Police Officer Frames Bloke On Camera

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:14

More evidence of coppers abusing their powers...

http://www.********.com/view?i=fc7_1391532479

It seems all a police officer has to say is "I saw you" and that is good enough. Needless to point out that even if he was seen driving in the morning and a breath test proved positive they have no evidence to suggest he was drunk or over the limit when seen. He could have driven to the venue, downed a bottle of vodka after and no crime is committed. How on earth can they can prove he was under the influence when was driving?

Don't get me wrong, most protesters annoy the hell out of me but to make up charges adhoc with the aim of getting someone off your back for the afternoon is despicable.

HAz · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:17

Some hippy posted this on Facebook today, I'm so tempted to delete him.

Qitarah · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:28

I think the wording is key in the issue, when a police office "suspects" someone has been drinking and driving (or maybe intends to drive?) then that allows them to administer a road side breath test.

God knows why the guy didn't just do the breath test, he could have made a fuss and stated what he wanted to on the camera. In fact if he hasn't been drinking or what ever I think that would have made more of a point than just refusing and getting arrested. would have certainly removed any doubt about if he had been drinking and put 100% of the focus on the policeman.

What that first police officer did was shady and he was clearly trying to remove the guy from the scene, the change stories 3 times particularly. Remember though the policemen who arrested him were just following up and only had one option which was to breath test and subsequently arresting him upon refusal.

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:28

HAz said:
Some hippy posted this on Facebook today, I'm so tempted to delete him.

Is your definition of 'hippy' anyone that thinks the police aren't infallible?

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:31

Qitarah said:
I
God knows why the guy didn't just do the breath test, he could have made a fuss and stated what he wanted to on the camera.

I suspect that he had been drinking that afternoon, he refused because they were already trying to frame him and a positive test coupled with the officer's 'photographic memory' would have added more fuel to their bull **** fire.

Hades · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:32

Unfortunately for the guy I think it is an offense to refuse a breath test if the police believe he has been driving. However it does seem a fit up by that first policeman and it should be investigated and the book thrown at him if found to have acted unlawfully.

"You've just said to me that you've had two drinks". Disgraceful!

Gogl · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:33

estebanrey said:
Is your definition of 'hippy' anyone that thinks the police aren't infallible?

More likely someone who whines a lot when there's a case showing they aren't.

Spitfir3 · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:35

estebanrey said:
Is your definition of 'hippy' anyone that thinks the police aren't infallible?

I think he means the pleasuring themselves to the guardian type.

Phantom Shadow · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:36

Even though how the policeman came up with the story of him drink driving seems pretty dodgy, all this guy needs is for it to be decided that it was acceptable to request a breath test from him and he will be guilty of failing to provide a specimen of breath.

If he hadn't been drinking, do the test and problem solved. If he had been drinking, say he had had a drink while there, surely it would be up to the police to prove he hadn't had any alcohol to drink since arriving by car to be able to say he had driven while drunk.

Seeing someone driving a car an hour ago, and them being drunk now, does not mean they have driven while drunk.

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:37

Hades said:
Unfortunately for the guy I think it is an offense to refuse a breath test if the police believe he has been driving.

Only if they have REASONABLE means to suspect he was under the influence whilst driving. Unless the law has changed since I was at college, it is illegal to drive under the influence, not to drink AFTER driving earlier that day which is what the officer in question seems to think.

In fact my law teacher advised us if we are ever followed by a police car after having a swift pint and you're a near home was to get to your residence, run inside and down all the alcohol you have your house before they ring the door bell. Not the most moral of lecturers I'll admit but he knew his **** when it came to the law.

Qitarah · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:39

Just to clarify there was no "they" the police officer at the start is the only one responsible for that cluster ****, the ones who tried to administer the breath test had no choice but to act how they did.

But I think you're right, either that or he was blind sided by it all and was trying to stand his ground and try make a point.

Hades · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:40

estebanrey said:
Only if they have REASONABLE means to suspect he was under the influence whilst driving. Unless the law has changed since I was at college, it is illegal to drive under the influence, not to drink AFTER driving earlier that day which is what the officer in question seems to think.

Yes I agree he can totally drink afterwards but there are two offenses:

1) Drinking under the influence <-- we have no idea if the guy was guilty of this
2) Refusing a breath test irrespective of whether you've been drinking or not <-- he certainly refused

I'm not sure on the nuances of reasonable means to suspect though. Most of the police were simply following up on the instructions of the first policeman but he was a disgrace and I hope he is prosecuted following this video.

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:42

Qitarah said:
Just to clarify there was no "they" the police officer at the start is the only one responsible for that cluster ****, the ones who tried to administer the breath test had no choice but to act how they did.

They could have told their colleague to stop being a dick, why do they have to follow the 'Blue Code of Silence'? The sooner police officers (or any trade) stop sticking up for their own despite evidence to the contrary the better.

tamzzy · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:43

Hades said:
but he was a disgrace and I hope he is prosecuted following this video.

Hope he doesnt lol. I see another 440k payout like that pliceman who battered an oap's car and was caught on film

Nitefly · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:45

What a berk :/

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:46

Hades said:
I'm not sure on the nuances of reasonable means to suspect though. Most of the police were simply following up on the instructions of the first policeman but he was a disgrace and I hope he is prosecuted following this video.

AFAIK the law states they must have reasonable grounds for suspicion. Unfortunately, in practice this often means "I said it" therefore it's true and enough to kidnap you for a few hours because you're being a pain in the ass.

[FnG]magnolia · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:47

estebanrey said:
In fact my law teacher advised us if we are ever followed by a police car after having a swift pint and you're a near home was to get to your residence, run inside and down all the alcohol you have your house before they ring the door bell. Not the most moral of lecturers I'll admit but he knew his **** when it came to the law.

What's the thinking here?

Pigeon_Killer · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:48

Not sure what the Police officer could be charged with or whether he could lose his job or not but if he did lose his job how would this effect court cases he's been involved in? Any evidence he's given would have to be questionable now?

Edit: And it's not the first time his integrity has been questioned.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/4910218.___PC_was_not_a_scapegoat_for_corrupt_squad___/

estebanrey · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:50

[FnG]magnolia;25803508 said:
What's the thinking here?

In legal terms?

Well if you get home and get inside an down a bottle of alcohol the police cannot prove (despite the breath test) you were over the limit whilst driving.

As I implied, not something I would advise and I certainly wouldn't defend anyone caught driving over the legal limit.

Phantom Shadow · 6 Feb 2014 at 23:50

[FnG]magnolia;25803508 said:
What's the thinking here?

If you answer the door downing a pint, how can the police officer say against reasonable doubt that you were driving while drunk. When any breath tests would have been performed after you had been drinking, AFTER driving. No way to prove drink driving, only driving THEN drinking.

If you look closely in the video his clothes say "Police Evidence Gatherer". From what I can make out this means he isn't a real policeman?