Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
frankenstein12 said:
Because the officer was trying to do his job and catch criminals and these days criminals have a "right" not to have to answer for their crimes. We simply cannot have police going around willy nilly doing their job and investigating possible crimes and arresting people.
So he's being investigated because he was doing his job. Riiiiggghhht. frankenstein12 said:
Rovinghawk said:
frankenstein12 said:
It does not matter if he is entitled to or not.
Yes it does.People are "entitled" to be treated fairly and within common sense. Common sense dictates that if you have nothing to hide from a police officer then you assist him with his enquiries so that he can carry on with his duties without delay to him or yourself instead of creating a situation where you both get delayed.
I am not in the police so not sure where the situation would be legally allowed to go where the officer was concerned as assumingly if he believed the car or person in the car was involved in some form of criminal offence I would think he cannot then allow them to leave without first identifying if that is the case.
I am personally beyond fed up with this entitlement victim status nonsense of our so called modern enlightened society of idiots.
The guy in this video is probably the same person who when told by a police officer not to jump off a cliff because he will die will jump off the cliff just to prove that he can do what he wants.
Are you suggesting that the police, with scant reason to believe wrong doing, should be able to go bats
t and intimidate you with violence and aggression, and smash up your property? Without even having grounds for arrest?If the police have reasonable grounds to arrest then they should do so and they can then use their legally granted powers for that situation.... if they have not got grounds to arrest then they really should not be going ape on someone or their property, that isn't exactly a good way of establishing facts to support a suspicion. And they certainly should not be operating in a way other than their defined processes and within the powers granted to them by the law.
PC Savage may feel he can justify his behaviour, and he'll get his chance to put his justification forwards. Personally, I'd have a hard time accepting any excuses under the legal powers discussed in this thread, so maybe PC Savage is lucky I won't be listening to his excuses :-)
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Nope.
I am in awe of your inability to let any other posters have a different opinion to you, I dread to think of how much time you've spent constantly berating anyone who dare disagree with you on this thread.
Try going outside or something.
Quite the contrary dear boy. I can prove my assertions unlike you. Now get on with what I pay you to do. I am in awe of your inability to let any other posters have a different opinion to you, I dread to think of how much time you've spent constantly berating anyone who dare disagree with you on this thread.
Try going outside or something.
You cant prove anything, you cant prove PC Savage acted unlawfully, you think he did, you keep telling everyone he did but that does nothing to prove anything. You just keep repeating yourself.
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Nope.
I am in awe of your inability to let any other posters have a different opinion to you, I dread to think of how much time you've spent constantly berating anyone who dare disagree with you on this thread.
Try going outside or something.
Quite the contrary dear boy. I can prove my assertions unlike you. Now get on with what I pay you to do. I am in awe of your inability to let any other posters have a different opinion to you, I dread to think of how much time you've spent constantly berating anyone who dare disagree with you on this thread.
Try going outside or something.
Alpinestars said:
Policeman not entitled to demand guy gets out of the car. Let alone put his window in.
It helps, when being patronising, to fundamentally acknowledge the limitations of the information in which you're making assertions upon. Any reasonable rational thinking person should immediately realise the conclusion in bold isn't possible to draw with the information in the public domain. La Liga said:
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Nope.
I am in awe of your inability to let any other posters have a different opinion to you, I dread to think of how much time you've spent constantly berating anyone who dare disagree with you on this thread.
Try going outside or something.
Quite the contrary dear boy. I can prove my assertions unlike you. Now get on with what I pay you to do. I am in awe of your inability to let any other posters have a different opinion to you, I dread to think of how much time you've spent constantly berating anyone who dare disagree with you on this thread.
Try going outside or something.
Alpinestars said:
Policeman not entitled to demand guy gets out of the car. Let alone put his window in.
It helps, when being patronising, to fundamentally acknowledge the limitations of the information in which you're making assertions upon. Any reasonable rational thinking person should immediately realise the latter conclusion in bold isn't possible to make with the information in the public domain. No me neither!
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Wasting your time.
Gov.uk has done a noddy guide just for you 
https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-police-while-driving...
Unreliable source?
Doesn't say what you want it to?
Go and put their windows through.
That little link you provided is all well and good but does not expand on the other powers officers have such as stop and search which gives them the authority to search and if needs be arrest you which means you are legally obliged to exit your vehicle. You do not have to identify yourself but you do need to exit your vehicle when told to do so.
Regardless of law the only people who would fail to assist an officer and follow their request are those with a huge attitude and arrogance problem.
People for whom I have no time at all. It would take 30 seconds to hand over your license to prove who you are or you can waste the officers and your time by having a 5 minute argument over identifying yourself.
La Liga said:
t helps, when being patronising, to fundamentally acknowledge the limitations of the information in which you're making assertions upon. Any reasonable rational thinking person should immediately realise the conclusion in bold isn't possible to draw with the information in the public domain.
Agreed. It's a two way street though. Frustrated and angry PC has to butt in with his patronising attitude every time I post. So he's treated with the contempt I think he deserves.
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
t helps, when being patronising, to fundamentally acknowledge the limitations of the information in which you're making assertions upon. Any reasonable rational thinking person should immediately realise the conclusion in bold isn't possible to draw with the information in the public domain.
Agreed. It's a two way street though. Frustrated and angry PC has to butt in with his patronising attitude every time I post. So he's treated with the contempt I think he deserves.
I think its quite apparant who the frustrated and angry one is.
Greendubber said:
Frustrated and angry, treat me with the contempt I deserve, for daring to disagree with you? And you calling me patronising is a bit rich considering your posts.
I think its quite apparant who the frustrated and angry one is.
Totally chilled and I asked you very nicely to explain "what I'm not getting". But your anger issues and pride are getting in the way. I think its quite apparant who the frustrated and angry one is.
Now stop trolling me hoping I will throw you a bone.
Alpinestars said:
Greendubber said:
Frustrated and angry, treat me with the contempt I deserve, for daring to disagree with you? And you calling me patronising is a bit rich considering your posts.
I think its quite apparant who the frustrated and angry one is.
Totally chilled and I asked you very nicely to explain "what I'm not getting". But your anger issues and pride are getting in the way. I think its quite apparant who the frustrated and angry one is.
Now stop trolling me hoping I will throw you a bone.
frankenstein12 said:
YOur problem Alpine is you misinterpret the law by living to the letter without understanding scope.
That little link you provided is all well and good but does not expand on the other powers officers have such as stop and search which gives them the authority to search and if needs be arrest you which means you are legally obliged to exit your vehicle. You do not have to identify yourself but you do need to exit your vehicle when told to do so.
Regardless of law the only people who would fail to assist an officer and follow their request are those with a huge attitude and arrogance problem.
People for whom I have no time at all. It would take 30 seconds to hand over your license to prove who you are or you can waste the officers and your time by having a 5 minute argument over identifying yourself.
I agree with your Stop and Search analysis.That little link you provided is all well and good but does not expand on the other powers officers have such as stop and search which gives them the authority to search and if needs be arrest you which means you are legally obliged to exit your vehicle. You do not have to identify yourself but you do need to exit your vehicle when told to do so.
Regardless of law the only people who would fail to assist an officer and follow their request are those with a huge attitude and arrogance problem.
People for whom I have no time at all. It would take 30 seconds to hand over your license to prove who you are or you can waste the officers and your time by having a 5 minute argument over identifying yourself.
It's covered in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S1, 2, S17, S24 and S117. Pay particular attention to S1(3).
It wasn't a Stop and Search given what we know. But I accept we don't know everything. How about a wager on whether it was a Stop and Search, complying with the PCEA1984?
Under the RTA, he was obliged to give his name. And the course of action open to PC Savage was to arrest him if that wasn't forthcoming. He could have used force in arresting him.
There was no arrest.
And a lot of Common Law is shaped by single words.
Raygun said:
Tbh Greendubber and co by trying to justify PC Savages actions doesn't show the police in a good light, you would have been far better abstaining from this thread as you are defending the indefensible.
This isn't some anti-police rant just downright common sense.
So we should ignore the possibility that the police officer was justified in what he did and should make decisions without knowing all of the evidence and thats showing the police in a bad light?This isn't some anti-police rant just downright common sense.
Or should every bit of evidence be taken into account before making a decision, so far we only have one side of the story yet people are happy to make a decision off the back of it. I'm sure you would prefer open minded officers to deal with any allegations made against you.
Edited by Greendubber on Monday 3rd October 13:40
frankenstein12 said:
if needs be arrest you which means you are legally obliged to exit your vehicle.
Such a pity this wasn't what happened, isn't it?frankenstein12 said:
You do not have to identify yourself but you do need to exit your vehicle when told to do so.
I like you- you're funny. Read the last 50 pages of the thread.frankenstein12 said:
Regardless of law
So when you have it pointed out that the law doesn't actually suit you it can be disregarded?frankenstein12 said:
the only people who would fail to assist an officer and follow their request are those with a huge attitude and arrogance problem.
What about those afraid of a beating or similar from someone who has clearly lost control of their temper? La Liga said:
It may be that there were grounds for an arrest (it doesn't take much if you're not satisfied with a person's details), but an arrest was not may prior to, or during the force being applied.
Sorry La Liga, edited to add no arrest was made from what I recall. Edited by Alpinestars on Monday 3rd October 14:33
Alpinestars said:
Agreed.
It's a two way street though. Frustrated and angry PC has to butt in with his patronising attitude every time I post. So he's treated with the contempt I think he deserves.
I don't see any patronising posts, except from yourself. Infact you are going on like a bit of a tIt's a two way street though. Frustrated and angry PC has to butt in with his patronising attitude every time I post. So he's treated with the contempt I think he deserves.
t. spookly said:
frankenstein12 said:
Rovinghawk said:
frankenstein12 said:
It does not matter if he is entitled to or not.
Yes it does.People are "entitled" to be treated fairly and within common sense. Common sense dictates that if you have nothing to hide from a police officer then you assist him with his enquiries so that he can carry on with his duties without delay to him or yourself instead of creating a situation where you both get delayed.
I am not in the police so not sure where the situation would be legally allowed to go where the officer was concerned as assumingly if he believed the car or person in the car was involved in some form of criminal offence I would think he cannot then allow them to leave without first identifying if that is the case.
I am personally beyond fed up with this entitlement victim status nonsense of our so called modern enlightened society of idiots.
The guy in this video is probably the same person who when told by a police officer not to jump off a cliff because he will die will jump off the cliff just to prove that he can do what he wants.
Are you suggesting that the police, with scant reason to believe wrong doing, should be able to go bats
t and intimidate you with violence and aggression, and smash up your property? Without even having grounds for arrest?If the police have reasonable grounds to arrest then they should do so and they can then use their legally granted powers for that situation.... if they have not got grounds to arrest then they really should not be going ape on someone or their property, that isn't exactly a good way of establishing facts to support a suspicion. And they certainly should not be operating in a way other than their defined processes and within the powers granted to them by the law.
PC Savage may feel he can justify his behaviour, and he'll get his chance to put his justification forwards. Personally, I'd have a hard time accepting any excuses under the legal powers discussed in this thread, so maybe PC Savage is lucky I won't be listening to his excuses :-)
The officer was wrong about who the person in the car was but that is neither here nor there unless you are suggesting that if an officer suspects someone of being a criminal they should not verify or detain that person until their identity is confirmed?
Alpinestars said:
I agree with your Stop and Search analysis.
It's covered in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S1, 2, S17, S24 and S117. Pay particular attention to S1(3).
It wasn't a Stop and Search given what we know. But I accept we don't know everything. How about a wager on whether it was a Stop and Search, complying with the PCEA1984?
Under the RTA, he was obliged to give his name. And the course of action open to PC Savage was to arrest him if that wasn't forthcoming. He could have used force in arresting him.
There was no arrest.
And a lot of Common Law is shaped by single words.
Ok so tell me this. How was the officer to know who he was? Now I know you say he was obliged to give his name however frankly he could have claimed to be donald duck the officer needs to verify he is telling the truth as crims nearly never do. How would you propose the officer do that when dumbass refused to cooperate?It's covered in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 S1, 2, S17, S24 and S117. Pay particular attention to S1(3).
It wasn't a Stop and Search given what we know. But I accept we don't know everything. How about a wager on whether it was a Stop and Search, complying with the PCEA1984?
Under the RTA, he was obliged to give his name. And the course of action open to PC Savage was to arrest him if that wasn't forthcoming. He could have used force in arresting him.
There was no arrest.
And a lot of Common Law is shaped by single words.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff