Was this lazy policing?
Discussion
Sorry for long post. This isn't meant to be a police bashing thread but it may come across that way.
TLDR is - police taking no action, despite me seeing an offender cause criminal damage. Is there any point in reporting crime where CCTV doesn't exist?? Is there any point in reporting criminal damage generally??
Having a nightmare year for cars...
In the summer, my car was parked on the road directly outside my house.
There is a low wall next to the pavement which is about 2.5 feet high. I was sitting in the front room at around 9am. The window of that room looks directly out at the car. I was only about 6 metres away.
In other words, I had a clear view of the top half of the car but the bottom half was obstructed by the wall.
A group of 4 walked past which caught my eye and I looked away from the TV.
There were two females and two males. The two males were completely different in height - one was 6ft, the other was 5,5. One of the females had bright blond hair and one of the males had a jumper on with a distinctive slogan across the front.
I saw the tall lad swing his arm back as he approached the back of the car. He then thrust it forward in the direction of the tail lamp cluster and I immediately heard a "pop" followed by a tinkling sound of something hitting the floor.
The others in the group looked down at the floor near the car and they all started laughing as they walked away.
I did not see the lad's hand actually make contact with the car
However, the manner in which he swung his arm followed by the sound I heard and the reactions of his companions left me in no doubt at all that he had punched the tail lamp cluster.
I got dressed, found the car keys and put shoes on and went out and saw that the rear light cluster was smashed and there was debris on the floor.
I got in the car and drove along the road looking for the group.
I soon caught up with them and called the police to report criminal damage. I followed the group up the road and watched as one jumped into the road and tried to push a cyclist off his bike. They then went into a shop and I watched the entrance to make sure they didn't leave.
I wasn't expecting much but to be fair, a police car came up minutes later and the group was stopped as they left the shop. They were all drunk and said they had been at a party all night.
I identified the tall lad as being responsible but he denied it. There was no CCTV so it was effectively my word against theirs.
I can't criticise the officers who attended at all and was really impressed that they had even attended the incident. They assured me they would do what they could to get the lad charged. They were very professional and I really can't praise them enough.
I gave a statement and got a new light cluster fitted. The cost for a new one (LED version) was £260 so it wasn't cheap.
A few weeks later I received a call from the Sergeant saying that as I did not actually see the lad's hand make contact with the car, they would not be taking any further action. The Sergeant said it could be argued that in the absence of CCTV, they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible.
I have always been pro-police and have lots of family in the job. I volunteered as a Special for several years so I do have an understanding of the issues that the police face. I'm also quite practical and I know that in the grand scheme of things, £260 is not significant.
Having said that, this incident leaves me feeling very disappointed. Is this really the standard to expect from the police these days?
I saw everything but the guy's hand striking the car - I really can't see how that would amount to a "reasonable doubt". I feel that this guy should have been charged and then it would be a matter of letting the court decide.
I can't help but feel that ultimately this is a case of the Sergeant just wanting to get the job off his desk.
Sorry for the long post. As above, I genuinely am pro-police but going forward, I don't think I'm going to bother reporting anything to the police in future unless the evidence is absolutely watertight. It just seems to be a waste of time.
Interested in any views.
p.s. since the incident I have finally gotten round to clearing out my garage and the car is now safely off the road. Should have done it years ago.
TLDR is - police taking no action, despite me seeing an offender cause criminal damage. Is there any point in reporting crime where CCTV doesn't exist?? Is there any point in reporting criminal damage generally??
Having a nightmare year for cars...
In the summer, my car was parked on the road directly outside my house.
There is a low wall next to the pavement which is about 2.5 feet high. I was sitting in the front room at around 9am. The window of that room looks directly out at the car. I was only about 6 metres away.
In other words, I had a clear view of the top half of the car but the bottom half was obstructed by the wall.
A group of 4 walked past which caught my eye and I looked away from the TV.
There were two females and two males. The two males were completely different in height - one was 6ft, the other was 5,5. One of the females had bright blond hair and one of the males had a jumper on with a distinctive slogan across the front.
I saw the tall lad swing his arm back as he approached the back of the car. He then thrust it forward in the direction of the tail lamp cluster and I immediately heard a "pop" followed by a tinkling sound of something hitting the floor.
The others in the group looked down at the floor near the car and they all started laughing as they walked away.
I did not see the lad's hand actually make contact with the car
However, the manner in which he swung his arm followed by the sound I heard and the reactions of his companions left me in no doubt at all that he had punched the tail lamp cluster.
I got dressed, found the car keys and put shoes on and went out and saw that the rear light cluster was smashed and there was debris on the floor.
I got in the car and drove along the road looking for the group.
I soon caught up with them and called the police to report criminal damage. I followed the group up the road and watched as one jumped into the road and tried to push a cyclist off his bike. They then went into a shop and I watched the entrance to make sure they didn't leave.
I wasn't expecting much but to be fair, a police car came up minutes later and the group was stopped as they left the shop. They were all drunk and said they had been at a party all night.
I identified the tall lad as being responsible but he denied it. There was no CCTV so it was effectively my word against theirs.
I can't criticise the officers who attended at all and was really impressed that they had even attended the incident. They assured me they would do what they could to get the lad charged. They were very professional and I really can't praise them enough.
I gave a statement and got a new light cluster fitted. The cost for a new one (LED version) was £260 so it wasn't cheap.
A few weeks later I received a call from the Sergeant saying that as I did not actually see the lad's hand make contact with the car, they would not be taking any further action. The Sergeant said it could be argued that in the absence of CCTV, they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible.
I have always been pro-police and have lots of family in the job. I volunteered as a Special for several years so I do have an understanding of the issues that the police face. I'm also quite practical and I know that in the grand scheme of things, £260 is not significant.
Having said that, this incident leaves me feeling very disappointed. Is this really the standard to expect from the police these days?
I saw everything but the guy's hand striking the car - I really can't see how that would amount to a "reasonable doubt". I feel that this guy should have been charged and then it would be a matter of letting the court decide.
I can't help but feel that ultimately this is a case of the Sergeant just wanting to get the job off his desk.
Sorry for the long post. As above, I genuinely am pro-police but going forward, I don't think I'm going to bother reporting anything to the police in future unless the evidence is absolutely watertight. It just seems to be a waste of time.
Interested in any views.
p.s. since the incident I have finally gotten round to clearing out my garage and the car is now safely off the road. Should have done it years ago.
R56Cooper said:
Sorry for long post. This isn't meant to be a police bashing thread but it may come across that way.
TLDR is - police taking no action, despite me seeing an offender cause criminal damage. Is there any point in reporting crime where CCTV doesn't exist?? Is there any point in reporting criminal damage generally??
Having a nightmare year for cars...
In the summer, my car was parked on the road directly outside my house.
There is a low wall next to the pavement which is about 2.5 feet high. I was sitting in the front room at around 9am. The window of that room looks directly out at the car. I was only about 6 metres away.
In other words, I had a clear view of the top half of the car but the bottom half was obstructed by the wall.
A group of 4 walked past which caught my eye and I looked away from the TV.
There were two females and two males. The two males were completely different in height - one was 6ft, the other was 5,5. One of the females had bright blond hair and one of the males had a jumper on with a distinctive slogan across the front.
I saw the tall lad swing his arm back as he approached the back of the car. He then thrust it forward in the direction of the tail lamp cluster and I immediately heard a "pop" followed by a tinkling sound of something hitting the floor.
The others in the group looked down at the floor near the car and they all started laughing as they walked away.
I did not see the lad's hand actually make contact with the car
However, the manner in which he swung his arm followed by the sound I heard and the reactions of his companions left me in no doubt at all that he had punched the tail lamp cluster.
I got dressed, found the car keys and put shoes on and went out and saw that the rear light cluster was smashed and there was debris on the floor.
I got in the car and drove along the road looking for the group.
I soon caught up with them and called the police to report criminal damage. I followed the group up the road and watched as one jumped into the road and tried to push a cyclist off his bike. They then went into a shop and I watched the entrance to make sure they didn't leave.
I wasn't expecting much but to be fair, a police car came up minutes later and the group was stopped as they left the shop. They were all drunk and said they had been at a party all night.
I identified the tall lad as being responsible but he denied it. There was no CCTV so it was effectively my word against theirs.
I can't criticise the officers who attended at all and was really impressed that they had even attended the incident. They assured me they would do what they could to get the lad charged. They were very professional and I really can't praise them enough.
I gave a statement and got a new light cluster fitted. The cost for a new one (LED version) was £260 so it wasn't cheap.
A few weeks later I received a call from the Sergeant saying that as I did not actually see the lad's hand make contact with the car, they would not be taking any further action. The Sergeant said it could be argued that in the absence of CCTV, they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible.
I have always been pro-police and have lots of family in the job. I volunteered as a Special for several years so I do have an understanding of the issues that the police face. I'm also quite practical and I know that in the grand scheme of things, £260 is not significant.
Having said that, this incident leaves me feeling very disappointed. Is this really the standard to expect from the police these days?
I saw everything but the guy's hand striking the car - I really can't see how that would amount to a "reasonable doubt". I feel that this guy should have been charged and then it would be a matter of letting the court decide.
I can't help but feel that ultimately this is a case of the Sergeant just wanting to get the job off his desk.
Sorry for the long post. As above, I genuinely am pro-police but going forward, I don't think I'm going to bother reporting anything to the police in future unless the evidence is absolutely watertight. It just seems to be a waste of time.
Interested in any views.
p.s. since the incident I have finally gotten round to clearing out my garage and the car is now safely off the road. Should have done it years ago.
I feel you've answered your own question there.TLDR is - police taking no action, despite me seeing an offender cause criminal damage. Is there any point in reporting crime where CCTV doesn't exist?? Is there any point in reporting criminal damage generally??
Having a nightmare year for cars...
In the summer, my car was parked on the road directly outside my house.
There is a low wall next to the pavement which is about 2.5 feet high. I was sitting in the front room at around 9am. The window of that room looks directly out at the car. I was only about 6 metres away.
In other words, I had a clear view of the top half of the car but the bottom half was obstructed by the wall.
A group of 4 walked past which caught my eye and I looked away from the TV.
There were two females and two males. The two males were completely different in height - one was 6ft, the other was 5,5. One of the females had bright blond hair and one of the males had a jumper on with a distinctive slogan across the front.
I saw the tall lad swing his arm back as he approached the back of the car. He then thrust it forward in the direction of the tail lamp cluster and I immediately heard a "pop" followed by a tinkling sound of something hitting the floor.
The others in the group looked down at the floor near the car and they all started laughing as they walked away.
I did not see the lad's hand actually make contact with the car
However, the manner in which he swung his arm followed by the sound I heard and the reactions of his companions left me in no doubt at all that he had punched the tail lamp cluster.
I got dressed, found the car keys and put shoes on and went out and saw that the rear light cluster was smashed and there was debris on the floor.
I got in the car and drove along the road looking for the group.
I soon caught up with them and called the police to report criminal damage. I followed the group up the road and watched as one jumped into the road and tried to push a cyclist off his bike. They then went into a shop and I watched the entrance to make sure they didn't leave.
I wasn't expecting much but to be fair, a police car came up minutes later and the group was stopped as they left the shop. They were all drunk and said they had been at a party all night.
I identified the tall lad as being responsible but he denied it. There was no CCTV so it was effectively my word against theirs.
I can't criticise the officers who attended at all and was really impressed that they had even attended the incident. They assured me they would do what they could to get the lad charged. They were very professional and I really can't praise them enough.
I gave a statement and got a new light cluster fitted. The cost for a new one (LED version) was £260 so it wasn't cheap.
A few weeks later I received a call from the Sergeant saying that as I did not actually see the lad's hand make contact with the car, they would not be taking any further action. The Sergeant said it could be argued that in the absence of CCTV, they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible.
I have always been pro-police and have lots of family in the job. I volunteered as a Special for several years so I do have an understanding of the issues that the police face. I'm also quite practical and I know that in the grand scheme of things, £260 is not significant.
Having said that, this incident leaves me feeling very disappointed. Is this really the standard to expect from the police these days?
I saw everything but the guy's hand striking the car - I really can't see how that would amount to a "reasonable doubt". I feel that this guy should have been charged and then it would be a matter of letting the court decide.
I can't help but feel that ultimately this is a case of the Sergeant just wanting to get the job off his desk.
Sorry for the long post. As above, I genuinely am pro-police but going forward, I don't think I'm going to bother reporting anything to the police in future unless the evidence is absolutely watertight. It just seems to be a waste of time.
Interested in any views.
p.s. since the incident I have finally gotten round to clearing out my garage and the car is now safely off the road. Should have done it years ago.
R56Cooper said:
Is this really the standard to expect from the police these days?
Yes, they just don't want to know when someone else can pay for any criminal damage against their property.R56Cooper said:
... I don't think I'm going to bother reporting anything to the police in future unless the evidence is absolutely watertight. It just seems to be a waste of time
Which is exactly what they want because they can't be bothered any more. They lie as much as possible to get the outcome THEY want, not what the victim deserves.By the way I don't think it matters at all that you didn't see the exact moment one of them struck the light, its blatantly obvious what happened. If you were to get the idiot's details you could use small claims to bring a claim and get them to defend themselves - I think a judge would, 'on the balance of probability', decide in your favour.
R56Cooper said:
I feel that this guy should have been charged and then it would be a matter of letting the court decide.
If you have been a special then you would know that certain thresholds needs to be met in order to bring a charge and that the CPS would almost certainly not charge in the absence of any other evidence. The police effectively have their hands tied and they investigated as best as they could. If he admitted it there would've been other out of court disposals available such as a community resolution where he could have paid for the damage but as he denied it, the Police would need to pass the threshold imposed by the CPS.
I had similar.
Car badly damaged in station car park, nothing on CCTV, witness who said it was a bus hit the car, yellow paint on the car matching the busses the use the carpark.
Police response - they wont investigate until I could prove which bus with reg, which driver and exact time. I suggested to them that they didn't understand the meaning of the term investigate.
I ended up investigating myself, identified the time window, staked out the car park looking for busses with paint scrapes matching the paint on my car. Couldn't identify the exact bus, but the yellow paint was an exact match for one of the two companies that run busses in the car park Confronted the bus company and they owned up and paid out.
So in my experience, unless they have conclusive evidence they wont do the leg work to get it
Car badly damaged in station car park, nothing on CCTV, witness who said it was a bus hit the car, yellow paint on the car matching the busses the use the carpark.
Police response - they wont investigate until I could prove which bus with reg, which driver and exact time. I suggested to them that they didn't understand the meaning of the term investigate.
I ended up investigating myself, identified the time window, staked out the car park looking for busses with paint scrapes matching the paint on my car. Couldn't identify the exact bus, but the yellow paint was an exact match for one of the two companies that run busses in the car park Confronted the bus company and they owned up and paid out.
So in my experience, unless they have conclusive evidence they wont do the leg work to get it
HantsRat said:
If you have been a special then you would know that certain thresholds needs to be met in order to bring a charge and that the CPS would almost certainly not charge in the absence of any other evidence.
The police effectively have their hands tied and they investigated as best as they could. If he admitted it there would've been other out of court disposals available such as a community resolution where he could have paid for the damage but as he denied it, the Police would need to pass the threshold imposed by the CPS.
This.The police effectively have their hands tied and they investigated as best as they could. If he admitted it there would've been other out of court disposals available such as a community resolution where he could have paid for the damage but as he denied it, the Police would need to pass the threshold imposed by the CPS.
But it would have been a local decision using the same sort of rationale as CPS would apply
From personal experience dealing with these type of crimes it's as frustrating for the officers as it is the victims some times.
blueg33 said:
I had similar.
Car badly damaged in station car park, nothing on CCTV, witness who said it was a bus hit the car, yellow paint on the car matching the busses the use the carpark.
Police response - they wont investigate until I could prove which bus with reg, which driver and exact time. I suggested to them that they didn't understand the meaning of the term investigate.
I ended up investigating myself, identified the time window, staked out the car park looking for busses with paint scrapes matching the paint on my car. Couldn't identify the exact bus, but the yellow paint was an exact match for one of the two companies that run busses in the car park Confronted the bus company and they owned up and paid out.
So in my experience, unless they have conclusive evidence they wont do the leg work to get it
Any incident involving a bus is worth reporting to bus company, most have dashcam/camera's these days. Car badly damaged in station car park, nothing on CCTV, witness who said it was a bus hit the car, yellow paint on the car matching the busses the use the carpark.
Police response - they wont investigate until I could prove which bus with reg, which driver and exact time. I suggested to them that they didn't understand the meaning of the term investigate.
I ended up investigating myself, identified the time window, staked out the car park looking for busses with paint scrapes matching the paint on my car. Couldn't identify the exact bus, but the yellow paint was an exact match for one of the two companies that run busses in the car park Confronted the bus company and they owned up and paid out.
So in my experience, unless they have conclusive evidence they wont do the leg work to get it
I had an incident where a bus pulled out in front of me just as I exiting a roundabout. I braked very hard to avoid hitting him. ( I know i should not have done it...but i sounded my horn in frustration) the driver gave me the "bird". So I took his vrn, and reported incident to bus company. Next day I had a call back from a manger. He said he had reviewed video evidence, apologized on the behalf of the company, and said the driver would be interviewed about his unacceptable behaviour and not driving safely. He also asked if I was happy with leaving any punishment/reprimand with him
I was happy enough with the response from the company
Tom1312 said:
This.
But it would have been a local decision using the same sort of rationale as CPS would apply
From personal experience dealing with these type of crimes it's as frustrating for the officers as it is the victims some times.
I do get that there needs to be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction but I'm just surprised that seeing everything but the precise moment of impact has been deemed to be enough of a reason to bin it.But it would have been a local decision using the same sort of rationale as CPS would apply
From personal experience dealing with these type of crimes it's as frustrating for the officers as it is the victims some times.
I feel bad for the officers as this must have wasted quite a few hours of their time. I can totally see how frustrating it must be for officers, especially seeing as the little s
t has effectively got away with it and will no doubt be bragging about this to his mates.Majorslow said:
Any incident involving a bus is worth reporting to bus company, most have dashcam/camera's these days.
I had an incident where a bus pulled out in front of me just as I exiting a roundabout. I braked very hard to avoid hitting him. ( I know i should not have done it...but i sounded my horn in frustration) the driver gave me the "bird". So I took his vrn, and reported incident to bus company. Next day I had a call back from a manger. He said he had reviewed video evidence, apologized on the behalf of the company, and said the driver would be interviewed about his unacceptable behaviour and not driving safely. He also asked if I was happy with leaving any punishment/reprimand with him
I was happy enough with the response from the company
For me the bus company were initially in denial modeI had an incident where a bus pulled out in front of me just as I exiting a roundabout. I braked very hard to avoid hitting him. ( I know i should not have done it...but i sounded my horn in frustration) the driver gave me the "bird". So I took his vrn, and reported incident to bus company. Next day I had a call back from a manger. He said he had reviewed video evidence, apologized on the behalf of the company, and said the driver would be interviewed about his unacceptable behaviour and not driving safely. He also asked if I was happy with leaving any punishment/reprimand with him
I was happy enough with the response from the company
R56Cooper said:
Tom1312 said:
This.
But it would have been a local decision using the same sort of rationale as CPS would apply
From personal experience dealing with these type of crimes it's as frustrating for the officers as it is the victims some times.
I do get that there needs to be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction but I'm just surprised that seeing everything but the precise moment of impact has been deemed to be enough of a reason to bin it.But it would have been a local decision using the same sort of rationale as CPS would apply
From personal experience dealing with these type of crimes it's as frustrating for the officers as it is the victims some times.
I feel bad for the officers as this must have wasted quite a few hours of their time. I can totally see how frustrating it must be for officers, especially seeing as the little s
t has effectively got away with it and will no doubt be bragging about this to his mates.R56Cooper said:
Bigends said:
Did the Police state whether or not the bloke you saw was actually formally interviewed or not or did they just accept any account he gave at the time he was stopped
They said he was formally interviewed and was no comment.ReverendCounter said:
Which is exactly what they want because they can't be bothered any more. They lie as much as possible to get the outcome THEY want, not what the victim deserves.
By the way I don't think it matters at all that you didn't see the exact moment one of them struck the light, its blatantly obvious what happened. If you were to get the idiot's details you could use small claims to bring a claim and get them to defend themselves - I think a judge would, 'on the balance of probability', decide in your favour.
If I can get the lad's name and address from the police I may issue a money claim against him just for fun. On the civil standard of proof I have no doubt I would win. By the way I don't think it matters at all that you didn't see the exact moment one of them struck the light, its blatantly obvious what happened. If you were to get the idiot's details you could use small claims to bring a claim and get them to defend themselves - I think a judge would, 'on the balance of probability', decide in your favour.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff