Argument with a polis

[Crankarm]

Hooray some one is on the ball. Fancy a job as a copper or a .......... lawyer ?

 

[CopperCyclist]

But the policing in the OP's description was shockingly bad. There are few good police officers, a couple post on here, but too many are ignorant arrogant lazy oafs and these are the good ones!

I'd be slower to judge, because we have to be careful and take into account the human factor. I'm a cyclist as well as a police officer - and you can bet if I'd have stopped Mickle his post would have been grudgingly grateful for the fact that I saw it from his point of view, and the encounter would have been more as he suspected it should have gone.

However, this isn't because I'm a 'better' officer than the one that stopped him. It's because I'm a cyclist and more attuned to Mickle's (and other posters) viewpoint/wavelength.

You could get other scenarios, where readers here may (or may not) completely agree with the way I dealt with something, whilst a group of people of similar mind wouldn't, and would offer perfectly acceptable reasons.

For example, a group of rugby lads getting extremely drunk and rowdy may believe themselves extremely wronged if I (not ever being a rugby player) was unable to immediately spot the difference between them having a laugh between themselves and a group out for trouble. A parent struggling with a child may find advice offered by me (never having been a parent) erroneous and insulting. I'm sure you can think of further scenarios.

If I'd have been the copper in Mickles scenario, in the big picture EXACTLY the same outcome would have happened - no tickets, no prosecutions, no arrests, just advice to both. Mickle however would have been much, much happier - but it would have been because I was a cyclist, not a better copper, and it's a point sometimes worth remembering!

 

[Jezston]

but it would have been because I was a cyclist, not a better copper

I wouldn't have thought you'd have needed to have been a cyclist to see who was in greater error in that situation. I'd have to disagree and go with 'better copper'.

 

[machew]

PoPo
A Police officer. especially the ones that rides on bikes.
Orgin: California late 80's
police officers that patrols certain beaches on bikes wore a vest that said PO in huge blockletters on each of their chest. which means Police Officer. they usually ride around in group of two's.
urbandictionary

 

[CopperCyclist]

I wouldn't have thought you'd have needed to have been a cyclist to see who was in greater error in that situation. I'd have to disagree and go with 'better copper'.

I'll thank you for the compliment, but press on a little with my original theory! Some of my... how should I put this... 'less cycle aware' colleagues would have no idea how scary, or to a degree dangerous a close pass can be. They'd probably have thought 'she didn't touch him so why has he got angry'. They'd be wrong - no argument there - but it would have a lot more to do with them not having ridden a bike than being bad at their job.

Alternatively you could be right and he could be an arrogant know it all who refuses to back down once he's set out his stall - there's one on every shift, and as the saying goes, if you're a copper and there isn't one on your shift, it's you!

 

[400bhp]

I'd be slower to judge, because we have to be careful and take into account the human factor. I'm a cyclist as well as a police officer - and you can bet if I'd have stopped Mickle his post would have been grudgingly grateful for the fact that I saw it from his point of view, and the encounter would have been more as he suspected it should have gone.

However, this isn't because I'm a 'better' officer than the one that stopped him. It's because I'm a cyclist and more attuned to Mickle's (and other posters) viewpoint/wavelength.

You could get other scenarios, where readers here may (or may not) completely agree with the way I dealt with something, whilst a group of people of similar mind wouldn't, and would offer perfectly acceptable reasons.

For example, a group of rugby lads getting extremely drunk and rowdy may believe themselves extremely wronged if I (not ever being a rugby player) was unable to immediately spot the difference between them having a laugh between themselves and a group out for trouble. A parent struggling with a child may find advice offered by me (never having been a parent) erroneous and insulting. I'm sure you can think of further scenarios.

If I'd have been the copper in Mickles scenario, in the big picture EXACTLY the same outcome would have happened - no tickets, no prosecutions, no arrests, just advice to both. Mickle however would have been much, much happier - but it would have been because I was a cyclist, not a better copper, and it's a point sometimes worth remembering!

I disagree and this is symptomatic of many peoples' view of the police.

We all know that you [the police] have to make snap judgements and will occasionally get it wrong - what you've actually described (and is really interesting that you are a serving officer) is an endemic lack of training, insamuch that police officers lack the means to look at situations that are different from an entrenched personal view.

Was this response used as mitigation in the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry by any chance.

Using the rugby analagy is laughable,

 

[spen666]

Errrr ....... I think you are being a little melodramatic and exaggerating what actually took place. I fail to see how you have concluded that the OP's conduct was violent behaviour against an old lady which suggests an assault which it was not. You started off claiming it was criminal damage even though it was made clear that NO DAMAGE was actually done. Oh dear. I don't believe there is an offence of assaulting a car as a car is property not a person.

Firstly, I have not said or suggested there was an assault.

There was the use of violent behaviour and the victim was an old lady as per the OP post

No one has suggested there is an offence of assaulting a car except you. I did earlier give a list of some offences that were potentially made out by the actions of the OP

Sadly some people seem to think violent behaviour against others (including old ladies) is justified when you are annoyed or upset. All I can say is I hope motorists do not think the same

Whatever the driver did or did not do does not justify after the event violent actions. Said car was stationary when OP carried out his actions. There is no justification for this

 

[spen666]

[QUOTE 1801785, member: 45"]The main issue here isn't about what Mickle did, but that the police ignored the dangerous driving in favour of a knock on the car.[/quote]

You are making the huge leap that:

a) the police saw the driving ( no evidence to suggest they saw it)
b) the police if they saw driving thought it wrong - we only have one side of events. It may be the police (rightly or wrongly) did not take the view it was bad driving

 

[GetAGrip]

Me; 'She overtook too closely and then cut dangerously in front of me. Didn't you see?
Plod; Yes I saw, but that's no reason to damage someone's car'.

Last point spen666, cause this is just going round in circles now, and as a lawyer you will strangle me with jargon anyhow .
The police seemed to acknowledge the event and did not voice an opposing opinion.

 

[Crankarm]

Firstly, I have not said or suggested there was an assault.

There was the use of violent behaviour and the victim was an old lady as per the OP post

Victim? There was no victim. A car is not a victim. By stating there was implies an assault.

No one has suggested there is an offence of assaulting a car except you.

Errr ....... I did not. You have suggested as much by your exaggeration of what took place.


I did earlier give a list of some offences that were potentially made out by the actions of the OP

No criminal damage though as there was NO damage and no victim, old lady or otherwise.

Sadly some people seem to think violent behaviour against others (including old ladies) is justified when you are annoyed or upset.

I don't think anyone has suggested this. You're such a drama queen.

All I can say is I hope motorists do not think the same

And we never see aggressive dangerous retailiatory driving by drivers to other drivers .............

Whatever the driver did or did not do does not justify after the event violent actions.

I put the question to you if the OP had carried this out while the dangerous driving was being carried out on them and you have still to respond.

Said car was stationary when OP carried out his actions. There is no justification for this

No mention of the car being stationary only that it was nipping into a parking space and the OP struck the wing mirror as he passed. Actually I have heard Po's justify not taking action by stating they deserved it ir they had it coming so in this instance given that the cyclist was placed in mortal danger it is understandable. If the cyclist were charged then I would expect the PoPos to fully investigate a complaint of dangerous/reckless/careless driving too which the driver admitted. The PoPos shouldn't be deciding which offences they will investigate and charge according to their own prejudices.

 

[spen666]

Crankarm,

This is a pointless debate


If my house is broken into, when I am away. I am a victim. There has been no assault on me. In the same way, the lady was a victim of violent behaviour- for the offences see my earlier post.

Re assaulting a car - please show me and the rest of the forum where I have said or suggested there is such an offence. I have never said or implied such a thing. You seem to be twisting words and importing things into what I have said

Re criminal damage - you would note that I said criminal damage or attempted criminal damage was a POSSIBLE offence - neither I nor you have examined said car so do not know if there was damage. We only have an account from one party to the incident.


As for the last question, that is not what is alleged to have happened and I am not going to be side tracked by such diversionary tactics. You clearly seem to think you know the law so well that it would not be hard for you to look up said situation

 

[BenM]

neither I nor you have examined said car so do not know if there was damage

I hesitate to dive in to the "should I whack wing mirrors" debate, but if the mirror 'flipped' as designed then it could be held that damage had in fact occurred because, until reset to its normal operating position, it could not be used for its intended purpose. From elsewhere in the thread the 'damage', should m'learned friend accept that such has occurred, was without lawful excuse, the wing mirror was/is the property of another, and also the action was intended therefore the offence is complete (IMHO - INAL/IANAPO )

B.

 

[Dan B]

I would refer you to A (a Juvenile) v R (a Queen?) [1978] Crim LR 689

The defendant spat on a policeman's rain coat. The spittle could be easily wiped off and left no permanent damage. It was held that this did not constitute unlawful damage to property. It would have been different if the material was different and left a stain or required dry cleaning.

 

[mickle]

Firstly, I have not said or suggested there was an assault.

There was the use of violent behaviour and the victim was an old lady as per the OP post

No one has suggested there is an offence of assaulting a car except you. I did earlier give a list of some offences that were potentially made out by the actions of the OP

Sadly some people seem to think violent behaviour against others (including old ladies) is justified when you are annoyed or upset. All I can say is I hope motorists do not think the same

Whatever the driver did or did not do does not justify after the event violent actions. Said car was stationary when OP carried out his actions. There is no justification for this

The car was stationary.

If what I did was 'violent behaviour' and that incompetent driver a 'victim' then I am a fricking goldfish.

I hope to god no-one ever puts you in charge of anything spen.

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

The positive from this is that the driver realised her mistake