and the site receives a small commission
Police chase
- Thread starter boliston
- Start date
- Status
Slaphead
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 673
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
that's not a recent story is it ?
9 Sep 2009
No, but the latest news regarding this is that the pensioner has finally received £20K compensation from the police force involved. Which is probably why this is now making a reappearance.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-20k-police-smashed-Range-Rovers-window.html
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
This is the story of a driver who refused to stop for a marked police car... He was driving 2 1/2 tons of potentially lethal weapon.
It's all very well being critical of the police (and I often am) but how were they supposed to know at the time that he was just an arse with a history of driving offences and a poor attitude towards the police? He could have been an armed criminal, and IMO the police were fully justified in acting as they did.
If he has now been compensated then I think that's a misuse of public funds.
It's all very well being critical of the police (and I often am) but how were they supposed to know at the time that he was just an arse with a history of driving offences and a poor attitude towards the police? He could have been an armed criminal, and IMO the police were fully justified in acting as they did.
If he has now been compensated then I think that's a misuse of public funds.
AndrewA123
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,263
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I remember this making the news the first time, as i recall his list of previous offences was rather long and his attitude didn't help him.joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
ummmm, wtf?
So the police should smash in the window of anyone who breaks a traffic law by matter of course, just incase they are armed?
What made them decide to act this way in this particular incident? Is it normal procedure that the first action from the police is to run and smash in the window and windscreen? Aren't they supposed to stand back and announce to the driver to stay in their car, or step out or something a little more reserved first for a traffic violation?
secondly, why did the old boy decide not to stop exactly, it didn't say anything in the report - was he deaf?
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
the act of smashing the windows is standard practice which disorintates the driver to prevent them reacting to the police trying to get them out and/or driving off again.
the driver failed to stop, that in itself is from what i recall a serious offence :shrug:
oh and 20k for breaking the law? man i need to commit motoring offences more often..
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
if you look at the video he's doing 40mph driving over the white line forcing other vehicles into the hedge and refusing to stop -and smashing a window when someone won't unlock their door after a pursuit is standard practice (its hardly "smashing up his car" ) (and the winscreen prevents them from driving off again)If he was innocent you could see a case for compensation but as he's guilty of dangerous driving and failing to stop i can't see any reason to give him a penny
this is only a story at all because of the culprits age - if he was a boy racer in a souped up barry mobile no one would give a flying one - is there now a maximum age above which you can break the law with impunity ?
Last edited:
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have been stopped for speeding before, nobody smashed my window in. Or is it only standard practice to smash the window in of someone who doesn't stop right away? is there a time limit?
and why did they settle out of court if it was standard practice?
neil_g
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 30,364
- Name
- Neil
- Edit My Images
- No
yeah but you stopped, this guy didnt and he was driving irratically etc.
PR. (in my opinion)
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
They smash the window after a pursuit - ie if you fail to stop as its a reasonable assumption in most cases that someone who runs has something to hide and may well have weapons, drugs etc, and its straight forward to prevent them driving off and to gain access to the vehicle.
They'll have settled out of court (IMO) because some gutless civil servant doesnt have the cojones to risk some bad press due to the offenders age in order to back up the men on the front line
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I think the offices should have used a little bit of common sense here.
Ok so if a car doesn't stop and is driving 80mph swerving and doing everything they can to obviously get away etc then sure the likelihood is that the culprit is possibly got drugs or weapons etc, smashy smashy.
But if the culprit is poodelling along at 40mph not even breaking the speed limit, and once you get up to the window it's clear he's an OAP, maybe use some nounce and stop the smashy smashy. I bet if the first cop had smashed into the window and then realised who the driver was, and then stopped the police wouldn't have had to shell out a penny because it would have shown standard practice followed by a policeman who used his head to adjust to the situation.
In this instance I think it has shown these two policeman up for following protocol to the letter instead of using some common sense and intelligence.
Ok so if a car doesn't stop and is driving 80mph swerving and doing everything they can to obviously get away etc then sure the likelihood is that the culprit is possibly got drugs or weapons etc, smashy smashy.
But if the culprit is poodelling along at 40mph not even breaking the speed limit, and once you get up to the window it's clear he's an OAP, maybe use some nounce and stop the smashy smashy. I bet if the first cop had smashed into the window and then realised who the driver was, and then stopped the police wouldn't have had to shell out a penny because it would have shown standard practice followed by a policeman who used his head to adjust to the situation.
In this instance I think it has shown these two policeman up for following protocol to the letter instead of using some common sense and intelligence.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
or alternately they run up to the window, pause to look through it to make sure its not a pensioner and are promptly shot several times by a deranged headcase with a shot gun and a grudge, or a drug dealer with a pistol etc
You dont seem to understand that this is the risk that the police take every day on our behalf - its very easy to second guess from the comfort of an armchair and a computer - but hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Alternately, and more prosaicly, the perpetrator just drives off again , and 3 miles further knocks down a child and kills them - the same bleeding heart liberals who are now castigating the police for stopping him , would now be whining about why didnt they do something sooner.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
you didn't read what i wrote properly, or i didn't explain it properly. 2 police offices continued to smash the windows. At any point during this action they would have seen who the perpetrator was and could have stopped what they were doing. They didn't and that was their mistake. At 1.16 he stops and looks, then continues. Error!!
Also, why is it a window smash that does it, surely slashing the tires would have the same result without potentially covering the perpetrator in broken glass?
Last edited:
So the police should carry knives? Just give 'em guns and shoot the tyres out instead.
This is a comment from one of the posts...not sure how true it is but it does put a different slant on it.
"He drove off when stopped the first time, knocking over a policeman in the process (as per the DM's original story), failed to stop despite being pursued for eight miles, eventually having to be stopped with a stinger device, but because he could afford to pay top dollar for a good solicitor, he gets away with it. But leave out a few key facts, play up the grandfather angle, and you've got a DM sadface hero on your hands.
- Frosty Jack, UK, 03/2/2012 09:18"
Last edited:
SpikeK6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,543
- Name
- Spike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So its ok to have protocol but not use it, got to rely on common sence. I bet my common sence differs to yuors so who's do we use??
If the driver was deaf that is certainly not an excuse as he has mirrows and can see(hopefully).
If you fail to stop for the police no matter what you have or even havent done then you deserve all yuo get. How do we know he is not known to the police for offences of violent nature???? like all stuff on here we only ever get one side of the story and have to guess the rest. And all we can only ever comment on is what we see above, and from what I have seen if you do not stop when asked too then you are in trouble with a capital T.
spike
If the driver was deaf that is certainly not an excuse as he has mirrows and can see(hopefully).
If you fail to stop for the police no matter what you have or even havent done then you deserve all yuo get. How do we know he is not known to the police for offences of violent nature???? like all stuff on here we only ever get one side of the story and have to guess the rest. And all we can only ever comment on is what we see above, and from what I have seen if you do not stop when asked too then you are in trouble with a capital T.
spike
OutLore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,907
- Name
- Spencer
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Tough one this... clearly the guy either had no idea the police were behind him - unlikely unless he was hard of sight/hearing. Or he didn't know what to do?
He had plenty of places to pull over, if he didn't want to stop on the highway, there were a couple of turnings/lay bys he drove right by. We also don't know how long they had been following him prior to that video clip....
On a related note - I thought you were "allowed" to drive to a place of safety if you were requested to stop - IE police station etc? If it were me I'd be a little hesitant of stopping on an unlit backroad - there was a few cases around here some years ago where people were stopped by the "police" on a quiet country road only to be robbed/assaulted etc... (not saying this is the case here as the car is dressed up and it's daylight)....
He had plenty of places to pull over, if he didn't want to stop on the highway, there were a couple of turnings/lay bys he drove right by. We also don't know how long they had been following him prior to that video clip....
On a related note - I thought you were "allowed" to drive to a place of safety if you were requested to stop - IE police station etc? If it were me I'd be a little hesitant of stopping on an unlit backroad - there was a few cases around here some years ago where people were stopped by the "police" on a quiet country road only to be robbed/assaulted etc... (not saying this is the case here as the car is dressed up and it's daylight)....
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Well, I just think at 1.16 when the policeman looks in and see's the old boy, combined with the fact that he was poodling along he makes a jusgement call to stop smashing the window.
The fact he carried on is why the driver now has £20,000 in his pocket.
So does anyone know why the driver didn't stop, was he deliberatley doing it or did he claim not to have noticed?
The fact he carried on is why the driver now has £20,000 in his pocket.
So does anyone know why the driver didn't stop, was he deliberatley doing it or did he claim not to have noticed?
He was doing a runner for failing to accept a Fixed Penalty notice by another patrol over 8 miles away and he also knocked over the policeman issuing the ticket.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
so doesn't that then negate the whole reason for the window smash? Someone above said the windws are smashed to stop him driving off, but the stinger already did that. So again it does appear the smashing was excessive wouldn't you agree?
That guy is a jerk -as in the old man, not tom!!
Last edited:
Speed and age have nothing to do with it. Seen police chases on TV lower than 20 mph as he driver was off face on all sorts of drugs (can still cause serious harm/damage at low speeds). As been said, no matter of age he can still be armed etc.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But didn't the police already know who he was and what he had been stopped for before since he drove off from another policeman? that policeman would have called it in and descibed the driver, he would have known if he was off his face on drugs etc.
also if he wanted to fire a weapon he could have done so at the fellow jogging up to the car before his window was smashed by officer 2. It doesn't add up. In this particular instance the police used exessive force and had to pay the price
also if he wanted to fire a weapon he could have done so at the fellow jogging up to the car before his window was smashed by officer 2. It doesn't add up. In this particular instance the police used exessive force and had to pay the price
AndrewA123
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,263
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So, the guy is stopped for a minor ticketing offence, then drives off knocking over the issuing officer. He then proceeds to make no effort to stop to the persuing marked car.
Don't you think that the police have every right to follow the standard protocol for those failing to stop. The first officer wouldn't have searched his vehicle, so by fleeing from a standard £60 fine in a £60k motor, suspicions would be high that he has something to hide. using the "pensioner" card cuts no ice with me, he committed a crime, regardless of age, sex or race he should be dealt with the same way as everyone else would for the same offence.
Sorry, but they didn't know what they were dealing with, and followed standard protocol. They should be commended for doing the job that most of us wouldn't want to do.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
or look at it this way
1. They know his license plate so during the chase can find out prior offenses, none of which allude to any drug or weapons
2. The standard procedure to smash the window is to stop them driving off, since the stinger did this anyway - what was the need for the smashing
3. at 1.16 the policeman stop and look in - at this point the policeman clearly wasn't worried he was going to be shot at (otherwise why stop?) see's the old man in there with no weapon and not a threat, but has a few more smashes anyway
excessive force was shown in my opinion.
SpikeK6
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,543
- Name
- Spike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Ok if the bit about him knocking over a policeman is true, then what would you expect them to do just go up and be all nice.
Like said we where not there and we have not seen the other side of the story but I would hazzard a guess he is known to the police and more than likely has previous.
That being the case (only guessing here) how do we know he does not have previos for armed offences.
spike
Like said we where not there and we have not seen the other side of the story but I would hazzard a guess he is known to the police and more than likely has previous.
That being the case (only guessing here) how do we know he does not have previos for armed offences.
spike
Garry Edwards
Moderator
- Messages
- 13,475
- Name
- Garry Edwards
- Edit My Images
- No
Stingers don't stop cars, they just make it impossible to control the car safely at speed, which hopefully encourages people to stop running - but there are a lot of drunks and druggies who have just carried on, driving on bare rims and endangering other people in the process.
And what if this particular car had runflat tyres?
Stingers are just a tool that the police have available to them, and the police are entitled to use reasonable force (force that they consider reasonable at the time, based on the information that they do have or should have). I repeat, the driver should have stopped, switched off his engine and unlocked his door, the police would then have dealt with him without using violence.
I was stopped by police once, their ANPR system wrongly told them that I didn't have insurance. They flashed, I stopped, they were courteous and so was I. I got on with my day and they got on with theirs, no problem.
And what if this particular car had runflat tyres?
Stingers are just a tool that the police have available to them, and the police are entitled to use reasonable force (force that they consider reasonable at the time, based on the information that they do have or should have). I repeat, the driver should have stopped, switched off his engine and unlocked his door, the police would then have dealt with him without using violence.
I was stopped by police once, their ANPR system wrongly told them that I didn't have insurance. They flashed, I stopped, they were courteous and so was I. I got on with my day and they got on with theirs, no problem.
AndrewA123
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,263
- Name
- Andrew
- Edit My Images
- Yes
to answer your points:
1. ok, no past convictions for weapons or drugs. doesn't mean he doesn't have any, it means he's never been caught. Assume the worst until proven otherwise and live to tell the tale IMO. Secondly what is to say he is the owner of the vehicle ?
2. as Garry has said, a stinger will not stop a car, you've seen it yourself on tv etc the number of miles a determined criminal will travel on rims only. it makes the car more dangerous if driven, why risk it?
3. Do you know where his hands were ? do you know he wasn't reaching into the glove box, into the door pocket or under a seat? No, you don't as a result, only the officers can say what he was doing at the time.
Last edited:
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
have you watched the video from that point on?
It's pretty clear that he wasn't doing any of those things the way they then open the door and get him out.
at the end of the day, I think it's clear that excessive force was used and the compensation would show that the police were worried about that coming out in an independent review so paid him off.
You may feel differently and for the sake of repeating ourselves again and again, we can agree to disagree and I'll make that my last comment on the topic
OutLore
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 2,907
- Name
- Spencer
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes - when the idiot ran over a police officer. TBH, giving this buffoon money instead of taking him to caught for attempted murder is insane.
Oh, but then he is old, so we should let him off.... So he can do it again.
Take his license away, make him resit the driving test every 6 months (which he has to pay for) as he either has no respect for other people, let alone the law - either that or he "didn't notice" the array of lights and peircing siren that had been following him for 8 miles (alledgedly).
:bang::bang::bang:
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Also running the plates will only tell them who the registered keeper is , it won't tell them who is driving so the whole point about priors is moot - all they know for sure is that the guy has already driven off from one stop injuring a cop in the process
also you (joe) say that its clear he wasnt doing any of those things - how can you tell from a video shot from behind the car ? - and anyway even if it was clear in retrospect how could the arresting officers have known as they approached the car.
- Messages
- 20,964
- Name
- Pete
- Edit My Images
- Yes
how can excessive force have been used when its shown on video that protocol is followed - its not exactly rodney king.
and the compensation doesnt show anything - its the usual policy of insurance companies to settle for a small amount out of court if they can rather than fight a case and potentially spend more win or lose.
S
stupar
Guest
I don't condone the compensation payout part but when viewing the footage I don't see him cross the white line as suggested above and the car that was virtually in the hedge pulled over having seen the police car with blue's and two's, nothing to do with being forced over by the RR.
That is a natural reaction I do when I see an emergency vehicle - give it space.
Anyway, whilst it may be protocol it does look rather barbaric and like watching the chimps at the local wildlife drive through!
If that is protocol why don't all police officers use it?
When you watch these things on TV you very rarely see that happen. But then maybe that only shows the less glamorous side of the force :shrug:
Like I say I'm not defending the old boy, crime is crime and he should be punished for it.
That is a natural reaction I do when I see an emergency vehicle - give it space.
Anyway, whilst it may be protocol it does look rather barbaric and like watching the chimps at the local wildlife drive through!
If that is protocol why don't all police officers use it?
When you watch these things on TV you very rarely see that happen. But then maybe that only shows the less glamorous side of the force :shrug:
Like I say I'm not defending the old boy, crime is crime and he should be punished for it.
- Messages
- 2,160
- Name
- Jonathan
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So 8 miles back they knew who and what they were dealing with and 8 miles further on they'd worked themselves up into a frenzy of over-aggression and self-righteous revenge.
- Messages
- 12,095
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So if you knew he had supposedly already run someone over you would just wander over and calmly open his door and hope he didn't try and hurt you?
The footage looks shocking and can't help but think the only reason he got compensation is due to the Daily Fail getting involved and the public pressure and some "genius" high-up thinking it would be better to pay out to avoid any more bad publicity.
If everything is true that he has a list of offences and had already done a hit and run then I think that it is completely justified, all they did was smash a bit of glass! it isn't like they took him out and beat him! I think some people need some perspective.
joescrivens
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 15,052
- Name
- Joe
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I love the way this "knocking over a policeman" apparant incident has now become a "hit and run"
courtesy of the bbc
there was no conviction of running over a policeman.
- Status