Complete lack of common sense?
Discussion
He wouldn't get out.
He'd struck a police officer as he made off.
The windows because tinted were broken but held by the film.
Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
He's previously failed to stop. Failed to give details. Threatened a police officer and had no insurance last time.
The court thought he was lying.
The video is the very last part of an entire incident.
Officers haven't been suspended but have in line with all similar allegations been placed on non front line duty
That is not a finding of guilt.
They will have to explain their actions.
He'd struck a police officer as he made off.
The windows because tinted were broken but held by the film.
Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
He's previously failed to stop. Failed to give details. Threatened a police officer and had no insurance last time.
The court thought he was lying.
The video is the very last part of an entire incident.
Officers haven't been suspended but have in line with all similar allegations been placed on non front line duty
That is not a finding of guilt.
They will have to explain their actions.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
The windows because tinted were broken but held by the film.
Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
The windscreen is laminated. Quite a thick sandwich construction of two layers of glass held together by sheet of vinyl. Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
There's also a possibility that the side windows of RR were also laminated (available on the top range models). But personally, I'd take my chances on the doorglasses.
Stood on the bonnet trying to kick the windscreen is a just plain stupid. Add to this the possibility of the driver flooring the pedal while bobby is still on the bonnet. Stupid.
Mr_annie_vxr said:
He wouldn't get out.
He'd struck a police officer as he made off.
The windows because tinted were broken but held by the film.
Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
He's previously failed to stop. Failed to give details. Threatened a police officer and had no insurance last time.
The court thought he was lying.
The video is the very last part of an entire incident.
Officers haven't been suspended but have in line with all similar allegations been placed on non front line duty
That is not a finding of guilt.
They will have to explain their actions.
Dont often agree with your posts but spot on this time. Smashing windscreen is standard practice. Probably couldnt get enough levarage on ground because vehicle is so high, so stood on bonnet. Was doing his job, fair play i say. He'd struck a police officer as he made off.
The windows because tinted were broken but held by the film.
Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
He's previously failed to stop. Failed to give details. Threatened a police officer and had no insurance last time.
The court thought he was lying.
The video is the very last part of an entire incident.
Officers haven't been suspended but have in line with all similar allegations been placed on non front line duty
That is not a finding of guilt.
They will have to explain their actions.
markcoznottz said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
He wouldn't get out.
He'd struck a police officer as he made off.
The windows because tinted were broken but held by the film.
Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
He's previously failed to stop. Failed to give details. Threatened a police officer and had no insurance last time.
The court thought he was lying.
The video is the very last part of an entire incident.
Officers haven't been suspended but have in line with all similar allegations been placed on non front line duty
That is not a finding of guilt.
They will have to explain their actions.
Dont often agree with your posts but spot on this time. Smashing windscreen is standard practice. Probably couldnt get enough levarage on ground because vehicle is so high, so stood on bonnet. Was doing his job, fair play i say. He'd struck a police officer as he made off.
The windows because tinted were broken but held by the film.
Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
He's previously failed to stop. Failed to give details. Threatened a police officer and had no insurance last time.
The court thought he was lying.
The video is the very last part of an entire incident.
Officers haven't been suspended but have in line with all similar allegations been placed on non front line duty
That is not a finding of guilt.
They will have to explain their actions.
If he had struck a police officer as alleged why was he not convicted for such offence?
Glassman said:
Flanders. said:
okgo said:
Quite.
As you said, moron is apt.
As you said, moron is apt.
So how would you have stopped it then? Considering your so quick to pass judgement.
king effective when used correctly. Thanks for that valid peice of information. I'll be sure to ring someone who gives a f
k. Flanders. said:
Glassman said:
Flanders. said:
okgo said:
Quite.
As you said, moron is apt.
As you said, moron is apt.
So how would you have stopped it then? Considering your so quick to pass judgement.
king effective when used correctly. Thanks for that valid peice of information. I'll be sure to ring someone who gives a f
k. Glassman said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
The windows because tinted were broken but held by the film.
Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
The windscreen is laminated. Quite a thick sandwich construction of two layers of glass held together by sheet of vinyl. Only window they knew would not have film was the windscreen.
There's also a possibility that the side windows of RR were also laminated (available on the top range models). But personally, I'd take my chances on the doorglasses.
Stood on the bonnet trying to kick the windscreen is a just plain stupid. Add to this the possibility of the driver flooring the pedal while bobby is still on the bonnet. Stupid.
That may well be the officer's intention, but I would like to know how they (the police force) arrived at the decision to use this technique - to break the windscreen to reduce visibility for the driver, you'd need to hit it very hard or hard with a solid object, repeatedly.
To get enough behind a kick to obliterate the glass whilst standing on the bonnet is far from easy.
To get enough behind a kick to obliterate the glass whilst standing on the bonnet is far from easy.
I have a problem with this.
Would the same scenario happen if it had been a burly scrote, well able to handle himself, say with lots of previous, in an uninsured or stolen vehicle?
Once a vehicle is brought to a halt... stinger, whatever, the driver ain't going anywhere in this age group (unlike a young yob or scrote who would have legged it if he'd escaped) - where would the pensioner have 'walked', especially if he left his stick behind?
Or were these cops suffering from RMS (Raoul Moat Syndrome)?
Don't they realise WHY public confidence is already rock bottom?
Peel's oft quoted principle: The police are the public and the public are the police is well and truly lost on these two.
And is it 'really standard practise' to try and smash the front windscreen to prevent driver seeing, and thus escaping?
Memo to all Chief Constables, 'issue officers with a can of cheap black aerosol paint from 99p shops, to spray screens. Much quicker and far more efficient!'
Would the same scenario happen if it had been a burly scrote, well able to handle himself, say with lots of previous, in an uninsured or stolen vehicle?
Once a vehicle is brought to a halt... stinger, whatever, the driver ain't going anywhere in this age group (unlike a young yob or scrote who would have legged it if he'd escaped) - where would the pensioner have 'walked', especially if he left his stick behind?
Or were these cops suffering from RMS (Raoul Moat Syndrome)?
Don't they realise WHY public confidence is already rock bottom?
Peel's oft quoted principle: The police are the public and the public are the police is well and truly lost on these two.
And is it 'really standard practise' to try and smash the front windscreen to prevent driver seeing, and thus escaping?
Memo to all Chief Constables, 'issue officers with a can of cheap black aerosol paint from 99p shops, to spray screens. Much quicker and far more efficient!'
Edited by dandarez on Saturday 7th August 23:55
grumbledoak said:
dandarez said:
Once a vehicle is brought to a halt...
Are you having reading comprehension problems? He had been at a halt, eight miles previously, and driven off!
So i must ask how should plod deal with this.?
Imagine someone nicked your car with the keys and before you reported it were stopped by plod for no seatbelt. Plod can't identify the driver for certain and the driver then drives off.
Should they just let him go on his way?
Or should they try to stop the car and extract the driver as quickly as possible?
Imagine someone nicked your car with the keys and before you reported it were stopped by plod for no seatbelt. Plod can't identify the driver for certain and the driver then drives off.
Should they just let him go on his way?
Or should they try to stop the car and extract the driver as quickly as possible?
dandarez said:
And is it 'really standard practise' to try and smash the front windscreen to prevent driver seeing, and thus escaping?
Memo to all Chief Constables, 'issue officers with a can of cheap black aerosol paint from 99p shops, to spray screens. Much quicker and far more efficient!'
Windscreen wipers?Memo to all Chief Constables, 'issue officers with a can of cheap black aerosol paint from 99p shops, to spray screens. Much quicker and far more efficient!'
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff