Innocent till proven guilty?
Discussion
Surrey police have an operation today around Clacketts services on the M25 using ANPR cameras and pulling over vehicles whose number plates activate their system. I was pulled as have recently come of a short (speeding) driving ban. I see the value in the operation and am quite happy to partake - not that I had a choice! - but was a little miffed by the attitude I got from the officer dealing with me.
I explained straight away why I thought my number plate had been flagged as I had come off the ban a couple of days ago. But this guy was aggressive and you could tell he thought I was guilty of something. I was polite throughout. He suggested that as I was "nervous" - I was actually late for a meeting and yes a little nervous - and started asking me whether I had any drugs in the car, property not belonging to me, whether I was hiding anything, any previous criminal convictions, etc. I just felt he was being really sh*tty. All this while I'm politely standing there in my suit. Must have been the hair wax that did it
Spoke to some of the other officers while he went away to radio. They were all really friendly, asking about the car and all sorts. Just this one guy. When all was clear I said to him that I thought he had been rather agressive and that it is possible for somebody to be nervous AND innocent. He just rammed it straight down my throat. so much for innocent till proven guilty I guess?
Rant over.
I explained straight away why I thought my number plate had been flagged as I had come off the ban a couple of days ago. But this guy was aggressive and you could tell he thought I was guilty of something. I was polite throughout. He suggested that as I was "nervous" - I was actually late for a meeting and yes a little nervous - and started asking me whether I had any drugs in the car, property not belonging to me, whether I was hiding anything, any previous criminal convictions, etc. I just felt he was being really sh*tty. All this while I'm politely standing there in my suit. Must have been the hair wax that did it
Spoke to some of the other officers while he went away to radio. They were all really friendly, asking about the car and all sorts. Just this one guy. When all was clear I said to him that I thought he had been rather agressive and that it is possible for somebody to be nervous AND innocent. He just rammed it straight down my throat. so much for innocent till proven guilty I guess?
Rant over.
The police are that used to being lied to and generally shat on by the general public that some of them must become very wary and cynical of everybody they deal with. I remember stopping to talk to a copper on a saturday night (about 7pm) to ask why there were so many coppers about. He was polite (and rather cagey) but the copper he was with stepped back and unclipped both his CS spray and his baton, I got the impression that his mate was considering giving me a smack just to be on the safe side 
By coincidence, I've been thinking about the same issue today having watched a bit of "Cars Wars" (or similar, I forget) last night on BBC1...
What really struck me was the contrast between two clips:
- two people in a small hatch, with the driver behaving safely and legally, are followed covertly by an unmarked car because an ANPR check flags the car as stolen. When they park up, one Officer introduces himself by putting in the passenger window with his baton, causing (very minor) injury to the passenger. His explanation was that he saw the passenger opening the door to get out (which I thought quite understandable if you've arrived at your destination). The Officers were inquisitive and unapologetic, and not particularly respectful of car or occupants, though the driver's story - that the car had been bought in good faith several months earlier - was found to check out.
- another driver fails to stop and does his level best to evade the pursuing Officers, driving the car that he's stolen recklessly (imo) without lights (at night) and along footpaths in the process. Once stopped, having involved several traffic cars and a helicopter in the chase, the arresting officer is happy to share a joke and a laugh with him.
I still haven't figured it out...
WilliBetz
What really struck me was the contrast between two clips:
- two people in a small hatch, with the driver behaving safely and legally, are followed covertly by an unmarked car because an ANPR check flags the car as stolen. When they park up, one Officer introduces himself by putting in the passenger window with his baton, causing (very minor) injury to the passenger. His explanation was that he saw the passenger opening the door to get out (which I thought quite understandable if you've arrived at your destination). The Officers were inquisitive and unapologetic, and not particularly respectful of car or occupants, though the driver's story - that the car had been bought in good faith several months earlier - was found to check out.
- another driver fails to stop and does his level best to evade the pursuing Officers, driving the car that he's stolen recklessly (imo) without lights (at night) and along footpaths in the process. Once stopped, having involved several traffic cars and a helicopter in the chase, the arresting officer is happy to share a joke and a laugh with him.
I still haven't figured it out...
WilliBetz
willibetz said:
By coincidence, I've been thinking about the same issue today having watched a bit of "Cars Wars" (or similar, I forget) last night on BBC1...
What really struck me was the contrast between two clips:
- two people in a small hatch, with the driver behaving safely and legally, are followed covertly by an unmarked car because an ANPR check flags the car as stolen. When they park up, one Officer introduces himself by putting in the passenger window with his baton, causing (very minor) injury to the passenger. His explanation was that he saw the passenger opening the door to get out (which I thought quite understandable if you've arrived at your destination). The Officers were inquisitive and unapologetic, and not particularly respectful of car or occupants, though the driver's story - that the car had been bought in good faith several months earlier - was found to check out.
- another driver fails to stop and does his level best to evade the pursuing Officers, driving the car that he's stolen recklessly (imo) without lights (at night) and along footpaths in the process. Once stopped, having involved several traffic cars and a helicopter in the chase, the arresting officer is happy to share a joke and a laugh with him.
I still haven't figured it out...
WilliBetz
What really struck me was the contrast between two clips:
- two people in a small hatch, with the driver behaving safely and legally, are followed covertly by an unmarked car because an ANPR check flags the car as stolen. When they park up, one Officer introduces himself by putting in the passenger window with his baton, causing (very minor) injury to the passenger. His explanation was that he saw the passenger opening the door to get out (which I thought quite understandable if you've arrived at your destination). The Officers were inquisitive and unapologetic, and not particularly respectful of car or occupants, though the driver's story - that the car had been bought in good faith several months earlier - was found to check out.
- another driver fails to stop and does his level best to evade the pursuing Officers, driving the car that he's stolen recklessly (imo) without lights (at night) and along footpaths in the process. Once stopped, having involved several traffic cars and a helicopter in the chase, the arresting officer is happy to share a joke and a laugh with him.
I still haven't figured it out...
WilliBetz
Bitter experience tells you that there is no such thing as low risk. Only high risk & unknown risk.
Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
In the second case, the man may have already been searched & in custody when you saw that. If so the risk will have had time to have been more accurately assessed.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 19th April 17:39
vonhosen said:
willibetz said:
By coincidence, I've been thinking about the same issue today having watched a bit of "Cars Wars" (or similar, I forget) last night on BBC1...
What really struck me was the contrast between two clips:
- two people in a small hatch, with the driver behaving safely and legally, are followed covertly by an unmarked car because an ANPR check flags the car as stolen. When they park up, one Officer introduces himself by putting in the passenger window with his baton, causing (very minor) injury to the passenger. His explanation was that he saw the passenger opening the door to get out (which I thought quite understandable if you've arrived at your destination). The Officers were inquisitive and unapologetic, and not particularly respectful of car or occupants, though the driver's story - that the car had been bought in good faith several months earlier - was found to check out.
- another driver fails to stop and does his level best to evade the pursuing Officers, driving the car that he's stolen recklessly (imo) without lights (at night) and along footpaths in the process. Once stopped, having involved several traffic cars and a helicopter in the chase, the arresting officer is happy to share a joke and a laugh with him.
I still haven't figured it out...
WilliBetz
What really struck me was the contrast between two clips:
- two people in a small hatch, with the driver behaving safely and legally, are followed covertly by an unmarked car because an ANPR check flags the car as stolen. When they park up, one Officer introduces himself by putting in the passenger window with his baton, causing (very minor) injury to the passenger. His explanation was that he saw the passenger opening the door to get out (which I thought quite understandable if you've arrived at your destination). The Officers were inquisitive and unapologetic, and not particularly respectful of car or occupants, though the driver's story - that the car had been bought in good faith several months earlier - was found to check out.
- another driver fails to stop and does his level best to evade the pursuing Officers, driving the car that he's stolen recklessly (imo) without lights (at night) and along footpaths in the process. Once stopped, having involved several traffic cars and a helicopter in the chase, the arresting officer is happy to share a joke and a laugh with him.
I still haven't figured it out...
WilliBetz
Bitter experience tells you that there is no such thing as low risk. Only high risk & unknown risk.
Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
In the second case, the man may have already been searched & in custody when you saw that. If so the risk will have had time to have been more accurately assessed.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 19th April 17:39
Good points well made there.
I can see that in some cases a false sense of security can be fatal. Albeit in the US I have seen a similar type programme where a guy pulled over for speeding pulls out a gun and shoots the officer as he makes his way toward the car! The driver thought he was being pulled for his other crime(s)!
The nervousness thing is interesting though, I feel the same! I am nervous because it is not everyday that I get pulled over by the police, and on at least one occasion when I have done I have been completely and falsely accused of something - I have every right to expect impending doom or weeks of worry proving my innocence again at risk of my licence and livelihood and thus the roof over my head being taken away!
vonhosen said:
Bitter experience tells you that there is no such thing as low risk. Only high risk & unknown risk.
Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
I thought that was the idea behind listening to Radio4 loudly when the officer approached so that they know *exactly* what they are dealing with...
vonhosen said:
Bitter experience tells you that there is no such thing as low risk. Only high risk & unknown risk.
Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
I don't see how putting a window in reduces the officer's chance of getting shot, I can see how it would increase it however...
andygo said:
imbecile said:
willibetz said:
On a lighter (o/t) note - any idea why these programmes never feature officers that can drive?
?
I think he's trying to say thet the Police drivers can't drive very well.
Precisely. Well... sort of precisely. I know that Police drivers can drive very well. I'm just surprised that, when being filmed for TV, they choose not to. The only reason I can see to watch this type of programme is to see skilled police drivers driving skillfully. On that score, they never fail to disappoint.
However, as Vonhosen succintly made clear, driving is only one facet of a traffic officer's lot. And I don't think I'd like the other bits so much.
WilliBetz
Quinny said:
vonhosen said:
Bitter experience tells you that there is no such thing as low risk. Only high risk & unknown risk.
Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
And this is quite a common occurance is it????? Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
Necessetating that all MOPS are treated like crims until it can be proved or shown otherwise.
Yeah that'll work at getting Joe public on your side
Edited by Quinny on Friday 20th April 00:01
Careful. That will be taken as critisism of the police and some of the BiB will threaten to leave the forum. I for one don't want to see any of them leave.
Quinny said:
vonhosen said:
Bitter experience tells you that there is no such thing as low risk. Only high risk & unknown risk.
Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
And this is quite a common occurance is it????? Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
Necessetating that all MOPS are treated like crims until it can be proved or shown otherwise.
Yeah that'll work at getting Joe public on your side
Well I've been threatened with firearms & had people try to slash my throat before.
I couldn't rely on Joe public helping me there, they were just glad that I'd turned up so that those robbing them could turn their attention to me.
Any force you decide you need to use has to be both reasonable & justifiable.
I don't want to be a statistic & as I've experienced first hand what people (who may look to others harmless in the cold light of day) are capable of, I'll treat everyone I stop as either a high risk or an unknown risk.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 20th April 00:45
Quinny said:
vonhosen said:
I'll treat everyone I stop as either a high risk or an unknown risk.
Obviously I'm not a BIB and I've never been in that situation (thank god) But that does seem to be a bit extreme. I could well understand that approach if you had to stop a car with 4 early twenties big lads full of testosterone and raging hormones, all wearing hoodies.
But would you treat little miss Jones the 57 year old retired school teacher as a similar risk
On one of my first days on the beat with a parent constable (a long time ago now), there was a 60ish year old male with two walking sticks trying to get off the bus. As we walked past he asked for our help to get off & the parent constable shook his head dargging me away. "Why couldn't we help him ?" I enquired. "He always tries it on" he said, "As soon as you are in range he'll wack you with the stick".
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 20th April 01:08
[/quote]
I couldn't rely on Joe public helping me there, they were just glad that I'd turned up so that those robbing them could turn their attention to me.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 20th April 00:45
[/quote] Von - Didn't you take the job precisely so that you could help Joe public?
nickytwohats said:
vonhosen said:
I couldn't rely on Joe public helping me there, they were just glad that I'd turned up so that those robbing them could turn their attention to me.
Von - Didn't you take the job precisely so that you could help Joe public?
I did, but what's the purpose of your partial quote ?
Look at it within the context of the full reply & the post it was in reply to, which was in relation to risk assessments of people you come into contact with & how that may alienate joe public. (Which I've repeated below for clarity.)
vonhosen said:
Quinny said:
vonhosen said:
Bitter experience tells you that there is no such thing as low risk. Only high risk & unknown risk.
Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
And this is quite a common occurance is it????? Re your first case. http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?t
Necessetating that all MOPS are treated like crims until it can be proved or shown otherwise.
Yeah that'll work at getting Joe public on your side
Well I've been threatened with firearms & had people try to slash my throat before.
I couldn't rely on Joe public helping me there, they were just glad that I'd turned up so that those robbing them could turn their attention to me.
Any force you decide you need to use has to be both reasonable & justifiable.
I don't want to be a statistic & as I've experienced first hand what people (who may look to others harmless in the cold light of day) are capable of, I'll treat everyone I stop as either a high risk or an unknown risk.
You can't help anyone if you are dead or seriously injured yourself.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 29th April 17:26
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff