Police powers when being stopped (on foot or in a car). Answers from cops?

Energize said:
What isn't the case? You just affirmed what I said.
Click to expand...

Sorry Energize, maybe I misread your post but there was no mention of the requirement for substantive evidence that is a requirement to convict and for an inference to be drawn. Refusal to answer questions alone without such evidence does not convict.
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
I'd rather live in the UK than the states and feel safer here that less people carry guns as a result of the overly protective search warrants over there. Here it's simple, don't be a **** and just assist the police and let them get on with their day if you have nothing to hide. I got pulled over a lot in my teens with my hot hatches and never got booked for speeding or anything as each time I was polite and assisted them with everything they wanted apologising each time even if the copper was a fool. Just spend 5 minutes of your time cooporating and be done with it. Or remain silent out of stubborness for our "rights" and get yourself in more bother than necessary. I'm normally one all for rights and privacy, but instances when you are pulled over by the police is not the time to be harping on about them imo.
Click to expand...

To be honest, it doesn't matter which country you live in, you get the bad part and the good part. I'm originally from Tucson, Arizona = ) I grew up in the east side of the city. I used to walked home late at night from my friend's house and wouldn't have worry about rob or stab or getting shoot. I will never goes to the south side of the city tho, I always hear about drugs bust, gang related killing, prostitutions over news. You'll never see me walking late night in Hackney = )
 
Dolph said:
What about the guardian? Are they biased?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/may/28/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy
Click to expand...



From the Grauniad article:

This claim conceals some awkward facts. First, almost half the 2.4 million 'violent incidents' that the BCS estimates happened in Britain last year involved no injuries at all, and most of the rest caused only very minor ones. Just 2 per cent required a visit to hospital.
Click to expand...

Which I think is what I said? But you are correct that I accidentally included them amongst right-wing sources. To be fair though, they are pretty anti-Labour.


M
 
Meridian said:
From the Grauniad article:



Which I think is what I said? But you are correct that I accidentally included them amongst right-wing sources. To be fair though, they are pretty anti-Labour.


M
Click to expand...

To be fair, anyone with any hope of maintaining credibility should be anti-labour ;)

So what the BCS survey, when compared with the police reports show, is that the bulk of the rise has been in serious assaults, and the falls are in minor issues... I'm not sure that's a good position to promote :)
 
fini said:
In 2009 it would appear that 12 officers died. They died of:
  • Being swept away in a flood
  • Falling off a motorbike
  • Heart attack having just reported for duty
  • Car accident
  • Heart attack whilst setting up cones
  • Car accident on his way home
  • Head injury whilst chasing a suspect
  • Shot in the head
  • Brain haemorrhage
  • car accident on his way to work
  • car accident on his way home
  • car accident on her way to work
Therefore only one death was due to weaponry and no body armour could have stopped that injury (being shot in the head). As such, I've yet to see convincing evidence that it's absolutely required. These officers are not working in a war zone. They are working in the safest conditions for over 15 years.
Click to expand...
Doesn't the wide spread use of body armour coupled with the lack of deaths due to weaponry suggest that body armour is indeed working and therefore justified? :confused:
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I think you've lost all your credibility by saying that.
Click to expand...

I'm yet to see them advance a position that actually, genuinely benefits people in this country, they've had the last 13 years to do it, and haven't managed it...

Some of their isolated ideas might be good, but the execution and overall environment means pretty much everyone is worse off now than they were before...
 
fini said:
In 2009 it would appear that 12 officers died. They died of:
  • Being swept away in a flood
  • Falling off a motorbike
  • Heart attack having just reported for duty
  • Car accident
  • Heart attack whilst setting up cones
  • Car accident on his way home
  • Head injury whilst chasing a suspect
  • Shot in the head
  • Brain haemorrhage
  • car accident on his way to work
  • car accident on his way home
  • car accident on her way to work
Therefore only one death was due to weaponry and no body armour could have stopped that injury (being shot in the head). As such, I've yet to see convincing evidence that it's absolutely required. These officers are not working in a war zone. They are working in the safest conditions for over 15 years.
Click to expand...


So your argument that police don't need stab proofs is that no police oficer wearing stab proofs has been killed by stabbing?
 
fini said:
In 2009 it would appear that 12 officers died. They died of:
  • Being swept away in a flood
  • Falling off a motorbike
  • Heart attack having just reported for duty
  • Car accident
  • Heart attack whilst setting up cones
  • Car accident on his way home
  • Head injury whilst chasing a suspect
  • Shot in the head
  • Brain haemorrhage
  • car accident on his way to work
  • car accident on his way home
  • car accident on her way to work
Therefore only one death was due to weaponry and no body armour could have stopped that injury (being shot in the head). As such, I've yet to see convincing evidence that it's absolutely required. These officers are not working in a war zone. They are working in the safest conditions for over 15 years.


Are you somehow implying that objectivity is not a virtue?
Click to expand...

Are you a serving police officer? I actually find your post quite insulting, either you are hugely mis-informed or extremely naive. Last week my body armour saved me from being seriously wounded by a large kitchen knife. Just because there are not many stats for officers being killed on duty by weapons does not mean that we don't need it, or maybe more to the point it shows that it works as the lack of deaths from weapons perhaps shows that it works. I for one am extremely happy to have it.

With regards to powers of stop/search in Scottish law is a bit different.

Officer in uniform has the power to stop any vehicle on a road, from that we can ascertain drivers details etc and if there is a reasonable cause to suspect an offence is being committed i.e smell of drugs or evidence of stolen goods then we can search.

As for stop searches on foot, it generally comes down to reasonable cause of an offence being committed, i.e you suspect someone of committing a drugs offence or carrying a weapon etc. Many people also allow voluntary searches to be carried out on their person.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Sorry Energize, maybe I misread your post but there was no mention of the requirement for substantive evidence that is a requirement to convict and for an inference to be drawn.
Click to expand...

It was simply the fact that an inference can be made at all that I find problematic, it is a great naivety to think that because someone chooses to remain silent they are complicit in a crime, at least the Americans recognize this.

Von Smallhausen said:
Refusal to answer questions alone without such evidence does not convict.
Click to expand...

Well apart from the ripa act that is, where failure to answer a request for encryption keys (which you are automatically assumed to posess without any evidence being required) can result in a five year prison sentence, this violates the principals of the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself which should be at the heart of any good legal system.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
It was simply the fact that an inference can be made at all that I find problematic, it is a great naivety to think that because someone chooses to remain silent they are complicit in a crime, at least the Americans recognize this.
Click to expand...

But the American system handed down 12 month sentences to many a person who pleaded the 5th, especially those involved in organised crime. Refusal to answer questions was taken as contempt of court. No you don't have to incriminate yourself but if you don't then we will slam you anyway.

Well apart from the ripa act that is, where failure to answer a request for encryption keys (which you are automatically assumed to posess without any evidence being required) can result in a five year prison sentence, this violates the principals of the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself which should be at the heart of any good legal system.
Click to expand...

Is it not only in matters of national security or for the well being of the UK economy ?

What those matters actually are is indeed another matter and who is to say that they are not open to misuse ? There I accept your concerns.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
But the American system handed down 12 month sentences to many a person who pleaded the 5th, especially those involved in organised crime. Refusal to answer questions was taken as contempt of court. No you don't have to incriminate yourself but if you don't then we will slam you anyway.
Click to expand...

In which case was this, had they been subpoenaed?

Is it not only in matters of national security or for the well being of the UK economy ?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000023_en_8#pt3

(3) A disclosure requirement in respect of any protected information is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary—

(a) in the interests of national security;

(b) for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; or

(c) in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom