Complete lack of common sense?
Discussion
How does running at the guy with a stick stop him from shooting you?
If, as you infer that he could not shoot the BiB through the window (as that only happens in the movies) How would the glass stop a bullet?
Surely cars only stop bullets in the movies?
Are you Bib?
If, as you infer that he could not shoot the BiB through the window (as that only happens in the movies) How would the glass stop a bullet?
Surely cars only stop bullets in the movies?
Are you Bib?
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 5th August 22:34
So when it's a scrote on Road Wars with an uninsured car, we can all cheer as they kick the window in.
But an nice old boy who gets "confused", well that's a bit different.
Driving off because you were worried you were about to have another stroke? Yeah good idea. Might be time to stop driving mate.
But an nice old boy who gets "confused", well that's a bit different.
Driving off because you were worried you were about to have another stroke? Yeah good idea. Might be time to stop driving mate.
odyssey2200 said:
How does running at the guy with a stick stop him from shooting you?
If, as you infer that he could not shoot the BiB through the window (as that only happens in the movies) How would the glass stop a bullet?
Surely cars only stop bullets in the movies?
Are you Bib?
No I am not Bib, and to be honest your clearly so anti police it seem as wast of time. Your looking at the situation with 20/20 hindsight, they dont have that luxury.If, as you infer that he could not shoot the BiB through the window (as that only happens in the movies) How would the glass stop a bullet?
Surely cars only stop bullets in the movies?
Are you Bib?
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 5th August 22:34
KrazyIvan said:
odyssey2200 said:
How does running at the guy with a stick stop him from shooting you?
If, as you infer that he could not shoot the BiB through the window (as that only happens in the movies) How would the glass stop a bullet?
Surely cars only stop bullets in the movies?
Are you Bib?
No I am not Bib, and to be honest your clearly so anti police it seem as wast of time. Your looking at the situation with 20/20 hindsight, they dont have that luxury.If, as you infer that he could not shoot the BiB through the window (as that only happens in the movies) How would the glass stop a bullet?
Surely cars only stop bullets in the movies?
Are you Bib?
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 5th August 22:34
It would appear that their superiors agree, given thier suspension.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 5th August 22:39
odyssey2200 said:
KrazyIvan said:
odyssey2200 said:
How does running at the guy with a stick stop him from shooting you?
If, as you infer that he could not shoot the BiB through the window (as that only happens in the movies) How would the glass stop a bullet?
Surely cars only stop bullets in the movies?
Are you Bib?
No I am not Bib, and to be honest your clearly so anti police it seem as wast of time. Your looking at the situation with 20/20 hindsight, they dont have that luxury.If, as you infer that he could not shoot the BiB through the window (as that only happens in the movies) How would the glass stop a bullet?
Surely cars only stop bullets in the movies?
Are you Bib?
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 5th August 22:34
It would appear that their superiors agree, given thier suspension.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Thursday 5th August 22:39
k over next time he see blue lights in his mirror.And on that note I am off to bed
Not sure I can face a Daily Wail link at this time of night.
I do actually want our police to stop people that don't want to stop. Once they've got his keys they can re-assess the situation.
His 'story' sounds like excuses. The suspension is likely routine.
More to come, no doubt.
ETA- I've read the article, but not yet watched the video. It hasn't changed my opinion.
I do actually want our police to stop people that don't want to stop. Once they've got his keys they can re-assess the situation.
His 'story' sounds like excuses. The suspension is likely routine.
More to come, no doubt.
ETA- I've read the article, but not yet watched the video. It hasn't changed my opinion.
Edited by grumbledoak on Thursday 5th August 23:54
They smashed the windows because it has been proven to disorientate the driver and allows the officers to safely remove the occupant from the vehicle, just because he was a pensioner doesn't mean he isn't capable to mowing them down, for all they knew he could have taken them out once he had stopped, we all know the damage an SUV can do in the right or wrong hands.
Having read the BBC report it seems peopel are taken off duty if a complaint is being investigated by the IPCC
It does look bad on that video but the point is what happened leading upto it.
Apparently he knocked another copper over whilst driving away from another incident before that.
It does look bad on that video but the point is what happened leading upto it.
Apparently he knocked another copper over whilst driving away from another incident before that.
Discussed at greater length in SP&L. An interesting link there to an older news story about a driver of the same name who, six years ago, was found guilty of no tax etc and failing to stop.
As always there's more to these stories and we never get all the facts particularly from papers like the Daily Mail. Without the full details arguing who was right or wrong is pointless. That won't stop some people though.
As always there's more to these stories and we never get all the facts particularly from papers like the Daily Mail. Without the full details arguing who was right or wrong is pointless. That won't stop some people though.
Looking at the video I can only come to one conclusion:The copper let his anger get the better of him.He is in a dire need of a retraining IMO. Yes the OAP behaved like a prat driving away, but he did stop eventually.The copper(s) had prior knowledge he was an OAP, and different scenarios call for different approach and tactics.Smashing the window by one policeman and Karate kick the windscreen in by another was enough to cause a heart attack to a healthy person let alone this old man.If this was not OTT I don't know what is? TBH.
Bill said:
odyssey2200 said:
The tt didn't even try the door before smashing fk out of the window.
Won't the RR like most (all?) recent cars autolock their doors after a short while to prevent hijacking.t didn't even try the door before smashing fk out of the window.I doubt PC Smashy has an in depth knowledge of those that do/don't/might.
Edited by odyssey2200 on Friday 6th August 16:04
odyssey2200 said:
If he is known to the police it makes their behaviour even more OTT.
They know that he is a harmless but, perhaps uncoperative old git.
They know where he lives and where to find him.
Jumping on his bonnet it just ttish.
They know that he is a harmless but, perhaps uncoperative old git.
They know where he lives and where to find him.
Jumping on his bonnet it just t
tish. Harmless? He failed to stop for the Bib, he could be up to anything. I'm sorry but after 8 miles he deserves it. Would it be any different if it was an 18 Y.O in a Nova who didn't stop because he was confused?
Bill said:
odyssey2200 said:
But he still didn't have to smash the window like a demented tt.
What else could he do? The giffer had tried to get away once, clipping a BiB in the process.t.I saw this on a previously closed thread directing me to sp&l, There's a huge conversation going on there about it. Nobody seems to mention this though.
He stopped again, on a country road (nowhere to go) with room to pass. Why didn't one car pull across the path of his stopped vehicle to ensure no doubt about their intentions to talk with him? This would also have prevented further escape whereby his boot could be checked for bodies (ridiculous!) and such.
They did not think he was armed, there is no way they would have done what they did if they believed he had a gun.
There is also mention of there being a stinger in front of the vehicle and this is why he stopped, if so there were enough cars to do a more controlled stop.
The only way their response would have been justified is if they had just forcibly stopped the car, they had deployed a stinger but it had not been driven over. There was also nothing he could do to escape on foot had they not got hold of him immediately.
He stopped again, on a country road (nowhere to go) with room to pass. Why didn't one car pull across the path of his stopped vehicle to ensure no doubt about their intentions to talk with him? This would also have prevented further escape whereby his boot could be checked for bodies (ridiculous!) and such.
They did not think he was armed, there is no way they would have done what they did if they believed he had a gun.
There is also mention of there being a stinger in front of the vehicle and this is why he stopped, if so there were enough cars to do a more controlled stop.
The only way their response would have been justified is if they had just forcibly stopped the car, they had deployed a stinger but it had not been driven over. There was also nothing he could do to escape on foot had they not got hold of him immediately.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff