Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
vonhosen said:
The legal position is dependent on the facts, facts which include what happened before/after/outside of what is shown on the video.
Until we know that we can't say for sure.
Those investigating will have access to all that & can then make a judgement in relation to the law etc.
What don't those two clowns get about this?? There's every likelihood that the back story will be able to prove the reasons, on way or the other.Until we know that we can't say for sure.
Those investigating will have access to all that & can then make a judgement in relation to the law etc.
Greendubber said:
And around we go again.....
We are only going around because you're making it circular. Is it beyond you to enter into a debate and get to an answer? The questions I put to you were very straightforward, but all you can come back with is obfuscation. I'm making a genuine, genuine, attempt to get from you what you think the relevant law is so we can debate it. I've never looked at this bit of the law before, having nothing against the police, never come across them, and have no dog in the fight. But I've got an interest on both an intellectual level, and having done a bit of research, I think the PC has overstepped both a public perception mark, and a legal one. If I've missed something, I'll hold my hand up.
With that in mind, would you like to debate the legalities or not?
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
And around we go again.....
We are only going around because you're making it circular. Is it beyond you to enter into a debate and get to an answer? The questions I put to you were very straightforward, but all you can come back with is obfuscation. I'm making a genuine, genuine, attempt to get from you what you think the relevant law is so we can debate it. I've never looked at this bit of the law before, having nothing against the police, never come across them, and have no dog in the fight. But I've got an interest on both an intellectual level, and having done a bit of research, I think the PC has overstepped both a public perception mark, and a legal one. If I've missed something, I'll hold my hand up.
With that in mind, would you like to debate the legalities or not?
dondadda said:
I was very lucky I made a complaint before starting proceedings. We knew we would just get the 'no evidence of any wrongdoing' response so I wasnt really interested in making a complaint.
I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
And that is why people lack trust for the police. Some have been shown to lie to get themselves out of the holes they have dug themselves.I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
at least I'm not behaving like a t
t with a chipspookly said:
dondadda said:
I was very lucky I made a complaint before starting proceedings. We knew we would just get the 'no evidence of any wrongdoing' response so I wasnt really interested in making a complaint.
I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
And that is why people lack trust for the police. Some have been shown to lie to get themselves out of the holes they have dug themselves.I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
It's a case of dragging a horse to water but you can't make it drink?
With regard to the police and their regulator not doing what needs to be done, doesn't that also apply to MPs? They don't seem overly willing to maintain some standards within parliament. They all talk a good job?
V6Pushfit said:
La Liga said:
ep, it's much easier to report and the encouragement to report is greater than it's ever been.
Now that I disagree with. Dial 101 only as local stations are closed, and get randomly transferred to an empty seat and if you're lucky leave a message but inevitably never get a response.More significant crimes rarely have an information line despite the technology being a piece of piss
You can literally use drop-down menus online to select the force (and get direct emails and phone numbers for each force's complaints department) or the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints
spookly said:
Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
Does it lack trust? Why would you pick on BBC article from one former Commissioner who left in 2008? There are much more recent data around the issue: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/public-confidenceArticle from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
spookly said:
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
Which is often the problem. People only want the result that suits their world view as opposed to the objective one reached by an investigation. Did you read the part about the significant changes in recording methodology over the time period of complaint increases you keep talking about?
spookly said:
And that is why people lack trust for the police. Some have been shown to lie to get themselves out of the holes they have dug themselves.
Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
So all police should be treated as liars and crooks as we have known some lie in the past.Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
There will be no lies they ave a camera and the radio comes recorded their won't be much chance to lie.
vonhosen said:
The legal position hinges on the facts, facts which include what happened before/after/outside of what can be seen on the video.
Those investigating will have access to all that & can then make a judgement in relation to the law etc.
Then justice can be best served within the law.
A PC cannot demand someone to get out of a car without it being a stop and search or in the course of arrest. The FACT is he was not arrested, or stopped under stop and search rules, ergo, no right to remove him from the car. No furtrher evidence required on that part of it.Those investigating will have access to all that & can then make a judgement in relation to the law etc.
Then justice can be best served within the law.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 15:11
As far as using force goes, again it's pretty clear cut, and the PC would need to demonstrate that the use of force (at the time he used it) was to protect himself or others from harm, or property. Good luck with trying to defend that.
carinaman said:
spookly said:
dondadda said:
I was very lucky I made a complaint before starting proceedings. We knew we would just get the 'no evidence of any wrongdoing' response so I wasnt really interested in making a complaint.
I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
And that is why people lack trust for the police. Some have been shown to lie to get themselves out of the holes they have dug themselves.I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
It's a case of dragging a horse to water but you can't make it drink?
With regard to the police and their regulator not doing what needs to be done, doesn't that also apply to MPs? They don't seem overly willing to maintain some standards within parliament. They all talk a good job?
Letting either politicians or police look after their own organisations to make sure they keep to the rules has been shown to not really work very well.
Funny how many of these organisations also have 'Independent' in their name, and then seem to manage to be anything but.
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Already been done.
No it hasn't. S3 is the best we've got. Let's debate it without you throwing insults around and without generic "it's been done". Deal?Let's start with, is it S3 a person would normally rely on in these circumstances for the use of force?
And as far as requiring someone to get out of the car, which bit of law would require a driver to get out when asked to by a PC?
Keep it on track theres a good chap.
carinaman said:
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Already been done.
No it hasn't. S3 is the best we've got. Let's debate it without you throwing insults around and without generic "it's been done". Deal?Let's start with, is it S3 a person would normally rely on in these circumstances for the use of force?
And as far as requiring someone to get out of the car, which bit of law would require a driver to get out when asked to by a PC?
Keep it on track theres a good chap.
La Liga said:
V6Pushfit said:
La Liga said:
ep, it's much easier to report and the encouragement to report is greater than it's ever been.
Now that I disagree with. Dial 101 only as local stations are closed, and get randomly transferred to an empty seat and if you're lucky leave a message but inevitably never get a response.More significant crimes rarely have an information line despite the technology being a piece of piss
You can literally use drop-down menus online to select the force (and get direct emails and phone numbers for each force's complaints department) or the IPCC: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/complaints
spookly said:
Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
Does it lack trust? Why would you pick on BBC article from one former Commissioner who left in 2008? There are much more recent data around the issue: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/public-confidenceArticle from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
spookly said:
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
Which is often the problem. People only want the result that suits their world view as opposed to the objective one reached by an investigation. Did you read the part about the significant changes in recording methodology over the time period of complaint increases you keep talking about?
Yes, I read the part about improved recording. That is also good. Whether it explains away a 60% increase in complaints is another matter entirely.
It also does not address whether many more people would complain if they thought there was a better chance of success. I don't wear a body mounted camera and the likelihood that I would have any evidence against the police in the event I had something to complain about is low. And if I didn't have anything to support my claim, and it is my word vs one or more coppers, I really would not bother as that would be going nowhere. I suspect this would be a factor for many potentially reportable incidents too.
Also, thanks for the IPCC survey links. I don't go much for surveys as they are too open to manipulation via sample selection etc. But interesting nonetheless.
From the pages linked by La Liga in the latest IPCC report:
Greendubber said:
Coming from the person who now wants to discuss MPs?
I compared the inability of the police to police themselves with the way politicians talk a good job and cannot, or won't police themselves.Given the confusion between TJ and Leon Fontana, and given your own experience as a sworn officer, what's the probability that PC Savage was playing the ball, the suspected offence, or the man as in TJ?
Was PC Savage seeing the ball, the man or his authority being disrespected?
Edited by carinaman on Monday 26th September 16:56
surveyor_101 said:
spookly said:
And that is why people lack trust for the police. Some have been shown to lie to get themselves out of the holes they have dug themselves.
Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
So all police should be treated as liars and crooks as we have known some lie in the past.Couple that with an IPCC which lacks public trust to deliver any kind of fair result, and why would the public expect a fair outcome.
Article from 2010 - Former IPCC commissioner quits
The public can and will form an opinion, and as others have said, even if the IPCC or courts deliver a verdict that this copper has done no wrong it won't necessarily sit well with people who have watched that video.
There will be no lies they ave a camera and the radio comes recorded their won't be much chance to lie.
I didn't say that all police should be treated as liars and crooks.
But it causes an issue for the police. The more evidence that comes to light that show particular police officers have lied, or "bent the truth", the less likely they are to be trusted as reliable witnesses in court. When any police officer that lies is exposed it chips away at the trust both the public and the courts have in them.
Same for MPs, the more they lie the less the public will trust them. In fact, the same for all of us. If I habitually lied to all my friends they'd soon not trust a word I say.
There will always be a perception that any such behaviour that is exposed is the tip of the iceberg as the day to day events that happen are not visible to the public.
I fully support mandatory issue of cameras to the police. Ones that are tamper proof with cloud upload of all content to an independent, non-police organisation. That would provide protection for the police as they can prove that they have acted in accordance with their powers and how they should behave, and it would also provide protection for the public as it would create evidence when police don't behave as they should.
It's no different to any other job. If I cocked up at my job then I'd end up getting a chance to improve, probably even offered training, then if no improvement I'd be fired. If I assaulted someone or smashed their property I'd be gone before my feet hit the floor.
XCP said:
Spookly. - If your father was a police officer for 35 years, does he have an opinion on whether police officers are better behaved now than when he joined. Genuinely interested to hear.
I genuinely do not know. I will ask him when I see him.I suspect this thread will still be going round in circles
Greendubber said:
Coming from the person who now wants to discuss MPs?
Dondadda and Spookly have both referenced the difficulty of making complaints against the police.Isn't approaching an MP a method suggested to make complaints against the police? So a slight link to the matter in hand.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff