This might get interesting

[Bernie174]

Actually, the evidence that he 'threatened' isn't clear. It's the alternatives to co-operation.

I'd go and watch one of the reality Police programs if I were you. You'll see the same thing said time and time and time again. Why do Police do it? In all fairness it's simply giving the person the full facts, you either co-operate or thats whats going to happen.

The simple fact is that officer clearly he wasn't aware of the photography GUIDELINES, (caps were intentional!). Well, poo happens, and if you had to keep half of what a Police Officer has to cart round in his head, you'd probably not remember things too. If you think thats a hanging offence then so be it. I don't, but then I can see beyond the "Bad Police" headline.

The incident has escalated because the officer didn't know something minor. However, in the circumstances he's gone down what he clearly thinks is right. And lets be honest, its a reasonable assumption that photographing the result of a fatal isn't something that there's a good reason for.

Again, if you've watched the whole thing, he hasn't deleted any photos, or forced chummy to do so. The "Threats" were a way of getting to look and see if there was a picture of the victim I'd expect. If there had of been then something different might have happened. But If's don't count for anything.

Ok, so ignoring the cause, that the Officer was wrong in his starting premise, if he honestly believed he was right, what's the difference between him doing what he did, and me, for example, as I have done many times, saying to a driver, either you tell me your name and address, or you'll get nicked, and I will keep you in custody until court? None at all, like him, all I have done is point out what is going to happen. I could just nick them, but then they'd be crying that they got arrested without a warning.

Now the cause of the incident also isn't clear, ie what chummy was up to before the video, but there's a clue in the whole thing if you watch it and it is relevant to this too, but I accept that doesn't matter to the lets have a hanging brigade, because it involves dull stuff like the headline being cobblers.

So, it may not matter to you what actually happened, but in terms of justice it matters a great deal. If it's how I've suggested, then yes, some re education may be required, but certainly not a hanging.

Blinkers? No, I've tried to look at all of it based on reality and experience. Hence why I don't feel the need to call for the guilty basket to be marched in, I'd prefer the whole incident to be investigated, as it is being, and then the matter be dealt with as appropriate, not as trial by internet.

Ah, Laudrup

I was right, clearly you don't understand the point I've been making.

I'll explain it again, but if it doesn't get through his time, I suggest you find someone who can draw you some pictures.

1. All anyone has seen is part of an incident, on a video, which may or may not be unedited, or genuine.
2. No one commenting here was there.
3.. It is being investigated.
4. Until that has been concluded, the Police Officer remains innocent.
5. Everyone (even Police Officers) is innocent until they have been found guilty by a Court of Jurisdiction, or a Disciplinary hearing, which is the former has heard all of the evidence (note the word ALL). In the case of the latter, it's a bit like trail by Internet, evidence doesn't really matter much.

So in short, leave the firing squad until all the facts are known. It's a simple point, but hard to accept by some.

 

[andya700]

I have watched the full length video of this, and listened to the police officer, and I fail to see how anyone can defend the behaviour of this police officer.
Since 1975, I have worked in places where we have to maintain a high level and respect (even if we do not feel respectful) towards clients and members of the public, even if they may be abusive. If I had ever been abusive, then I would have faced instant dismissal.
I think that there are a great many good policemen and women, but this guy, by virtue of his imbecilic actions, has had a massive negative effect on the reputation of his force, and more importantly on the decent colleagues who will now be tarred with the same brush.

 

[Bernie174]

If I had ever been abusive, then I would have faced instant dismissal

But would you expect to be tried by people based on some, not all of the evidence and sacked? I doubt it. Like everyone you'd want the whole picture to be presented.
Thats the point of investigating, so that all of the evidence is there, not just part.
If you want Police Officers hung without that full picture, then thats fine, but it would have to apply to all. So, for example lets say someone videos you saying or doing something which has an alternative context. Would you be happy for example being sacked or worse, imprisoned based on that?
So your point over defence is misplaced. It['s not necessarily defence of actions its defence of a process to ensure it is fair, reasonable and based on what really happened. The 2 things are not the same Andy.

 

[donut]

Well, poo happens, and
Ok, so ignoring the cause, that the Officer was wrong in his starting premise, if he honestly believed he was right, what's the difference between him doing what he did, and me, for example, as I have done many times, saying to a driver, either you tell me your name and address, or you'll get nicked, and I will keep you in custody until court? trial by internet.

.

would the answer to that be ,,,its an offence not to give your name and adress to an officer if you have been stopped driving a motor vehicle ?

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

I have watched the full length video of this, and listened to the police officer, and I fail to see how anyone can defend the behaviour of this police officer.
Since 1975, I have worked in places where we have to maintain a high level and respect (even if we do not feel respectful) towards clients and members of the public, even if they may be abusive. If I had ever been abusive, then I would have faced instant dismissal.
I think that there are a great many good policemen and women, but this guy, by virtue of his imbecilic actions, has had a massive negative effect on the reputation of his force, and more importantly on the decent colleagues who will now be tarred with the same brush.

I so Right Andy ... such a shame, again!

 

[boyfalldown]

I have watched the full length video of this, and listened to the police officer, and I fail to see how anyone can defend the behaviour of this police officer.

A genuine question. The video only contains part of the conversation.

It was during this period the photographer got into an exchange with the police officer, secretly recording part of the conversation which he uploaded to a video sharing website.

(from the BBC. ) Its defensible, if nothing else on the basis we've no idea what was said before or after the video, surely?

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

would the answer to that be ,,,its an offence not to give your name and adress to an officer if you have been stopped driving a motor vehicle ?

Aye thats right.

A totally pointless example it is.

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

oops

 

[TCR4x4]

This incident happened outside a Police Station, a small local one. The officer in question is a traffic officer based elsewhere. Pretty unlikely he was first on scene. The argument of him being riled up due to adrenaline after witnessing the aftermath of a fatal accident shouldn't hold any weight. Im sure he has seen much worse in his time and as a professional, he shouldn't let anything like that affect him whilst on duty. Sure its sad watching someone die, I know, Ive held someone in my arms as they died from horrific head injuries but It didn't turn me into a arrogant dick.

I'd bet he was putting on a bit of bravado in front of his local bobby colleagues and ended up getting filmed saying stuff he neither meant or would usually say. He has ruined his career for the sake of a bloke with a camera.

 

[boyfalldown]

oops

none, but wouldn't you like to understand the whole story before judging...rather then basing it on one (very biased IMHO) viewpoint.

I've said before, I think the police should always be very accountable for their actions. I don't think a trial by youtube is the way to do that though. I don't believe the photographer was worried by the officer and had any intention of doing anything but exacerbating the situation.

Sorry - you edited your post before I finished typing, mine doesn't make a heap of sense now

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

Sorry Hugh, didn't mean to address this point of yours again, as I said before no I don't think any pre-evidence can make his threats acceptable.

I dont care what the sob story is, the damage has been done.

 

[POAH]

Lose his job for that are you real?? Even if he is found guilty (and at the moment it is IF) of being, in your words 'unprofessional' you think he should be sacked straight away without being given any counselling, assistance or retraining to address any issues he may have with a view to him not repeating this behaviour (if found guilty). You are way out of touch with the way things operate in the modern world. Feel free to step back on the planet at any time.

should be sacked for threatening to assault a member of the public - The police do not have the authority to act above the law. There is a proper way to do things and the PO clearly doesn't know how to.

 

[POAH]

So just sack him without even attempting to establish if there are any underlying reasons for his behaviour (if guilty). Gimme a break never heard such utter pish!!!!

There is no excuse for his behaviour.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Ok, so ignoring the cause, that the Officer was wrong in his starting premise, if he honestly believed he was right, what's the difference between him doing what he did, and me, for example, as I have done many times, saying to a driver, either you tell me your name and address, or you'll get nicked, and I will keep you in custody until court? None at all, like him, all I have done is point out what is going to happen. I could just nick them, but then they'd be crying that they got arrested without a warning.

Bad example, those of us that have driving licences know we are required in law to identify ourselves on request to an officer if stopped while driving whether suspected of an offence or not, whereas there is no such default requirement if you are stopped (or stopped and searched) on the street.

 

[BRASH]

should be sacked for threatening to assault a member of the public - The police do not have the authority to act above the law. There is a proper way to do things and the PO clearly doesn't know how to.

I see you've not decided to land yet. Judge, jury and executioner eh?

Thank Christ yer nae senior management in my job because I'd definitely be sacked and nae for threats neither.

 

[fracster]

Thank God we have a judicial system in this country, thank God we have courts were all the evidence is heard and a decision reached ,whether by jury, magistrate or other officer of the court.

None of you were there, none of you have the full facts. As such, you all making assumptions based on some of the evidence, some are defending the guy, some are not. But until you have all the facts, which ain`t gonna happen, you are all going off half cocked.

Some of you are like Cavannagh QC Wannabees. why not wait until the full facts are heard by the courts and stop jumping to conclusions.

 

[ChrisHeathcote]

Actually in most cases the reverse is true, a frontline police officer is going to come across many scenes and situations like this, and worse, and will very quickly become 'adjusted' to it - if they don't they will be unable to continue doing the job.

Firstly I didn't see any evidence that he was 'photographing an elderly person fighting for their life', it appears that he was photographing an accident scene - why isn't it a public interest story? It (probably unknown to him at the time) would have undoubtedly made the local news media later in the day and who is to say that it wasn't a notorious accident blackspot?

Yes if he was hanging over the car photographing the dying man I would entirely agree ... but how often have we seen photos or news footage of accidents, war, terrorism etc - should all such coverage be stopped?

I'm sure I heard the officer mention that they were fighting for their life and the press report stated that it was an old woman in their 80's (86 I think) and later died.

As to comparin it to footage of war and terror, I think its hardly the same thing. Those incidents show cicil unrest and things that should be learnt from by everyone as a whole, however some random accident in the street is hardly in the same context. My point about it public interest stories was that if he had know that the media would be interested in the story I could understand, however taking photos of a random crime seen just seems a bit morbid. Like I said each to their own and what interests one person might not interest others. Just my view thats all. I think there are too many unknown factors to be able to condemn anyone and I for one think the police do a great job and have to put up with hell of a lot

 

[Bernie174]

would the answer to that be ,,,its an offence not to give your name and adress to an officer if you have been stopped driving a motor vehicle ?

What a shame you've decided to comment on what you think, in spite of missing the valid point, rather than what I wrote.

I'll repeat it for you, it's pointing out the alternatives. If, and I'd suggest he obviously did at that time believe that he was acting properly, then in his mind that was the next step. In the same way a driver refusing to give his name address, it would be the next step. It's simply that. Trying to muddy waters with "Yer buts" in just evidence of no interest in looking at a whole incident, and only being interested in one outcome no matter what the facts are.

 

[Laudrup]

Thank God we have a judicial system in this country, thank God we have courts were all the evidence is heard and a decision reached ,whether by jury, magistrate or other officer of the court.

None of you were there, none of you have the full facts. As such, you all making assumptions based on some of the evidence, some are defending the guy, some are not. But until you have all the facts, which ain`t gonna happen, you are all going off half cocked.

Some of you are like Cavannagh QC Wannabees. why not wait until the full facts are heard by the courts and stop jumping to conclusions.

What court is it being heard at?

 

[boyfalldown]

What court is it being heard at?

Court of YouTube, seeing as the photographer can't even manage a complaint

 

[odd jim]

should be sacked for threatening to assault a member of the public - The police do not have the authority to act above the law. There is a proper way to do things and the PO clearly doesn't know how to.

From what I've seen, he didn't threaten to assault anyone.

The officer said "you were lucky I didn't knock you out!"

Note the words used - "were" and "didn't" are past tense. So there isn't actually a threat of assault.

Anyway, the way he said it was a flippant remark, I doubt it was intended as a serious comment.

 

[gramps]

I'm sure I heard the officer mention that they were fighting for their life and the press report stated that it was an old woman in their 80's (86 I think) and later died.

Yes but there is no evidence that the photographer was photographing anything more than a 'general' accident scene.

As to comparin it to footage of war and terror, I think its hardly the same thing. Those incidents show cicil unrest and things that should be learnt from by everyone as a whole, however some random accident in the street is hardly in the same context. My point about it public interest stories was that if he had know that the media would be interested in the story I could understand, however taking photos of a random crime seen just seems a bit morbid. Like I said each to their own and what interests one person might not interest others. Just my view thats all. I think there are too many unknown factors to be able to condemn anyone and I for one think the police do a great job and have to put up with hell of a lot

Sorry but I disagree, have you never seen tv programmes that for example show reporters going along with ambulances and being actually at the scene when people are being cut from cars after accidents etc.? A fatal accident will be newsworthy at a local level, if not a national level.
In general terms, yes the police do a great job and they certainly have a lot to put up with, (I know I've been one), but they are also trained and required to behave in a proper, lawful and civil manner toward members of the public.
When that breaks down it does untold damage to the public perception of the police, that is why the officer concerned must be made to account for his actions ... not in a criminal environment, as so far as I can see no criminal act was committed, but he should be made to account for his conduct to his force as the 'accusation' of improper conduct is in the public domain.

 

[RedRobin]

should be sacked for threatening to assault a member of the public

There is no excuse for his behaviour.

....Aren't you the same guy who is so inconsiderate to others that you think it acceptable to fart in public?

And yet you would have someone be sacked and lose their means of income without so much as a fair and proper hearing in a court. I think you deserve to be flogged!

 

[BRASH]

....Aren't you the same guy who is so inconsiderate to others that you think it acceptable to fart in public?

And yet you would have someone be sacked and lose their means of income without so much as a fair and proper hearing in a court. I think you deserve to be flogged!

FFS, I agree with him again. Are you my long lost twin??

 

[Digifrog]

I bet the policeman in the video is a passionate Nikon user

 

[BRASH]

I bet the policeman in the video is a passionate Nikon user

Nah, he wan't that much of a div!

 

[POAH]

....Aren't you the same guy who is so inconsiderate to others that you think it acceptable to fart in public?

And yet you would have someone be sacked and lose their means of income without so much as a fair and proper hearing in a court. I think you deserve to be flogged!

at no point did I say he shouldn't have a proper hearing

and you are assuming all farts make a noise

 

[RedRobin]

at no point did I say he shouldn't have a proper hearing

and you are assuming all farts make a noise

....Your words which I previously quoted have clearly expressed that you have already judged and sentenced him before there has in fact been any hearing to date.

At no point did I define whether farts are silent or make a noise

 

[donut]

2. You were there for the whole incident, and therefore know that there was no offence foir which chummy might be arrested?

3. Is the same point as 2, so must be a typo then.

So in summary, you don't know you were not there. You think you know because you have seen a video. I saw Avatar, and guess what, that was fiction.
.

sorry didnt realise you were there Bernie

 

[dkh]

Assuming the video isn't dubbed, there are some facts that remain:
1. No one is beyond the law
2. To arrest someone, let alone put them into a cell, you need to quote the part of the law under which the arrest is being made, obstruction of duty - as seen in the video - is not part of the law of obstruction of duty.
3. Nobody has the right, regardless of circumstances, to use more than necessary force.
4. Regardless of our opinions or points of view - there is no law to restrict photography in public places.

 

[TG.]

I watched all of the video, and quite honestly the officer comes across as a total moron and a bully, "I will make your day a living hell" wtf, sounds like he has been watching to many episodes of Blue bloods, yes the guy probably acted like a div, but that is no excuse for the way the officer spoke to him, bearing in mind this is no rookie cop who has just gone on the beat, he referred to himself as a sergeant, which would/should indicate a certain level of experience, particularly in dealing with members of the public, my guess is (and it is only a guess) he was showing off in front of other officers asserting his authority "this is my crime scene" etc etc and it's backfired on him royally, whether he should be sacked is another matter, but I think he should be severely reprimanded, and taken down a peg or three.

 

[kestral]

The police man is wrong in law. He has also got serious mental problems in my opinion.

It is a just as well the tog did not call his bluff about the arrest and detention at a police station otherwise the police man would be in even more trouble than he is now.

It is completely legal to photograph road traffic accidents 100% even with the victims in them.

The press have no more rights than the public.It might not be very moral but the self same people who say "you can't photograph that your awful" are the ones rushing to the newsagents in the morning to buy the paper to see the photos".

 

[Forbiddenbiker]

From what I've seen, he didn't threaten to assault anyone.

The officer said "you were lucky I didn't knock you out!"

Note the words used - "were" and "didn't" are past tense. So there isn't actually a threat of assault.

Anyway, the way he said it was a flippant remark, I doubt it was intended as a serious comment.

 

[a1ex2001]

Both tog and officer we're behaving like children/idiots 10 years ago that's where it would have ended but today's society ends up with selectively edited YouTube videos pointless investigations and mass I'll informed outrage. It's all a little sad and repetitive and doesn't seem to be making the world a better place!