Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Alpinestars said:
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. 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 a policeman does something that is not justified by law, then any illegal acts he commits are just that. Whether that is vandalism, excessive force, assault or murder. The police aren't exempt from the laws the rest of us have to follow, they are just given certain powers to help them do their jobs. Outside of lawfully exercising their powers they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
I'd be very interested to see what justification this officer comes up with for that behaviour.
If I went up to some random persons car and behaved like PC Savage, and it was videoed, I wouldn't be surprised if I got sectioned or a custodial sentence.
Cat said:
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
Hard to argue that there were reasonable grounds to think he was stopping a crime when the guy has a video showing he is trying to talk to the officer, and has removed the keys and placed them on the dash.
Cat said:
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
What offence was taking place at the time? It would be very difficult for an officer to say he was preventing an offence, AND used reasonable force to PREVENT the offence. Cat
IF any offence HAD taken place, it took place beforehand. The whole point of that para is to allow an officer to prevent someone committing an offence. It's not there to provide retribution for an offence which has already passed. In that case he has the power to arrest and has the same remedy of reasonable force.
Alpinestars said:
What offence was taking place at the time? It would be very difficult for an officer to say he was preventing an offence, AND used reasonable force to PREVENT the offence.
IF any offence HAD taken place, it took place beforehand. The whole point of that para is to allow an officer to prevent someone committing an offence. It's there to provide retribution for an offence which has already passed. In that case he has the power to arrest and has the same remedy of reasonable force.
For clarity I am addressing Bigends' incorrect statement that "there is NO requirement unless under arrest or remaining in the car will obstruct a LAWFUL search". I'm not suggesting that the example given applies in this specific situation.IF any offence HAD taken place, it took place beforehand. The whole point of that para is to allow an officer to prevent someone committing an offence. It's there to provide retribution for an offence which has already passed. In that case he has the power to arrest and has the same remedy of reasonable force.
Cat
from the code of ethics that all officers and staff have signed up to -
I will act with self-control and tolerance, treating members
of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
I will use my powers and authority lawfully and proportionately,
and will respect the rights of all individuals.
I will act with self-control and tolerance, treating members
of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
I will use my powers and authority lawfully and proportionately,
and will respect the rights of all individuals.
Bigends said:
from the code of ethics that all officers and staff have signed up to -
I will act with self-control and tolerance, treating members
of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
I will use my powers and authority lawfully and proportionately,
and will respect the rights of all individuals.
Is it normal for a case where "PC has acted within the law", that a case is looked at by the DPS, and the relevant office put on restricted duties? Or does that mean there might be a suspicion he acted ultra viresI will act with self-control and tolerance, treating members
of the public and colleagues with respect and courtesy.
I will use my powers and authority lawfully and proportionately,
and will respect the rights of all individuals.
Raygun said:
Greendubber said:
No police on here have defended the officer.
So you admit he behaved like a lunatic and embarrassed the police force?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.
That last sentence cuts both ways. If it's the officer who speaks first and he/she is confrontational and aggressive then things are quite likely to go south. Wearing a uniform doesn't entitle you be rude/offensive/obnoxious right out of the box. The trouble is there are certain personality types for whom the donning of one goes to their head. It is by no means the exclusive preserve of the police. The difference is that they have greater powers which confers a responsibility to exercise them in a measured and proportionate fashion. Flipping your lid isn't one of them.roofer said:
Why should he admit to anything ? To keep you and your little band of brothers happy ? It's the Internet, for him, it has consequences, for you, it has none, apart from demonstrating you are a knob.
i suggest they don't reply at all then , I'm sure you being a copper's nark could relay their true beliefs.Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 25th September 05:49
Red Devil said:
That last sentence cuts both ways. If it's the officer who speaks first and he/she is confrontational and aggressive then things are quite likely to go south. Wearing a uniform doesn't entitle you be rude/offensive/obnoxious right out of the box. The trouble is there are certain personality types for whom the donning of one goes to their head. It is by no means the exclusive preserve of the police. The difference is that they have greater powers which confers a responsibility to exercise them in a measured and proportionate fashion. Flipping your lid isn't one of them.
Let's say you do have a copper who is talking to you like s
t for no reason at all... If you come back at him with a similar attitude you are giving him what he wants, a confrontation, justification for the way he is treating you.The best way is to keep control, don't allow things to escalate.
Raygun said:
roofer said:
Why should he admit to anything ? To keep you and your little band of brothers happy ? It's the Internet, for him, it has consequences, for you, it has none, apart from demonstrating you are a knob.
i suggest they don't reply at all then , I'm sure you being a copper's nark could relay their true beliefs.Edited by Raygun on Sunday 25th September 05:49
I'm sure if you were subject to any sort of allegation you would expect someone to look at all avenues of enquiry rather than being so narrow minded.
In this case (apologies if addressed earlier and I missed it) wasn't the driver mistakenly identified as a disqualified driver? When it gets to the point of the pocket knife, doesn't the driver then start to declare that he ''isn't TJ''? It seems pretty clear the officer concerned believed he had stopped someone driving unlawfully and that's why he wanted the driver out of the car.
Why wait for things to escalate before declaring you're not the person the Police believe you to be? It's obvious there was an earlier conversation where the officer suggests the driver is TJ, or else he wouldn't suddenly start saying he wasn't.
Why would you start filming after that point? If I was going to guess, one might be forgiven for thinking it was because he knew he'd been wrongly identified and wanted to antagonise the officer. Had he simply got out of the car, then offered identification to prove a) he wasn't TJ and b) was driving legally, it would have been over in a couple of minutes.
With the key on the dash, could the officer not have just played the idiot drivers game and done the required checks?
Unfortunately though, the sudden decision to try and smash the window without warning, doesn't show the officer in a good light. I don't envy him for the job he does but without knowing what had happened earlier, it's hard to justify his actions.
The saddest thing though, are the comments below the video on Facebook. It's a sad reflection on the type of society we live in today and their attitude towards the Police.
ETA - Spelling of comments on FB is hilarious though.
Why wait for things to escalate before declaring you're not the person the Police believe you to be? It's obvious there was an earlier conversation where the officer suggests the driver is TJ, or else he wouldn't suddenly start saying he wasn't.
Why would you start filming after that point? If I was going to guess, one might be forgiven for thinking it was because he knew he'd been wrongly identified and wanted to antagonise the officer. Had he simply got out of the car, then offered identification to prove a) he wasn't TJ and b) was driving legally, it would have been over in a couple of minutes.
With the key on the dash, could the officer not have just played the idiot drivers game and done the required checks?
Unfortunately though, the sudden decision to try and smash the window without warning, doesn't show the officer in a good light. I don't envy him for the job he does but without knowing what had happened earlier, it's hard to justify his actions.
The saddest thing though, are the comments below the video on Facebook. It's a sad reflection on the type of society we live in today and their attitude towards the Police.
ETA - Spelling of comments on FB is hilarious though.
Edited by e21Mark on Sunday 25th September 08:36
e21Mark said:
In this case (apologies if addressed earlier and I missed it) wasn't the driver mistakenly identified as a disqualified driver? When it gets to the point of the pocket knife, doesn't the driver then start to declare that he ''isn't TJ''? It seems pretty clear the officer concerned believed he had stopped someone driving unlawfully and that's why he wanted the driver out of the car.
Why wait for things to escalate before declaring you're not the person the Police believe you to be? It's obvious there was an earlier conversation where the officer suggests the driver is TJ, or else he wouldn't suddenly start saying he wasn't.
Why would you start filming after that point? If I was going to guess, one might be forgiven for thinking it was because he knew he'd been wrongly identified and wanted to antagonise the officer. Had he simply got out of the car, then offered identification to prove a) he wasn't TJ and b) was driving legally, it would have been over in a couple of minutes.
With the key on the dash, could the officer not have just played the idiot drivers game and done the required checks?
Unfortunately though, the sudden decision to try and smash the window without warning, doesn't show the officer in a good light. I don't envy him for the job he does but without knowing what had happened earlier, it's hard to justify his actions.
The saddest thing though, are the comments below the video on Facebook. It's a sad reflection on the type of society we live in today and their attitude towards the Police.
You make some interesting points and like you I agree the police as a whole do a fantastic job and don't envy the job they do one bit but I am also a strong believer in being fair and I'm afraid PC Savage came across as an absolute embarrassment, he should've saved that type of aggression for a would be terrorist not a lad associated with driving misdemeanours.Why wait for things to escalate before declaring you're not the person the Police believe you to be? It's obvious there was an earlier conversation where the officer suggests the driver is TJ, or else he wouldn't suddenly start saying he wasn't.
Why would you start filming after that point? If I was going to guess, one might be forgiven for thinking it was because he knew he'd been wrongly identified and wanted to antagonise the officer. Had he simply got out of the car, then offered identification to prove a) he wasn't TJ and b) was driving legally, it would have been over in a couple of minutes.
With the key on the dash, could the officer not have just played the idiot drivers game and done the required checks?
Unfortunately though, the sudden decision to try and smash the window without warning, doesn't show the officer in a good light. I don't envy him for the job he does but without knowing what had happened earlier, it's hard to justify his actions.
The saddest thing though, are the comments below the video on Facebook. It's a sad reflection on the type of society we live in today and their attitude towards the Police.
Raygun said:
You make some interesting points and like you I agree the police as a whole do a fantastic job and don't envy the job they do one bit but I am also a strong believer in being fair and I'm afraid PC Savage came across as an absolute embarrassment, he should've saved that type of aggression for a would be terrorist not a lad associated with driving misdemeanours.
As others have said, and the point that you seem to keep avoiding or are missing, is that most of us are for being fair which is why we're simply suggesting that all of the evidence needs to be considered rather than the 30 seconds that we've seen, something the investigation will do.You can't be a "strong believer in being fair" without knowing the full story otherwise you're not being fair at all.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: As others have said, and the point that you seem to keep avoiding or are missing, is that most of us are for being fair which is why we're simply suggesting that all of the evidence needs to be considered rather than the 30 seconds that we've seen, something the investigation will do.
You can't be a "strong believer in being fair" without knowing the full story otherwise you're not being fair at all.
And whilst that is all absolutely right, it's a forum, people comment on the available evidence. Where it goes AWOL is when people bring bias extrapolation into the discussion.You can't be a "strong believer in being fair" without knowing the full story otherwise you're not being fair at all.
Policing is also as much about confidence and trust. You don't build that by reacting the way PC did.
The guy was not arrested as confirmed by the Met. Which broadly leaves one avenue open for (reasonable) force to be used - and that is in the prevention of crime. That's going to be a very difficult one to support with a driver who stopped and was passive throughout the time his windows were being smashed in.
If someone knows better about the law or the situation, please provide some facts. Not your opinion on the law please.
Also, as I asked earlier, if the PC is totally within his legal rights (which appears to be what the resident plod are asserting), is it common for the PC be put on restricted duties and to be subject to an investigation? If this happened everytime the public disagreed with policing methods, all the PCs would be on PH all day. What makes this different to normal legal actions by a PC?
There has to be something to ultimately cause the officer to lose it in the manner he did. Even the position of the vehicles, with the Police car diagonally blocking the road, eludes to something more than your average traffic stop.
Bottom line is that this video only tells part of the story and without the rest we are never going to be able to justify the actions of either party. Videos like this, with snippets take out of context, are just so damaging and divisive.
Bottom line is that this video only tells part of the story and without the rest we are never going to be able to justify the actions of either party. Videos like this, with snippets take out of context, are just so damaging and divisive.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff