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

[TW]Fox · 6 Aug 2010 at 23:59

ElvisFan said:
Back in the 70's you wouldn't have ended up with flak-jacketed primates climbing all over your car just because you drove off promptly after getting a ticket.

You were 8 years old when the 70's ended. How can you possibly know this?

He didnt drive off promptly after getting a ticket. He made a run for it before getting the ticket.

Castiel · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:07

TheVoice said:
It's a fail to stop, regardless of speed. There are plenty of instances in which a suspect has deliberately evaded police and yet not driven particularly erratically. Granted, it would indicate they're less of a danger than someone doing 70 in a 30, taking corners at speed and using the wrong side of the road, but it doesn't change the fail to stop aspect and a police officer is going to have varying suspicions as to why that person has chosen to fail to stop, especially for 17 minutes.

No, because the police officers have no idea where his destination is or if he has one at all. Why on earth should they do things when convenient to someone who has shown disregard for the police already? Don't forget, the 'pursuit' lasted 17 minutes as it is, that seems more than reasonable a length of time given to allow him to stop of his own accord. Most fail to stops would see attempts to bring it to a close long before that.

I disagree. The Officers knew who he was, his address and what seems now to a lack of a criminal record and could simply have arrested him at their leisure.

Even if stopping him was neccessary, to use that amount of force without first
at least attempting to reason with him is excessive, despite his alleged driving away from the first scene without being given leave to do so.

[TW]Fox · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:08

Castiel said:
I disagree. The Officers knew who he was, his address and what seems niw to a lack of a criminal record and could simply have arrested him at their leisure.

Do we know whether they actually knew who he was at the time he pulled off, or whether this came to light after they got him a second time?

Royality · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:09

Castiel said:
So it turns out that the Officer from the first case was a bigger criminal that Mr Whatley.

What on earth possess a Police Officer to steal £80 from someone in the first place?

Two good friends (brothers) both work for the Wiltshire and Sussex police respectively and even his brother will admit that the younger of the two has become an arrogant so and so since becoming a Policeman. (we are lifelong friends who schooled and served together so I know him better than his own mother).

We tell him, but he cannot see it himself.

I think that some are simply unsuited to the level of responsibility and inherent power you have as an Officer and for some reason their training no longer compensates for this.

I know two brothers. Both are modest and affable people, two of the nicest people I've ever met. Both are policemen in the Thames Valley force.

I think that some are simply suited to the level of responsibility and inherent power you have as an Officer and for good reason their training encourages this.

Castiel · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:17

Royality said:
I know two brothers. Both are modest and affable people, two of the nicest people I've ever met. Both are policemen in the Thames Valley force.

I think that some are simply suited to the level of responsibility and inherent power you have as an Officer and for good reason their training encourages this.

Maybe, like my friend those two brothers you refer to are simply not inclined to arrogance regardless of the training.

As you say SOME are suited, some are not and it is a shame that the same training that encourages Officers to be able to discharge their duties without prejudice and rancour doesn't also disqualify those candidates that are incapable of doing so.

Robbo · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:21

ElvisFan said:
Back in the 70's you wouldn't have ended up with flak-jacketed primates climbing all over your car just because you drove off promptly after getting a ticket.

Some of the replies in this thread defy belief.

TheVoice · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:22

Castiel said:
I disagree. The Officers knew who he was, his address and what seems now to a lack of a criminal record and could simply have arrested him at their leisure.

Or the man could have stopped as required by law in the first place. The police will end a pursuit if they feel it's becoming unsafe to continue and believe they can track down the suspects later, but there's absolutely no reason to let someone just drive away from the police and not pursue. Again, they have no idea what else he may be hiding and by simply letting him get away, they never will.

Castiel · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:25

[TW]Fox;17106261 said:
Do we know whether they actually knew who he was at the time he pulled off, or whether this came to light after they got him a second time?

They were issuing the ticket, so they must already have his details to do so. Also if the guardian is to be believed the Officer who jumped on the LandRover was from another separate unit, so given the road they could simply have boxed him in and calmly waited for him to respond.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&....uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

the fact that he wasn't found guilty of any accident, the issue of whether he attempted to run over the Officer should be disregarded.

Castiel · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:29

TheVoice said:
Or the man could have stopped as required by law in the first place. The police will end a pursuit if they feel it's becoming unsafe to continue and believe they can track down the suspects later, but there's absolutely no reason to let someone just drive away from the police and not pursue. Again, they have no idea what else he may be hiding and by simply letting him get away, they never will.

Read the Guardians take on this.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/?id=102202&....uk/uk/2010/aug/06/police-pensioner-car-chase

I still feel that the actions taken when he stopped the second time were excessive and un-neccessary. Simply allowing him a few minutes or attempting to address him before using such tactics would seem reasonable considering the events prior, none of which suggested violence or instability beyond his obvious unsuitability to hold a valid licence.

The following police officers even stated they were happy to continue, while I fully support the police's need to protect public safety I cannot see how the tactics used were the only ones they had.

I'm sorry but it is excessive.

Nash · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:30

I think the police were right. This man could have been high on killer skunk or god knows what else, meow meow maybe? He ought to have been tasered to incapacitate him so that he didn't pose a risk to the police who were bravely doing their jobs.

Fr0dders · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:41

vonhelmet said:
He thought they were giving him an escort home! With blue lights and sirens! He's fricking crackers! Take away his licence!

i dont believe it

you dont believe

the court didnt believe it either and found him guilty of failing to stop for police

says it all really.

B&W · 7 Aug 2010 at 00:45

Nash said:
I think the police were right. This man could have been high on killer skunk or god knows what else, meow meow maybe? He ought to have been tasered to incapacitate him so that he didn't pose a risk to the police who were bravely doing their jobs.

He could have been a brain eating zombie from mars! Oh wait he could be jeffrey dahmers long lost twin...

zipp0r · 7 Aug 2010 at 01:09

[TW]Fox;17105626 said:
How did they know WHAT they were dealing with? All the knew was that there was a guy in a high value car who had decided he'd rather make a break for it than pay a 30 quid seatbelt fine!

how do you know he drove off before recieving the fine paperwork :confused:

Vonhelmet · 7 Aug 2010 at 01:20

zipp0r said:
how do you know he drove off before recieving the fine paperwork

Why else would the police pursue him?

BTW, advance warning - this is the part where your argument is likely to veer off into wild speculation. Take care!

asim18 · 7 Aug 2010 at 02:32

Old man is completely baffled. Shouldn't be driving.

I feel the police reaction was a bit OTT though.

sniffy · 7 Aug 2010 at 02:35

Nash said:
This man could have been high on killer skunk

lol

I'm gonna guess you don't get out much.

dpbadger · 7 Aug 2010 at 02:42

He could have also been high on cake.

Tefal · 7 Aug 2010 at 02:58

dpbadger said:
He could have also been high on cake.

Well then he would have had years to realise they where following him and pull over

Burnsy2023 · 7 Aug 2010 at 08:56

TangoSixteen said:
However, once they finally decided to switch on the blues and twos SEVEN, yes SEVEN miles after the intimidation, they proceeded to bullcrap me by saying it was a requirement by law I carry my MOT certificate and insurance details on me.

When I pointed out that I actually had them, but I was under no obligation to produce, and that producing would take around 15 mins to seach through all my paperwork, I got the snide comment treatment.

I hate to rain on your parade, but you do have the requirement to carry documents with you and to produce them when requested by a constable. Failure to do so is an offence.

Dickyb0b · 7 Aug 2010 at 09:25

Thats just stupid , i hope the guy smashing the window gets fired...
You have to wonder how police treat there own children behind closed doors if they have this kind of attitude...all police shows on tv ,the cops seems decent and likeable..,looks like a guy stops and points to them telling them he is just a pensioner .....