Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Raygun said:
frankenstein12 said:
All it would have required was the idiot in the car
Seeing how PC Savage behaved I would've said the chap in the car was shrewd not an idiot.I can say fr fairly sure he is going to get punished and probably lose his job.
surveyor_101 said:
vonhosen said:
I've seen videos of exactly that, drivers trying to flee & officers putting themselves in dangerous positions trying to smash the windows whilst the vehicle driver is trying to ram their way out.
von don't feed the anti police trolls!They will have you going round in circles!
They want him told whilst locked in his car, with the keys and able to make off that he is being arrested. That is no way more dangerous than getting him out the car first!
The fact that when savage got him out of the car he had done nothing wrong is neither here nor there. I assume he gave the officer a false name the officer acted on that information and once the person was out of the car it was found he was in fact perfectly legally going about his day.
But the person in the car caused the entire incident by refusing to co operate.
Alpinestars said:
frankenstein12 said:
My understanding is the officer in this case had reasonable grounds of suspicion and wanted to verify whether he was correct about who the person in the car was. All it would have required was the idiot in the car identifying himself. Nothing more nothing less and this would never have happened.
The officer was wrong about who the person in the car was but that is neither here nor there unless you are suggesting that if an officer suspects someone of being a criminal they should not verify or detain that person until their identity is confirmed?
He wasn't arrested. Which would have been the obvious course of action. The officer was wrong about who the person in the car was but that is neither here nor there unless you are suggesting that if an officer suspects someone of being a criminal they should not verify or detain that person until their identity is confirmed?
As such officer did what was to be expected but once out of the car it was found he had committed no offence other than giving a false name for which there was no point in arresting him.
Bigends said:
Terzo123 said:
Bigends said:
So, youre saying it was ok for the Cop to bash his way into the car - grab the driver and pull him out without mentioning the word 'Arrest' Major misapplication of PACE rules here i'm afraid
Who is to say he didn't?Prior to the video starting he may have told the driver exactly what was going to happen depending on the outcome of the check.
In any case - simply holding a Provisional licence ISNT grounds for arrest on its own
The officer may have therefore felt there were grounds to place him under arrest for the actions of the persons whos name he had given.
If TJ or Mr Leon Fontana were wanted for their assistance with enquiries into other offences would it have been proportionate to deflate the tyres of the car via the valves or PC Savage's pen knife through the sidewall(s)?
Disabling the car from being driven away would have been better than trying to saw through the windscreen with a pen knife?
Disabling the car from being driven away would have been better than trying to saw through the windscreen with a pen knife?
Red Devil said:
frankenstein12 said:
Terzo123 said:
Bigends said:
Listen to the video - it doesnt sound like he was ever asked
The cop carries out a PNC check, so a name must have been provided at some point So lets analyse a bit further. There is previous video to this as the officer was waiting on pnc check to come back. It is at this point important to note the driver states he has a license and insurance for the car at the point the officer tries to get him out the car but yet the pnc check that came back stated the person pnc checked only had a provisional license.
The person pnc checked was the name given by the person in the car. If he was indeed entitled to drive the car why did the PNC check came back as him only being provisional? My money says he gave the name of someone else he knew.
So i would theorise it like this..
Police stopped the car on suspicion driver was not entitled to drive it.
Police asked person in car to get out for a chat. Person in car refused.
Police advised why he had been stopped and requested he identify himself repeatedly. He gave a name and DOB.
Police asked him for proof of ID. Proof was refused.
Police ran a pnc check to see if he was entitled to drive the car. PNC came back as a no.
Officer at that point had had enough of belligerent and difficult idiot in car and knowing that asking him to exit the vehicle would result in him refusing to do so he progressed straight to removing him from the vehicle.
The one fact that has emerged is that this is a case of mistaken identity. The police appear to think he is TJ. On what basis is yet to be determined. We have no way of knowing what information was given to the operations room to perform a PNC check or the source. If Leon Fontana does, as he claims, have a full licence where did the incorrect information come from? You claim it was Fontana. Where is your proof?
Where else would the officer get the name and DOB used to carry out the PNC check? They dont know names and dates of births off by heart you know. Ergo someone must have told him and its highly likely it was the guy in the car
Whatever the source the answer comes back as a provisional licence holder yet PC Savage can be clearly heard shouting "you're disqualified". One might be forgiven for thinking that a police officer ought to know the difference between that and driving 'not in accordance with'. I think the red mist had by that time utterly scrambled his rational thinking ability.
One thing I have no doubt about is that we will get yet more interminable pages of entrenched positions being defended until the DPS investigation is completed.
To the 'no smoke without fire' brigade, there is no special significance about PC Savage being put on restricted duties while it is ongoing.
The person in the car "Knows their rights" or has an issue with authority and refuses to cooperate. They will argue and act like a dick to wards the officer who is just doing their job and in most cases will refuse to identify themselves or will give a false name.
I think it is therefore perfectly fair to assume that is what happened here.
Bigends said:
Red Devil said:
frankenstein12 said:
Terzo123 said:
Bigends said:
Listen to the video - it doesnt sound like he was ever asked
The cop carries out a PNC check, so a name must have been provided at some point So lets analyse a bit further. There is previous video to this as the officer was waiting on pnc check to come back. It is at this point important to note the driver states he has a license and insurance for the car at the point the officer tries to get him out the car but yet the pnc check that came back stated the person pnc checked only had a provisional license.
The person pnc checked was the name given by the person in the car. If he was indeed entitled to drive the car why did the PNC check came back as him only being provisional? My money says he gave the name of someone else he knew.
So i would theorise it like this..
Police stopped the car on suspicion driver was not entitled to drive it.
Police asked person in car to get out for a chat. Person in car refused.
Police advised why he had been stopped and requested he identify himself repeatedly. He gave a name and DOB.
Police asked him for proof of ID. Proof was refused.
Police ran a pnc check to see if he was entitled to drive the car. PNC came back as a no.
Officer at that point had had enough of belligerent and difficult idiot in car and knowing that asking him to exit the vehicle would result in him refusing to do so he progressed straight to removing him from the vehicle.
The one fact that has emerged is that this is a case of mistaken identity. The police appear to think he is TJ. On what basis is yet to be determined. We have no way of knowing what information was given to the operations room to perform a PNC check or the source. If Leon Fontana does, as he claims, have a full licence where did the incorrect information come from? You claim it was Fontana. Where is your proof?
Whatever the source the answer comes back as a provisional licence holder yet PC Savage can be clearly heard shouting "you're disqualified". One might be forgiven for thinking that a police officer ought to know the difference between that and driving 'not in accordance with'. I think the red mist had by that time utterly scrambled his rational thinking ability.
One thing I have no doubt about is that we will get yet more interminable pages of entrenched positions being defended until the DPS investigation is completed.
To the 'no smoke without fire' brigade, there is no special significance about PC Savage being put on restricted duties while it is ongoing.
carinaman said:
If TJ or Mr Leon Fontana were wanted for their assistance with enquiries into other offences would it have been proportionate to deflate the tyres of the car via the valves or PC Savage's pen knife through the sidewall(s)?
Disabling the car from being driven away would have been better than trying to saw through the windscreen with a pen knife?
Not a police officer but I think its standard procedure to smash the windows as both a distraction technique and to disable the car as with windscreen smashed you cannot see where you are going.Disabling the car from being driven away would have been better than trying to saw through the windscreen with a pen knife?
carinaman said:
If TJ or Mr Leon Fontana were wanted for their assistance with enquiries into other offences would it have been proportionate to deflate the tyres of the car via the valves or PC Savage's pen knife through the sidewall(s)?
Disabling the car from being driven away would have been better than trying to saw through the windscreen with a pen knife?
You never seen a car driven on deflated tyres?Disabling the car from being driven away would have been better than trying to saw through the windscreen with a pen knife?
I've seen them continue driving when the rubber has gone from the tyre & they are on the rim.
That still doesn't get them out of the car if that's your objective though does it?
How long you going to wait for them to come out?
An hour?
Two?
Ten?
Ultimately if you want them out & they won't come out you've got to get them out (only lawfully I may add)
vonhosen said:
That still doesn't get them out of the car if that's your objective though does it?
How long you going to wait for them to come out?
An hour?
Two?
Ten?
Ultimately if you want them out & they won't come out you've got to get them out (only lawfully I may add)
I was thinking deflating the tyres as an alternative to the histrionics that we've all seen and would allow time, or play for time, to get on the radio and ask someone else how to proceed.How long you going to wait for them to come out?
An hour?
Two?
Ten?
Ultimately if you want them out & they won't come out you've got to get them out (only lawfully I may add)
PC Savage wasn't all alone in the middle of nowhere was he? It's not as though they were in an area of poor, or no radio reception and miles away from people that could've assisted him.
His boss, or whoever on the end of the radio would've said 'Cut through his windscreen with your pen knife' or 'You're there deal with it as you see fit'?
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 4th October 02:02
frankenstein12 said:
Bigends said:
Red Devil said:
frankenstein12 said:
Terzo123 said:
Bigends said:
Listen to the video - it doesnt sound like he was ever asked
The cop carries out a PNC check, so a name must have been provided at some point So lets analyse a bit further. There is previous video to this as the officer was waiting on pnc check to come back. It is at this point important to note the driver states he has a license and insurance for the car at the point the officer tries to get him out the car but yet the pnc check that came back stated the person pnc checked only had a provisional license.
The person pnc checked was the name given by the person in the car. If he was indeed entitled to drive the car why did the PNC check came back as him only being provisional? My money says he gave the name of someone else he knew.
So i would theorise it like this..
Police stopped the car on suspicion driver was not entitled to drive it.
Police asked person in car to get out for a chat. Person in car refused.
Police advised why he had been stopped and requested he identify himself repeatedly. He gave a name and DOB.
Police asked him for proof of ID. Proof was refused.
Police ran a pnc check to see if he was entitled to drive the car. PNC came back as a no.
Officer at that point had had enough of belligerent and difficult idiot in car and knowing that asking him to exit the vehicle would result in him refusing to do so he progressed straight to removing him from the vehicle.
The one fact that has emerged is that this is a case of mistaken identity. The police appear to think he is TJ. On what basis is yet to be determined. We have no way of knowing what information was given to the operations room to perform a PNC check or the source. If Leon Fontana does, as he claims, have a full licence where did the incorrect information come from? You claim it was Fontana. Where is your proof?
Whatever the source the answer comes back as a provisional licence holder yet PC Savage can be clearly heard shouting "you're disqualified". One might be forgiven for thinking that a police officer ought to know the difference between that and driving 'not in accordance with'. I think the red mist had by that time utterly scrambled his rational thinking ability.
One thing I have no doubt about is that we will get yet more interminable pages of entrenched positions being defended until the DPS investigation is completed.
To the 'no smoke without fire' brigade, there is no special significance about PC Savage being put on restricted duties while it is ongoing.
frankenstein12 said:
Seeing as none of saw what led up to it I think at this pint its hard to say if savage was being an idiot or not.
I can say fr fairly sure he is going to get punished and probably lose his job.
So which is it?I can say fr fairly sure he is going to get punished and probably lose his job.
On the one hand you seem to be supportive of PC Savage and trying to explain his actions. You then say you are fairly sure he'll lose his job.
Unless you think any investigation and outcome would be unfair, then he'll only lose his job if he has done something exceptionally stupid that didn't follow police process, or has done something unlawful.
frankenstein12 said:
I have no more proof than those slating the officer for his actions other than what could be described as a reasonable belief based on experience. Every time you see footage similar to this in terms of the actions of the person in the car it follows a set certain pattern.
The person in the car "Knows their rights" or has an issue with authority and refuses to cooperate. They will argue and act like a dick to wards the officer who is just doing their job and in most cases will refuse to identify themselves or will give a false name.
I think it is therefore perfectly fair to assume that is what happened here.
How is someone acting wholly in accordance with the law a problem?The person in the car "Knows their rights" or has an issue with authority and refuses to cooperate. They will argue and act like a dick to wards the officer who is just doing their job and in most cases will refuse to identify themselves or will give a false name.
I think it is therefore perfectly fair to assume that is what happened here.
Authority is not a blanket thing. The Police have certain powers granted to them to do their jobs. They are expected to know the relevant powers and procedures and follow them. If they don't use their powers as described in law and police procedures, then in the cases of extreme force they are likely to be unlawfully vandalising property or assaulting someone.
There is a very good reason for Police to be accountable for their actions, the same as for the rest of us.
Anybody who is driving a car is not necessarily the registered keeper. That needs to be verified. You assume that he had given false details prior to the PNC check. That is possible, but it is also equally possible PC Savage jumped out of the car and started shouting straight off the bat. I know which I think looks more likely.
The guy in the car does not seem overly combative, he is just indicating he does not want to leave the car. The window is opened enough for him to speak to PC Savage. He has removed the keys from the ignition. He is showing deliberately that he is not going to drive off, and that he is willing to communicate. At that stage why didn't PC Savage wait a few seconds and have a quiet word to verify identity before going ape? We all know the answer to that, PC Savage has lost his temper. He is enraged that when he said 'jump' the bloke in the car didn't comply. PC Savage had the opportunity to deal with the situation calmly, but went down the other path.
I too think he will be judged harshly, and could lose his job. Not just for the use of force, but also because he overlooked opportunities to resolve the situation in a peaceful manner. Even if he was allowed to continue as a PC, he is a PR disaster waiting to happen. He's youtube famous for poor policing involving minorities at least twice over, much more of that and he'll be a BLM poster boy. I'm quite sure that isn't the image modern police forces are looking for.
Bigends said:
frankenstein12 said:
Bigends said:
Red Devil said:
frankenstein12 said:
Terzo123 said:
Bigends said:
Listen to the video - it doesnt sound like he was ever asked
The cop carries out a PNC check, so a name must have been provided at some point So lets analyse a bit further. There is previous video to this as the officer was waiting on pnc check to come back. It is at this point important to note the driver states he has a license and insurance for the car at the point the officer tries to get him out the car but yet the pnc check that came back stated the person pnc checked only had a provisional license.
The person pnc checked was the name given by the person in the car. If he was indeed entitled to drive the car why did the PNC check came back as him only being provisional? My money says he gave the name of someone else he knew.
So i would theorise it like this..
Police stopped the car on suspicion driver was not entitled to drive it.
Police asked person in car to get out for a chat. Person in car refused.
Police advised why he had been stopped and requested he identify himself repeatedly. He gave a name and DOB.
Police asked him for proof of ID. Proof was refused.
Police ran a pnc check to see if he was entitled to drive the car. PNC came back as a no.
Officer at that point had had enough of belligerent and difficult idiot in car and knowing that asking him to exit the vehicle would result in him refusing to do so he progressed straight to removing him from the vehicle.
The one fact that has emerged is that this is a case of mistaken identity. The police appear to think he is TJ. On what basis is yet to be determined. We have no way of knowing what information was given to the operations room to perform a PNC check or the source. If Leon Fontana does, as he claims, have a full licence where did the incorrect information come from? You claim it was Fontana. Where is your proof?
Whatever the source the answer comes back as a provisional licence holder yet PC Savage can be clearly heard shouting "you're disqualified". One might be forgiven for thinking that a police officer ought to know the difference between that and driving 'not in accordance with'. I think the red mist had by that time utterly scrambled his rational thinking ability.
One thing I have no doubt about is that we will get yet more interminable pages of entrenched positions being defended until the DPS investigation is completed.
To the 'no smoke without fire' brigade, there is no special significance about PC Savage being put on restricted duties while it is ongoing.
e21Mark said:
Was it A) this is the officers first contact / conversation with the driver? or B) there was prior interaction that led to the officer approaching the vehicle with his baton drawn?
I believe it was first contact as identity was in question and any prior contact would have come up in subsequent debate.There is a strong anti met section of people who are mostly black in parts of London and when dealing with officers they drag out and play games for ad long as possible.
The officer has made it clear the driver is suspected to not entitled to drive. Therefore he cannot remain in the car. Seems reasonable at this point to get out and clear up this matter if the driver has nothing to hide.
The driver asked why he has to get out/has been stopped savage answers because your not supposed to be driving your disqualified. The driver says without giving a name he has a licence. How many times a copper heard that.
Not my name is mr James smith please check if I have a licence.
His gives the officer no information to help calm his suspicions.
The officer has made it clear the driver is suspected to not entitled to drive. Therefore he cannot remain in the car. Seems reasonable at this point to get out and clear up this matter if the driver has nothing to hide.
The driver asked why he has to get out/has been stopped savage answers because your not supposed to be driving your disqualified. The driver says without giving a name he has a licence. How many times a copper heard that.
Not my name is mr James smith please check if I have a licence.
His gives the officer no information to help calm his suspicions.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff