"You're a pig and your breath stinks of bacon"
Discussion
I know there are serving police officers on here so can I please ask why this motorist wasn't forcibly removed from his car and tasered whilst the 8 officers shout "stop resisting" 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH51LX1e8Y
The officer states that an offence has been committed (handbrake turn). The motorist states that under the Road Traffic Act he's not obliged to get out of his car, which is fair enough but what if the police officer directed the motorist to exit the car for his own personal safety to make sure the motorist didn't have any weapons. That way the motorist can then be charged for not complying with an officer's lawful orders? Especially as there was a potential offence being committed (a handbrake turn)
Secondly the guy is shouting "you're a pig", "you're a punk" etc. Couldn't the catch all "breach of the peace" allow a forcible entry into the car? I know that because he didn't swear that the Section 5 Public Order Offence of causing harassment, distress or alarm wouldn't apply but surely the police had enough cause to arrest him? Perhaps not a charge, but enough to shut him up and take him down to the station.
Would appreciate feedback on this from a serving police officer or a solicitor rather than armchair lawyers, as I'm genuinely surprised at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH51LX1e8Y
The officer states that an offence has been committed (handbrake turn). The motorist states that under the Road Traffic Act he's not obliged to get out of his car, which is fair enough but what if the police officer directed the motorist to exit the car for his own personal safety to make sure the motorist didn't have any weapons. That way the motorist can then be charged for not complying with an officer's lawful orders? Especially as there was a potential offence being committed (a handbrake turn)
Secondly the guy is shouting "you're a pig", "you're a punk" etc. Couldn't the catch all "breach of the peace" allow a forcible entry into the car? I know that because he didn't swear that the Section 5 Public Order Offence of causing harassment, distress or alarm wouldn't apply but surely the police had enough cause to arrest him? Perhaps not a charge, but enough to shut him up and take him down to the station.
Would appreciate feedback on this from a serving police officer or a solicitor rather than armchair lawyers, as I'm genuinely surprised at this video.
Without seeing his manner of driving and whatever occurred prior to the filming it's not possible to fully judge what could be done. There are no obvious offences or a breach of the peace. People can behave like that if they so wish. Most people wouldn't, but some choose to.
Personally, I'd never get into a conversation with someone like that. I'd just cut the chase and go straight to the purpose of the conversation / straight to the legal power being used. I'd require him to produce his licence and insurance straight away. Then if fails to comply and wants to be obstructive then he gets arrested. If he doesn't want to open the car door then it gets opened for him. Simple. Having the backing of a lawful request / power from the off is the best position to deal with people like that. If not it turns into a bit of a farce like the video shows.
When I tutored I always used to teach my students to know their purpose and powers. It helps avoid situations like that by concluding them relatively quickly. That approach would resolve a lot of the "freeman of the land" wibble a lot quicker.
You either have a purpose (checking documents, driving standards offence, stop and search) or you don't. If you don't why even get into the conversation? Just leave him. If you have a purpose then achieve it with conviction and confidence.
The cops could have easily have turned that into a stop search or something like S.59 (assuming there was anything that could justify one prior), but they didn't make it personal or petty.
Personally, I'd never get into a conversation with someone like that. I'd just cut the chase and go straight to the purpose of the conversation / straight to the legal power being used. I'd require him to produce his licence and insurance straight away. Then if fails to comply and wants to be obstructive then he gets arrested. If he doesn't want to open the car door then it gets opened for him. Simple. Having the backing of a lawful request / power from the off is the best position to deal with people like that. If not it turns into a bit of a farce like the video shows.
When I tutored I always used to teach my students to know their purpose and powers. It helps avoid situations like that by concluding them relatively quickly. That approach would resolve a lot of the "freeman of the land" wibble a lot quicker.
You either have a purpose (checking documents, driving standards offence, stop and search) or you don't. If you don't why even get into the conversation? Just leave him. If you have a purpose then achieve it with conviction and confidence.
The cops could have easily have turned that into a stop search or something like S.59 (assuming there was anything that could justify one prior), but they didn't make it personal or petty.
SV8Predator said:
Why should he be Tazered?
It was a tongue in cheek comment as I've seen other instances near Parliament where people demonstrating and mouthing off to police get quickly arrested for breach of the peace. Shouting "stop resisting" is a common tactic by police to beat/taser someone into submission if they are shouting abuse at officers.I'm frankly very surprised that the motorist wasn't forcibly extracted from the car, I'm not sure of the laws, but I think you have to comply with an officer's lawful order.
Or perhaps I'm wrong
ATV said:
I know there are serving police officers on here so can I please ask why this motorist wasn't forcibly removed from his car and tasered whilst the 8 officers shout "stop resisting"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH51LX1e8Y
The officer states that an offence has been committed (handbrake turn). The motorist states that under the Road Traffic Act he's not obliged to get out of his car, which is fair enough but what if the police officer directed the motorist to exit the car for his own personal safety to make sure the motorist didn't have any weapons. That way the motorist can then be charged for not complying with an officer's lawful orders? Especially as there was a potential offence being committed (a handbrake turn)
Secondly the guy is shouting "you're a pig", "you're a punk" etc. Couldn't the catch all "breach of the peace" allow a forcible entry into the car? I know that because he didn't swear that the Section 5 Public Order Offence of causing harassment, distress or alarm wouldn't apply but surely the police had enough cause to arrest him? Perhaps not a charge, but enough to shut him up and take him down to the station.
Would appreciate feedback on this from a serving police officer or a solicitor rather than armchair lawyers, as I'm genuinely surprised at this video.
I didn't hear him say 'you're a pig' at all.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knH51LX1e8Y
The officer states that an offence has been committed (handbrake turn). The motorist states that under the Road Traffic Act he's not obliged to get out of his car, which is fair enough but what if the police officer directed the motorist to exit the car for his own personal safety to make sure the motorist didn't have any weapons. That way the motorist can then be charged for not complying with an officer's lawful orders? Especially as there was a potential offence being committed (a handbrake turn)
Secondly the guy is shouting "you're a pig", "you're a punk" etc. Couldn't the catch all "breach of the peace" allow a forcible entry into the car? I know that because he didn't swear that the Section 5 Public Order Offence of causing harassment, distress or alarm wouldn't apply but surely the police had enough cause to arrest him? Perhaps not a charge, but enough to shut him up and take him down to the station.
Would appreciate feedback on this from a serving police officer or a solicitor rather than armchair lawyers, as I'm genuinely surprised at this video.
As for the rest of it I imagine it gets annoying being stopped by the police if it happens frequently. By the same token I imagine being confronted by a smart arse who knows their rights and plays the system is also rather annoying. I also suspect that ultimately it will be a losing proposition for the bloke in the car because he's one person railing against a very powerful organisation.
La Liga said:
If he doesn't want to open the car door then it gets opened for him. Simple. Having the backing of a lawful request / power from the off is the best position to deal with people like that. If not it turns into a bit of a farce like the video shows.
From the video it looked like he complied with the order to produce the documents but the list of his non-compliance included:- he wouldn't open the car door when requested
- wouldn't open the window fully to talk to the officer when requested
- wouldn't hand his driving licence to the officer because of "dirty paws" and made him look at the licence through the window, despite being requested
- called a police officer a "pig" (maybe not unlawful in the UK?)
and numerous other infractions. He seemed to know a bit about the law (i.e. he asked if under the Road Traffic Act he was compelled to open the door and the officer said no).
But it seems strange why wasn't he forcibly removed from the car and at the very least cuffed while questioned for the other offences?
ATV said:
La Liga said:
If he doesn't want to open the car door then it gets opened for him. Simple. Having the backing of a lawful request / power from the off is the best position to deal with people like that. If not it turns into a bit of a farce like the video shows.
From the video it looked like he complied with the order to produce the documents but the list of his non-compliance included:- he wouldn't open the car door when requested
- wouldn't open the window fully to talk to the officer when requested
- wouldn't hand his driving licence to the officer because of "dirty paws" and made him look at the licence through the window, despite being requested
- called a police officer a "pig" (maybe not unlawful in the UK?)
and numerous other infractions. He seemed to know a bit about the law (i.e. he asked if under the Road Traffic Act he was compelled to open the door and the officer said no).
But it seems strange why wasn't he forcibly removed from the car and at the very least cuffed while questioned for the other offences?
There were no other offences I could see. It's not an offence to simply be a dick.
I wouldn't accept viewing a driving licence through a window for inspection.
If he really wanted a lesson in the Road Traffic Act, they should have introduced him to S.67 and got an Authorised Vehicle Examiner to go through the vehicle and reported him to court for any defects found.
Driving in the manner who apparently did and his irate behaviour, is it reasonable to suspect that's the result of drugs? S.23 search of him and the vehicle would probably be easy to justify.
Moving traffic offence? Why not require a specimen of breath for analysis?
They could have done all these things if they wanted to lower themselves to his level, but chose not to play the "my Dad's bigger game".
I wouldn't accept viewing a driving licence through a window for inspection.
If he really wanted a lesson in the Road Traffic Act, they should have introduced him to S.67 and got an Authorised Vehicle Examiner to go through the vehicle and reported him to court for any defects found.
Driving in the manner who apparently did and his irate behaviour, is it reasonable to suspect that's the result of drugs? S.23 search of him and the vehicle would probably be easy to justify.
Moving traffic offence? Why not require a specimen of breath for analysis?
They could have done all these things if they wanted to lower themselves to his level, but chose not to play the "my Dad's bigger game".
dacouch said:
I'm guessing he was not forcibly removed or tazered etc etc was due to the incident being filmed.
Feel free to call me a cynic
The cynic in me thinks they just thought it wasn't worth all the hassle and they had more important things to do, however I wouldn't bet against him getting his collar felt very soon after.Feel free to call me a cynic
There is no way that all those coppers just walked away without getting some details for a little comeback lol
La Liga said:
There were no other offences I could see. It's not an offence to simply be a dick.
I wouldn't accept viewing a driving licence through a window for inspection.
If he really wanted a lesson in the Road Traffic Act, they should have introduced him to S.67 and got an Authorised Vehicle Examiner to go through the vehicle and reported him to court for any defects found.
Driving in the manner who apparently did and his irate behaviour, is it reasonable to suspect that's the result of drugs? S.23 search of him and the vehicle would probably be easy to justify.
Moving traffic offence? Why not require a specimen of breath for analysis?
They could have done all these things if they wanted to lower themselves to his level, but chose not to play the "my Dad's bigger game".
I suspect the reason might be because this person is known for deliberately instigating confrontation with authority and videoing it.I wouldn't accept viewing a driving licence through a window for inspection.
If he really wanted a lesson in the Road Traffic Act, they should have introduced him to S.67 and got an Authorised Vehicle Examiner to go through the vehicle and reported him to court for any defects found.
Driving in the manner who apparently did and his irate behaviour, is it reasonable to suspect that's the result of drugs? S.23 search of him and the vehicle would probably be easy to justify.
Moving traffic offence? Why not require a specimen of breath for analysis?
They could have done all these things if they wanted to lower themselves to his level, but chose not to play the "my Dad's bigger game".
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff