How to deal with Police
#61
Violent assaults happen outside pubs/clubs whether there is a police presence or not. Drunks are just easy targets. I'd rather you put the drunk down and patrol my street. I learnt more from a fat lip and black eye than I ever did from spending the night on a blue mat. I stopped going into town as I was sick of getting into, or pulling people out of fights.
How much time is spent on shop lifters, alcoholics and repeat offenders?. If these criminals were given longer sentences that would free up more of your time would it not?. If the traffic police were scaled down and moved into beating the pavement, wouldn't that increase the presence in the neighbourhood of local bobbies?. Couldn't an ANPR camera do the job of 10 panda cars?. I doubt any member of the public would sympathize with someone driving without an MOT or insurance. .
How much time is spent on shop lifters, alcoholics and repeat offenders?. If these criminals were given longer sentences that would free up more of your time would it not?. If the traffic police were scaled down and moved into beating the pavement, wouldn't that increase the presence in the neighbourhood of local bobbies?. Couldn't an ANPR camera do the job of 10 panda cars?. I doubt any member of the public would sympathize with someone driving without an MOT or insurance. .
I agree, longer sentences would help but we will still have to deal with the offences as they come in. Traffic police is scaled down where we are, one major crash and the traffic division is wiped out, leaving us to pick up the pieces of any other crash that comes in
How is an ANPR camera going do the job of 10 panda cars...? How is that going to deal with domestics, sudden deaths, harassments, breach of molestation orders, drug offences together with the thefts, burglaries, robberies etc etc.
We do, we get units to leave non urgent incidents to go to others. But we sometimes become depleted and people will have to wait – especially if it’s a non emergency. Arriving home to find your house burgled and the persons have gone is very bad but not necessarily an emergency response situation. Would you divert a unit from a missing from home, another burglary, a domestic assault for it? It will figure high on any event queue, but sometimes people will just have to wait for the next available unit. And if you do decide to divert someone, who picks up that original job
#62
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (10)
I would suggest you are all trained to handle any situation. Then it is about allocation, man management the same as any other service/business.
In the same way a speed camera operates. Again though this is about importance of crime rather than statistics, or generating revenue. It's also about public opinion and common sense.
Unfortunately the authorities cannot see the difference between doing 37mph in a 30 zone, and driving without an MOT/Insurance. It also cannot see how public opinion differs between the 2, or speeding outside of a school.
9/10 motorists would agree to swapping ANPR camera's for speed camera's.
As an example my mrs' MOT ran out recently. As much as this is her responsibility (or mine) to keep on top of, the DVLA database is aware as well. Insurance companies send out automatic reminders, if the local authority or DVLA did the same this would prevent a crime. And this again is about public perception, are the police there to prevent crimes or just there to set traps?
We do, we get units to leave non urgent incidents to go to others. But we sometimes become depleted and people will have to wait – especially if it’s a non emergency. Arriving home to find your house burgled and the persons have gone is very bad but not necessarily an emergency response situation.
Would you divert a unit from a missing from home, another burglary, a domestic assault for it? It will figure high on any event queue, but sometimes people will just have to wait for the next available unit. And if you do decide to divert someone, who picks up that original job
#63
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what I love about SN. Here are people getting up in arms about the rights of the police to stop and check a vehicle yet if someone stole their beloved Subaru they'd want every Subaru in the country stopped immediately.
To be honest I don't have an issue with the police even randonly stopping people if they choose to. My car is insured, taxed and I have a valid driving licence. I don't drive under the influemce so if they want to stop me they are very welcome. If my car had been stolen I would be even happier if they stopped it. I can't work out why people think it is such a big issue! Let the police get on with it FFS!
To be honest I don't have an issue with the police even randonly stopping people if they choose to. My car is insured, taxed and I have a valid driving licence. I don't drive under the influemce so if they want to stop me they are very welcome. If my car had been stolen I would be even happier if they stopped it. I can't work out why people think it is such a big issue! Let the police get on with it FFS!
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: My turbo blows, air lots of it!!
Posts: 9,073
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same here, I would actually encourage them to stop my car just incase it does happen to be in the process of being stolen.
In most cases (but not all) it's the motorist or who ever it is that's being dealt with that tends to be the stroppy **** first.
In most cases (but not all) it's the motorist or who ever it is that's being dealt with that tends to be the stroppy **** first.
#65
I’d like to know what they would expect the police to do here.
If you lived on a nice quiet street and had a car doing handbrakes turns and doughnuts, decided to phone the police. Would you be happy if the police informed you that the vehicle was stopped but we couldn’t do anything to the driver as he wasn’t allowing police to speak with him, so we had to let him go.... Or would they want a more positive approach
If you lived on a nice quiet street and had a car doing handbrakes turns and doughnuts, decided to phone the police. Would you be happy if the police informed you that the vehicle was stopped but we couldn’t do anything to the driver as he wasn’t allowing police to speak with him, so we had to let him go.... Or would they want a more positive approach
#66
Scooby Regular
I’d like to know what they would expect the police to do here.
If you lived on a nice quiet street and had a car doing handbrakes turns and doughnuts, decided to phone the police. Would you be happy if the police informed you that the vehicle was stopped but we couldn’t do anything to the driver as he wasn’t allowing police to speak with him, so we had to let him go.... Or would they want a more positive approach
If you lived on a nice quiet street and had a car doing handbrakes turns and doughnuts, decided to phone the police. Would you be happy if the police informed you that the vehicle was stopped but we couldn’t do anything to the driver as he wasn’t allowing police to speak with him, so we had to let him go.... Or would they want a more positive approach
i'd give up mate, your fighting a loosing battle with him.
i find most officers on a personal level dealing wit them they are fine, peopel are just disalusioned by what peopel get away with and how police are regulated.
#67
How often do traffic attend "domestics, sudden deaths, harassments, breach of molestation orders, drug offences together with the thefts, burglaries, robberies etc etc."
I would suggest you are all trained to handle any situation. Then it is about allocation, man management the same as any other service/business.
I would suggest you are all trained to handle any situation. Then it is about allocation, man management the same as any other service/business.
Traffic – you will have about 3-4 cars out cover the whole county on a given time. A major crash and they are all tied up. But even the simple minor injury shunts, the victim would expect a level of service from the police. Would you be happy if they suddenly left the scene of this incident to go to another one half way through and never return....
It’s the same on response and the neighbourhood teams. We all carry various enquiries too – crimes that need investigating (witness statements, CCTV enqs, forensics). We need to be allowed to complete these enquiries also as victims of these crimes are wanting a positive response from it. If I’ve arranged to take a witness statement from you on a given evening, would you be happy that part way through I will have to stop and walk out to another incident..?
As an example my mrs' MOT ran out recently. As much as this is her responsibility (or mine) to keep on top of, the DVLA database is aware as well. Insurance companies send out automatic reminders, if the local authority or DVLA did the same this would prevent a crime. And this again is about public perception, are the police there to prevent crimes or just there to set traps?
The less officers dealing with number plates and fighting outside pubs, the more there are to assist in other area's only when there aren't any (domestics, sudden deaths, harassments, breach of molestation orders, drug offences together with the thefts, burglaries, robberies etc etc) should you attend the "great number-plate-lettering" fraud.
No, the same ones will crop up time and time again, but we cannot ignore them, and they will be high up on the response queue as most serious injuries and murders come from domestics. Like I say we have duty of care for the victims of crime – but we can’t be in all places at the same time.
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: riding the crest of a wave ...
Posts: 46,493
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes
on
12 Posts
Well I suppose it speaks volumes for and we should be grateful for living in civilised country
?
Lots places around the world this c**t wouldn't have got beyond the second mention of bacon with his legs intact
?
Lots places around the world this c**t wouldn't have got beyond the second mention of bacon with his legs intact
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: weymouth
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are you getting this from....
Something has obviously alerted them to his car doing doughnuts or handbrake turns (either observing it themselves or a witness has seen it). This will be careless if not dangerous driving; ergo they have reasonable suspicion that the law has been broken.
The police have the right to establish who is driving the car at any given point so you can be stopped, in this case a moving traffic offence can and should require a breath test to establish that the driver is not drunk. So he should have gotten out of the car in order to comply with this. Failing to comply with a breath test when required to do so is arrestable.
If you also think that the police in the 50’s and 60’s was more effective and not corrupt then I think you are sadly mistaken. Crime now is at its lowest level than it’s ever been and recent reviews of the miners’ strike tends to show that policing then was a free-for-all at best.
And what revenue do we collect.... you mean fines for motorists who can’t stick to the rules of the road; or can’t except the risk that if they speed and get caught they will be fined
Most of the fines are dished out by traffic police which only makes up a small percentage of total police. You will find most police are either neighbourhood police or emergency response who will never touch traffic offences.
Something has obviously alerted them to his car doing doughnuts or handbrake turns (either observing it themselves or a witness has seen it). This will be careless if not dangerous driving; ergo they have reasonable suspicion that the law has been broken.
The police have the right to establish who is driving the car at any given point so you can be stopped, in this case a moving traffic offence can and should require a breath test to establish that the driver is not drunk. So he should have gotten out of the car in order to comply with this. Failing to comply with a breath test when required to do so is arrestable.
If you also think that the police in the 50’s and 60’s was more effective and not corrupt then I think you are sadly mistaken. Crime now is at its lowest level than it’s ever been and recent reviews of the miners’ strike tends to show that policing then was a free-for-all at best.
And what revenue do we collect.... you mean fines for motorists who can’t stick to the rules of the road; or can’t except the risk that if they speed and get caught they will be fined
Most of the fines are dished out by traffic police which only makes up a small percentage of total police. You will find most police are either neighbourhood police or emergency response who will never touch traffic offences.
mobile speed cameras at the bottom of very steep hills were maintaing 30mph can be difficult,,mobile speed cameras by law should only be used in accident balck spots as a deterant not a source of easy incomefor the corporations.
The police have NO right to ask me to exit my vehicle or ask my name if a law Has not been broken, people just dont know this and comply anyway.
if a law has been witnessed to be broken then YES the police have every right, your a policeman you should know the laws of the land.
The same stands for a random stop in public streets, the police(public servants) have have no right to ask you of anything if a breach of the peace hasnt occured. 99% of the police think they are above the law when that **** looking costume is on.
you took an oath to protect and serve the british public,you are a public servant for us, that costume gives you no right to bully people,after all you are one of us.
i dont trust police,its all 100% lies and cover ups to protect them and the corporations(who are the biggest criminals),if you cant see that or dont know that then sadly you need wake up.
reasons why i will never like or trust the police.
this is why i think the police were real public servants in the 60s
Last edited by stipete75; 25 April 2013 at 03:31 PM.
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I meet people like this all the time.
I dont know why the cops stopped him but if there was a lawful reason to do so they should've said.
They lost the initiative early on and he took control of the situation. There's plenty of legislation they could've used with him or they could've just tried talking to him a bit more reasonibly and the idiot might've calmed down.
Ironically he's quoting Sct5 of the Public order act but by making Pig/bacon refences he's falling into a position where the cops could've dealt with him for that.
I dont know why the cops stopped him but if there was a lawful reason to do so they should've said.
They lost the initiative early on and he took control of the situation. There's plenty of legislation they could've used with him or they could've just tried talking to him a bit more reasonibly and the idiot might've calmed down.
Ironically he's quoting Sct5 of the Public order act but by making Pig/bacon refences he's falling into a position where the cops could've dealt with him for that.
"No your honor, I'm not experienced. I haven't finished my probationary period yet". You've got to love the Ways & Means Act 2013
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've just been burgled. CID turn up at your front door to investigate.
Officer: "Hello. Are you Mr stipete75?"
You: "You have no right to ask my name".
Yeah, that works doesn't it...
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: weymouth
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My old house was burgled about 12 years ago and my car vandalised 2 months later, no one was ever caught for both, all I got for my car was a crime number, they didn't even come out to me,probs to busy fining someone for a small number plate or harassing someone in the cells
#73
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This video to me only shows one thing. The POLICE don't know the LAW.
And I doubt this is an isolated case. I would put big money on most police not feeling they need to know the law because they feel their uniform gives them the right to make it up as they go along because the public know even less than they do.
Knowledge is power after all.
And I doubt this is an isolated case. I would put big money on most police not feeling they need to know the law because they feel their uniform gives them the right to make it up as they go along because the public know even less than they do.
Knowledge is power after all.
And it doesn't help that the Government enforced compulsory retirement on the officers with experience.
#74
The police have NO right to ask me to exit my vehicle or ask my name if a law Has not been broken, people just dont know this and comply anyway.
if a law has been witnessed to be broken then YES the police have every right, your a policeman you should know the laws of the land.
if a law has been witnessed to be broken then YES the police have every right, your a policeman you should know the laws of the land.
Road traffic act for one states that you have to give your name if stopped – how else do we know who is driving the car and if you allowed to do so.
We can also check your vehicle to see if its road worthy – we cannot do this if you are sat in it – hence we can get you out.
PACE gives us various powers to search the car, which we cannot do if you are sat in it.
The ‘break in the law’ doesn’t necessarily have to have been witnessed – we just need reasonable suspicion that one has been or about to be committed. This will give us the powers for above.
There are2 basic ways to deal with offences – arrest & charge or report for summons. If going down the summons route, we will need to know your name & address so that a summons can be served. If you refuse to provide these (and an offence has occurred) we can arrest you as the serving of a summons will not be possible.
#75
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 3,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Felix, does the police have the authority to just remove you from your car? I believe the answer to be no
So if that's the case do you have to have a valid reason to ask for a breath test? ( general question ) as otherwise wouldn't that be a "bullying tactic" if the police just rolled out "the breath test" on every motorist they stopped that had some kind of knowledge of the laws? I'm not trying to pick an argument just generally interested as if I was to refuse to get out of my car like the guy in the video did for instance but provided all the details you needed in order to run your checks, have the police got any valid reason to ask me to leave my property? I'm not saying its a bad thing the police do these stops etc, but where does my privacy enter the equation? Surely they can't just use the excuse of a breath test if they stopped me and I was fully insured, car was mot'd and taxed, you can do all visual checks on the tyres etc without having to gain entry to the vehicle, was not speeding or breaking any laws and my driving was inline and nothing dangerous.
Half the time I have been stopped previously (its been a while now mind ) has had nothing to do with my driving or nothing showing on records for the car, but I do believe it was because I was in a car that catches their eyes and makes a bit more noise than the others, understandably if I was driving like a muppet then its to be expected, but following me for over 3 miles when they have probably already been on the radio checking out the car details and seeing they all come back inline, then what other reason than to check my name which i can do by winding down the window, should they have to ask me to leave my car, I've never refused but what if I wanted to is what I'm trying to get at? Apart from the usual breath test, or smelling a substance in the vehicle which would give them the power to search it, is there any law that states we must get out of the car if we are providing the details asked of us?
Not all officers are the same it has to be said, just like most of us who own a Subaru ain't a Chav or want it to act like a twàt, but it has to be said there are those who put on that uniform and think they are untouchable/invincible, those are the morons I have no time for and as far as I'm concerned they are not acting out of "duty of care" they are power driven *** wholes who think they are above the rest, and with no disrespect to anybody but they are the wànkers that get the publics back up, you could see the one officer in that video towards the end with his hands tucked in his jacket having a snigger at the guy in the car, you just know as soon as he has the chance he is going to be all over him like a rash, all because the guy knew his rights, albeit could have had a little more respect towards them and handled the situation a bit better but hey what ever works best
So if that's the case do you have to have a valid reason to ask for a breath test? ( general question ) as otherwise wouldn't that be a "bullying tactic" if the police just rolled out "the breath test" on every motorist they stopped that had some kind of knowledge of the laws? I'm not trying to pick an argument just generally interested as if I was to refuse to get out of my car like the guy in the video did for instance but provided all the details you needed in order to run your checks, have the police got any valid reason to ask me to leave my property? I'm not saying its a bad thing the police do these stops etc, but where does my privacy enter the equation? Surely they can't just use the excuse of a breath test if they stopped me and I was fully insured, car was mot'd and taxed, you can do all visual checks on the tyres etc without having to gain entry to the vehicle, was not speeding or breaking any laws and my driving was inline and nothing dangerous.
Half the time I have been stopped previously (its been a while now mind ) has had nothing to do with my driving or nothing showing on records for the car, but I do believe it was because I was in a car that catches their eyes and makes a bit more noise than the others, understandably if I was driving like a muppet then its to be expected, but following me for over 3 miles when they have probably already been on the radio checking out the car details and seeing they all come back inline, then what other reason than to check my name which i can do by winding down the window, should they have to ask me to leave my car, I've never refused but what if I wanted to is what I'm trying to get at? Apart from the usual breath test, or smelling a substance in the vehicle which would give them the power to search it, is there any law that states we must get out of the car if we are providing the details asked of us?
Not all officers are the same it has to be said, just like most of us who own a Subaru ain't a Chav or want it to act like a twàt, but it has to be said there are those who put on that uniform and think they are untouchable/invincible, those are the morons I have no time for and as far as I'm concerned they are not acting out of "duty of care" they are power driven *** wholes who think they are above the rest, and with no disrespect to anybody but they are the wànkers that get the publics back up, you could see the one officer in that video towards the end with his hands tucked in his jacket having a snigger at the guy in the car, you just know as soon as he has the chance he is going to be all over him like a rash, all because the guy knew his rights, albeit could have had a little more respect towards them and handled the situation a bit better but hey what ever works best
#76
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: weymouth
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear....
Road traffic act for one states that you have to give your name if stopped – how else do we know who is driving the car and if you allowed to do so.
We can also check your vehicle to see if its road worthy – we cannot do this if you are sat in it – hence we can get you out.
PACE gives us various powers to search the car, which we cannot do if you are sat in it.
The ‘break in the law’ doesn’t necessarily have to have been witnessed – we just need reasonable suspicion that one has been or about to be committed. This will give us the powers for above.
How about if a suspected crime has occurred – if we think you have been involved in say a theft we have the power to stop you and search you if necessary. If you have been identified as a possible suspect for a criminal damage by clothing description we can stop you.
There are2 basic ways to deal with offences – arrest & charge or report for summons. If going down the summons route, we will need to know your name & address so that a summons can be served. If you refuse to provide these (and an offence has occurred) we can arrest you as the serving of a summons will not be possible.
Road traffic act for one states that you have to give your name if stopped – how else do we know who is driving the car and if you allowed to do so.
We can also check your vehicle to see if its road worthy – we cannot do this if you are sat in it – hence we can get you out.
PACE gives us various powers to search the car, which we cannot do if you are sat in it.
The ‘break in the law’ doesn’t necessarily have to have been witnessed – we just need reasonable suspicion that one has been or about to be committed. This will give us the powers for above.
How about if a suspected crime has occurred – if we think you have been involved in say a theft we have the power to stop you and search you if necessary. If you have been identified as a possible suspect for a criminal damage by clothing description we can stop you.
There are2 basic ways to deal with offences – arrest & charge or report for summons. If going down the summons route, we will need to know your name & address so that a summons can be served. If you refuse to provide these (and an offence has occurred) we can arrest you as the serving of a summons will not be possible.
If you are a criminal and just committed a crime then yes expect a pat down from the police,,if I'm walking down the street shopping(the government like it when I go shopping) I don't expect the police to corner me and harass me,how dare they ask my details and invade my privacy ,I'm going about my own buisness and committed no crime or breach of the peace
your reasonable suspicion is way out of line!!
So if the "big corporations" change the law and now it's illegal to carry a bag in public because I may be of a terrorist threat would you comply and arrest innocent people carrying bags just because the "corporation" says you have to do it??
This country is turning more and more into a **** state it's unreal,,people just don't see it!!
we will just agree to disagree on the subject
I know my rights were the police are concerned
Just out of curiosity with out googling it,,do you know the difference between legal and lawfull?
Yes if an offence has occurred you have every right to do what the "corporation" tells you to do.
Last edited by stipete75; 25 April 2013 at 04:26 PM.
#77
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Notts the policy is that you request that a sample of breath be taken if there is any reason to suspect a road traffic offence may have occurred.
That could be a cyclist, not just a car driver.
In training, you are taught how to extract someone from a car with force. There must be a reason they teach that...
My favourite though, was an old school officer (he probably trained with DCI Gene Hunt ) who told a few of us how they used to get people out of cars. It was a bit like this "Your girlfriend has a nice dress on. It would be a shame to get your blood on it"
That could be a cyclist, not just a car driver.
In training, you are taught how to extract someone from a car with force. There must be a reason they teach that...
My favourite though, was an old school officer (he probably trained with DCI Gene Hunt ) who told a few of us how they used to get people out of cars. It was a bit like this "Your girlfriend has a nice dress on. It would be a shame to get your blood on it"
Last edited by ScoobyWon't; 25 April 2013 at 04:34 PM. Reason: just
#79
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: weymouth
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a bit of a immature request, just because I research my rights on the subject doesn't mean I'm a serial offender lol
If you really must know the last time I crossed the law was before my eldest was born and he is now 13
If speeding counts then about 3 years ago going down a steep hill at 36mph
Police car was hidden behind a van,,,easy £60
If you really must know the last time I crossed the law was before my eldest was born and he is now 13
If speeding counts then about 3 years ago going down a steep hill at 36mph
Police car was hidden behind a van,,,easy £60
#80
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a bit of a immature request, just because I research my rights on the subject doesn't mean I'm a serial offender lol
If you really must know the last time I crossed the law was before my eldest was born and he is now 13
If speeding counts then about 3 years ago going down a steep hill at 36mph
Police car was hidden behind a van,,,easy £60
If you really must know the last time I crossed the law was before my eldest was born and he is now 13
If speeding counts then about 3 years ago going down a steep hill at 36mph
Police car was hidden behind a van,,,easy £60
#81
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: weymouth
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#82
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (34)
This is what I love about SN. Here are people getting up in arms about the rights of the police to stop and check a vehicle yet if someone stole their beloved Subaru they'd want every Subaru in the country stopped immediately.
To be honest I don't have an issue with the police even randonly stopping people if they choose to. My car is insured, taxed and I have a valid driving licence. I don't drive under the influemce so if they want to stop me they are very welcome. If my car had been stolen I would be even happier if they stopped it. I can't work out why people think it is such a big issue! Let the police get on with it FFS!
To be honest I don't have an issue with the police even randonly stopping people if they choose to. My car is insured, taxed and I have a valid driving licence. I don't drive under the influemce so if they want to stop me they are very welcome. If my car had been stolen I would be even happier if they stopped it. I can't work out why people think it is such a big issue! Let the police get on with it FFS!
Last edited by Maz; 25 April 2013 at 04:48 PM.
#83
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before I escaped from the police (the job, not from custody ), the last person who told us she 'knew her rights' tried to hit a police dog with her handbag and then wondered why it tried to get to her...
#84
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pot Belly HQ
Posts: 16,694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#85
Each incident will be taken on its merits, but in this one I would suggest his manner of driving (handbrake turns and doughnuts) would be enough for a moving traffic offence and hence a power to provide a specimen of breath. I would also argue that doing this type of manoeuvre would lead to damage to his car’s braking system, so they should be checked. It may also be prudent to check that the car is not stolen as most people don’t drive their own cars like this (so chassis and vim check)
#87
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: weymouth
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Each incident will be taken on its merits, but in this one I would suggest his manner of driving (handbrake turns and doughnuts) would be enough for a moving traffic offence and hence a power to provide a specimen of breath. I would also argue that doing this type of manoeuvre would lead to damage to his car’s braking system, so they should be checked. It may also be prudent to check that the car is not stolen as most people don’t drive their own cars like this (so chassis and vim check)
His supposed manner of driving is neither here nor there as the police witnessed nothing, it was a random annonimous public phone call that to this albeit to££er being harassed by the police,could of led to an arrest with absolutely zero evidence!!
On the other hand a copper can be filmed murdering an innocent man with a baton and still get away with it
#88
So it's all premeditated?? Like the film Minority report!!
If you are a criminal and just committed a crime then yes expect a pat down from the police,,if I'm walking down the street shopping(the government like it when I go shopping) I don't expect the police to corner me and harass me,how dare they ask my details and invade my privacy ,I'm going about my own buisness and committed no crime or breach of the peace
If you are a criminal and just committed a crime then yes expect a pat down from the police,,if I'm walking down the street shopping(the government like it when I go shopping) I don't expect the police to corner me and harass me,how dare they ask my details and invade my privacy ,I'm going about my own buisness and committed no crime or breach of the peace
But if a crime has been committed close by and a witness (or 2) provides details of a suspect which happens to match your description – do you think we will be wrong to stop you. How do you feel the victim of the crime will feel if he finds out that ‘a person matching the suspect’s description was allowed to walk by un challenged’
How?
Not sure of the actual definitions without looking them up, but I would suggest legal conforms to a specific law which is laid down. Whereas lawful conforms to rule as opposed to a law. (ie a lawful order)
#89
There's no denying the guy in question acts like a complete wa?£er and maybe he could of gone about it a bit more tactfully.
His supposed manner of driving is neither here nor there as the police witnessed nothing, it was a random annonimous public phone call that to this albeit to££er being harassed by the police,could of led to an arrest with absolutely zero evidence!!
On the other hand a copper can be filmed murdering an innocent man with a baton and still get away with it
His supposed manner of driving is neither here nor there as the police witnessed nothing, it was a random annonimous public phone call that to this albeit to££er being harassed by the police,could of led to an arrest with absolutely zero evidence!!
On the other hand a copper can be filmed murdering an innocent man with a baton and still get away with it
If you were that person phoning the police to complain about the car handbrake turning on your quiet road, would you be happy with police turning up and doing nothing. And reporting back to you that “there’s nothing we can do cos he wouldn’t talk to us”
I suggest it should have been dealt with better for the benefit of the original caller
#90
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 3,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Each incident will be taken on its merits, but in this one I would suggest his manner of driving (handbrake turns and doughnuts) would be enough for a moving traffic offence and hence a power to provide a specimen of breath. I would also argue that doing this type of manoeuvre would lead to damage to his car’s braking system, so they should be checked. It may also be prudent to check that the car is not stolen as most people don’t drive their own cars like this (so chassis and vim check)
But what if I just didn like someone and thought i would ring the police and report them for something they didn't do (I'm not implying the guy in the video is innocent ), lets just say they done it to myself, the police are called and turn up, now I know in myself I have done nothing wrong, the police have not witnessed any wrong doing or any laws being broken, so does this give them the right to gain entry to my property and possessions based on someone elses phone call, "inocent until proven guilty". Again where is my protection, my privacy, my rights? I am the person that is going to be left vulnerable in that situation, nervous as hell because I don't know why I've been stopped or approached (previous experience), so I'm probably going to seem a little "out of sorts" shall we say, but to the police that's a sign of suspicion which in turn escalates the situation and the way someone inturn is reacting. Its a bit of a catch 22 really can't be right by doing what comes natural in certain circumstances
I'm not implying anything by this I'm just trying to say the law its self is a little grey in areas, its understandable why there are procedures with ways of dealing with calls, solving theft of someone's property, vandalism etc but if someone is to question an officer or argue their rights, it almost seems some officers just don't like to be wrong, or always thinking because they wear a uniform it puts them above the rest of society as a whole and will find anyway of arresting you if it's at all possible, even if its totally unrelated to the reason they stop you, I've encountered an officer like this before, I was on my way home in the early hours one morning when I was stopped, I was doing nothing out of the ordinary and he was the other side of a blind roundabout so basically he couldn't see me approaching, i had my signal on, in the correct lane etc and as soon as he seen the car he changed lanes and instantly stopped me, literally in the space of 15 secs of seeing me his lights came on, I sat in the car waited for him to come with my window down, he instantly came throug my window and turned my car off and tried to remove my keys. For what reason? He was really short and highly strung and because I gave him the same attitude he showed me he tried to arrest me lmfao! I argued with him as to why, and he gave me some shody excuse about my car not being registered to me, how the hell would he know that? He didn't even take the time to ask my name let alone any details, in the end he radio'd for a traffic car to come who turned up asked me what was what, I explained what happened, showed him all my docs, he done his checks an then apologised for the other officer, so even he knew he was being a jerk for no reason.
Its those people who give the police a bad name and who are out to fine you for what ever they can get away with because "they can". I have to be honest tho you do seem a really decent guy who actually likes his job, as you have taken the time to put across some valid points and some good counter arguments, so as I said before your not all alike