Police at their worst
05 August 2010, 10:45 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
So the pensioner had been stopped by these two coppers for not wearing a seatbelt,the pensioner mistakenly drove off while being issued a ticket thinking it had been dealt with.At the end of a 17 minute pursuit/drive in the countryside the pensioner pulls over because was confused by a police stinger device in the road,the 2 coppers then run over and 1 of them start smashing the pensioner range rover windscreen,and the other copper leaps onto the bonnet of the range rover and starts kicking the front windscreen,after about a minute the coppers finally pull/drag the pensioner out of his car..
06 August 2010, 08:32 AM
#33
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,574
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets look at the facts:
Stop a car, car makes off.
Car then fails to stop for 17 minutes.
Risk assessment is its a large vehicle, 2000kg+ very dangerous for MOP and officers although speed is reasonable.
Officers in the road deploy stinger and vehicle stops (so he knows he is being chased lets be honest here)
Officers decide to use "shock" tactics to prevent driver from attempting to make off again and putting other officers and MOP at risk.
However, they carry out the shock tactic incorrectly as someone gets on the car. This is a massive no-no TBH and without this I doubt there would have been an issue. They should have used a glass hammer to put the drivers window in and also used a baton for the windscreen to prevent the driver seeing out if he did decide to make off again.
All in all, they were justified in using the tactic - but they went about it in the wrong way and are now in hot water.
IMHO.
Stop a car, car makes off.
Car then fails to stop for 17 minutes.
Risk assessment is its a large vehicle, 2000kg+ very dangerous for MOP and officers although speed is reasonable.
Officers in the road deploy stinger and vehicle stops (so he knows he is being chased lets be honest here)
Officers decide to use "shock" tactics to prevent driver from attempting to make off again and putting other officers and MOP at risk.
However, they carry out the shock tactic incorrectly as someone gets on the car. This is a massive no-no TBH and without this I doubt there would have been an issue. They should have used a glass hammer to put the drivers window in and also used a baton for the windscreen to prevent the driver seeing out if he did decide to make off again.
All in all, they were justified in using the tactic - but they went about it in the wrong way and are now in hot water.
IMHO.
06 August 2010, 08:41 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pursuit began when Robert Clive Whatley, 70, drove away while Gwent Police officers were issuing him with a fixed penalty notice for not wearing a seatbelt.
A court heard Whatley drove off because he thought he had been dealt with and needed to take medication for a heart condition and a stroke, the Western Mail reported.
The question is why is he allowed to drive when he is so dependent on heart medication and also he seems to exhibit little regard for his own safety given he wasn't wearing a seat belt - his poor excuses do not quite add up.
Last edited by The Zohan; 06 August 2010 at 08:43 AM.
06 August 2010, 08:52 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Fareham, Hants
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets look at the facts:
Stop a car, car makes off.
Car then fails to stop for 17 minutes.
Risk assessment is its a large vehicle, 2000kg+ very dangerous for MOP and officers although speed is reasonable.
Officers in the road deploy stinger and vehicle stops (so he knows he is being chased lets be honest here)
Officers decide to use "shock" tactics to prevent driver from attempting to make off again and putting other officers and MOP at risk.
However, they carry out the shock tactic incorrectly as someone gets on the car. This is a massive no-no TBH and without this I doubt there would have been an issue. They should have used a glass hammer to put the drivers window in and also used a baton for the windscreen to prevent the driver seeing out if he did decide to make off again.
All in all, they were justified in using the tactic - but they went about it in the wrong way and are now in hot water.
IMHO.
Stop a car, car makes off.
Car then fails to stop for 17 minutes.
Risk assessment is its a large vehicle, 2000kg+ very dangerous for MOP and officers although speed is reasonable.
Officers in the road deploy stinger and vehicle stops (so he knows he is being chased lets be honest here)
Officers decide to use "shock" tactics to prevent driver from attempting to make off again and putting other officers and MOP at risk.
However, they carry out the shock tactic incorrectly as someone gets on the car. This is a massive no-no TBH and without this I doubt there would have been an issue. They should have used a glass hammer to put the drivers window in and also used a baton for the windscreen to prevent the driver seeing out if he did decide to make off again.
All in all, they were justified in using the tactic - but they went about it in the wrong way and are now in hot water.
IMHO.
The Police have a diffucult job to do. There will be a few 'wrong-uns' but that is the case in all jobs. There are always those who try and put the Police down but where would we be without them?
The tactics were justified, the execution was poor.
Ben
06 August 2010, 01:24 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Lets look at the facts:
Stop a car, car makes off.
Car then fails to stop for 17 minutes.
Risk assessment is its a large vehicle, 2000kg+ very dangerous for MOP and officers although speed is reasonable.
Officers in the road deploy stinger and vehicle stops (so he knows he is being chased lets be honest here)
Officers decide to use "shock" tactics to prevent driver from attempting to make off again and putting other officers and MOP at risk.
However, they carry out the shock tactic incorrectly as someone gets on the car. This is a massive no-no TBH and without this I doubt there would have been an issue. They should have used a glass hammer to put the drivers window in and also used a baton for the windscreen to prevent the driver seeing out if he did decide to make off again.
All in all, they were justified in using the tactic - but they went about it in the wrong way and are now in hot water.
IMHO.
Stop a car, car makes off.
Car then fails to stop for 17 minutes.
Risk assessment is its a large vehicle, 2000kg+ very dangerous for MOP and officers although speed is reasonable.
Officers in the road deploy stinger and vehicle stops (so he knows he is being chased lets be honest here)
Officers decide to use "shock" tactics to prevent driver from attempting to make off again and putting other officers and MOP at risk.
However, they carry out the shock tactic incorrectly as someone gets on the car. This is a massive no-no TBH and without this I doubt there would have been an issue. They should have used a glass hammer to put the drivers window in and also used a baton for the windscreen to prevent the driver seeing out if he did decide to make off again.
All in all, they were justified in using the tactic - but they went about it in the wrong way and are now in hot water.
IMHO.
I would expect a similar response if I had legged it from the police after being stopped. He was well known to the police anyway, apparently.
Just a good excuse for the anti-police brigade to have a go, although they did go a little bit over the top but not by much. imho
06 August 2010, 01:42 PM
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't actually know what was his state of mind. He may well have thought they had finished with the earlier check and also misunderstood why he was still being followed. I find it hard to believe he was trying to outrun the cops while driving strictly within the speed limits.
The point is, he did stop when signalled to do so by another copper with a stinger and the orginal two went ballistic for no good reason. What the hell was the point of smashing his window or trying to kick his windscreen in? Did they see him dragging a gun or any other kind of weapon out? Why did they feel he had to be dragged out of the car-a 70 year old don't forget!
Its a bit like the attack on De Menezes where they shot him in the head three times and then another copper leapt on him and shot him in the head another 4 times! Why?
Can't help getting the impression that there are coppers who spend their day just looking for an excuse to commit physical violence for no good reason.
You had better hope it never happens to you Pete! Poor old men are an easy target!
Les
The point is, he did stop when signalled to do so by another copper with a stinger and the orginal two went ballistic for no good reason. What the hell was the point of smashing his window or trying to kick his windscreen in? Did they see him dragging a gun or any other kind of weapon out? Why did they feel he had to be dragged out of the car-a 70 year old don't forget!
Its a bit like the attack on De Menezes where they shot him in the head three times and then another copper leapt on him and shot him in the head another 4 times! Why?
Can't help getting the impression that there are coppers who spend their day just looking for an excuse to commit physical violence for no good reason.
You had better hope it never happens to you Pete! Poor old men are an easy target!
Les
06 August 2010, 02:17 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two sides to every story... He's a pikey scumbag with form.
convicted for no insurance, MOT and threatening behaviour, plus trying to say cops had assualted him.
Knowing they had a drive off from someone with his record i'm not surprised they went for the window option. Well done the boys in blue, Poor form for condeming them without doing a Google on the old chap I say. Even worse journalism.
http://www.campaignseries.co.uk/arch...est_is_guilty/
5t.
convicted for no insurance, MOT and threatening behaviour, plus trying to say cops had assualted him.
Knowing they had a drive off from someone with his record i'm not surprised they went for the window option. Well done the boys in blue, Poor form for condeming them without doing a Google on the old chap I say. Even worse journalism.
http://www.campaignseries.co.uk/arch...est_is_guilty/
5t.
Last edited by fivetide; 06 August 2010 at 02:18 PM.
06 August 2010, 02:40 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Two sides to every story... He's a pikey scumbag with form.
convicted for no insurance, MOT and threatening behaviour, plus trying to say cops had assualted him.
Knowing they had a drive off from someone with his record i'm not surprised they went for the window option. Well done the boys in blue, Poor form for condeming them without doing a Google on the old chap I say. Even worse journalism.
http://www.campaignseries.co.uk/arch...est_is_guilty/
5t.
convicted for no insurance, MOT and threatening behaviour, plus trying to say cops had assualted him.
Knowing they had a drive off from someone with his record i'm not surprised they went for the window option. Well done the boys in blue, Poor form for condeming them without doing a Google on the old chap I say. Even worse journalism.
http://www.campaignseries.co.uk/arch...est_is_guilty/
5t.
We need more intelligent police than the one who thought that was a good idea
06 August 2010, 02:59 PM
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Agree. I'm not anti police either, just think what these two did was utterly stupid and over the top especially when they were filming themselves from their own on board camera
06 August 2010, 03:07 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Disco, Disco!
Posts: 21,825
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 August 2010, 03:13 PM
#43
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember, the old boy is so terribly disabled its really a wonder he's even allowed a license isn't it?
The police followed proceedure by smashing the windows to confuse him and distract him from driving off again, nothing more than that really. Bit ott to give them pelters for taking pensioner chav off the road.
5t.
06 August 2010, 03:30 PM
#44
I read all the comments and followed the other link here before watching the video and decided the police were in the right....
Then I watched the video. WTF? That was waaaaaaaaay over the top. This isn't America!
I wouldn't stop for the police if I thought that was going to happen to me. No way.
Then I watched the video. WTF? That was waaaaaaaaay over the top. This isn't America!
I wouldn't stop for the police if I thought that was going to happen to me. No way.
06 August 2010, 07:30 PM
#45
I read all the comments and followed the other link here before watching the video and decided the police were in the right....
Then I watched the video. WTF? That was waaaaaaaaay over the top. This isn't America!
I wouldn't stop for the police if I thought that was going to happen to me. No way.
Then I watched the video. WTF? That was waaaaaaaaay over the top. This isn't America!
I wouldn't stop for the police if I thought that was going to happen to me. No way.
06 August 2010, 08:02 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
From what I recall from watching this last night, he had been issued the ticket, and drive off as he needed to take pills for a heart condition, He thought he had be felt with, and they were giving him a safe escort home due to his ill health. If the police knew that info about his health, and it is true, then they were being incompetant by endangering his life by chasing him and battering the car the way they did.
He kept to the speed limit, so wasn't exactly making a getaway!
Also I do not recall it being mentioned that he was travelling back to his campsite.
Yes I agree that the officers here, (and all situations) have a hard job to do, but that situation was totally out of hand. He wasn't exactly putting up a fight, yes he might have been having a moan, but thete was no need to do what they did.
And I disagree with people saying 70 isn't old, maybe not for someone fit and healthy, but if it is true about his health then at the age of 70 living with a heart condition, each day could be your last.
He kept to the speed limit, so wasn't exactly making a getaway!
Also I do not recall it being mentioned that he was travelling back to his campsite.
Yes I agree that the officers here, (and all situations) have a hard job to do, but that situation was totally out of hand. He wasn't exactly putting up a fight, yes he might have been having a moan, but thete was no need to do what they did.
And I disagree with people saying 70 isn't old, maybe not for someone fit and healthy, but if it is true about his health then at the age of 70 living with a heart condition, each day could be your last.
Last edited by Hysteria1983; 06 August 2010 at 08:04 PM.
06 August 2010, 08:11 PM
#47
So having a heart condition and being old means you don't have to abide by the law?
Looking at his previous, i'd suggest the heart excuse should be taken with a pinch of salt.
Looking at his previous, i'd suggest the heart excuse should be taken with a pinch of salt.
06 August 2010, 09:38 PM
#49
Scooby Regular
He's a Pikey ScumBag who hasn't contributed anything to the society we live in .... we are paying for his heart condition tablets and all the other costs involved in keeping him alive .... I doubt he has paid a penny in Tax and has made many peoples lives a misery.
I believe he got off lightly!
I believe he got off lightly!
06 August 2010, 09:48 PM
#51
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two sides to every story... He's a pikey scumbag with form.
convicted for no insurance, MOT and threatening behaviour, plus trying to say cops had assualted him.
Knowing they had a drive off from someone with his record i'm not surprised they went for the window option. Well done the boys in blue, Poor form for condeming them without doing a Google on the old chap I say. Even worse journalism.
http://www.campaignseries.co.uk/arch...est_is_guilty/
5t.
convicted for no insurance, MOT and threatening behaviour, plus trying to say cops had assualted him.
Knowing they had a drive off from someone with his record i'm not surprised they went for the window option. Well done the boys in blue, Poor form for condeming them without doing a Google on the old chap I say. Even worse journalism.
http://www.campaignseries.co.uk/arch...est_is_guilty/
5t.
From Pensioner set to sue police...
Originally Posted by South Wales Argus
A PENSIONER who accused a Gwent police officer of assaulting him in a court case in July is to sue the force after being cleared of all the convictions against him.
Robert Clive Whatley, 64, was convicted of using insulting words and behaviour and motoring offences at Abergavenny magistrates court last July.
The key witness in the case against Mr Whatley was PC Jonathan Ellis, from Abergavenny, who last week pleaded guilty to stealing £80 from a purse handed to him while he was on duty.
Ellis, 32, was caught in an undercover police sting after his own colleagues had raised concerns about his behaviour.
The charges against Mr Whatley followed an incident at his home in Four Ash Street in August 2003, when Ellis alleged in court he was verbally abusive after the officer spoke to him about an expired tax disc on his car. PC Ellis denied assaulting Mr Whatley.
But this week the Crown Prosecution Service told Mr Whatley that his pending appeal against his convictions would not be contested following Ellis' conviction.
A CPS spokesman said: "We are under a duty to keep cases under continuous review. Given recent events we felt that we would not be able to meet the code of Crown prosecutors and will therefore not be contesting the case."
The code is the threshold upon which the CPS believed a realistic conviction can be secured on the evidence before the court.
An internal police investigation cleared Ellis of assaulting Mr Whatley in August 2003, but he is now facing police misconduct proceedings following last Thursday's court case.
Mr Whatley said: "It is now my plan to commence civil proceedings against Gwent Police to seek substantial damages as regards the impact of the case on my health. However, I would like to make clear the respect I hold for police and the work they do."
Robert Clive Whatley, 64, was convicted of using insulting words and behaviour and motoring offences at Abergavenny magistrates court last July.
The key witness in the case against Mr Whatley was PC Jonathan Ellis, from Abergavenny, who last week pleaded guilty to stealing £80 from a purse handed to him while he was on duty.
Ellis, 32, was caught in an undercover police sting after his own colleagues had raised concerns about his behaviour.
The charges against Mr Whatley followed an incident at his home in Four Ash Street in August 2003, when Ellis alleged in court he was verbally abusive after the officer spoke to him about an expired tax disc on his car. PC Ellis denied assaulting Mr Whatley.
But this week the Crown Prosecution Service told Mr Whatley that his pending appeal against his convictions would not be contested following Ellis' conviction.
A CPS spokesman said: "We are under a duty to keep cases under continuous review. Given recent events we felt that we would not be able to meet the code of Crown prosecutors and will therefore not be contesting the case."
The code is the threshold upon which the CPS believed a realistic conviction can be secured on the evidence before the court.
An internal police investigation cleared Ellis of assaulting Mr Whatley in August 2003, but he is now facing police misconduct proceedings following last Thursday's court case.
Mr Whatley said: "It is now my plan to commence civil proceedings against Gwent Police to seek substantial damages as regards the impact of the case on my health. However, I would like to make clear the respect I hold for police and the work they do."
mb
06 August 2010, 09:59 PM
#52
Scooby Regular
take away his free bus pass, that'll really fvck him up
and while your at it force him to pay his TV licence
and while your at it force him to pay his TV licence
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 06 August 2010 at 10:01 PM.
06 August 2010, 09:59 PM
#53
OK, he did (according to one of the other links on this thread) have no tax or insurance but really.... I hate pikeys too, but if you are a professional police officer trained in the art then surely that was an over reaction.
One guy jumps on the bonnet and stamps on the windscreen while the other tries to break the drivers door window.
LOL at about 1.09 (from memory) and again a few seconds later... one of the officers hits the third in the face with his wildly swinging baton.
They might have sounded cool on the radio but were totally out of control on the ground.
One guy jumps on the bonnet and stamps on the windscreen while the other tries to break the drivers door window.
LOL at about 1.09 (from memory) and again a few seconds later... one of the officers hits the third in the face with his wildly swinging baton.
They might have sounded cool on the radio but were totally out of control on the ground.
06 August 2010, 10:23 PM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yup, two sides (at least)?
From Pensioner set to sue police...
...so maybe PC Jonathan Ellis still has some cooperative mates in the force?
mb
From Pensioner set to sue police...
...so maybe PC Jonathan Ellis still has some cooperative mates in the force?
mb
From the accounts so far they had issued him with his ticket for the seat belt infringement. So if he has been issued the ticket then he doesn't have to hang about. He was hardly speeding away and as he was going so slowly how come the chasing car never actually catches up with him? Because they knew there was a Stinger waiting. Sounds like they had the Stinger already setup waiting which would be remarkably quick work to get there in position when he's only just been stopped
Pikey or not what they did was unnecessary and sounds more and more like a setup especially when you see the above history.
Last edited by Bravo2zero_sps; 06 August 2010 at 10:29 PM.
06 August 2010, 10:52 PM
#55
07 August 2010, 11:32 AM
#57
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 August 2010, 11:37 AM
#58
If he IS a pikey scumbag then I take back my comment about p1g scum.
The boys in blue deserve a medal...
07 August 2010, 12:14 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever minor traffic offences he might have committed do not justify the treatment he got from the two coppers since he was offering no resistance at the time. Not even if he deliberately drove off knowing they had not finished after he was first stopped. If we find that coppers now think they have the right to attack people and their property in such a manner when no resistance is being offered, what kind of a police state are we drifting into? The offences of which he was convicted were minor anyway. They were guilty of "Jackboot" style behaviour!
I wonder if PSL can clear up exactly why tinted windows and a private number plate on his 4X4 automatically define the bloke as a Pikey! How many people on this forum qualify with exactly those qualifications I wonder?
PSL is either hopelessly biased, or he has a hate ethic for 70 year olds.
I think that it is time that some coppers were left in no doubt that they are required to be polite in their dealings with the public unless there is good cause to act differently. They certainly should not be looking for the excuse to act like common thugs.
Les
I wonder if PSL can clear up exactly why tinted windows and a private number plate on his 4X4 automatically define the bloke as a Pikey! How many people on this forum qualify with exactly those qualifications I wonder?
PSL is either hopelessly biased, or he has a hate ethic for 70 year olds.
I think that it is time that some coppers were left in no doubt that they are required to be polite in their dealings with the public unless there is good cause to act differently. They certainly should not be looking for the excuse to act like common thugs.
Les