Police Officer Smashes Windscreen

[Bigends]

Mr Snrub said:

Bigends said:

stuarthat said:

Bigends said:

spookly said:

otolith said:

Alpinestars said:

otolith said:

Personally, I'm not supporting the copper. He screwed up. Why are people supporting the kid, who was being a dick to provoke a reaction?

Was the reaction justified? And what legal grounds does the "copper" have to REQUIRE the guy to get out of his car?

No, the reaction was not justified. The officer screwed up, as I've said repeatedly.

Why not get out of the car? Why make an issue of it? Why try to provoke a confrontation unnecessarily? "I'm filming you, you can't make me" attitude - it's intended to antagonise. Just a terrible attitude - kind of nonsense you expect from children who know how limited the teacher's powers are and like to push the boundaries.

You didn't answer the question though. What legal grounds does the copper have to require him to get out of the car?

Genuinely interested.

He does not seem to have been told he is under arrest at that point. He is verbally communicating with the police officer. The officer does not seem to like being told he doesn't want to get out of his car, quite understandably based on his attitude and the previous cases of police violence and roughness that I'm sure we've all seen (yes, I know not all police are like that, but some are, and I have seen some very rough policing first hand).

So the question remains.... do the police have powers to require you to get out of your car when you are not under arrest?

I can see why people may not want to comply with police requests which they are not legally obliged to. Maybe the police should make very sure that they only request things of the public in a more friendly manner, and do not attempt to use force to enforce a request which does not legally have to complied with?

Drivers dont have to get out of the car to speak to the officer - if they choose to its down to them. Thers also no obligation to get into the back of a Police car to answer questions. All questions and answers can be carried out by the officer through an open window. A breath test can also be administered through an open window. To put the officer at ease, the driver may want to remove the keys from the ignition - theres also no obligation to hand them over either. Once arrest comes into play or the cars going to be seized (no insurance etc) - different story - the driver should do as requested - comply with any instructions and hand the car key over.

How can you carry out a safe secure breath test through the window, with the policeman standing in the road ?,no best to be conducted on the footpath or a safe location if someone locks the car door why something to hide ?

Whats a safe secure breath test -just hold the kit through the window - not ideal but not illegal either. As long as the driver can blow sitting down

Where he could easily drive off, slam the door into the Officer or be concealing a weapon

Regardless - until hes nicked he doesnt HAVE to get out

[Alpinestars]

Mr Snrub said:

Where he could easily drive off, slam the door into the Officer or be concealing a weapon

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

In this case, he puts the keys on the dashboard in clear view of Mr PC.

[Rovinghawk]

Mr Snrub said:

Where he could easily drive off, slam the door into the Officer or be concealing a weapon

This thread is about what happened, not about what didn't happen.

He didn't drive off. He didn't slam the door into anyone. He didn't have a weapon.

He did act within the law. He did have rights. He did go to hospital over unlawfully inflicted injuries.

[otolith]

Alpinestars said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

But he did react badly. Acting like a prick is subjective. But even if he did act like a prick, and for the second time, what action do you think would be justifiable?

Being a prick isn't actionable. What makes you imagine I think action should be taken? I have condemned the police officer's behaviour and expressed my disapproval of the kid's behaviour.

[spookly]

otolith said:

Alpinestars said:

otolith said:

The policeman's behaviour was completely unacceptable. If the officer hadn't reacted so badly, the driver would still be acting like a prick.

But he did react badly. Acting like a prick is subjective. But even if he did act like a prick, and for the second time, what action do you think would be justifiable?

Being a prick isn't actionable. What makes you imagine I think action should be taken? I have condemned the police officer's behaviour and expressed my disapproval of the kid's behaviour.

Someone being a prick is subjective. You decide you THINK someone is being a prick in YOUR opinion. Like I just have with you :-)

The police should be very careful to treat everyone fairly and not let their emotion get in the way of doing their job. I appreciate that people aren't robots and sometimes emotion may creep in a bit. But that bully boy copper in the video has gone well beyond what I suspect most of the public expect from the police they pay for... just look at the comments in this thread - how many are saying they think the actions of the copper are OK?

[Alpinestars]

otolith said:

Being a prick isn't actionable. What makes you imagine I think action should be taken? I have condemned the police officer's behaviour and expressed my disapproval of the kid's behaviour.

So what's the big deal? You seemed to be suggesting he deserved what he got earlier?

Should the PC be disciplined in your view?

[Greendubber]

Rovinghawk said:

Mr Snrub said:

Where he could easily drive off, slam the door into the Officer or be concealing a weapon

This thread is about what happened, not about what didn't happen.

He didn't drive off. He didn't slam the door into anyone. He didn't have a weapon.

He did act within the law. He did have rights. He did go to hospital over unlawfully inflicted injuries.

I think they were discussing the taking of a breath test through an open window, not this incident.

Never reach into a car unless you really have to, people have been dragged down the road doing that resulting in severe injury. I wouldnt be holding a breath kit in through an open window unless I had the keys in my hand. Then you have the 'do I legally have to give him the keys' debate.

[Rovinghawk]

Greendubber said:

Then you have the 'do I legally have to give me the keys' debate.

There's no debate- the answer is a plain and simple "no" under the circumstances described.

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

Rovinghawk said:

Mr Snrub said:

Where he could easily drive off, slam the door into the Officer or be concealing a weapon

This thread is about what happened, not about what didn't happen.

He didn't drive off. He didn't slam the door into anyone. He didn't have a weapon.

He did act within the law. He did have rights. He did go to hospital over unlawfully inflicted injuries.

I think they were discussing the taking of a breath test through an open window, not this incident.

Never reach into a car unless you really have to, people have been dragged down the road doing that resulting in severe injury. I wouldnt be holding a breath kit in through an open window unless I had the keys in my hand. Then you have the 'do I legally have to give him the keys' debate.

I never needed to either - it was never an issue if the drivers were dealt with properly from the start

[Greendubber]

Rovinghawk said:

Greendubber said:

Then you have the 'do I legally have to give me the keys' debate.

There's no debate- the answer is a plain and simple "no" under the circumstances described.

Exactly

However surely even you can see the difficulty faced by someone you suspect has been drinking, they appear a bit evasive and you have to now stick your arm into a running vehicle with someone you know nothing about in order to get a sample of breath.

Edited by Greendubber on Tuesday 20th September 22:26

[Rovinghawk]

Greendubber said:

However surely even you can see the difficulty faced by someone you suspect has been drinking, they appear a bit evasive and you have to now stick your arm into a running vehicle with someone you know nothing about in order to get a sample of breath.

However, surely even you can see that someone's legal rights can't be suspended just because you'd prefer it that way. And don't suggest that insisting on one's rights is in any way an implication of guilt.

[Rovinghawk]

Bigends said:

I never needed to either - it was never an issue if the drivers were dealt with properly from the start

With all due respect to you, there are many that have no idea how to do things in a civilised manner. They believe that threats & intimidation are a good way to establish that they are in charge and then wonder why they receive a lack of cooperation.

I approached politely I feel the need to respond in kind- if approached rudely then my combative streak engages. I think that's quite a common reaction.

[Greendubber]

Rovinghawk said:

Greendubber said:

However surely even you can see the difficulty faced by someone you suspect has been drinking, they appear a bit evasive and you have to now stick your arm into a running vehicle with someone you know nothing about in order to get a sample of breath.

However, surely even you can see that someone's legal rights can't be suspended just because you'd prefer it that way. And don't suggest that insisting on one's rights is in any way an implication of guilt.

I didnt say they should be did I? I was elaborating on the point made earlier about shoving hands into stangers vehicles to get a sample of breath and the risks that go with it.

[Rovinghawk]

Greendubber said:

I didnt say they should be did I? I was elaborating on the point made earlier about shoving hands into stangers vehicles to get a sample of breath and the risks that go with it.

Major bummer. If you can't handle it then might I suggest you find alternative employment? Getting back on topic, PC Savage might do well with the same advice.

[roofer]

Copper pulls scumtard in scumtard area. Scumtard gives him attitude, copper not having it, because he gets it every minute of the day.

ST thinks he's smart, copper has better things to do. I don't fault the copper, I come across similar scumheads every day. How many posters have been in the same position ?

Now the copper is on the naughty step, if a few more had his attitude, the scumheads might do as they're asked, like get out of the car, perfectly reasonable request if you have nothing to hide.

[Rovinghawk]

roofer said:

I don't fault the copper.

Quoted in case of later denial.

[Alpinestars]

roofer said:

Copper pulls scumtard in scumtard area. Scumtard gives him attitude, copper not having it, because he gets it every minute of the day.

ST thinks he's smart, copper has better things to do. I don't fault the copper, I come across similar scumheads every day. How many posters have been in the same position ?

Now the copper is on the naughty step, if a few more had his attitude, the scumheads might do as they're asked, like get out of the car, perfectly reasonable request if you have nothing to hide.

Where's your evidence that the guy is a ST as you call him? I'd be interested to know what you base that assertion on.

Is the PC above the law? Are his actions justified?

[otolith]

Alpinestars said:

otolith said:

Being a prick isn't actionable. What makes you imagine I think action should be taken? I have condemned the police officer's behaviour and expressed my disapproval of the kid's behaviour.

So what's the big deal? You seemed to be suggesting he deserved what he got earlier?

No, I said he got what he wanted.

Alpinestars said:

Should the PC be disciplined in your view?

Probably. Depending on the details of the situation. His actions were unacceptable and need not to happen again.

[dacouch]

The Police Officer's name seems to be Constable Savage, is this a case of Nominative Determinism?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

[roofer]

Alpinestars said:

roofer said:

Copper pulls scumtard in scumtard area. Scumtard gives him attitude, copper not having it, because he gets it every minute of the day.

ST thinks he's smart, copper has better things to do. I don't fault the copper, I come across similar scumheads every day. How many posters have been in the same position ?

Now the copper is on the naughty step, if a few more had his attitude, the scumheads might do as they're asked, like get out of the car, perfectly reasonable request if you have nothing to hide.

Where's your evidence that the guy is a ST as you call him? I'd be interested to know what you base that assertion on.

Is the PC above the law? Are his actions justified?

As previously, I come across them every day. Are his actions justified ? Yes. Because he's trying to uphold the law and being obstructed. If the police had a bit more support from the left wing pc nambite pambie do gooders, these situations wouldn't occur in the first place.

Scumtard in car wouldn't need a new windscreen if he had complied with coppers request. Coppers, and inner London ones especially, have to deal with the absolute scum of society on an hourly basis.

I've had a similar scumtard come out of his flat threatening my scaffolders with a table leg because they woke him up at 10 am.

These people are scum, they just want to work the system to their advantage, nobody else counts. Copper is a grafter who does an honest day's work to feed his kids, but all of a sudden, he's a rascist nut. No he's not, he's a human being, who is fed up having the piss taken out of him, and what he's trying to do, keep decent folk safe. So enough of the copper bashing, I' m no saint, never have been, but when I got a thick ear of the local Bobby , I gave the man a bit of respect, and therein lies the fault, the erosion of society has loaded opinion in the scums favour, but if any one of the condemners has the balls ls to do what the copper does every day, then go for it ....nah, there ain't none.