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

[TW]Fox;17105504 said:
I do find it amusing that none of you anti police types have managed to give me a proper answer yet! If you all know better than the police why can't you properly explain what you'd have thought and what action you'd have taken as each stage of this situation unfolded?
Click to expand...

but without seeing thre footage from the earlier event its impossible to say who is correct.

we see only a snap shot of what happened at a specific point in time. before this, the police say one thing and the driver says another.

the police were unable to prove that what they said was correct (in totality). did they have their camera turned off at the first stop? could they not coroborate their story properly, i dont know...? but thats not for me to judge, i let the cps take that one to court.

whats with labelling people 'anti police types'?

what about keeping an open mind, or even just being sceptical of things that people might say to later justify other actions? it happens all the time. just because you question authority, it doesnt exactly make you an anarchist now does it?

thats why people like you shouldnt become policemen, because - like these guys you are judge and executioner all rolled in to one. you say you know the facts when infact you dont really, in your mind you have already decided that the cops statement is factually correct - even when this has not proven to be the case.

personally ive never in trouble with the police. but i have been pulled over twice, for no apparent reason - other than i was leaving a pub car park on the premise of drink driving. however i never touch any alcoholic drink when i am driving.

at the end of the day everyone has their own experience to draw from, if you see noithing of the police but the bill or supercops or whatever, you will probably percieve them to be awesome, the 'good guys' all the time. if your experience is different, then your perception will also be different.

[TW]Fox;17105275 said:
As far I'm concerned, the vehicle was pulled for a minor offence yet the driver felt the need to take off from the scene. He then refused to stop for a police car with blue lights.

Easily enough to arouse suspicion that there was something going on with this guy. They needed to act fast to disorientate him when he was stopped a second time, or who knows what else he would have done?

I think it speaks volume about Nickg that he is so keen to defend criminals.
Click to expand...

clearly your mind is made up before you actually examine the evidence closely. who am i to argue with someone who forms a cast iron prejudice over the event without careful scrutiny?

i appreciate your desperate plea to the crowd to try and save face and belittle someone who has contradicted your view. its not very mature however.
 
I give up. Carry on believing what you wish to believe. In the meantime I'm going to thump my head against a brick wall I think it will be more productive.
 
Nickg said:
but without seeing thre footage from the earlier event its impossible to say who is correct.
Click to expand...

Yet you've made your mind up that it is the police who are in the wrong!

I think we've established there is little point discussing this further with you :)
 
Andy90 said:
I give up. Carry on believing what you wish to believe. In the meantime I'm going to thump my head against a brick wall I think it will be more productive.
Click to expand...

OK. What you are saying that the Police can arrest you for simply not being able to show your documents at the roadside if they so wish, regardless of the fact that you can verify your identity.

Yes or No?
 
Castiel said:
OK. What you are saying that the Police can arrest you for simply not being able to show your documents at the roadside if they so wish, regardless of the fact that you can verify your identity.

Yes or No?
Click to expand...

Technically yes - it is illegal not to carry your documents. However the fact that subsequently producing them within 7 days is a valid defence it means that practically speaking this would never happen so its academic talking about it.
 
[TW]Fox;17108412 said:
Technically yes - it is illegal not to carry your documents. However the fact that subsequently producing them within 7 days is a valid defence it means that practically speaking this would never happen so its academic talking about it.
Click to expand...

Thankyou. A short to the point answer instead of heaps of hyperbole intended to confuse.

Burnsy2023/Andy90 I stand corrected. :)
 
I guess they use it when they don't beleive you are who you say you are, otherwise its on your way, produce your documents within 7 days.
 
Castiel said:
OK. What you are saying that the Police can arrest you for simply not being able to show your documents at the roadside if they so wish, regardless of the fact that you can verify your identity.

Yes or No?
Click to expand...

[TW]Fox;17108412 said:
Technically yes - it is illegal not to carry your documents. However the fact that subsequently producing them within 7 days is a valid defence it means that practically speaking this would never happen so its academic talking about it.
Click to expand...


even though its an offence that you are unable to produce them to an officer when requested you do not get convicted of the offense until atleast 7 days has passed, so the police officer cannot arrest you there and then for not carrying the documents.

A person shall not be convicted of an offence under subsection (1) above by reason only of failure to produce any certificate or other evidence to a constable if in proceedings against him for the offence he shows that— .
(a)
within seven days after the date on which the production of the certificate or other evidence was required it was produced at a police station that was specified by him at the time when its production was required, or .
(b)
it was produced there as soon as was reasonably practicable, or .
(c)
it was not reasonably practicable for it to be produced there before the day on which the proceedings were commenced,
Click to expand...
 
Amnesia said:
even though its an offence that you are unable to produce them to an officer when requested you do not get convicted of the offense until atleast 7 days has passed, so the police officer cannot arrest you there and then for not carrying the documents.
Click to expand...

This is what I thought, although it seems the resident Officers disagree with our interpretation of the RTA.
 
im not 100% sure of this...bit busy to check but i think the actual offense is failing to produce documents to an officer when requested and thats why you're not convicted until atleast another 7 days later. so you are given sufficent time to produce them.
....and not that you failed to carry the documents with you which i dont think is an offense.

bit busy to check it myself ...maybe someone else can.
 
Amnesia said:
even though its an offence that you are unable to produce them to an officer when requested you do not get convicted of the offense until atleast 7 days has passed, so the police officer cannot arrest you there and then for not carrying the documents.
Click to expand...

Errr being arrested and being convicted are two completely seperate things!

If I murdered you tommorrow, and got arrested, I probably wouldnt be convicted for months!
 
It seems unwise to stand on a bonnet when the engine is on, but I guess they wanted to block his vision and stop him driving off again

If there is one thing the Police do not like it is being ignored.
This guy had a chip on his shoulder about his previous run ins with police, hence the number plate E3RAS = Harass


Stupid old git got what he had coming I think, it's a pity these officers now have to face an investigation because the Chiefs wet themselves about what the Daily Mail might say :rolleyes:

I don't buy all his sad crocodile tears, he's an arrogant asshat just like a lot of old people are.
 
He doesnt sound like the craziest criminal. So he was stopped by the police, then drove off before they had finished with him.

He then proceeded to head home at a nice gentle pace with the police following. You are all right, that is a classic method of avoiding the police in a getaway situation.

What gave them cause to think that he was dangerous. Was it his lack of seat belt, the fact that he didnt break any driving laws at any point apart from the seatbelt.

Stupid police reacting in a ridiculous manner.

No one ever, in the history of the motor vehicle has run from cops by heading home at a leisurely pace whilst being followed by a little trail of cops. Come on, the bloke just sounds a bit slow and simple. Old people have money and like to spend it on pointless cars, he wasnt being a *****, he was just not quite with it.
 
fez said:
No one ever, in the history of the motor vehicle has run from cops by heading home at a leisurely pace whilst being followed by a little trail of cops.
Click to expand...

You don't watch many cop programs then

fez said:
Come on, the bloke just sounds a bit slow and simple. Old people have money and like to spend it on pointless cars, he wasnt being a *****, he was just not quite with it.
Click to expand...

And another one that believes the excuse 'I thought they were escorting me home for 17 minutes while flashing at me with their blue lights on'.
 
fez said:
He doesnt sound like the craziest criminal. So he was stopped by the police, then drove off before they had finished with him.

He then proceeded to head home at a nice gentle pace with the police following. You are all right, that is a classic method of avoiding the police in a getaway situation.

What gave them cause to think that he was dangerous. Was it his lack of seat belt, the fact that he didnt break any driving laws at any point apart from the seatbelt.

Stupid police reacting in a ridiculous manner.

No one ever, in the history of the motor vehicle has run from cops by heading home at a leisurely pace whilst being followed by a little trail of cops. Come on, the bloke just sounds a bit slow and simple. Old people have money and like to spend it on pointless cars, he wasnt being a *****, he was just not quite with it.
Click to expand...

And once again - How do the Police know he's going home?
How do they know he isn't drunk or drugged up to his eyeballs?
How do the Police know that he isn't a danger to the public?

Of course, they know he's a good 'un as he's an old gent, and no old gent has ever been a danger to the public or police....

All they know is
1: He's not got a seat belt on - something drunks often forget
2: He's got illegal tints (IIRC)
3: He's got an illegal plate
4: The ANPC check probably showed he'd been done for various motoring offences in the past.
5: He's driven off whilst the police were dealing with him, for a very minor offence in the scheme of things (something that in itself would be enough to ring alarm bells I'd imagine - why drive off if you're just facing a small fine unless something else is going on in the drivers mind, such as that gun under the seat, the drugs in the dash, or the lack of insurance/licence).
6: He's kept driving for 15+ minutes despite the car with lights/siren behind him.

From the facts the police knew at the time he was unpredictable and a probable danger to the public and police.
Hence when they finally got him to stop, they used force to distract him whilst they went for the keys to disable the vehicle.

Forget completely his age and "frailty" and consider for a moment that the Police cannot simply allow someone to keep going when they have a reason to believe the driver is either unsafe, or potentially involved in a more major crime, let alone the fact that he'd already driven away from them once...

If the Police had just left him to tootle on home on his own, and he'd hit a MOP or crashed and killed himself because it turns out he was drunk/on drugs I have zero doubt the same people calling the police "thugs" and "pigs" and "uniformed bullies" now would be calling the police "useless" and "stupid" for not having taken steps to stop him.
 
Let's be honest here.

They went for him because of his "Whatever.." attitude when driving off after being given a ticket. I'll bet a gold pig that he received the ticket, screwed it up and threw it in a footwell, then drove off without porky telling him, "off you go."

If the copper gave him that ticket, then he was done. No point hanging around. But they took exception to it and made the stuff up about running one over.

The poor guy probably wanted to spend the absolute minimum time as possible in the company of a police force that had previously fitted him up, and probably thought he was going to get beaten up after getting his previous convictions quashed due to police corruption.

If it had been me, that Zimbabwean-style monkey show would have had me thinking I was going to be murdered.
 
ElvisFan, you obviously have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to the police.

Just like how many common criminals always claim police brutality when they are arrested etc.

Saying things like 'porky' and 'made stuff up'

Oh please :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom