Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
Alpinestars said:
V6Pushfit said:
You still banging on? Its a bit binary isnt it given we have only part of the story
Very fecund.Do you have anything intellectual to add or anything to refute the above points? Or just snide remarks because you don't like his demographic?
Could you please post the lottery numbers for Wednesday - at least that use of your imagination might come in handy
Alpinestars said:
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
That sums up the most damaging thing I've seen in this thread. It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
The video footage shows a potentially isolated incident, that could be explained by not all police being like that, and I agree with that viewpoint.
But, what is more concerning to me than the video is the circling of wagons, and the arguing to absolve PC Savage of culpability for what is clearly not acceptable to most of the general public. All you can achieve by arguing his case is suspicion that the police will protect each other and close ranks, and suspicion that this is far more common than we see. It isn't a good look to be arguing in his support.
Arguing in support of PC Savage does not reflect well.
A more appropriate response would be to admit his actions were unprofessional at best, and possibly criminal at worst. Does anyone on this thread actually think that PC Savage upheld the standards of the met Police:
◾Honesty and Integrity
◾Authority, Respect and Courtesy
◾Equality and Diversity
◾Use of Force
◾Orders and Instructions
◾Duties and Responsibilities
◾Confidentiality
◾Fitness for Duty
◾Discreditable Conduct
◾Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
I'd say that he fails on authority, respect and courtesy, use of force, orders and instructions, fitness for duty, discreditable conduct.
His colleague may well fall short on Challenging and reporting improper conduct.... unless he was responsible for reporting PC Savage before the video went viral.
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
That sums up the most damaging thing I've seen in this thread. It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
The video footage shows a potentially isolated incident, that could be explained by not all police being like that, and I agree with that viewpoint.
But, what is more concerning to me than the video is the circling of wagons, and the arguing to absolve PC Savage of culpability for what is clearly not acceptable to most of the general public. All you can achieve by arguing his case is suspicion that the police will protect each other and close ranks, and suspicion that this is far more common than we see. It isn't a good look to be arguing in his support.
Arguing in support of PC Savage does not reflect well.
A more appropriate response would be to admit his actions were unprofessional at best, and possibly criminal at worst. Does anyone on this thread actually think that PC Savage upheld the standards of the met Police:
?Honesty and Integrity
?Authority, Respect and Courtesy
?Equality and Diversity
?Use of Force
?Orders and Instructions
?Duties and Responsibilities
?Confidentiality
?Fitness for Duty
?Discreditable Conduct
?Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
I'd say that he fails on authority, respect and courtesy, use of force, orders and instructions, fitness for duty, discreditable conduct.
His colleague may well fall short on Challenging and reporting improper conduct.... unless he was responsible for reporting PC Savage before the video went viral.
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
That sums up the most damaging thing I've seen in this thread. It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
The video footage shows a potentially isolated incident, that could be explained by not all police being like that, and I agree with that viewpoint.
But, what is more concerning to me than the video is the circling of wagons, and the arguing to absolve PC Savage of culpability for what is clearly not acceptable to most of the general public. All you can achieve by arguing his case is suspicion that the police will protect each other and close ranks, and suspicion that this is far more common than we see. It isn't a good look to be arguing in his support.
Arguing in support of PC Savage does not reflect well.
A more appropriate response would be to admit his actions were unprofessional at best, and possibly criminal at worst. Does anyone on this thread actually think that PC Savage upheld the standards of the met Police:
?Honesty and Integrity
?Authority, Respect and Courtesy
?Equality and Diversity
?Use of Force
?Orders and Instructions
?Duties and Responsibilities
?Confidentiality
?Fitness for Duty
?Discreditable Conduct
?Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
I'd say that he fails on authority, respect and courtesy, use of force, orders and instructions, fitness for duty, discreditable conduct.
His colleague may well fall short on Challenging and reporting improper conduct.... unless he was responsible for reporting PC Savage before the video went viral.
•would the use of force have a lawful objective (eg, the prevention of injury to others or damage to property, or the effecting of a lawful arrest) and, if so, how immediate and grave is the threat posed?
•are there any means, short of the use of force, capable of attaining the lawful objective identified?
•having regard to the nature and gravity of the threat, and the potential for adverse consequences to arise from the use of force (including the risk of escalation and the exposure of others to harm) what is the minimum level of force required to attain the objective identified, and would the use of that level of force be proportionate or excessive?
What was the legal objective given it wasn't arrest? Case Law supports those objectives as prevention of injury to yourself, others or property. I'd say there was no threat to anyone whilst that guy was sat in his car, key on the dash.
spookly said:
vonhosen said:
Yes but the big one was that if you complained in the past it was far less likely to get recorded than now, so even where you'd gone to the effort of trying to make the complaint it wouldn't get recorded., so it wouldn't get shown in the stats as often as now. Officers are also far more likely to submit complaints about the actions of their colleagues now too.
Circumstantial without some stats to back it up. Might be true, might be not. I'd like it to be.
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
V6Pushfit said:
The ones you are ignoring and anyone with half a brain cell keeps telling you about
Which facts?State the facts I'm ignoring please.
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
Point 4
It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
That sums up the most damaging thing I've seen in this thread. It does the police no good when these videos go viral and the public are supporting the driver. Wrong, right, like it or not, the police need the public onside and our trust in order to do their job effectively. Did his actions achieve this?
The video footage shows a potentially isolated incident, that could be explained by not all police being like that, and I agree with that viewpoint.
But, what is more concerning to me than the video is the circling of wagons, and the arguing to absolve PC Savage of culpability for what is clearly not acceptable to most of the general public. All you can achieve by arguing his case is suspicion that the police will protect each other and close ranks, and suspicion that this is far more common than we see. It isn't a good look to be arguing in his support.
Arguing in support of PC Savage does not reflect well.
A more appropriate response would be to admit his actions were unprofessional at best, and possibly criminal at worst. Does anyone on this thread actually think that PC Savage upheld the standards of the met Police:
?Honesty and Integrity
?Authority, Respect and Courtesy
?Equality and Diversity
?Use of Force
?Orders and Instructions
?Duties and Responsibilities
?Confidentiality
?Fitness for Duty
?Discreditable Conduct
?Challenging and Reporting Improper Conduct
I'd say that he fails on authority, respect and courtesy, use of force, orders and instructions, fitness for duty, discreditable conduct.
His colleague may well fall short on Challenging and reporting improper conduct.... unless he was responsible for reporting PC Savage before the video went viral.
What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
It's right in these circumstances there should be a full & proper investigation.
Let it take it's course.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 12:45
V6Pushfit said:
spookly said:
Alpinestars said:
V6Pushfit said:
The ones you are ignoring and anyone with half a brain cell keeps telling you about
Which facts?State the facts I'm ignoring please.
vonhosen said:
That's not what I've been observing in the main though, defence of the officer.
What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
It's right in these circumstances there should be a full & proper investigation.
Let it take it's course.
No alpines and spookeys justice works as there guilty based on a short film of part of the incident provided through social media by someone who has a complaint with the officer and police. This is until such time a less one sided version of events comes out and in there minds they don't want to concede this possibility. What I've been observing in the main is defence of justice being allowed to take it's full & proper course rather than a lynch mob mentality.
That is we should wait until the investigation is complete & then if the conclusion of that process is the same or similar to that which is currently being jumped to, deal with him appropriately for that conclusion.
I'm sure, should you be accused of anything, you'd like justice to be allowed to run it's proper course rather than you be judged on far less than the full facts by some randoms.
However bad something may look at first glance, unless you look at all the information that is available you can't make a valued judgement on it.
So much speculation so early serves no useful or constructive purpose other than allowing people to vent & when doing so it tends to reflect more on something else they are harbouring personally rather than the actual case in hand.
When people may have done wrong they should be dealt with for what the full facts show they have done wrong, not what people with less than the full facts think they might have done.
Let justice take it's proper course.
It's right in these circumstances there should be a full & proper investigation.
Let it take it's course.
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 26th September 12:45
They seem to have decided that Savage is guilty of a crime and should be sacked at the very least.
If the clip is all there is then it looks like officer has behaved inappropriately, but I want the big picture, not a one sided clip.
This Leon put an edited clip online and go these sort of people to react just the way he wanted.
I was very lucky I made a complaint before starting proceedings. We knew we would just get the 'no evidence of any wrongdoing' response so I wasnt really interested in making a complaint.
I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
I only put the complaint in only to show the judge that I took all reasonable steps to resolve the issue. After I put in my complaint, I gave about 3 months then started proceedings even before I had received a response. To no surprise I received a letter from them much later on that there was no evidence of any wrongdoing.
The officers involved never thought I would see their original statements so they confered and lied in the statements they gave to the investigating officer. They both lied that I was arrested in a consultation room which is not covered by CCTV for obvious reasons when in reality I was arrested in an interview room with all the bells and whistles gadgets. This all came to light during disclosure.
When it came to provide witness statements, the officer that wasnt much involved in my mistreatment but witnessed it, changed his story and said I was arrested in an interview room. The other one stuck by his story and said it was a consultation room. He realised it wasnt worth sticking his neck on the line for his BAD colleague. The inconsistencies in his original statement and his court witness statement were glaring and was something I focused on in great detail in my skeletal arguments.
Why do we need full facts before forming opinions on a forum. What is special about this policeman that people cant form an opinion based on what they see?
Has Putin been convicted in a court of law? But yet many on here KNOW he is an evil dictator. Same for Assad or any other leader we have helped topple.
We all critisized MPs during the expenses scandal yet only a handful of them were convicted of any wrongdoing.
You lot like to critisize May and the government for messing up the police service. Did you wait for all the evidence at an inquiry into her actions before boring us with your opinions?
Has Putin been convicted in a court of law? But yet many on here KNOW he is an evil dictator. Same for Assad or any other leader we have helped topple.
We all critisized MPs during the expenses scandal yet only a handful of them were convicted of any wrongdoing.
You lot like to critisize May and the government for messing up the police service. Did you wait for all the evidence at an inquiry into her actions before boring us with your opinions?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff