For the sake balance, a mate of mine works in a pretty decent job and is lucky enough to have a company car, which is invariably a German saloon. He happens to be black and as such has a long list of anecdotes about being stopped by the police for spurious reasons, generally along the lines of "we don't see many of your sort driving flash motors". It doesn't seem to matter whether he has his kids in the car or not, but getting stopped for being black and in charge of a moving vehicle is definitely a thing.
As for the guy with the Merc/Jag/etc I'd like to see the whole recording from when the driver realises that he's being pulled over. There's no doubt at all that the copper was being a colossal knob, but sometimes this sort escalation can be avoided with a simple "good evening officer, how many I help?"
With a baton?
Arm them I say, then they can shoot through the glass*
* I’m joking, shooting’s too good for ‘em! 😉
The police were created in the Middle Ages
Gadzooks and Forsooth...tis Ye Olde Williame
I’m only guessing but I’d have thought that your average patrol copper would carry some sort of dedicated window-breaking device like the small safety hammer I have in my car.
They're coppers, not Batman.
They probably don't carry shark repellant in their utility belts either.
Gadzooks and Forsooth…tis Ye Olde Williame
Leaving aside the underlying historical inaccuracy, you're on form today 👍
The driver could have been less of a dick but they officer definitely lost a bit of control and went OTT. Seems like the driver has been stopped before to know the rules (assuming he was correct), might be pissed off due to that.
Although if the rule is correct (you don't need to update the DVLA if you change the car colour as long as the roof remains the original colour) then the rule itself is a bit dumb - although I assume it's pretty uncommon for someone to change the car colour apart from the roof.
Can't blame the officer for not knowing the specifics of that either and in his situation I'd have probably been a bit riled up by the driver's attitude to - I don't think I'd have been dumb enough to say you'll get a ticket for something though if it's obvious I'm being filmed...
I don’t think I’d have been dumb enough to say you’ll get a ticket for something though if it’s obvious I’m being filmed…
That’s what’s so troubling. The copper’s response to a stressful situation (that he, at least in part, created) was to threaten a law-abiding guy with a false penalty.
When the knee jerk response of someone is to wrongly, knowingly, (threaten to) issue a fine then you’ve got a problem. It’s basically “Sprinkle some crack on him and get out of here.” It seems likely that behaviour is cultural in the police, not just down to one individual.
This officer’s biggest mistake was not moderating his behaviour when he’s being filmed, which is a terrible statement about the state of policing.
This officer’s biggest mistake was not moderating his behaviour when he’s being filmed, which is a terrible statement about the state of policing.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs that it's "moderate when being filmed" not just "don't be a dick".
they guy was not law abiding! he was refusing lawful requests.
cougar - yes the baton. Standard practice
they guy was not law abiding! he was refusing lawful requests.
I'm not finding much for "lawful request" that seems relevant, but surely the clue is in the name, it's a request not an order.
How about this for a situation.
You are at work, you are 8 hours into a shift and have dealt with multiple drug dealers/burglaries/robberies all shift.
A car in front of you flags up for whatever reason, it is dark, you are on your own, you don't know who is in the car and if they have a weapon or not. You don't know who else is around and if there is somebody about to appear from behind you or throw something at you.
You walk up to the car, the bloke wont open his window and is being argumentative. Is he drunk/drug driving, will he speed off and drive over you. Will he pull a weapon?
No, its just some bloke being a dick because he has a chav'd up car that doesn't match the DVLA records.
I'm with perchy, tazer him 😉
they guy was not law abiding! he was refusing lawful requests.
Exactly. You may not like the lawful request or the power the police have to ask you do something but if asked a simple question such as "can you get out of the car please as I need to clear up a possible V5 mismatch" why not just do that.
Not defending the PO as he was a dick too but you may not have seen his dick side (no, not in same way as side boob) if the encounter had not started as it did.
they guy was not law abiding! he was refusing lawful requests.
Maybe he was refusing to comply with lawful requests because he was afraid the copper was going to act in an unlawful way if he gave him access to his car and camera.
He's already been stopped for no legitimate reason (you might argue that it's not reasonable to expect the policeman to know about the rules around the colour of the car but are you really going to argue that ignorance of the law is an excuse?).
Once the officer realised he had stopped the car for no legitimate reason what was his excuse for keeping him there other than the driver was acting suspiciously. In this case the suspicious behaviour was that he wasn't cooperating after he had been stopped for no legitimate reason.
The copper was suspicious of the driver because he wasn't cooperating. The driver was suspicious of the copper because he had pulled him over for no legitimate reason. It's not as clear cut as some seem to think it is.
How about this for a situation...
Sure, but...
You've loads of issues at home. You're just out for a quick drive to relieve the tension.
You've had issues with the police targeting you and your friends before.
You've heard all the stories about police planting evidence.
Police brutality has been in the press *loads* over the past couple of months.
You've tried to explain reasonably why your car might not match the DVLA records, and been threatened with a truncheon.
There's always a hypothetical "reason" for anything. It doesn't excuse things.
He’s already been stopped for no legitimate reason
No , he was stopped for a perfectly legitimate reason in that the apparent colour of his car did not match the records pertaining to the registration mark , leading to the officer to have the reasonable suspicion that the car itself might not be entirely legitimate.
It's no different to stopping a car that the ANPR flags as a 3 door when it's a five door, as a Ford when it's a Vauxhall or shows no insurance which subsequently turns out to be in place but records haven't been updated.
These discrepancies are the bread and butter of traffic stops.
Notwithstanding the appalling behavior of both the police officer and the driver, the stop itself was righteous.
No , he was stopped for a perfectly legitimate reason in that the apparent colour of his car did not match the records pertaining to the registration mark
Except the colour did match the records, the officer just didn't know the rules. Or he was pretending he didn't know the rules in order to make the stop.
Are you saying ignorance of the rules is an excuse?
Bloke's being a bit of a dick but the copper is totally out of order when he says he's going to give him a ticket for something.
Except the colour did match the records,
The apparent colour didn't. Only the roof did.
Reasonable suspicion.
What colour is this Range Rover?
If I was a traffic officer and the ANPR told me it was supposed to be black, i'd pull it over to find out for myself.
That being the case there’s only one reason he’s waving a truncheon about and it’s nothing to do with the window.
Sergeant Throbber here saw the recording device, assumed it was a Zoom call, and followed the normal protocol.
The apparent colour didn’t. Only the roof did.
And that is enough according to the rules (at least as far as the driver was concerned, I'm not going to look them up).
You could argue the officer thought he had a legitimate reason because he couldn't see the roof. Once he was standing next to the car then he could obviously see the roof was black.
After that the only reason for suspicion was that the driver wasn't cooperating. And he wasn't cooperating because he had been pulled over for no legitimate reason.
Is ignorance of the rules an excuse?
You could argue the officer reasonably suspected he had a legitimate reason because he couldn’t see the roof.
FTFY
Reasonable suspicion. That's the only rule that matters here to make the pulling over legitimate.
Your continued ignorance of it is no excuse.
Reasonable suspicion. That’s the only rule that matters here to make the pulling over legitimate.
A reasonable suspicion of what? That the black was, in fact, very very very dark blue?
He had no reasonable suspicion. He thought he had a reasonable suspicion because he didn't know the rules.
For the fourth time, is ignorance of the rules an excuse?
And that is enough according to the rules (at least as far as the driver was concerned, I’m not going to look them up).
IANAPO but I don't think me knowing the rules as far as I'm concerned gives me any leverage over a policeman pulling me over because my car's a different colour to what's on the V5.
I'd also like to see the full vid - yep, both being dorks but Mr Plod HAS to pull you over if he thinks there's something suspicious, you don't have to be a dork about it. He's doing his job - you can be compliant or obstructive, and it may or may not produce a response which effects the outcome.
Edit -
For the fourth time, is ignorance of the rules an excuse?
You're kind of supporting the driver's understanding of the rules whilst admitting you're not going to look them up.
For the fourth time, is ignorance of the rules an excuse?
This is why I am not a police officer. I'd have tasered you the second time.
You’re kind of supporting the driver’s understanding of the rules whilst admitting you’re not going to look them up.
I'd rather expect a policeman to understand the laws they're trying to enforce.
but Mr Plod HAS to pull you over if he thinks there’s something suspicious,
And once he's found out that the roof was black, all he has to do is say "have a nice evening" and be on his way.
I’d rather expect a policeman to understand the laws they’re trying to enforce.
No argument from me. But I wouldn't say
that is enough according to the rules (at least as far as the driver was concerned, I’m not going to look them up).
And then say as a criticism of the police officer
For the fourth time, is ignorance of the rules an excuse
I mean, maybe I missed it, but have the rules BEEN looked up?
And once he’s found out that the roof was black, all he has to do is say “have a nice evening” and be on his way.
Sure. All we're missing is all of the dialogue prior to the start of the video.
How about this for a situation.
You are at work, you are 8 hours into a shift and have dealt with multiple drug dealers/burglaries/robberies all shift...
Sounds like you're basically trying to excuse the police mans behaviour. The reaction the police man had was WAY over the top for the law this guy apparently (turns out didn't) break. And to say "you're gonna get a ticket for something" is disgusting hes basically using the law for his own gain thats undefendable. You have to remember that George Floyd was killed because apparently used a fake 20 quid note and Eric Garner was killed for selling cigarettes all the actions in these instances were WAY over the top for the law they apparently broke. You can say its a stretch to mention Floyd and Garner but thats basically where stuff like this ends up if it goes unchecked. I hope the guy gets the sack.
I wonder how many times before the driver has been pulled over?
A mate of mine once owned a car that attracted a lot of attention from the police- it was all legal, but he became a smart arse towards them as he was getting stopped on average once a week.
Eventually he put in a proper complaint & didn't get stopped for a while.
So if this is the 1st time he's been stopped, then yes he's an ass. If it's the 5th time that week he has every right to be a bit arsey.
The guy in the car certainly knew which buttons to push, but that copper lost control when he shouldn't have.
My wife used to work in the offices of Dorset Police and from what she experienced day to day there are a lot of dodgy / nasty / screwed up coppers out there.
Britain's police forces have a long way to go if they are to earn the respect of the people they supposedly serve and protect.
Sergeant Throbber here saw the recording device, assumed it was a Zoom call, and followed the normal protocol.
He was wearing a bodycam, was he not?
Yet another story on the beeb today about an idiot cop. Clearly training isn't working.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-54917293
some of you I hope never have to interact with cops because your understanding of their powers and actions are so far from reality
A cop has the power to stop any car
A cop has the power to use force to make people comply
A cop can arrest you if you do not comply
A cop can arrest you to allow him to investigate an incident
A cop has the power to stop any car
A cop has the power to use force to make people comply
A cop can arrest you if you do not comply
A cop can arrest you to allow him to investigate an incident
Is a copper also allowed to make up charges, which clearly the copper in question seems to think is acceptable.
A cop has the power to stop any car
My understanding is that a cop can stop a car for any reason.
I think we have to assume that means any legitimate reason and they are not allowed to stop a car for no reason.
If it literally meant any reason then stopping people for driving while black would be OK. It's a reason, after all.
I would hope we can all agree it's not a legitimate reason.
You’re kind of supporting the driver’s understanding of the rules whilst admitting you’re not going to look them up.
The rule seems to be that if you change the predominant colour then you need to change it on V5C.
Didn't the driver in the video say only his roof was the colour on V5C so he was actually incorrect an the predominant colour had been changed.
That policeman needs to pull him over again and get the taser out for wasting his time.
Didn’t the driver in the video say only his roof was the colour on V5C so he was actually incorrect an the predominant colour had been changed.
When the driver explains this to the policeman you would think he would then say something like, 'Being a policeman I am intimately familiar with all the rules regarding vehicle registration and I think you'll find you are wrong.'
What he actually said was, 'How am I supposed to know that?'
It's not really confidence inspiring.
Two people acting like dicks.
Yet another story on the beeb today about an idiot cop. Clearly training isn’t working.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-54917293/blockquote >
"Christopher Philpot" does sound a bit like "Perchypanther" if you say it fast ...
tjagain
some of you I hope never have to interact with cops because your understanding of their powers and actions are so far from reality
A cop has the power to use force to make people comply
Genuine question TJ - I thought they could only use force to make an arrest/resist arrest?
some of you I hope never have to interact with cops because your understanding of their powers and actions are so far from reality
You're also in Scotland which has different rules I believe.
A cop has the power to stop any car
Correct. They then have the power to demand your documentation (licence, insurance, MOT), if you don't have such things on you then you have seven days to supply them to your local nick.
A cop has the power to use force to make people comply
A cop has the power to use reasonable force in self defence or if you try to run off. They can't just rough you up a bit for being lippy.
A cop can arrest you if you do not comply
Comply with what? They can't just make shit up. If he dropped his trolleys and went "well, it's not gonna suck itself" would you still be going "yes sir"?
A cop can arrest you to allow him to investigate an incident
You can be arrested on suspicion of a crime, and you can be detained to allow a Stop and Search to take place but that requires reasonable suspicion.
“Christopher Philpot” does sound a bit like “Perchypanther” if you say it fast …
I'd have hit him centre mass. That dude is an amateur.
What he actually said was, ‘How am I supposed to know that?’
It’s not really confidence inspiring.
Alternatively, if you took that to mean "how am I supposed to know the roof is black when the rest of the car is white", then this particular statement makes far more sense.
but that requires reasonable suspicion.
[b]Objective[/b] reasonable suspicion.
Like conflicting information regarding the vehicle kinda thing.
I’d have hit him centre mass. That dude is an amateur.
Pfft! In the face