Surreal thing happened to me today...

Status
Not open for further replies.
ttaskmaster said:
Society has been that way ever since phones got cameras.
I'd personally have gone away and dissolved the entire Police Service throughout the UK, because such people clearly do not deserve to have Police protection, and no-one in their right mind would want to be a cop protecting ***** like that.

I'm also a parent and my duty is to raise my kid to do the right thing, leading by example to make the world the sort of place she'd enjoy living in. It might one day be her that needs help... but if this world is now people cowering behind their smartphones in fear of being stabbed, and coming out with ******** Big Brother excuses, then that's not such a world.

Much respect to HoneyBadger for stepping in. **** anyone else who wouldn't. Take responsibility for the world you live in, don't leave it to someone else.
Click to expand...
1. People who would not help for fear of being injured don't necessarily hate the police. That's quite the stretch.
2. The police themselves have refused to help people (eg drowning) on health and safety grounds.

If it's OK for them it's OK for us (not to help out of concern for one's own safety).

e: link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564648/Police-to-think-twice-about-rescuing-drowning.html
 
Last edited:
Mr Blonde said:
Is this a wind up? Surely a copper wanting to stop someone would 95%+ of the time signal that they are likely in the right, ie the person needs to be apprehended/stopped!?
Click to expand...

The OP clearly stated he was stopped for riding a scooter. I law that is in place by default and without reason.

Not that he was even riding on the pavement or had just mowed down a group of children... or even run a red light.

The officer unreasonably escalated the situation and turned it to violence. Officer’s fault... other guy was assaulted.
 
crinkleshoes said:
The OP clearly stated he was stopped for riding a scooter. I law that is in place by default and without reason.

Not that he was even riding on the pavement or had just mowed down a group of children... or even run a red light.

The officer unreasonably escalated the situation and turned it to violence. Officer’s fault... other guy was assaulted.
Click to expand...

copper asked the scooter person to stop, he failed. it is not for us to decide what laws should be ignored or not. I often speed.... I do so where i think it is safe to do so generally where there are no other cars around and not built up areas.......... IF however i get seen by a police car parked up and they choose to pull me over, i dont get to decide to ignore them and carry on.
I live on outskirts of cambridge.......... people here think it is ok to cycle whilst wasted, ignore traffic lights and consider lights an optional extra. The police consistently turn a blind eye and it makes my blood boil.
 
crinkleshoes said:
The OP clearly stated he was stopped for riding a scooter. I law that is in place by default and without reason.

Not that he was even riding on the pavement or had just mowed down a group of children... or even run a red light.

The officer unreasonably escalated the situation and turned it to violence. Officer’s fault... other guy was assaulted.
Click to expand...

To be entirely fair with you and not wanting to sound off at all, whether you agree with the law in question or any others out there doesn't come into it at all.

And what's the cop to do if someone's doing something illegal and tries to do a runner? I'm no copper, but I'd guess to most it shows there's likely a bigger reason for them to want to get away. At that point the cop(s) are going to try and stop them in any and all ways possible surely, and I don't personally think a "I say my good man, could you please stop" is going to do it somehow.
 
crinkleshoes said:
The OP clearly stated he was stopped for riding a scooter. I law that is in place by default and without reason.

Not that he was even riding on the pavement or had just mowed down a group of children... or even run a red light.

The officer unreasonably escalated the situation and turned it to violence. Officer’s fault... other guy was assaulted.
Click to expand...

This...cant be serious?

I mean just to be sure...the OP didn't say he was stopped for riding a scooter...he said he was stopped for illegally riding a scooter.

So how is the officer's fault when he attempts to detain someone for breaking the law, and they resist? You seem to be suggesting that if you don't agree with a law that you're breaking, then any attempt to apprehend you is unjustified.
 
FoxEye said:
1. People who would not help for fear of being injured don't necessarily hate the police. That's quite the stretch.
Click to expand...
I never said they did hate the Police...
I do assert that they perhaps don't deserve to have others put their lives at risk when they're not willing to risk their own, though.

FoxEye said:
2. The police themselves have refused to help people (eg drowning) on health and safety grounds.
Click to expand...
The Police have refused a number of things, usually on the basis of some BS regulations that resulted from public complaints and lefty-liberal whining. Chasing criminals on bikes, for example.

FoxEye said:
If it's OK for them it's OK for us (not to help out of concern for one's own safety)
Click to expand...
You're absolutely right.
**** it, then. Next one of you I see dying, you can go **** yourselves and die in screaming agony. I'll just leave this first aid kit here and instead film your last, agonising moments for all the world to see. Make sure you put on a good show for your kids, because this will be doing the rounds at their school by tomorrow morning... It's Health & Safety, you know.

FoxEye said:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564648/Police-to-think-twice-about-rescuing-drowning.html
Click to expand...
That says they're to think twice, not that they're utterly prohibited. It was also under review, way back in 2007 when this article was published, with a lot of challenges to it. Mostly it's just more 'dynamic risk assessment' BS, rather than anything by which to try and live your life. So again, **** that...

crinkleshoes said:
The OP clearly stated he was stopped for riding a scooter. I law that is in place by default and without reason.
Click to expand...
E-scooters are illegal to ride on public roads, including in cycle lanes or on the pavement.
The reason is exemplified in incidents like this: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...mily-hartridge-killed-in-london-rip.18859665/
 
FoxEye said:
2. The police themselves have refused to help people (eg drowning) on health and safety grounds.

If it's OK for them it's OK for us (not to help out of concern for one's own safety).

e: link
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564648/Police-to-think-twice-about-rescuing-drowning.html
Click to expand...


ahh come on... for every 1 person who *may* have done that there are countless others who have rushed into burning buildings or other things like approaching armed offenders with just a police stick and risked life and limb. ok sure, it is their job and they signed up to it but even so, I dare say the vast majority would go beyond their legal minimum.

This is why 1) any copper who IS a bad egg is so bad and 2) why equally those who insist ALL police are rubbish because of a few videos filming those in point 1) are equally terrible.
imo you have to be willfully ignorant or have an agenda of your own to try to paint the police as a whole as corrupt or uncaring. IME the vast majority are stand up people who without them we would be in a much worse society.

come out with that stuff you posted above to friends and family of those 1st responders in NY around 9/11 and i think you would get a bonk on the nose - or worse!., (and am not even going to go into the whole date being the wrong way around such is the seriousness of 9/11!)
 
Mr Blonde said:
So you think that the police in the main just stop people for the hell of it...I see. You're not another of those on here that had a bad time in the past with the police and blame them for all of life's woes now?

Anyway, it looks like you clearly missed the part in the OP where he stated, "a policeman has stopped an electric scooter rider for illegally riding his device", so yes, the copper was in the right here.
Click to expand...

like i said before. show me the stats which say 95% of people detained by police were convicted of doing something wrong.

or will every time a policeman needs help involve the specific scenario of illegally riding a scooter?
 
Psycho Sonny said:
like i said before. show me the stats which say 95% of people detained by police were convicted of doing something wrong.

or will every time a policeman needs help involve the specific scenario of illegally riding a scooter?
Click to expand...

It's blindingly obvious that Mr Blonde was using "95% of the time" as a colloquialism for "the vast majority of the time". Obviously he is not referencing a real statistic

Especially as he didn't even claim that "95% of people detained by police were convicted of doing something wrong." So either you have completely failed to comprehend what he was saying, or you are seizing on his linguistic ambiguity to deflect from the point he was making.
 
You should have just left it. The office was out of his depth and that's how it should have stayed.

Maybe the police will learn to ensure that 2 police officers should be together at all times in future. You helping in effect makes the police not realise this.

If it was a proper assault then yes I can understand getting involved but the guy was just walking off as the policeman was being completely anal about the scooter. Let it be and let them learn.
 
Nah I'm not getting myself hurt over a scooter. Policeman shouldn't have risked his safety either.

Maybe I'd help if I thought there was a real risk due to the guy getting away. But typically if there's a real risk there's a weapon so then I'd be unprepared to deal with it.
 
Conscript said:
It's blindingly obvious that Mr Blonde was using "95% of the time" as a colloquialism for "the vast majority of the time". Obviously he is not referencing a real statistic

Especially as he didn't even claim that "95% of people detained by police were convicted of doing something wrong." So either you have completely failed to comprehend what he was saying, or you are seizing on his linguistic ambiguity to deflect from the point he was making.
Click to expand...

the guy was riding a scooter - in the general scheme of things no real harm done. it's not as if he had just knifed someone or set off a bomb or beat up his wife. so OP didn't know who was in the right or wrong.

i also believe the police officer tried to detain the person and they simply didn't want to be detained.

he was then making the judgement call that the police officer was in the right even though he had no idea what was going on, could be an illegal detainment. police officers are human. humans can make mistakes and you do have corrupt coppers out there too. without any facts he shouldn't be intervening when the guy has caused no harm to anyone bar the person detaining them and in that instance has used just enough force to stop them detaining him.

all he had to do was let him go. then chase it up later when he had his fellow officers with him or send out an APB and request back up. he had no idea who was in the right or wrong and it's being automatically assumed the officer was in the right with no facts.

i would like to see what OP had done if there was no police officer. but a civilian trying to stop the guy with the scooter. would he have helped? i seriously doubt it. which again shows just because they are a police officer they must be in the right and cannot possibly be wrong.

i had a police officer who i had asked for help state that x was y. I then read out the law to them stating x was x and they then tried to use an excerpt to say they had reasonable cause. i then had to read out to said police officer reasonable cause in such circumstances is for as an example emergency services cutting someone out a car to save their life. therefore said person couldn't get emergency services done for vandalism for damaging the car as they had reasonable cause to damage the car; to save the persons life who was trapped in said car. but if some yob decides smash your car up to get into it isn't excluded under reasonable cause like emergency services are. officer refused to listen when pointed out they were wrong on both accounts until i asked to speak to their boss. who fully agreed with me.

so you can't assume they are correct and know the law.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
the guy was riding a scooter - in the general scheme of things no real harm done. it's not as if he had just knifed someone or set off a bomb or beat up his wife. so OP didn't know who was in the right or wrong.

i also believe the police officer tried to detain the person and they simply didn't want to be detained.

he was then making the judgement call that the police officer was in the right even though he had no idea what was going on, could be an illegal detainment. police officers are human. humans can make mistakes and you do have corrupt coppers out there too. without any facts he shouldn't be intervening when the guy has caused no harm to anyone bar the person detaining them and in that instance has used just enough force to stop them detaining him.

all he had to do was let him go. then chase it up later when he had his fellow officers with him or send out an APB and request back up. he had no idea who was in the right or wrong and it's being automatically assumed the officer was in the right with no facts.

i would like to see what OP had done if there was no police officer. but a civilian trying to stop the guy with the scooter. would he have helped? i seriously doubt it. which again shows just because they are a police officer they must be in the right and cannot possibly be wrong.

i had a police officer who i had asked for help state that x was y. I then read out the law to them stating x was x and they then tried to use an excerpt to say they had reasonable cause. i then had to read out to said police officer reasonable cause in such circumstances is for as an example emergency services cutting someone out a car to save their life. therefore said person couldn't get emergency services done for vandalism for damaging the car as they had reasonable cause to damage the car; to save the persons life who was trapped in said car. but if some yob decides smash your car up to get into it isn't excluded under reasonable cause like emergency services are. officer refused to listen when pointed out they were wrong on both accounts until i asked to speak to their boss. who fully agreed with me.

so you can't assume they are correct and know the law.
Click to expand...

For such a long post, you don’t actually say much.

All you’re doing is making assumptions. Massive assumptions which are mostly wrong and it’s getting a little embarrassing how you’re trying to justify yourself because of such a low moral compass. I would say quit while you’re ahead, but you aren’t.
 
HoneyBadger said:
For such a long post, you don’t actually say much.

All you’re doing is making assumptions. Massive assumptions which are mostly wrong and it’s getting a little embarrassing how you’re trying to justify yourself because of such a low moral compass. I would say quit while you’re ahead, but you aren’t.
Click to expand...

Well said.

Thank you for getting involved btw. This thread is depressing but the fact you posted in the first place does give me a bit of hope in the general public.
 
Psycho Sonny said:
the guy was riding a scooter - in the general scheme of things no real harm done. it's not as if he had just knifed someone or set off a bomb or beat up his wife. so OP didn't know who was in the right or wrong.

i also believe the police officer tried to detain the person and they simply didn't want to be detained.

he was then making the judgement call that the police officer was in the right even though he had no idea what was going on, could be an illegal detainment. police officers are human. humans can make mistakes and you do have corrupt coppers out there too. without any facts he shouldn't be intervening when the guy has caused no harm to anyone bar the person detaining them and in that instance has used just enough force to stop them detaining him.

all he had to do was let him go. then chase it up later when he had his fellow officers with him or send out an APB and request back up. he had no idea who was in the right or wrong and it's being automatically assumed the officer was in the right with no facts.

i would like to see what OP had done if there was no police officer. but a civilian trying to stop the guy with the scooter. would he have helped? i seriously doubt it. which again shows just because they are a police officer they must be in the right and cannot possibly be wrong.

i had a police officer who i had asked for help state that x was y. I then read out the law to them stating x was x and they then tried to use an excerpt to say they had reasonable cause. i then had to read out to said police officer reasonable cause in such circumstances is for as an example emergency services cutting someone out a car to save their life. therefore said person couldn't get emergency services done for vandalism for damaging the car as they had reasonable cause to damage the car; to save the persons life who was trapped in said car. but if some yob decides smash your car up to get into it isn't excluded under reasonable cause like emergency services are. officer refused to listen when pointed out they were wrong on both accounts until i asked to speak to their boss. who fully agreed with me.

so you can't assume they are correct and know the law.
Click to expand...

Mostly irrelevant waffle. But this bit...

Psycho Sonny said:
the guy was riding a scooter - in the general scheme of things no real harm done. it's not as if he had just knifed someone or set off a bomb or beat up his wife. so OP didn't know who was in the right or wrong.
Click to expand...

...is the pertinent bit.

Psycho Sonny said:
the guy was riding a scooter - in the general scheme of things no real harm done..
Click to expand...

OK. But it's missing the point. The OP wasn't intervening because of what the guy was doing with the scooter....

Psycho Sonny said:
it's not as if he had just knifed someone or set off a bomb or beat up his wife. so OP didn't know who was in the right or wrong.
Click to expand...

...he was intervening because of this; by the time he intervened, the guy had assaulted a police officer, and broken his hand in response to being challenged, and appeared to be continuing that assault while resisting arrest.

That's why HB stepped in. What alleged crime had been committed was irrelevant, he saw a police officer attempting to detain a suspect and getting overwhelmed and stepped in to help him.
By that stage, he did know who was in the wrong, and it's quite objectively the offender who, having been challenged for doing something illegal, responded by assaulting the officer. Whatever your opinion of the initial law being broken, by that stage, it doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom