Police Officer Smashes Windscreen
Discussion
PurpleAki said:
cb31 said:
Out of the 4 charges how can he possibly plead not guilty to possession of a bladed article? I can imagine that he may be able to weasel out of the other 3 but surely the knife is a slam dunk?
He will say he's a copper and needs it for the job.The threatening behaviour seems to have a bit of overlap with the assault / damage.
Regardless, anyone who gets themselves charged with four offences over a minor road traffic stop probably doesn't have what is required to be a police officer.
Even if he's found NG at court, I imagine the 'two bites' internal misconduct proceedings will see the end of him.
Regardless, anyone who gets themselves charged with four offences over a minor road traffic stop probably doesn't have what is required to be a police officer.
Even if he's found NG at court, I imagine the 'two bites' internal misconduct proceedings will see the end of him.
Bladed article defences said:
The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:
he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume;
he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume;
La Liga said:
The threatening behaviour seems to have a bit of overlap with the assault / damage.
Regardless, anyone who gets themselves charged with four offences over a minor road traffic stop probably doesn't have what is required to be a police officer.
Even if he's found NG at court, I imagine the 'two bites' internal misconduct proceedings will see the end of him.
Bit in bold? Is he facing two internal charges?Regardless, anyone who gets themselves charged with four offences over a minor road traffic stop probably doesn't have what is required to be a police officer.
Even if he's found NG at court, I imagine the 'two bites' internal misconduct proceedings will see the end of him.
Bladed article defences said:
The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:
he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume;
he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume;
La Liga said:
The threatening behaviour seems to have a bit of overlap with the assault / damage.
Regardless, anyone who gets themselves charged with four offences over a minor road traffic stop probably doesn't have what is required to be a police officer.
Even if he's found NG at court, I imagine the 'two bites' internal misconduct proceedings will see the end of him.
That's a very sensible view. Unfortunately not one shared by some of your colleagues who posted at the time the video was released. (I think I'm right in saying you're a Police Officer?). Regardless, anyone who gets themselves charged with four offences over a minor road traffic stop probably doesn't have what is required to be a police officer.
Even if he's found NG at court, I imagine the 'two bites' internal misconduct proceedings will see the end of him.
Bladed article defences said:
The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:
he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume;
he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume;
I'd go further, and say that even if he is found NG, the damage he has done to the police brand cannot be good for it, which in itself could be a dismissable offence.
Alpinestars said:
That's a very sensible view. Unfortunately not one shared by some of your colleagues who posted at the time the video was released. (I think I'm right in saying you're a Police Officer?).
I'd go further, and say that even if he is found NG, the damage he has done to the police brand cannot be good for it, which in itself could be a dismissable offence.
You are right in saying that. I'd go further, and say that even if he is found NG, the damage he has done to the police brand cannot be good for it, which in itself could be a dismissable offence.
I wouldn't say such a thing pre-charge, though, as there can often be significant things which are unknown.
Tango13 said:
La Liga said:
The threatening behaviour seems to have a bit of overlap with the assault / damage.
Regardless, anyone who gets themselves charged with four offences over a minor road traffic stop probably doesn't have what is required to be a police officer.
Even if he's found NG at court, I imagine the 'two bites' internal misconduct proceedings will see the end of him.
Bit in bold? Is he facing two internal charges?Regardless, anyone who gets themselves charged with four offences over a minor road traffic stop probably doesn't have what is required to be a police officer.
Even if he's found NG at court, I imagine the 'two bites' internal misconduct proceedings will see the end of him.
Bladed article defences said:
The defendant is entitled to be acquitted if he shows on the balance of probabilities that:
he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume;
he had "good reason or lawful authority" for having the bladed or pointed article; or
he had the article for use at work; or
he had the article for religious reasons; or
he had the article as part of a national costume;
Even if he's found 'not guilty' at court, the police can still dismiss him through gross misconduct.
CoolHands said:
Surely "he had the article for use at work" is his demonstrably true defence. He was at work, and he was using it 
I wonder what he was thinking he was going to do next after sawing a hole in the windscreen. Good luck trying to pull an 80kg lump that's strapped in through a small serrated hole.
ChocolateFrog said:
I wonder what he was thinking he was going to do next after sawing a hole in the windscreen.
Good luck trying to pull an 80kg lump that's strapped in through a small serrated hole.
His defence is likely to be that he genuinely thought the person had to be detained or arrested (I presume you have to get to the stage of arrest to use that much force) and therefore he genuinely believed he was entitled to do what he did to make the arrest.Good luck trying to pull an 80kg lump that's strapped in through a small serrated hole.
The fact that it was the wrong person may be irrelevant if he genuinely held the belief and it was based on valid reasoning (after all mistakes happen).
Whether it was reasonable/lawful to act like that even if he had genuine reason to try and arrest the person is another matter.
Mojooo said:
His defence is likely to be that he genuinely thought the person had to be detained or arrested (I presume you have to get to the stage of arrest to use that much force) and therefore he genuinely believed he was entitled to do what he did to make the arrest.
The fact that it was the wrong person may be irrelevant if he genuinely held the belief and it was based on valid reasoning (after all mistakes happen).
Whether it was reasonable/lawful to act like that even if he had genuine reason to try and arrest the person is another matter.
Reasonable force can be used to arrest someone. It doesn't appear to be reasonable and there was no arrest. The fact that it was the wrong person may be irrelevant if he genuinely held the belief and it was based on valid reasoning (after all mistakes happen).
Whether it was reasonable/lawful to act like that even if he had genuine reason to try and arrest the person is another matter.
In order to bring a case to court, the CPS must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction", such that a jury or a bench of magistrates, properly directed in accordance with the law, will be more likely than not to convict the defendant.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff