The guy in the car appeared to be calm,logical & coherent.
It appears some people on here have been watching too much Robocop & Judge Dredd.

If you think that all situations should be dealt with by using the maximum force possible then I for one don't want to be part of that society.

 

Forgetting for a moment what happened after he refused to get out of the car, can you please explain for us what was logical about him refusing to get out of it to begin with?

 

Hmmmm.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b028e52a11dfb6

 

Little hitler, thats all think thier god, yes its a hard job but some times commons sense needs to be used.

 

Looks like this guy thinks he's a special type of Policeman.

He's a disgrace to the force. Hopefully he gets the boot.

 

He made a logical decision not to get out of his car.Just because a policeman asks you to do something dosen't make it logical or legal.

 

From watching it, the driver was either disqualified or a non licence holder. Hence the car will have no insurance and will need to be seized. The driver is still sat in the drivers seat and still has the key with him, so can start the car and set off at any point crashing into who ever he wants.

You can't arrest and caution through a closed window as the driver will be able to claim that he didn't hear the officer.

At this point what did you want the police to do if he refused to get out of the car? Just stand and wait. If he did decide to drive off and crashed into someone, would the police not be criticised for not arresting when they first stopped him?

I agree that the rear window would have been a better option to put through though

 

Looking at the video, the officer points out his suspicions to the male and why he needs to be searched. The male is exactly forthcoming with any details for the officer to check with.

If that was your scooter that has just been stolen - stolen from the front of your house without keys, so the thief would have to push it away; would you be happy to hear that the police stopped a male on a scooter matching the description of yours - but because the male didn't tell the police who he was and refused to get off the scooter the police had to let him go?

 

Sorry, but this is just side-stepping the question, not answering it. There are plenty of things none of us are legally obliged to do, like saying please and thank you at appropriate times, shaking hands and saying hello when introduced to people, or even wiping our backsides after we've been to the loo, that still doesn't make it logical to point blank refuse to do them for no apparent reason when the whim takes us. As already pointed out in an earlier post, when all the dust settles on this, it will almost certainly turn out to be a case of two idiots collide - a stubborn anti-Police, chip-on-his-shoulder wannabe Youtube lawyer idiot who refused to accede to a perfectly reasonable request from a public servant, and a stressed-out, over-worked, and slightly over-enthusiastic idiot cop who let the first idiot get to him. The only real question is which of them will turn out to be the bigger idiot.

 

PC Savage

lol, life imitating art


and regarding "logical decision" I would say based on the policeman actions he made a pretty logical decision

and the implication that somehow we should not be able to film both ourselves and public servants is frightening if you ask me

and being a policemen - assuming everyone you meet is a criminal I suppose is a hazard of the job but not an excuse

 

Did you read all of my post?

 

In fairness that guy on the bike isn't exactly doing himself any favours.

 

that's prob true

but maybe this sort of thing happens to him all the time and he is fed up with it

 

Quite possibly.
I reckon the guy in the car is also a black guy, so maybe this copper has issues

 

I think the guy in the second vid. ought to have been arrested purely for his accent.

 

Yes, also for deliberately and persistently being black.

 

Quite. He's not even a coconut.

 

You say you can't arrest and caution through a closed window, well if you watch the video carefully, the window wasn't closed, it was open and you can hear the officer and his radio clearly on the video. Did you even see or hear the officer even attempt to arrest and caution the driver? No, what you do see and hear is the officer, despite the driver telling the officer he had a licence and insurance, was told over the radio the driver only had a provisional, but then preceded to tell the driver he was disqualified and immediately started smashing the car even before attempting to correctly establish the identifying the driver. Is this the correct Police procedure?

As an Officer, would have dealt with this situation in the same way? Shoot first and ask questions later so to speak?

 

JonC, if the video in your opening post is not a staged one, then the policeman in the video deserves a psychiatric examination. Despite all the defiance of the driver for not getting out of his car, black or no black, the copper shouldn't have behaved like that. The copper seems to have some serious issues.

 

Nine years old and still relevant...

 

You're having a laugh, aren't you? It was cracked open an inch, maybe two at the outside. Hardly conducive to a sensible or meaningful conversation.

 

 

Hilarious and still valid if recent events are anything to go by!

 

 

As ever, i think there is a big chunk missing from the film. There must have been something at the time of, or, following the initial stop which made the officer suspicious that he was a non-licence holder and having no insurance for the car. I would suggest that the driver was not forthcoming with his details hence leaving comms the only place of information to suggest he may be a non licence holder. Why didn't the driver simply disclose who he was when stopped?

So, following this you have reasonable suspicion to suggest he commits an offence. The driver simply saying "I have a licence and insurance" is not enough; he has to produce some sort of proof to back his claim up. At that moment, you have comms suggesting there is evidence to suggest that the driver is a non licence holder - this information must have been given to them from somewhere. Perhaps it was a local resident phoning in stating that:

"..... there is a car just driven off along our road and I'm certain he is a non licence holder. I make sure my car is all legal and pay enough to do so, so i don't think its right for him to get away with it. This is the registration number and i the driver will be called..."

So, based on that is it right for the police to phone the caller back and state "well we stopped the car but the bloke said he had a licence and insurance - we couldn't check because he wouldn't say who he was" OR "we stopped the car and we believed him to the be male in question without a licence or insurance, but because he wouldn't get out of the car we had to just let him drive off"

If there is reasonable suspicion he has committed an offence and he is not prepared to provide details such as name, DOB, address - then he will be liable for arrest as a summons can not be served on him. In order to arrest him, you need to get into the car - presumably the police trying "please, please - pretty please - please, I'll be your best friend" hasn't worked.

I would have suggested that after several pleas, the rear door would have been the better option to go for rather than the windscreen.

I do agree that it wasn't handled well and the driver should have been told in no uncertain terms that force will be used to effect an arrest and to gain entry to the car in order to do so.

 

Unacceptable behaviour by a policeman/civil servant end of. Then people wonder why the police are disliked.

 

As you say, there is big chunk missing and neither you nor I have any idea what preceded that incident. The officer may just equally as well have behaved in a threatening manner when he first approached the driver hence why the driver was afraid to get out of the car. So we can pontificate over what preceded that rage but it still doesn't excuse the officer to fly off the handle like that. I'm guessing the driver was not under reasonable suspicion, as you put it, of having committed an offense as no attempt was made to warn the driver he was liable for arrest and the fact that no arrest had been made. I guess we'll wait for the IPCC's investigations to conclude to see if the officer's conduct was an over reaction to the situation.

 

+1


This is a video clip of a soon-to-be ex-policeman.

 

Other than the suggestion he had no licence and hence no insurance?

 

So where next then? The driver is refusing to establish who he is or get out of the car. The officer suspects he is a non licence holder and the car has no insurance? Do we just stay there all night until one gives in?