Policeman arrests protestor for 'alleged' (made-up) DUI
Discussion
king word.Watching the clip, obviously the protester is typical of the type, however all he has the power to do is wind up to Policeman.
On the other hand, the 'officer' has the power to arrest the man on any charge he wishes (it would appear) with full compliance of his colleagues which could result in the man being sent down for something he hasn't done, losing his job, house etc.
Taking the issue further down the line, imagine if the chap head done something major to upset to officer?
Would he be fitted up for armed robbery, murder?
Its worrying that people like this seem to gravitate to positions where they can abuse their 'power'.
On the other hand, the 'officer' has the power to arrest the man on any charge he wishes (it would appear) with full compliance of his colleagues which could result in the man being sent down for something he hasn't done, losing his job, house etc.
Taking the issue further down the line, imagine if the chap head done something major to upset to officer?
Would he be fitted up for armed robbery, murder?
Its worrying that people like this seem to gravitate to positions where they can abuse their 'power'.
Derek Smith said:
Get down there and do what the police officer was doing and then try and thread some cotton through the eye of a needle, because that's what the officer is trying to do, except the cotton is too wide for the hole. The demonstrator is trying to wind up a stressed man. We can all suggest that a professional should not get upset but then I think it would be nicer if it didn't rain of a weekend. But it happens and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
What you are saying is that it's understandable for a police officer to abuse their powers and be bad at their job because it's a tough job. Fartomatic5000 said:
What you are saying is that it's understandable for a police officer to abuse their powers and be bad at their job because it's a tough job.
Don't put words in my mouth. I've said nothing of the sort.All I've suggested is that most of the criticism leveled at this police officer seems to be that he exceeded his powers when this is, quite clearly, despite the OP's title for this thread, not so. You might not like it but that doesn't matter.
The officer's tone comes in for some criticism as well.
You cannot expect an officer to react normally when under stress. I accept that for most people in offices, such stress levels are all but unknown, but policing demonstrations is difficult and the aggressive nature of the demonstrators and the constant confrontation will affect the tone and speed of delivery of instructions.
So, apart from being within the law with his demand for the breath test, what other powers has the officer abused?
Look at some of the threads on PH. Posters, comfortable on their seats, in their offices, with their cup of coffee beside them, lose any sense of proportion, becoming abusive and aggressive, when they read something they disagree with. Yet, they feel quite willing to criticise a police officer for, well what? Using his powers lawfully?
Demonstrators use whistles, megaphones, loud sounds and in-your-face aggressive behaviour to wind up the police. It is a tactic that is used across the world. Now my father always reckoned that you have to accept is the consequences of your actions. If you put your hand in a fire you can't moan if you get burned.
You cannot expect people to behave like automatons, well you can expect it but it shows that you are pretty thick, thicker than these demonstrators. It is an impossible requirement, as anyone with any sense will know. Demonstrators have got more sense, apparently, than some of the PH trolls, and they go out of their way to wind up the police and, when they get shouted at, they post a video of it online and those who are following the present government's anti-police diatribe get all upset.
Five years ago the PH consensus would be that the bloke got everything he deserved and was a bit of a plonker. We would have said how clever the police officer was to lawfully use statutory preventative measures to put the leftie in his place. But now, because the officer is a bit abrupt, it seems he's beyond the pale. I wonder what's changed in that time, although, of course, I do not.
But if you think that sotto voce is the only way to behave in demonstrations, well best of luck with that.
Time was when a supervisor would have pulled a police officer getting wound up out of the front line and into the reserves. That's what I was told to look out for. But there are no reserves nowadays. You want social workers on the front line then accept that demonstrators will be able to stop anything that takes their fancy.
Your choice but first, get real.
Rovinghawk said:
andy_s said:
It is 101, unsteady on feet, smell of liquor, eyes glazed, slurred speech are all prima facie valid indications that someone may be drunk.
The policeman's eyes were glazed - is that prima facie evidence that he'd been eating doughnuts?
Rovinghawk said:
Derek Smith said:
We can all suggest that a professional should not get upset but then I think it would be nicer if it didn't rain of a weekend.
Put it this way. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have happened years ago. I spent a fair number of times sat in the back of a police car when I was young and rebellious. I could wind them up!
I remember one occasion in the early hours, being accused of stealing my own car!
They even breathalysed me after my taunts as I sat in the Jam Sandwich. I said that I would be driving straight to the cop station to report them both.
Do you know what? Even though there were two of them these traffic cops they were polite 'all' the way through, even said 'Good Night'.
I'd probably be bloody handcuffed today and verbally abused - or is that just in my mind?
Oh yeah, I did go to the station too. It was a long time before I was pulled up again.
A long time... but not never
Moonhawk said:
Actually - we don't know that from the video. The police officer clearly misheard the guy and interpreted "I had tea" as "I had two" then claimed the guy admitted to drinking (which he didn't).
Didn't realise that. Thank you. Though the officer adamantly refuses to hear any clarification, he possibly pretended to mishear.Derek Smith said:
All I've suggested is that most of the criticism leveled at this police officer seems to be that he exceeded his powers when this is, quite clearly, despite the OP's title for this thread, not so. You might not like it but that doesn't matter.
I do not know whether he exceeds his powers or not. But my impression of him is that he is purposefully making up a 'drink driving' story to persecute the observer.Interesting comments here.
http://www.policespecials.com/forum/index.php/topi...
The first name thing is interesting.
Rovinghawk said:
I took this from the comments there:
"It'll be an interesting outcome for the Inspector if this goes before PSD."
I hope it happens & the result reported so that we can see an official view of what transpired.
Yes, it's all a bit up in the air at the moment. Without knowing the result( and what happened beforehand) we are reduced to making suppositions based on the video, which ends for some reason just as thing are about to come to a head!"It'll be an interesting outcome for the Inspector if this goes before PSD."
I hope it happens & the result reported so that we can see an official view of what transpired.
carinaman said:
andy_s said:
It is 101, unsteady on feet, smell of liquor.
I didn't hear him say 'liqour'.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff