|
Post by SeanBroseley on Aug 6, 2010 13:20:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by mrmagoo on Aug 6, 2010 13:25:36 GMT 1
What it doesn't say is that they tried to stop the vehicle after a 17 mile chase...
|
|
|
Post by Dancin on Aug 6, 2010 13:27:32 GMT 1
Problem is you do not see what the driver did before stopping to warrant those actions?
Saying that it must of appeared to be pretty serious for three coppers to react that way?!
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Aug 6, 2010 13:27:25 GMT 1
And it doesn't say that because that is inaccurate. He was followed for 17 minutes by the police during which time he did not break the speed limit.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Aug 6, 2010 13:30:55 GMT 1
He wasn't wearing a seat belt, his windows were tinted illegally and he had a personalised number plate. Crime of the century. Just look at the state of the bloke.
|
|
|
Post by mrmagoo on Aug 6, 2010 13:34:29 GMT 1
Apologies Sean, meant 17 minutes not miles.
His other crime is failing to stop for police. He was also found guilty in court, nuff said...
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Aug 6, 2010 13:37:51 GMT 1
Apparently he did stop but not long enough. The video beggars belief in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 6, 2010 13:45:18 GMT 1
Apparently he did stop but not long enough. The video beggars belief in my opinion. can only agree - unbelievable
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2010 16:02:10 GMT 1
Apparently he did stop but not long enough. The video beggars belief in my opinion. can only agree - unbelievable agree to, appauling scenes.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Aug 6, 2010 19:04:50 GMT 1
The video beggars belief in my opinion. Famed for playing Devils...so here goes again ... You are a police officer, dealing with a road traffic incident. The driver of a powerful 4x4 vehicle becomes uncooperative, and drives off. after a 17 minute pursuit, the vehicle is stopped by use of a tactical 'stinger' device. Scooter, Sean, Matron, what is going through your mind at this time? What will probably be going through the police officers mind would be something like: Is the driver armed? Unknown. Is the driver likely to attempt to leave the scene again? Possible. Has the driver displayed a compliant attitude? No. Does the driver pose a risk to the public? Possible. Does the driver pose a risk to you? probably, given lack of cooperation. Does the driver still have the means to pose a risk? Yes. Now, would you politely tap on the window and ask the driver to step out of his car? If so, what would you do if he winds down the window and pulls out a shotgun or knife? Or if he tries to drive off again? I'd rather the means be removed from him to commit harm as quickly as possible. The driver needs controlling as soon as possible to prevent him causing harm. And before you all smite me for looking at this from the police perspective consider this: Why did he drive off whilst being dealt with for a minor offence. What if he had been rumbled moving stolen goods? Transporting an illegally held firearm? Moving drugs around? At the time, it could have been anything, and an unknown threat is the most dangerous.
|
|
|
Post by Dancin on Aug 6, 2010 19:21:07 GMT 1
The video beggars belief in my opinion. Famed for playing Devils...so here goes again ... You are a police officer, dealing with a road traffic incident. The driver of a powerful 4x4 vehicle becomes uncooperative, and drives off. after a 17 minute pursuit, the vehicle is stopped by use of a tactical 'stinger' device. Scooter, Sean, Matron, what is going through your mind at this time? What will probably be going through the police officers mind would be something like: Is the driver armed? Unknown. Is the driver likely to attempt to leave the scene again? Possible. Has the driver displayed a compliant attitude? No. Does the driver pose a risk to the public? Possible. Does the driver pose a risk to you? probably, given lack of cooperation. Does the driver still have the means to pose a risk? Yes. Now, would you politely tap on the window and ask the driver to step out of his car? If so, what would you do if he winds down the window and pulls out a shotgun or knife? Or if he tries to drive off again? I'd rather the means be removed from him to commit harm as quickly as possible. The driver needs controlling as soon as possible to prevent him causing harm. And before you all smite me for looking at this from the police perspective consider this: Why did he drive off whilst being dealt with for a minor offence. What if he had been rumbled moving stolen goods? Transporting an illegally held firearm? Moving drugs around? At the time, it could have been anything, and an unknown threat is the most dangerous. That got them thinking?
|
|
|
Post by RBA on Aug 6, 2010 19:22:07 GMT 1
Agree with Sean on this A massive failure of common sense by the police
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2010 19:29:51 GMT 1
[ Famed for playing Devils...so here goes again ... You are a police officer, dealing with a road traffic incident. The driver of a powerful 4x4 vehicle becomes uncooperative, and drives off. after a 17 minute pursuit, the vehicle is stopped by use of a tactical 'stinger' device. Scooter, Sean, Matron, what is going through your mind at this time? What will probably be going through the police officers mind would be something like: Is the driver armed? Unknown. Is the driver likely to attempt to leave the scene again? Possible. Has the driver displayed a compliant attitude? No. Does the driver pose a risk to the public? Possible. Does the driver pose a risk to you? probably, given lack of cooperation. Does the driver still have the means to pose a risk? Yes. Now, would you politely tap on the window and ask the driver to step out of his car? If so, what would you do if he winds down the window and pulls out a shotgun or knife? Or if he tries to drive off again? I'd rather the means be removed from him to commit harm as quickly as possible. The driver needs controlling as soon as possible to prevent him causing harm. And before you all smite me for looking at this from the police perspective consider this: Why did he drive off whilst being dealt with for a minor offence. What if he had been rumbled moving stolen goods? Transporting an illegally held firearm? Moving drugs around? At the time, it could have been anything, and an unknown threat is the most dangerous. i dont know, but then im not a highly trained police officer? if the standard police reaction to such incidents is smash the s**t out of whatever comes your way that you cant find a logical answer to, surely any idiot could be a police officer. no offence el pres, but they new this guy was 70 years old cos he had already been stopped? again im not a highly trained cop, but my instincts tell me he doesnt automatically fall into the firearm totting, crack cocaine crazed henchman mold.
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Aug 6, 2010 19:35:33 GMT 1
The video beggars belief in my opinion. Famed for playing Devils...so here goes again ... You are a police officer, dealing with a road traffic incident. The driver of a powerful 4x4 vehicle becomes uncooperative, and drives off. after a 17 minute pursuit, the vehicle is stopped by use of a tactical 'stinger' device. Scooter, Sean, Matron, what is going through your mind at this time? What will probably be going through the police officers mind would be something like: Is the driver armed? Unknown. Is the driver likely to attempt to leave the scene again? Possible. Has the driver displayed a compliant attitude? No. Does the driver pose a risk to the public? Possible. Does the driver pose a risk to you? probably, given lack of cooperation. Does the driver still have the means to pose a risk? Yes. Now, would you politely tap on the window and ask the driver to step out of his car? If so, what would you do if he winds down the window and pulls out a shotgun or knife? Or if he tries to drive off again? I'd rather the means be removed from him to commit harm as quickly as possible. The driver needs controlling as soon as possible to prevent him causing harm. And before you all smite me for looking at this from the police perspective consider this: Why did he drive off whilst being dealt with for a minor offence. What if he had been rumbled moving stolen goods? Transporting an illegally held firearm? Moving drugs around? At the time, it could have been anything, and an unknown threat is the most dangerous. What a complete and utter load of clap trap. The officers had already spoken to him previously so if any of the above suspicions were of a genuine concern they should have dealt with them then. He drove off without his ticket for not wearing a seat belt FFS, he was not pursued he was simple followed for 14 miles, there was plenty of time for police to call in armed response or back up if they felt he posed a serious threat, instead they decided to smash his car up and scare the s**t out of an old man. Another example of our finest taking the p**s
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Aug 6, 2010 19:37:23 GMT 1
Beat me to it matron
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Aug 6, 2010 19:37:34 GMT 1
[ Famed for playing Devils...so here goes again ... You are a police officer, dealing with a road traffic incident. The driver of a powerful 4x4 vehicle becomes uncooperative, and drives off. after a 17 minute pursuit, the vehicle is stopped by use of a tactical 'stinger' device. Scooter, Sean, Matron, what is going through your mind at this time? What will probably be going through the police officers mind would be something like: Is the driver armed? Unknown. Is the driver likely to attempt to leave the scene again? Possible. Has the driver displayed a compliant attitude? No. Does the driver pose a risk to the public? Possible. Does the driver pose a risk to you? probably, given lack of cooperation. Does the driver still have the means to pose a risk? Yes. Now, would you politely tap on the window and ask the driver to step out of his car? If so, what would you do if he winds down the window and pulls out a shotgun or knife? Or if he tries to drive off again? I'd rather the means be removed from him to commit harm as quickly as possible. The driver needs controlling as soon as possible to prevent him causing harm. And before you all smite me for looking at this from the police perspective consider this: Why did he drive off whilst being dealt with for a minor offence. What if he had been rumbled moving stolen goods? Transporting an illegally held firearm? Moving drugs around? At the time, it could have been anything, and an unknown threat is the most dangerous. i dont know, but then im not a highly trained police officer? if the standard police reaction to such incidents is smash the s**t out of whatever comes your way that you cant find a logical answer to, surely any idiot could be a police officer. no offence el pres, but they new this guy was 70 years old cos he had already been stopped? again im not a highly trained cop, but my instincts tell me he doesnt automatically fall into the firearm totting, crack cocaine crazed henchman mold. Thanks for the compliment ... but as pointed out above, you (the royal you) don't know... If you're 70 you're not capable of harming anyone? Of posessing a weapon (of any sort)? does that not fall into the murky waters of age profiling and complacency... Did I mistakenly see the drivers vehicle roll back into the police car when he was taken out of his car...? If he forgot to put the handbrake on, sould he just as easilly hit the gas and run someone over? Should the officers have left the gent to sit in his car all night whilst he is negotiated with? or allow him the opportunity to drive off and cause damage or kill or hurt someone, as this sort of dynamic entry is too stomach churning for us all to watch? Hindsight, what if...can go on ad infinitum but I feel its a debate that will never be won.
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Aug 6, 2010 19:37:45 GMT 1
The video beggars belief in my opinion. Famed for playing Devils...so here goes again ... You are a police officer, dealing with a road traffic incident. The driver of a powerful 4x4 vehicle becomes uncooperative, and drives off. after a 17 minute pursuit, the vehicle is stopped by use of a tactical 'stinger' device. Scooter, Sean, Matron, what is going through your mind at this time? What will probably be going through the police officers mind would be something like: Is the driver armed? Unknown. Is the driver likely to attempt to leave the scene again? Possible. Has the driver displayed a compliant attitude? No. Does the driver pose a risk to the public? Possible. Does the driver pose a risk to you? probably, given lack of cooperation. Does the driver still have the means to pose a risk? Yes. Now, would you politely tap on the window and ask the driver to step out of his car? If so, what would you do if he winds down the window and pulls out a shotgun or knife? Or if he tries to drive off again? I'd rather the means be removed from him to commit harm as quickly as possible. The driver needs controlling as soon as possible to prevent him causing harm. And before you all smite me for looking at this from the police perspective consider this: Why did he drive off whilst being dealt with for a minor offence. What if he had been rumbled moving stolen goods? Transporting an illegally held firearm? Moving drugs around? At the time, it could have been anything, and an unknown threat is the most dangerous. B0ll0x. They would have done a PNC check during their 17 minute, within the speed limit, "chase" and found that he was a 70 year old bloke with a clean record and no outstanding warrants. They might have even found out he was disabled. Also if they really worried about guns, drugs etc, why didn't they wait for the ARU and track him at a safe distance, using assets such as the force helicopter, after all he wasn't going anywhere quickly was he? At most the bloke is guilty of being an old fool.
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Aug 6, 2010 19:41:32 GMT 1
i dont know, but then im not a highly trained police officer? if the standard police reaction to such incidents is smash the s**t out of whatever comes your way that you cant find a logical answer to, surely any idiot could be a police officer. no offence el pres, but they new this guy was 70 years old cos he had already been stopped? again im not a highly trained cop, but my instincts tell me he doesnt automatically fall into the firearm totting, crack cocaine crazed henchman mold. Thanks for the compliment ... but as pointed out above, you (the royal you) don't know... If you're 70 you're not capable of harming anyone? Of posessing a weapon (of any sort)? does that not fall into the murky waters of age profiling and complacency... Did I mistakenly see the drivers vehicle roll back into the police car when he was taken out of his car...? If he forgot to put the handbrake on, sould he just as easilly hit the gas and run someone over? Should the officers have left the gent to sit in his car all night whilst he is negotiated with? or allow him the opportunity to drive off and cause damage or kill or hurt someone, as this sort of dynamic entry is too stomach churning for us all to watch? Hindsight, what if...can go on ad infinitum but I feel its a debate that will never be won. I thought your first post was nonsensical but that is bordering on the insane. Stevie Wonder could see the police over reacted to the situation and your unequivocal defence seems illogical at best.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Aug 6, 2010 19:49:27 GMT 1
I expect your applications to be hitting the desk for HR at West Mercia in the next few days then! If my arguement is nonsensical, then insane, kindly point out how and why. And Nicko, PNC does not read the future.
|
|
|
Post by Dont believe the HYPE on Aug 6, 2010 20:09:21 GMT 1
I expect your applications to be hitting the desk for HR at West Mercia in the next few days then! If my arguement is nonsensical, then insane, kindly point out how and why. And Nicko, PNC does not read the future. Your arguments are purely based on speculation and assumption that the person MAY be a danger. This argument could be applied to every single person those officers ever come in contact with, so their response should be the same? (Nonsensical) The answer is obviously no, the facts are they had sufficient information to suggest he posed no threat what so ever and that they acted disproportionately. And the final nail in your imaginary argument would be to answer the following question, truthfully and honestly; Did the officers in question meet the standards you would expect from our police force? If the answer is yes than you have proved my comment on insanity
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Aug 6, 2010 20:10:03 GMT 1
So, unless the police have clear evidence to the contrary they are permitted to treat anyone of us as though we are armed and dangerous?
Perhaps we should all wander about B*****k naked with our arms in the air just in case there's any misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Aug 6, 2010 20:26:31 GMT 1
I expect your applications to be hitting the desk for HR at West Mercia in the next few days then! If my arguement is nonsensical, then insane, kindly point out how and why. And Nicko, PNC does not read the future. Your arguments are purely based on speculation and assumption that the person MAY be a danger. This argument could be applied to every single person those officers ever come in contact with, so their response should be the same? (Nonsensical) The answer is obviously no, the facts are they had sufficient information to suggest he posed no threat what so ever and that they acted disproportionately. And the final nail in your imaginary argument would be to answer the following question, truthfully and honestly; Did the officers in question meet the standards you would expect from our police force? If the answer is yes than you have proved my comment on insanity DBH, when the officers initially pulled the guy, did they expect him to drive off, and fail to stop for police ... I doubt it...but it is always a possibility at the back of your mind. My arguement, that the person MAY be a danger and based on speculation, was underpinned by the fact he already showed non-cooperation to a lawful requirement to stop. He has raised the actual threat level from passive, to active resistance - ie driving off. Therefore that specualtion is becoming more reasoned. I did not say you treat every situation the same, you did. We all make dynamic risk assessments everyday ... funnily enough, so do the police. You deal with the situation which you find in front of you, and make a decision based on what you know and don't know, coupled with the likelihood of the risk occuring and the level of the potential harm - ask any H&S trained individual. You state 'The Facts' ... are you in full possession of the facts? I am not, and freely admit it, hence why I am arguing supposition based on a little knowledge of policy and procedure. What are you basing your opinion on?
|
|
|
Post by mrmagoo on Aug 6, 2010 20:55:52 GMT 1
I expect your applications to be hitting the desk for HR at West Mercia in the next few days then! If my arguement is nonsensical, then insane, kindly point out how and why. And Nicko, PNC does not read the future. Your arguments are purely based on speculation and assumption that the person MAY be a danger. This argument could be applied to every single person those officers ever come in contact with, so their response should be the same? (Nonsensical) The answer is obviously no, the facts are they had sufficient information to suggest he posed no threat what so ever and that they acted disproportionately. And the final nail in your imaginary argument would be to answer the following question, truthfully and honestly; Did the officers in question meet the standards you would expect from our police force? If the answer is yes than you have proved my comment on insanity In answer to your point: Yes the male was a danger, why did he drive off, why didn't he stop, what had he to hide that was previously not known? Every person police stop has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous and therefore caution is exercised on each occasion. How do you know that they had sufficient information to suggest he posed no threat??
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Aug 7, 2010 0:33:42 GMT 1
what possible threat was the officer who jumped on the bonnet and kicked the windscreen trying to avoid or prevent ?
perhaps he was just distracting the driver while his mate smashed the side window - at least there was an objective there in getting the guy out, although if he was actually armed, he would have had plenty of time to take aim anf fire
I don't know all the facts, but it takes a hell of a stretch of the imagination to possibly justify what went on there
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Aug 7, 2010 7:31:43 GMT 1
El Presidente is talking rubbish. This is nothing to do with a pensioner potentially being a threat. A Police Officer has clearly sought to take out his frustrations by smashing the f**k out of a car window. This is nothing but a sickening display of unprofessionalism and brute force. Let me pose a question Dr C ... had this pensioner knocked someone over, and caused injury, death, or damage to property, would the level of force used on the car (inanimate object) be justified in bringing the driver under control? 'Police officers must use no more force than is reasonable in the circumstances to effect an arrest ... ' How do you all know that reasonable force in these circumstances has been exceeded, from watching in isolation and the comfort of your warrior keyboards, a short edited clip of video...
|
|
|
Post by stuttgartershrew on Aug 7, 2010 7:53:32 GMT 1
The thing is though...if they did think the chap posed any sort of threat I doubt very much that that is the way that the police are trained to cope with such a situation or? If he was armed in some way I doubt very much the police would storm the car and smash it to bits...can someone tell me the point of that if the chap was carry a gun? As surely there is the real threat that he would simply shoot as you struggled to break in the glass in? I doubt that the way the police normally go about things if its possible someone poses a threat?
I personally think the police acted like that because they knew he was no threat. Because they knew they could. Thats normally how things work with folk...
A Police Officer has clearly sought to take out his frustrations by smashing the f**k out of a car window? Yep, thats how I see it too...
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Aug 7, 2010 8:47:35 GMT 1
And Nicko, PNC does not read the future. No you're right, however it's a resource they can use to assess risk. PNC check comes back with information stating that the driver has a history of violent offences, then prepare accordingly, if it comes back clear, plan accordingly and that doesn't mean using 3 officers, 2 of whom chose to act like animals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2010 9:15:17 GMT 1
[ Every person police stop has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous and therefore caution is exercised on each occasion. So the copper on the bonnet of the car kicking the windscreen and the copper going nuts with a truncheon are both acting with caution? Surely if they where being cautious they would have kept back from the car and made some kind of assessment / called in some backup. thankfully the driver wasnt another Moat kind of chap otherwise the two cops would have had there heads blown off!!!To be defensive of the police, if that 70 year old had had a heart attack and died in the front seat of his car, can you imagine the uproar?How do you know that they had sufficient information to suggest he posed no threat?? I dont, but then logic tells me that if they didnt have the information they needed to act safely, for themselves as well as the pensioner, they should have done something to get that information (see above) i can understand why you are being defensive about this El Pres, but this honestly seems like a case of police brutality to me. if it was the first such case to make headlines in recent years it could easily be brushed over, but it does seem like a trend developing.
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Aug 7, 2010 9:55:45 GMT 1
Pab, I'm not being defensive, I'm trying (once again) to add some thought on the situation from a different angle, using less inflamatory language than others here... I accept that the video looks aggressive and certainly robust - I have, I believe, explained my belief why the officers acted like they did, and have consistently outlined this above ... the only person to attempt to counter my reasoned bedate is Nicko, and I accept what he says, but still disagree with the line he takes quite simply because as stated before, you have to be more cautious in situations where information is scarce. I'm going to throw in a few 'what if's' here with regard to PNC ... What if the vehicle was stolen, but not recorded as such on PNC? What if the driver had not at that time been properly identified? In both situations, you can be confronted with someone who is the opposite of the information provided to you by PNC. The term 'Police Brutality' here is really ruffling my feathers, as the driver himself is 'pulled' in the loosest sense of the word from the vehicle ... yes hands are laid on, yes a little force is used to get hiim from the car, but I don't see him dragged out onto the floor and handcuffed, which he could well have been...This term was banded about several years ago when the police officer who attempted to arrest the young lass in Manchester was suspended for his actions. Not sure if you all recall, but she had assaulted someone, and committed criminal damage, then resisted arrest and assaulted the police officer as she resisted by grabbing and squeezing his nuts. So he used a number of police taught strikes (a punch most would say - but its not the same) to her arm to get her to stop. He was suspended for several months, moved from his firearms role, and after a full investigation by the force and the IPCC was found to have done nothing wrong. With his career in tatters and his reputation tarnished, he then mysteriously wound up dead on Snowdon having taken a large amount of booze and sleeping tablets...because the spectre of Police Brutality still hung over him...? Something I had not quite realised, but do now from watching back on the video, the car hasn't actually gone through the stinger device...so the vehicle is still fully roadworthy (I believe), engine running and driver still in the seat at the wheel. Given he has driven off already, and from the report allegedly knocking into an officer at the time (innocuous I believe as no charges were brought for this), he still has the capability to do serious harm... I find this whole story less newsworthy than the 14 yr old girl accidently shot with a taser in Nottingham, who had apparently done nothing wrong whatsoever ... yet here we are bebating the use of force by officers in gaining entry to a vehicle in order to effectthe arrest of an individual who has committed offences. If this was a 19 yr old youth in a Citroen Saxo, in the same circumstances, would this news have made the Guardian or the BBC ... I sincerely doubt it. would most of you had the same reaction you have now? Again I doubt it, but once more I am assuming...as we all are in this matter...
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Aug 7, 2010 10:00:37 GMT 1
[ Every person police stop has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous and therefore caution is exercised on each occasion. So the copper on the bonnet of the car kicking the windscreen and the copper going nuts with a truncheon are both acting with caution? Surely if they where being cautious they would have kept back from the car and made some kind of assessment / called in some backup. thankfully the driver wasnt another Moat kind of chap otherwise the two cops would have had there heads blown off!!!To be defensive of the police, if that 70 year old had had a heart attack and died in the front seat of his car, can you imagine the uproar?How do you know that they had sufficient information to suggest he posed no threat?? I dont, but then logic tells me that if they didnt have the information they needed to act safely, for themselves as well as the pensioner, they should have done something to get that information (see above) i can understand why you are being defensive about this El Pres, but this honestly seems like a case of police brutality to me. if it was the first such case to make headlines in recent years it could easily be brushed over, but it does seem like a trend developing. I think it was more a case of police stupidity. I also think that we don't hear the half of it. www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=89218§ionid=3510303theduckshoot.com/blog/police-brutality-uk-ppolice-taser-punch-unarmed-man/
|
|