Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[anonymous-user]

spookly said:

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.

Has it not? They work in both a proactive and reactive capability which results in dismissals and criminal prosecutions of police officers.

spookly said:

Funny how many of these organisations also have 'Independent' in their name, and then seem to manage to be anything but.

Having a reasonable amount of experience of both internal and external, when there's something to go on they will go to the nth degree.

spookly said:

I agree it is a good thing that reporting methods have improved - all good, and I genuinely didn't know that, thanks.

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 wasn't just about improved recording, it was a whole host of changes, which alongside the increased availability and encouragement could easily explain the data.

spookly said:

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.

Maybe, but it's no different to making a complaint against any organisation / individual. There needs to be some evidence to work from.

spookly said:

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:

I'd take the surveys over one former employee who left in 2008.

I'll just add a bit more from 1.2, as you've omitted the parts which challenge the 'lack of trust' aspect you asserted when linking that BBC article.

[XCP]

spookly said:

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

Oh, there's months more to come yet. Veterans of this site would expect nothing less.

[surveyor_101]

spookly said:

Nice straw man.
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.

What do you do for a living

[spookly]

La Liga said:

spookly said:

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.

Has it not? They work in both a proactive and reactive capability which results in dismissals and criminal prosecutions of police officers.

spookly said:

Funny how many of these organisations also have 'Independent' in their name, and then seem to manage to be anything but.

Having a reasonable amount of experience of both internal and external, when there's something to go on they will go to the nth degree.

spookly said:

I agree it is a good thing that reporting methods have improved - all good, and I genuinely didn't know that, thanks.

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 wasn't just about improved recording, it was a whole host of changes, which alongside the increased availability and encouragement could easily explain the data.

spookly said:

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.

Maybe, but it's no different to making a complaint against any organisation / individual. There needs to be some evidence to work from.

spookly said:

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:

I'd take the surveys over one former employee who left in 2008.

I'll just add a bit more from 1.2, as you've omitted the parts which challenge the 'lack of trust' aspect you asserted when linking that BBC article.

Yeah, I can agree with most of that to some degree. But the details of the decision making is rarely transparent or publicly available, which will to some degree arouse suspicion.

Things like politicians getting little more than a slap on the wrist for something that would have seen most employees fired or in front of the beak would be a good case in point. If I fiddle my expenses at work I'm gone.... no ifs or buts.... gone. I admit that I have a similar impression of the IPCC from my admittedly limited POV formed mostly from other peoples reported experiences and the media.

As for the IPCC reports, I think they seem to be a combination that seems quite honest and reflects both good and bad. I admit I cherry picked something bad, there is also some positive things in there.

Mostly though, I think it is safe to agree that with all of the changes that would affect the base statistical data from year to year that it renders any trends across the years pretty useless. So unless we wait ten years and there are no further changes to process then nobody can really draw a conclusion.

[spookly]

surveyor_101 said:

spookly said:

Nice straw man.
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.

What do you do for a living

I work in information and data security. Mostly working with banks, telcos, tech companies and governments, in the UK, EU and Middle East.
Dealt quite a bit with UK and EU Data Protection legislation. Also worked quite a lot with large contract outsourcing, so have experience of commercial contractual negotiations.

In my line of work there are a number of things you could do that would get you fired and make it difficult to find another job. Anything criminal would make UK and foreign government vetting to high levels next to impossible. Any financial or data misuse would be similarly difficult from a career perspective. TBH, even having too much debt can be a barrier to higher level government clearance in many countries.

[surveyor_101]

spookly said:

I work in information and data security. Mostly working with banks, telcos, tech companies and governments, in the UK, EU and Middle East.
Dealt quite a bit with UK and EU Data Protection legislation. Also worked quite a lot with large contract outsourcing, so have experience of commercial contractual negotiations.

In my line of work there are a number of things you could do that would get you fired and make it difficult to find another job. Anything criminal would make UK and foreign government vetting to high levels next to impossible. Any financial or data misuse would be similarly difficult from a career perspective. TBH, even having too much debt can be a barrier to higher level government clearance in many countries.

My point is, you don't face people in conflict situations daily, no one points a car at you And try's to run you over. No one pulls a knife.

You can't compare a cushy officer job to frontline policing. Officers face life and death situations and have to of conflict and have to make serious decisions in a split second.

Since you have no experience of policing and security work like I do and I now have an officer job.

Police officers are afforded some latitude and all circumstances are considered as to stress, risk to life ponteniral other outcomes had the officer not took control.

Rather than why did you balls this spreadsheet up, your fired.

[anonymous-user]

I agree with this 100%

[spookly]

surveyor_101 said:

spookly said:

I work in information and data security. Mostly working with banks, telcos, tech companies and governments, in the UK, EU and Middle East.
Dealt quite a bit with UK and EU Data Protection legislation. Also worked quite a lot with large contract outsourcing, so have experience of commercial contractual negotiations.

In my line of work there are a number of things you could do that would get you fired and make it difficult to find another job. Anything criminal would make UK and foreign government vetting to high levels next to impossible. Any financial or data misuse would be similarly difficult from a career perspective. TBH, even having too much debt can be a barrier to higher level government clearance in many countries.

My point is, you don't face people in conflict situations daily, no one points a car at you And try's to run you over. No one pulls a knife.

You can't compare a cushy officer job to frontline policing. Officers face life and death situations and have to of conflict and have to make serious decisions in a split second.

Since you have no experience of policing and security work like I do and I now have an officer job.

Police officers are afforded some latitude and all circumstances are considered as to stress, risk to life ponteniral other outcomes had the officer not took control.

Rather than why did you balls this spreadsheet up, your fired.

I worked as a bouncer here and there when I was a student, and did events security. Met some really nasty people.
So, yes I have experience of dealing with violent, drunken and drugged assholes. I never lost my temper with them. Got punched/kicked lots of times, had a bottle broken on my head, nose broken twice.

I too think the police deserve some latitude in doing their jobs. But they also need to recognise when it is appropriate to use force or not. If they don't feel they can do that then perhaps they should try a different career.

When someone has the keys out the ignition and on the dash you are in no danger of being run over. There is no danger of the person leaving the scene. There is also no danger that he is going to harm you as he is in his vehicle, scared of you.
IMHO, not a situation where I think going full retard is the answer. But hey, lets see what conclusions any investigation comes to eh?

[XCP]

surveyor_101 said:

spookly said:

Nice straw man.
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.

What do you do for a living

Would you be gone after an investigation and conviction, or just after an allegation has been made? Not clear what timescale 'before my feet hit the floor' implies.

[spookly]

XCP said:

surveyor_101 said:

spookly said:

Nice straw man.
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.

What do you do for a living

Would you be gone after an investigation and conviction, or just after an allegation has been made? Not clear what timescale 'before my feet hit the floor' implies.

That would depend what it was. If I did what PC Savage did then, and smashed up some random persons car on the car park, I would be shown straight out of the door. Any investigation would be a paper based joke of an exercise, and I would not be back in the building again.

Most companies have internal hearings and appeals. But they will do whatever they want to, and your only recourse would be an employment tribunal.... which if you have done something is unlikely to go in your favour.
I found out just how silly internal hearings are with a previous employer that underpaid my bonus by a lot. Took 8 months of internal bullst and an employment tribunal to get them to pay. Then they told me they wanted me to stay because I was a valued employee :-) uh, no thanks.

[Bigends]

surveyor_101 said:

spookly said:

I work in information and data security. Mostly working with banks, telcos, tech companies and governments, in the UK, EU and Middle East.
Dealt quite a bit with UK and EU Data Protection legislation. Also worked quite a lot with large contract outsourcing, so have experience of commercial contractual negotiations.

In my line of work there are a number of things you could do that would get you fired and make it difficult to find another job. Anything criminal would make UK and foreign government vetting to high levels next to impossible. Any financial or data misuse would be similarly difficult from a career perspective. TBH, even having too much debt can be a barrier to higher level government clearance in many countries.

My point is, you don't face people in conflict situations daily, no one points a car at you And try's to run you over. No one pulls a knife.

You can't compare a cushy officer job to frontline policing. Officers face life and death situations and have to of conflict and have to make serious decisions in a split second.

Since you have no experience of policing and security work like I do and I now have an officer job.

Police officers are afforded some latitude and all circumstances are considered as to stress, risk to life ponteniral other outcomes had the officer not took control.

Rather than why did you balls this spreadsheet up, your fired.

Still no reason to act like he did. I was front line for 30yrs and dont recall anyone going bolo like this - even back in the 'bad old days'

[Alpinestars]

surveyor_101 said:

My point is, you don't face people in conflict situations daily, no one points a car at you And try's to run you over. No one pulls a knife.

You can't compare a cushy officer job to frontline policing. Officers face life and death situations and have to of conflict and have to make serious decisions in a split second.

Since you have no experience of policing and security work like I do and I now have an officer job.

Police officers are afforded some latitude and all circumstances are considered as to stress, risk to life ponteniral other outcomes had the officer not took control.

Rather than why did you balls this spreadsheet up, your fired.

As a general point, if person X can't distinguish a relatively benign everyday situation, from a dangerous one, he/she shouldn't be a PC.

The training and selection process should ensure the right people are selected.

[XCP]

Trouble is the 'benign' situation can become very very nasty in the blink of an eye. Or the time it takes to take a key from the dashboard and start an engine. 3 seconds perhaps?

[Bigends]

XCP said:

Trouble is the 'benign' situation can become very very nasty in the blink of an eye. Or the time it takes to take a key from the dashboard and start an engine. 3 seconds perhaps?

The video gave no reason to believe that would be the case. The driver was being reasonable and gave no indication he intended to speed off.
Youd have to apply the above to every traffic stop and demand the driver leaves the vehicle in every case

[Cat]

spookly said:

That would depend what it was. If I did what PC Savage did then, and smashed up some random persons car on the car park, I would be shown straight out of the door. Any investigation would be a paper based joke of an exercise, and I would not be back in the building again.

The difference being that there are, presumably, no circumstances where you would need/be expected to do that as part of your job. There are circumstances were a police officer might legitimately have to act in that way.

• For clarity this is not a defence of the footage in the OP **

Cat

[XCP]

Bigends said:

XCP said:

Trouble is the 'benign' situation can become very very nasty in the blink of an eye. Or the time it takes to take a key from the dashboard and start an engine. 3 seconds perhaps?

The video gave no reason to believe that would be the case. The driver was being reasonable and gave no indication he intended to speed off.
Youd have to apply the above to every traffic stop and demand the driver leaves the vehicle in every case

For whatever reason, the officer decided he did not want that man driving that car at that time. The fact that he put the key on the dash does not resolve that issue, as it only takes seconds to start the engine, whilst the officer is powerless to prevent this happening. The fact that the driver gives the impression that he is Mr Reasonable is neither here nor there. You seem to be relying solely on the video without considering any other factors influencing the officers concerns.
I once stopped a Mr Reasonable who had an illegally held loaded revolver in the glove box, for example.
You do realise that bad people sometimes pretend to be nice, I suppose?

[Bigends]

XCP said:

Bigends said:

XCP said:

Trouble is the 'benign' situation can become very very nasty in the blink of an eye. Or the time it takes to take a key from the dashboard and start an engine. 3 seconds perhaps?

The video gave no reason to believe that would be the case. The driver was being reasonable and gave no indication he intended to speed off.
Youd have to apply the above to every traffic stop and demand the driver leaves the vehicle in every case

For whatever reason, the officer decided he did not want that man driving that car at that time. The fact that he put the key on the dash does not resolve that issue, as it only takes seconds to start the engine, whilst the officer is powerless to prevent this happening. The fact that the driver gives the impression that he is Mr Reasonable is neither here nor there. You seem to be relying solely on the video without considering any other factors influencing the officers concerns.
I once stopped a Mr Reasonable who had an illegally held loaded revolver in the glove box, for example.
You do realise that bad people sometimes pretend to be nice, I suppose?

So how did you change your procedures for stops after that then?
Put it however you like - he was well over the top and is likely to be in big trouble.

[spookly]

Cat said:

spookly said:

That would depend what it was. If I did what PC Savage did then, and smashed up some random persons car on the car park, I would be shown straight out of the door. Any investigation would be a paper based joke of an exercise, and I would not be back in the building again.

The difference being that there are, presumably, no circumstances where you would need/be expected to do that as part of your job. There are circumstances were a police officer might legitimately have to act in that way.

• For clarity this is not a defence of the footage in the OP **

Cat

I guess the irony is that reasonable force and the use of such in preventing crime is also available to you as a member of the public. It isn't a specific police power, and anyone can do it. You would of course, as a police officer would, have to justify any actions and force used.

The CPS site is probably a good read on the subject, as it would be they who would consider placing charges against you for misuse of force. Link.

[Alpinestars]

XCP said:

For whatever reason, the officer decided he did not want that man driving that car at that time. The fact that he put the key on the dash does not resolve that issue, as it only takes seconds to start the engine, whilst the officer is powerless to prevent this happening. The fact that the driver gives the impression that he is Mr Reasonable is neither here nor there. You seem to be relying solely on the video without considering any other factors influencing the officers concerns.
I once stopped a Mr Reasonable who had an illegally held loaded revolver in the glove box, for example.
You do realise that bad people sometimes pretend to be nice, I suppose?

Let's suppose he had a gun. Is he more likely to use it if PC loses his rag and starts smashing his windows in or if PC tries to diffuse the issue?

[Alpinestars]

spookly said:

I guess the irony is that reasonable force and the use of such in preventing crime is also available to you as a member of the public. It isn't a specific police power, and anyone can do it. You would of course, as a police officer would, have to justify any actions and force used.

The CPS site is probably a good read on the subject, as it would be they who would consider placing charges against you for misuse of force. Link.

You don't have all the facts so you have no idea whether PC's use of force was warranted or not.