Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
XCP said:
e21Mark said:
Can you be taken into custody without being arrested then? (Genuine question)
Yes, for some specific matters. S136 Mental Health Act, drugs search, police protection for juveniles. There may be others I've forgotten!carinaman said:
XCP said:
e21Mark said:
Can you be taken into custody without being arrested then? (Genuine question)
Yes, for some specific matters. S136 Mental Health Act, drugs search, police protection for juveniles. There may be others I've forgotten!XCP said:
Yes, so are doctors, nurses, social workers, solicitors and their clerks, cleaners and a myriad of others with jobs to do. Your point is?
There wasn't a point other than querying whether responsible adults that accompany juveniles are considered to be in custody? They're physically on the premises and would be with any juvenile(s) in custody so would have to be recorded in a custody log so I was querying whether they're tehnically 'in custody' or just visiting?
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but I did end it with a question mark.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 17th March 19:55
carinaman said:
There wasn't a point other than querying whether responsible adults that accompany juveniles are considered to be in custody?
They're physically on the premises and would be with any juvenile(s) in custody so would have to be recorded in a custody log so I was querying whether they're tehnically 'in custody' or just visiting?
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but I did end it with a question mark.
Don't worry about it. XCP is a sensitive soul who can't tell the difference between a question and a statement. A lot of the police/ex police posters on here get all sensitive about criticism of other police officers actions.They're physically on the premises and would be with any juvenile(s) in custody so would have to be recorded in a custody log so I was querying whether they're tehnically 'in custody' or just visiting?
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but I did end it with a question mark.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 17th March 19:55
carinaman said:
Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but I did end it with a question mark.
You ended a statement with a question mark. There's a distinction between those who go to custody not under arrest who have to (the thrust of e21Mark's question), and everyone else.
The police can let anyone into a custody suite.
bmw535i said:
Don't worry about it. XCP is a sensitive soul who can't tell the difference between a question and a statement. A lot of the police/ex police posters on here get all sensitive about criticism of other police officers actions.
You just can't resist having a personal dig can you? Any news on what the reference to basket making this morning was about by the way?bmw535i said:
You've just confirmed your sensitivity.
And you've just confirmed your rude and frankly rather odd attitude toward me. You make strange comments about me, I ask you to explain, you decline. That is your prerogative of course. I hope you are satisfied.I think I am done with any threads that you contribute to now. If your intention was to remove my future contribution to police threads involving you, you have succeeded.
XCP said:
And you've just confirmed your rude and frankly rather odd attitude toward me. You make strange comments about me, I ask you to explain, you decline. That is your prerogative of course. I hope you are satisfied.
I think I am done with any threads that you contribute to now. If your intention was to remove my future contribution to police threads involving you, you have succeeded.
Strange comments? I just think it's odd that you contribute so readily to a subject you have apparently not even viewed the main theme of.I think I am done with any threads that you contribute to now. If your intention was to remove my future contribution to police threads involving you, you have succeeded.
I find it is often the case when police officers are blinkered and obtuse about things - they refuse to accept others point of view. If it was your intention to reinforce my opinion of police officers, you've succeeded.
XCP said:
I think I am done with any threads that you contribute to now. If your intention was to remove my future contribution to police threads involving you, you have succeeded.
I think a few people have reached that stage. I don't think he's very balanced. I assume he gets something out of trolling which makes me feel a little sorry for him. It must be sad to be motivated like that.
Either way, best not to feed the trolls.
La Liga said:
think a few people have reached that stage. I don't think he's very balanced.
I assume he gets something out of trolling which makes me feel a little sorry for him. It must be sad to be motivated like that.
Either way, best not to feed the trolls.
But he makes some good points. A lot of PCs on this thread refused ro accept what the law says and never put up anything to support their (blinkered) views. Even simple things like Fontana was not obliged to get out of his car because a police officer asks him to, based on what we saw in the video. I assume he gets something out of trolling which makes me feel a little sorry for him. It must be sad to be motivated like that.
Either way, best not to feed the trolls.
Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for Fontana, Savage did break the law, and the posters didn't know better.
Alpinestars said:
But he makes some good points. A lot of PCs on this thread refused ro accept what the law says and never put up anything to support their (blinkered) views. Even simple things like Fontana was not obliged to get out of his car because a police officer asks him to, based on what we saw in the video.
Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for Fontana, Savage did break the law, and the posters didn't know better.
The answer to good and difficult points is to flounce off apparently. In real life of course I would either be tasered or locked up for a public order offence for expressing my views. I expect that causes much frustration amongst the intolerant and blinkered officers/ex officers we see on hereUnfortunately for them, and fortunately for Fontana, Savage did break the law, and the posters didn't know better.
Alpinestars said:
La Liga said:
think a few people have reached that stage. I don't think he's very balanced.
I assume he gets something out of trolling which makes me feel a little sorry for him. It must be sad to be motivated like that.
Either way, best not to feed the trolls.
But he makes some good points. A lot of PCs on this thread refused ro accept what the law says and never put up anything to support their (blinkered) views. Even simple things like Fontana was not obliged to get out of his car because a police officer asks him to, based on what we saw in the video. I assume he gets something out of trolling which makes me feel a little sorry for him. It must be sad to be motivated like that.
Either way, best not to feed the trolls.
Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for Fontana, Savage did break the law, and the posters didn't know better.
When you made your last topic, the only replies that weren't yours weren't calling you obsessive, relentlessly dull and told you to get a life (from non-police officers), did they?
The point is, I don't think it's the 'good points' that's the issue, is it?
zarjaz1991 said:
Well if he's been charged, he must've been arrested at some point.
Must he? Just out of interest, when you write something like that, do you actually think you're right? Do you believe you know what you're talking about, or do you just not care and go for the 'throw enough darts on will hit the bull's eye eventually' approach?
zarjaz1991 said:
I wonder if he "fell down a fire escape" during the arrest?
Out of further interest, you write this quite a lot. Why do you do it? Do you think it's funny, or think you're using it as some insightful representation of something? It just seems a little odd to write it with such frequency. Especially, as evidenced by the first sentence, you don't know what you're talking about.
La Liga said:
ou've made the same points as have others. No one has decided to ignore you or them.
When you made your last topic, the only replies that weren't yours weren't calling you obsessive, relentlessly dull and told you to get a life (from non-police officers), did they?
The point is, I don't think it's the 'good points' that's the issue, is it?
I can't read your mind and I have no idea whether you think he has made some good points. If you think he has, we're potentially in the same place. When you made your last topic, the only replies that weren't yours weren't calling you obsessive, relentlessly dull and told you to get a life (from non-police officers), did they?
The point is, I don't think it's the 'good points' that's the issue, is it?
PS, I know you've not said it, but me saying he makes some good points, doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff