Jesus Christ! Don't forget to put your seat belts on!

[Fr0dders]

So jumping on the bonnet like some reject from Lethal Weapon 26 and kicking in the windscreen is normal police techniques when dealing with confused 70 year old men, regardless of whether he was argumentative or not.

You have the correct Username. MrLOL, because LOL'd I did.

confused my backside

he's known to police for doing this sort of thing before. He's pulling a fast one.

The jumping on the bonnet thing isnt normal, but smashing the side windows and windscreen is.

Can only think the officer felt the need to jump on the bonnet due to the height of the range rover windscreen.

Mr LOL if you dont mind me asking are you a police officer or did you once want to join them, I think I remember a thread about you going something along them lines.

lol you blatently havent met me. I work in IT and i *ahem* most definately dont have the physique to work in the police... to say the least ... and then some lol.

 

[cheets64]

Frankly if the guy is that easily confused that he simply drives off because he thinks the police have "finished with him", then he doesnt stop for 17 mins while they chase him with their blue and twos going because he thinks they were "giving me an escort home", and has mistakenly put illegally formatted licence plates on his 60k range rover.... maybe he is probably not quite fit to be on the roads in the first place if he is that confused

This, also looks like he wanted to get to KFC


Shouldnt be on the road if he gets confused so easily.

 

[^TANK^]

confused my backside

he's known to police for doing this sort of thing before. He's pulling a fast one.

The jumping on the bonnet thing isnt normal, but smashing the side windows and windscreen is.

Can only think the officer felt the need to jump on the bonnet due to the height of the range rover windscreen.

I see this! Why the hell can't anyone else acknowledge this

 

[jamief]

So guys, what was the correct action to take in the circumstance? This is especially addressed to those who disagree with what the police did, as you seem to have the world figured out quite nicely and thus surely know the correct answer.

Put the blues and twos OFF.

Follow him home with a single unit.

Approach his car, have a word. Follow appropriate procedure for having licence revoked / re-test required.

 

[Fr0dders]

whose to say he would have gone home, and not just driven round all day leading them a merry dance wasting police time ?

 

[Raymond Lin]

Lets face it.

Police smashed a car, its only a car, they were heavy handed to a car.

The driver, not injured.

Problem? What problem? Solved as far as i am concerned.

 

[B&W]

I fail to see the relation to democracy and this situation?

Surely the laws should be followed then there would be no need for any further issues? The police haven't ever broken my window in as i've not attempted to drive off while being delt with.

Your tried to say in your other post that this should teach him a lesson about obeying the law, implying that force should be used to make people obey the law of the land. Thats what its got to do with democracy.

So if you make a mistake, you deserve to get your windscreen and window smahed in?

 

[Tombstone]

Oddly enough, if the police are behind me, matching me for speed, with their sirens and lights on. I kind of pull over straight away, not drive on for another 17 mins thinking that they are giving me an escort home

Imo someone so lacking in basic common sense as to think that shouldnt be behind the wheel of a car anyway.

 

[SiriusB]

I thought it was standard practice for the police to put car windows through after a chase? As mentioned earlier, you aren't likely to drive off again when all your windows are smashing around you with the police yelling. Shock and awe and all that good stuff.

Watch road wars - happens all the time on there.

 

[Ahleckz]

Dont be silly. They KNEW who he was, they knew where he lived as he was "known" to them.

Why wasnt he even charged with anything relating to this? A car is not a "deadly weapon"

Yay, I get to discuss test cases!
McCallum v. Corner ruling, "if one purposes to inflict a very slight injury, which he has no right to infilct, and death unexpectedly and out of all reasonable calculations ensues, that is culpable homicide".
Whilst culpable homicide isn't murder, per se, the actus reus remains the same even if the mens rea isn't satisfied.
H.M. Advocate v. Fraser and Rollins determined that if there was an attempt at a crime of serious violence, then any resultant death of the victim was murder. (See 1920 J.C. 60, p62 - 63 for more on this).
The judge actually said "If a man uses reckless violence that may cause death, and uses that violence in perpetrating a crime, it is murder. You do not require the deliberate intention to kill, but you must have reckless use of force without any consideration of what the result of that use of force may be".
Whilst the police officer wasn't killed. The point remains, a car can be used as a deadly weapon and classed as a murder weapon.
Want me to cite more case law?

SHOT someone?!! SHOT them!? Not everyone outside Glasgow packs heat just to pop to the shops you know.

It's not an unreasonable possibility, and the Greenland thing is true.


But, really, what's your deal? Why are you so up in arms about this?

 

[iamtheoneneo]

What a lot of nonsense about trying to run an officer over. I have to lol at this. If this was true, he would have been brought before the courts on attempted murder, or attempted GBH/ABH charge.

maybe he will be, they are investigating the whole case....you can LOL all you want thats what happened, im not sure you would like being run over but i guess you would have just sat there an taken it like a good boy.

oh and your comment on cars not being deadly weapons - Let me hit you with my car, then you can tell me if you still think it isn't a deadly weapon.

 

[anything I don't mind]

They could have just asked him to open the door and asked why he drove off when the were not finished trying to make money off him with their penalty notice schemes.

 

[Raymond Lin]

They could have just asked him to open the door and asked why he drove off when the were not finished trying to make money off him with their penalty notice schemes.

When someone evading you for almost 20 mins and had to be stopped by puncturing their tyres, it's way past "please could you open your door" don't you think?

 

[chumpit]

As far as I can see, in my unprofessional opinion, the police officers used legal and recognised methods of disabling and accessing the range rover, Also once the car was secured they were quite gentle at remvoing the old man, no throwing to the floor or slamming on the bonnet.
Also quick question why did the old man depress the hand brake? and why did it take so long for the police officers to secure the keys??

but you just have to laugh at the media's one sided view of things, they've wanted a big story against the police since the moat incident. Looks like this will be main story

 

[[TW]Fox]

Put the blues and twos OFF.

Follow him home with a single unit.

Approach his car, have a word. Follow appropriate procedure for having licence revoked / re-test required.

You have to consider the thought processes involved at the time!

You are a traffic cop. You pull a guy in a black Range Rover with an illegal plate over for a trivial offence of driving without a seatbelt. A £30 fixed penalty notice, thats it. No big deal. But no, this guy decides he's not having that, and he drives off at the scene.

90% of the time of somebody makes a break for it, its because they have done something far more serious and assume the police already know about it, or will find out about it. Perhaps he's just done a robbery, perhaps he's got some seriously bad stuff in the car? Who knows - all you know is that you pulled him over for a minor offence and he's legged it.

So back in the car, blues on... and he doesnt pull over. He carries on. For 17 minutes.

What are you thinking now? If you are a police officer worth his salt, you are thinking 'Something is wrong here, we need to stop this guy right now'. You finally stop him, are approaching the car. Do you walk up all politely like before? Hell no.

You leg it up, shock the driver by shattering a window, and get him out of the car before he can take off again.

Great, we can pull it apart afterwards from our armchairs with the benefit of hindsight but if anyone here would have reacted any differently they'd make a crap police officer.

What if he'd just performed a robbery and had a load of stuff in the boot? Had you just let him go on his way and caught up with him later you'd never know...

 

[anything I don't mind]

When someone evading you for almost 20 mins and had to be stopped by puncturing their tyres, it's way past "please could you open your door" don't you think?

But if you look at it from another perspective. No one was injured and no one was a victim here. The police caused trouble by harassing someone about wearing a seat belt in his own car. So they are fining the driver because he endangers his own life ? Then when he ignores them and continues driving the police go into full force criminal mode and treat the man as an escaped terrorist.

Bottom line is that if the police did not start the trouble in the first place this guy would have just kept driving.

 

[[TW]Fox]

But if you look at it from another perspective. No one was injured and no one was a victim here. The police caused trouble by harassing someone about wearing a seat belt in his own car. So they are fining the driver because he endangers his own life ? Then when he ignores them and continues driving the police go into full force criminal mode and treat the man as an escaped terrorist.

99% of normal people who forgot to put a seatbelt on do not nail the throttle when being pulled over by the police.

In almost every single case of somebody driving off, its because they have something more serious to hide.

Why people on here cannot see this simply astounds me.

 

[Skillmister]

Perfectly acceptable behaviour from the police. All the people keyboard warrioring it would probably slate them just as much if this guy had been a mass murdering drug dealer and they had let him go freely with a seatbelt fine.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Oh the whole paradox of having something to hide if you do not obey and comply with the police like a good little worker drone ?

How about the police take their penalty notice for a seat belt and ram it up their macho bum.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Bottom line is that if the police did not start the trouble in the first place this guy would have just kept driving.

If they guy had stayed in bed that day too none of this would have happened?

This is way passed What Ifs

The police didn't start the trouble? I don't recall the Police putting the illegal plate on his Landrover and magically unclipped his seatbelt.

Fact is that he drove off
Fact is that he ignored the sirens
Fact is that his plate is illegal
Fact is that he was never injured