desist he can use common-law power's to Arrest. Alternatively If the officer believes the driver is driving otherwise in accordance with a licence and he can't confirm his identity, again he can arrest the male and take him to an office to confirm these details. Again reasonable force can be used to get the male out the car.

I must stress that this is for Scotland, and there are various other scenarios but I don't have the time to go into them at the moment. At the end of the day it will be down to the officer to justify his actions.

benjijames28

1,702 posts

92 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Simple really, if a police officer asks you to get out of the car then just do it. If you speak with them the way you expect them to speak to you then they have no room to mistreat you.

Maybe he shouldn't have smashed the windscreen, they had him boxed in, keys out of ignition.

In hindsight is easy to say should have done this or that.

If he had done as he was asked then this would have been avoided.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

244 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Terzo123 said:
From a Scottish point of view, if the officer has reasonable cause to suspect the male is driving otherwise in accordance with a licence, although not an arrestable offence in itself, if the officer believes the driver is refusing to desist he can use common-law power's to Arrest. Alternatively If the officer believes the driver is driving otherwise in accordance with a licence and he can't confirm his identity, again he can arrest the male and take him to an office to confirm these details. Again reasonable force can be used to get the male out the car.

I must stress that this is for Scotland, and there are various other scenarios but I don't have the time to go into them at the moment. At the end of the day it will be down to the officer to justify his actions.
Scottish law can be different but those situation are covered by the RTA, details of which I've put up a page or two ago. It's an offence not to give certain details, and force can then be used to arrest. But the important point is that it requires an arrest. That doesn't appear to be the case here.

If I get pulled over and give my name, address and provide my licence, insurance and MOT, there is no requirement to get out of car. See RTA. I can provide the licence, insurance and MOT within 7 days - but these days, those details can be confirmed immediately.

If I don't provide my name and address, or the PC believes I've not given my correct details, I've committed a crime, for which I can be arrested.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

244 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
benjijames28 said:
Simple really, if a police officer asks you to get out of the car then just do it. If you speak with them the way you expect them to speak to you then they have no room to mistreat you.

Maybe he shouldn't have smashed the windscreen, they had him boxed in, keys out of ignition.

In hindsight is easy to say should have done this or that.

If he had done as he was asked then this would have been avoided.
If there's no obligation to get out, which appears to be the case, it might as well be me asking you to get out of your car, and then proceeding to vandalise your car because you refused my request.

Greendubber

13,206 posts

203 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Alpinestars said:
Sunnysider said:
Just imagine being of a mindset where you honestly believed that this police officer hadn't behaved deplorably.

This place is like a lunatic asylum sometimes.
There's a few on here, including some coppers. Frightening.
No police on here have defended the officer.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

244 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Greendubber said:
No police on here have defended the officer.
Not explicitly no. But they've been keen to tell us he acted lawfully but couldn't prove it when asked to.

Greendubber

13,206 posts

203 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
No police on here have defended the officer.
Not explicitly no. But they've been keen to tell us he acted lawfully but couldn't prove it when asked to.
Its been explained to you numerous times.

Alpinestars

13,954 posts

244 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Greendubber said:
Its been explained to you numerous times.
You had to go back to your lawyers and even then came back with what I'd said 10 pages earlier. You have no clue, so move on.

Greendubber

13,206 posts

203 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Its been explained to you numerous times.
You had to go back to your lawyers and even then came back with what I'd said 10 pages earlier. You have no clue, so move on.
What lawyer?


Alpinestars

13,954 posts

244 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Greendubber said:
What lawyer?
Move on.

Cat

3,020 posts

269 months

Saturday 24th September 2016
quotequote all
Bigends said:
...what happens when they refuse to get out then .
Reasonable force could be used to remove them from the vehicle and prevent the offence as per the s.3 of the Criminal Law Act. No arrest required.

Cat