Policeman arrests protestor for 'alleged' (made-up) DUI
Discussion
It's funny whenever these videos come out there is always a sizable response that whilst the 'officer' was perhaps being a bit overzealous it was only because the crusty/protestor/photographer was asking for it by winding them up but I've been on the receiving end of one of these jumped up assholes whilst simply walking home from dinner with the wife. No doubt lessons will be learned.
fblm said:
It's funny whenever these videos come out there is always a sizable response that whilst the 'officer' was perhaps being a bit overzealous it was only because the crusty/protestor/photographer was asking for it by winding them up but I've been on the receiving end of one of these jumped up assholes whilst simply walking home from dinner with the wife. No doubt lessons will be learned.
But the point is your 'issue' was not recorded on camera because yours was a bad experience, not one that was engineered for the camera as so many of these often seem.I have an OTT officer have a pop at me last year. Misquoted the law at me (well made one up) and was generally on a bit of a trip. As they didn't actually try to do me for anything I just did the yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir, routine and carried on with my life thinking them to be a tosser.
Others like to get the camera out and exacerbate the situation.
Rude-boy said:
I have an OTT officer have a pop at me last year. Misquoted the law at me (well made one up) and was generally on a bit of a trip. As they didn't actually try to do me for anything I just did the yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir, routine and carried on with my life thinking them to be a tosser.
Others like to get the camera out and exacerbate the situation.
Do we think this officer, and the one you encountered last year, may have behaved differently if he was wearing a body or head mounted camera?Others like to get the camera out and exacerbate the situation.
Rude-boy said:
ut the point is your 'issue' was not recorded on camera because yours was a bad experience, not one that was engineered for the camera as so many of these often seem.
No the point is that the behavior of these 'officers' is excused by many because they are being 'wound up' yet they behave like this despite being openly filmed! Can you imagine what this guy and the last one are like when off camera? I can, in my case the 'officer' had a screaming hissy fit in my face repeatedly daring me to hit him and telling me how I was going to spend the night in the cells. If we assume they arn't all this thick you have to imagine there are even more incidences like this off camera than on.Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 5th February 20:18
Mk3Spitfire said:
10 Pence Short said:
The first officer had no evidence from which to gain a reasonable suspicion that the protester had been driving. Any use of powers based upon that unreasonable suspicion would therefore be unlawful.
What are you basing this on? He knew what car he had, how do you know he didn't see him drive earlier?I normally respect your opinions and if you have clarified earlier on I apologise but I couldn't face wading through 3 pages of RovingHawk/carinaman usual b
ks.I was basing my opinion on the fact that the officer had no reasonable suspicion that the protester had been drinking (he clearly invented it), therefore no reasonable suspicion he still had alcohol in his system and no reasonable suspicion that the protester had been driving with alcohol in his system. All three are needed to lawfully require a specimen. He merely kept repeating the same things and enough times purposely in earshot of colleagues that they might consider it 'fact' and the thing will roll on from there.
I note the CPS offered no evidence when this case went to court and the protester now intends to sue the GMP.
10 Pence Short said:
I note the CPS offered no evidence when this case went to court and the protester now intends to sue the GMP.
It's only taxpayers' money being wasted, so who cares? Let's do it again real soon.When the police complain about their restricted resources, maybe thought should be given to how issues such as this cause a big drain on their budget.
carinaman said:
Do we think this officer, and the one you encountered last year, may have behaved differently if he was wearing a body or head mounted camera?
I'm not sure.I would have acted exactly the same as i did (although i might have done a 'looks to camera, raises left eyebrow' move when he started to make up a new law...)
I would like to think that they would have considered their actions more fully, but can't be sure that they would be that bright...
At least though I would have known that if the camera recorded what they saw then they would have looked quite silly maintaining their position on reviewing the footage.
10 Pence Short said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
10 Pence Short said:
The first officer had no evidence from which to gain a reasonable suspicion that the protester had been driving. Any use of powers based upon that unreasonable suspicion would therefore be unlawful.
What are you basing this on? He knew what car he had, how do you know he didn't see him drive earlier?I normally respect your opinions and if you have clarified earlier on I apologise but I couldn't face wading through 3 pages of RovingHawk/carinaman usual b
ks.I was basing my opinion on the fact that the officer had no reasonable suspicion that the protester had been drinking (he clearly invented it), therefore no reasonable suspicion he still had alcohol in his system and no reasonable suspicion that the protester had been driving with alcohol in his system. All three are needed to lawfully require a specimen. He merely kept repeating the same things and enough times purposely in earshot of colleagues that they might consider it 'fact' and the thing will roll on from there.
I note the CPS offered no evidence when this case went to court and the protester now intends to sue the GMP.
I agree with what you're saying. However. If, and granted it is a big If, what the Police officer said is true, then I believe he would have had the grounds. He states he can smell alcohol. He believed the guy admitted to having two drinks, albeit actually being "tea" not "two", and he appeared to know exactly what car the man drove, and so safe to assume he saw him driving there? Of course, a lot does depend on the time span, but IF he had seen him drive his "blue Mercedes" in only minutes before, IF he could actually smell alcohol (intoxicating liqour) on his breath, and IF he believed the man had drunk two drinks, maybe he would have had the grounds.
As usual though, it's all speculation and doesn't really excuse the poor attitude anyway.
55palfers said:
You obviously don't appreciate that this will be an educational opportunity for GMP.Although they 'missed opportunities' to do better, 'lessons will be learned' and the 'institutional failings' will be addressed, with individuals being given 'words of advice'.
The damages which I have little doubt will be paid (in or out of court) will be borne by the taxpayers rather than the individuals involved, so no harm done there.
A survey will show how GMP have improved and the good energy will spread out to make the whole world a more beautiful place.
A few apologists will explain how the policeman was right & the court was wrong, no doubt, and the policeman involved will carry on as before, with perhaps more care when in front of a camera.
I think people are missing the real issue here. The police sergeant may well have sent a case to court with no chance of winning and may well have cost the taxpayer quite a bit of money but he probably got a commendation for his action because his objective was to remove the guy with the camera from the scene of police treatment of a protestor that they had pulled out from the line. In that objective he was completely successful.
I must say that I have had experience of dealing with scores of drink driving cases over many years. Quite a few involved people denying
1. That they had been drinking
2. That they had been driving
3. That I had the power to do whatever I was doing
4. That they were going to provide a specimen.
Often one of these, sometimes all 4.
Basically it's par for the course. Makes you wonder why CPS authorised a charge in the first place if the case was so slim. I thought the days of grumpy custody officers charging on a wing and a prayer had gone years ago. I suspect there is more than meets the eye involved, not for the first time.
1. That they had been drinking
2. That they had been driving
3. That I had the power to do whatever I was doing
4. That they were going to provide a specimen.
Often one of these, sometimes all 4.
Basically it's par for the course. Makes you wonder why CPS authorised a charge in the first place if the case was so slim. I thought the days of grumpy custody officers charging on a wing and a prayer had gone years ago. I suspect there is more than meets the eye involved, not for the first time.
You would think that if teenage squaddies in Afghanistan on half as much pay can be trained to cope with people trying to kill them that grown men could be trained to cope with crusties saying some nasty words and making some loud noises.
Sadly, too many excuses today and too much dishonesty. And frankly, while you can't expect every member of the Police to be intelligent it does seem that they are recruiting some real retards these days not is it just camera phones catching up with what has always been.
I have to say that my experience of the Police in recent years has been one of dishonesty and threats. Something has changed.
Sadly, too many excuses today and too much dishonesty. And frankly, while you can't expect every member of the Police to be intelligent it does seem that they are recruiting some real retards these days not is it just camera phones catching up with what has always been.
I have to say that my experience of the Police in recent years has been one of dishonesty and threats. Something has changed.
I've spent the last few hours digging a little deeper into this and have found a few interesting things.
uploaded 6th January to youtube by username 'steve spy' who is acting as a legal observer for the protesters and is the same person that uploaded the video in question
'Unlawful Arrest of Lawful Observer on Barton Moss Road'
http://youtu.be/3gxI4ToNKGQ
uploaded Jan 31, 2014
watch the video below and you'll come to the conclusion that Steven has been to the protest on many occasions and is known by name to the officer (Sergeant David Kehoe) and this very sergeant is in this very video uploaded 6th Jan.
http://youtu.be/iv-ZxDiQ6VM
seems not all is what it seems.
uploaded 6th January to youtube by username 'steve spy' who is acting as a legal observer for the protesters and is the same person that uploaded the video in question
'Unlawful Arrest of Lawful Observer on Barton Moss Road'
http://youtu.be/3gxI4ToNKGQ
uploaded Jan 31, 2014
watch the video below and you'll come to the conclusion that Steven has been to the protest on many occasions and is known by name to the officer (Sergeant David Kehoe) and this very sergeant is in this very video uploaded 6th Jan.
http://youtu.be/iv-ZxDiQ6VM
seems not all is what it seems.
DonkeyApple said:
I have to say that my experience of the Police in recent years has been one of dishonesty and threats. Something has changed.
Sadly that's my only experience of the British Police with only one exception; when my Alpina was stolen she told me "well you were asking for it with a car like that", which I guess wasn't dishonest or threatening. It's still pi55 poor though. I don't give a st if they have a 'difficult job', lots of people do without being jumped up bully boy pr1cks. No time for them at all. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff