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

[Neil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10888435

[C5NOTLD]

Good thing they didn't see his tail light was out or..........

[Neil]

LOL! The article doesn't mentioned this was after a 17min 'chase' (although he wasn't speeding) where he hadn't stopped even with flashign lights etc behind him. He'd driven off from an initial stop without being given the go ahead from the officers, and in the end they'd spiked his tyres to stop him.

He also had no MOT or license etc...

Seems the BBC haven't given a very fair story here!! http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3083770/Cops-batter-pensioners-car.html?OTC-RSS&ATTR=News

[MinionZombie]

The old bugger shouldn't have been driving (in a chavvy Range Rover, no less!) without an MOT or License, naturally, nor should he have driven off (not to diminish his health problems) - but goddamn, the cops shouldn't have acted like that either!

[Neil]

The old bugger shouldn't have been driving (in a chavvy Range Rover, no less!) without an MOT or License, naturally, nor should he have driven off - but goddamn, the cops shouldn't have acted like that.

Andy might have an opinion on this, but I suspect it's standard practice and the end of a car chase to:-
a) Smash the windscreen to deter a further escape/chase.
b) Get the car open and remove the keys.

The officers were no doubt doing this as quickly as possible to in effect end the situation.

In hind sight, and having read about the case, their actions are fine in my book...

[MinionZombie]

Seriously?! An old fart who doddled along under the speed limit required not only the side window being smashed in, but someone hoofing in the windshield?! Also - the stinger was laid out on the road, which caused the man to stop the car (i.e. it doesn't seem like someone bound and determined to cause havoc) ... I assume it had been retracted, but perhaps not...

I would have thought they'd demand the door be unlocked first, but by the looks of the video they don't even bother trying to open the door, let alone call out for it to be opened.

There's no mention of "standard practice", so I assume that it isn't - and it certainly looks like it isn't/shouldn't be - the old dude didn't even put the handbreak on, so clearly he was in a state of confusion and shock, and I'm sure that experience was horrifying.

That's no real excuse for driving without an MOT or license (or in a ghastly chavvy Range Rover) though, but even still ... the rozzers went overboard on this. Even cops in America open the door.

[Tricky]

Thing is the Police there should have acted like thinking human beings rather than robots, they should have assessed the situation & as soon as they saw it was an old bloke, acted a bit calmer. To say that was "standard proceedure" is to say the fuzz dont think for themselves, they just follow a program!
What I thought was amusing on that clip, was that the third policeman almost gets whacked in the face by his over zealous colleague stoving the window in, its like he's got some crazy red mist about smashing that window!

[SymphonicX]

Thing is the Police there should have acted like thinking human beings rather than robots, they should have assessed the situation & as soon as they saw it was an old bloke, acted a bit calmer. To say that was "standard proceedure" is to say the fuzz dont think for themselves, they just follow a program!
What I thought was amusing on that clip, was that the third policeman almost gets whacked in the face by his over zealous colleague stoving the window in, its like he's got some crazy red mist about smashing that window!


Agree totally!

[MinionZombie]

You'd have thought they would have proceeded differently too once he'd pulled over - they knew it was an older dude, and surely they must have noticed he had had a stroke at some point (isn't it rare for strokes not to leave some sort of physical after effects?) - it's not like they're dealing with some mouthy hoodie who stinks of weed.

[Neil]

You'd have thought they would have proceeded differently too once he'd pulled over - they knew it was an older dude, and surely they must have noticed he had had a stroke at some point (isn't it rare for strokes not to leave some sort of physical after effects?) - it's not like they're dealing with some mouthy hoodie who stinks of weed.

How do you know the police officers who finally got him off the road, were anything to do with the original incident where he was pulled over.

They were most likely other pursuit traffic cops who are used to dealing with such matters. After over quarter of an hour of trying to stop the individual, it seems a fair assumption the driver was evading them, so when they finally got him off the road, they went down standard procedure of disable the vehicale ASAP so they & no one else, could be hurt should the driver decide to set off again.

[MinionZombie]

How do you know the police officers who finally got him off the road, were anything to do with the original incident where he was pulled over.

They were most likely other pursuit traffic cops who are used to dealing with such matters. After over quarter of an hour of trying to stop the individual, it seems a fair assumption the driver was evading them, so when they finally got him off the road, they went down standard procedure of disable the vehicale ASAP so they & no one else, could be hurt should the driver decide to set off again.
Do you know they were different cops, or...?

He didn't go tearing off, as he said, he pulled away normally as he thought they were done with him - and naturally the traffic officers would that pulled him over in the first place would then follow him immediately, as they wouldn't want to lose sight of him - you can't call in other units if you don't know where the car's gotten to, save for "keep an eye out, lads".

Also, as the guy said, he thought - in his seemingly utterly confused state (shouldn't be driving perhaps?) - that they were giving him a police escort so he could get this medication he was on about for his heart or whatever.

So, in short, it'd be the same unit that pulled him over first of all - so they'd know it was an older dude, and would have no doubt noticed he'd had a stroke at some time quite possibly (unless no physical trace was left, but there's usually an effect left over) ... and if he was so flustered by the stopping, surely the cops would have noticed his flustered demeanour?

So, again, why not try opening the door before you go leaping into violent action like a couple of hoodies setting about a stolen car? The third officer (who almost got a baton in the eye, not to mention glass) seemed a bit taken aback by it - but didn't do much to calm it down either ... there seemed to be a slightly, slightly, gentler approach after they'd dragged him out of the car - seeing the old dude like that, you do wonder why they considered him such a threat.

And is it "standard procedure" to launch into a window smashing red mist? :rockbrow: They clearly over-stepped their mark if they were taken off of active duty, so clearly this situation was not handled according to standard procedure ... that's how it seems to me.

I've never seen such a tactic employed on Traffic Cops or other such shows.

[Tricky]

I've never seen such a tactic employed on Traffic Cops or other such shows.

Yeah I would have thought measures like that would be reserved for younger, stronger, violent prolific criminals myself!

[MinionZombie]

Yeah I would have thought measures like that would be reserved for younger, stronger, violent prolific criminals myself!
Even then you don't see this sort of stuff going on!

[EvilNed]

Do you know they were different cops, or...?

Do you know they were the same cops, or...?

Truth is, none of us here are really qualified enough to speak up about it.

Is it standard procedure? We don't know? Seems fairly reasonable? Or?

Were it the same cops? We don't know? Could have been, but could might as well not have been?

[MinionZombie]

Ned - well I already laid out my reasoning for them being the same cops. See above.

[EvilNed]

Yeah, and that reasoning, again, is not an expert one. No offense.

[MinionZombie]

Yeah, and that reasoning, again, is not an expert one. No offense.
Did I say I was a traffic police expert? No.

I was just laying out what I think is the most common sense answer to me, and from what I've seen routinely on Traffic Cops and other such British traffic police TV shows. An older dude pulling away - not at speed - but just like he's going home would not be able to lose the cops dealing with him. Instances of someone pulling over to be interviewed, only to scream off and start a chase always results in the original officers tailing the suspect - they're right there. Why wouldn't they pursue immediately? :confused:

I'm sure they'd be more than capable of hopping back in their car (if they were even out of the car - they might have been inside running a check on the computer) within seconds and beginning a pursuit. They wouldn't just say listlessly "no ... come back..." and then just let him tootle off, with them just fingering each other's bum'oles or something - for them to just let him trundle off makes no sense at all, that's what I'm saying. Besides, the way the man said that he thought they were giving him an escort home makes it sound quite clear to be the same cops.

And even if it was other cops, the cops who'd pulled him over originally would have surely given a full description of the driver as well as just the reg, make and model of the car.

[EvilNed]

I'm just gonna go ahead and quote myself here. I'm not taking any sides here whatsoever, but people (myself included!) tend to become self-proclaimed experts on the internet a bit too often, and judgement is passed a bit too quick.


Do you know they were the same cops, or...?

Truth is, none of us here are really qualified enough to speak up about it.

Is it standard procedure? We don't know? Seems fairly reasonable? Or?

Were it the same cops? We don't know? Could have been, but could might as well not have been?

[Neil]

I'm just gonna go ahead and quote myself here. I'm not taking any sides here whatsoever, but people (myself included!) tend to become self-proclaimed experts on the internet a bit too often, and judgement is passed a bit too quick.

+1 Agreed!

[rongravy]

I saw this on another site.
They must've been pissed when he finally pulled over.
He tried to say he believed they were giving him a police escort home.
WTF?!?!?
Overreaction?
Yesh.
Should he just have pulled over and took his medicine?
Sure.

[MinionZombie]

First of all - when the fuck did I say I'm an expert on traffic policing? Never.

As I said clearly - I was laying out what I myself would consider to be the most common sense, logical thought process ... so jog on. I'm stating my opinion ... sheesh.

Ron - exactly. Police over-reaction - clearly. Stupid berk driving chavvy Range Rover without an MOT or License should have engaged a couple of brain cells - most definitely.

[EvilNed]

First of all - when the fuck did I say I'm an expert on traffic policing? Never.


Exactly, which is why I'm critical to all forms of pre-mature judgement being passed around here. We have too little information for us to (in my mind) start calling these guys assholes. Did they overreact? Maybe. Maybe not. There's a shitload of factors that play in here, and we aren't aware of them.

[MinionZombie]

Exactly, which is why I'm critical to all forms of pre-mature judgement being passed around here. We have too little information for us to (in my mind) start calling these guys assholes. Did they overreact? Maybe. Maybe not. There's a shitload of factors that play in here, and we aren't aware of them.
So I'm not allowed to express what, to me alone at least, would make the most common sense and be the most logical way it happened? :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

I showed my mate who is a copper that video last night while we were in the pub, and his words were "what the fuck are they doing that for, thats crackers!" & he fully agreed with them being suspended for it.

[Neil]

I showed my mate who is a copper that video last night while we were in the pub, and his words were "what the fuck are they doing that for, thats crackers!" & he fully agreed with them being suspended for it.

Out of interest, what did he know about the circumstances of it?

ie: Did he solely just watch the video?

[Tricky]

Out of interest, what did he know about the circumstances of it?

ie: Did he solely just watch the video?

He just watched the video, but obviously he pulls a lot of people over for various reasons in his job, and said they never act like that unless its some out of control joyrider. And he was most suprised by the idiot jumping on the bonnet & kicking the windscreen in, theres no reason at all for him to do that!

[Neil]

He just watched the video, but obviously he pulls a lot of people over for various reasons in his job, and said they never act like that unless its some out of control joyrider. And he was most suprised by the idiot jumping on the bonnet & kicking the windscreen in, theres no reason at all for him to do that!

Interesting... Thanks!

Did he know they'd been trying to get him to pull him over for over quarter of an hour!? And he had driven off without go-ahead prior to this?

[Tricky]

Well according to my other mate who has read more on it, the old bloke in his confused state (theres a strong argument he shouldnt be driving anyway, but thats another topic) was trying to get home for his angina medication, and he apparently thought the police were giving him an escort, but I havent read that part myself so dont know if thats fact or not. Either way the police completely over reacted by caving the windows in & jumping on the bonnet!

[MinionZombie]

Well according to my other mate who has read more on it, the old bloke in his confused state (theres a strong argument he shouldnt be driving anyway, but thats another topic) was trying to get home for his angina medication, and he apparently thought the police were giving him an escort, but I havent read that part myself so dont know if thats fact or not. Either way the police completely over reacted by caving the windows in & jumping on the bonnet!
The article said that he said that he thought they'd done with him so he drove off normally and proceeded at a normal speed - obviously they weren't done with him, hence the non-high-speed pursuit, which he interpreted as a police escort to get this medication (I read that in one of the articles Neil originally posted).

[EvilNed]

So I'm not allowed to express what, to me alone at least, would make the most common sense and be the most logical way it happened? :rolleyes:

You're allowed to express whatever you want, just like I am.

[MinionZombie]

You're allowed to express whatever you want, just like I am.
Yeah, but what I was saying was that I was expressing what I alone thought to be the most common sense and logical explanation for something to me ... I never said I was laying down an expert opinion or fact ... that was my problem with your original comment.

[EvilNed]

Yeah, but what I was saying was that I was expressing what I alone thought to be the most common sense and logical explanation for something to me ... I never said I was laying down an expert opinion or fact ... that was my problem with your original comment.

Like it or not, tho, this is a public forum and any private opinion on a public forum is a bad idea if you just want to keep it for yourself and having nobody read and/or comment on it.

[MinionZombie]

Like it or not, tho, this is a public forum and any private opinion on a public forum is a bad idea if you just want to keep it for yourself and having nobody read and/or comment on it.
It's not a case of not wanting it to be commented on, or seen, it's a case of because it was merely me expressing what I myself thought to be the most logical and common sense explanation to one aspect of the story - and not saying it was an expert opinion (like was suggested) - your comment seemed therefore, to me at least, to be pointless - in that it was suggesting something that wasn't the case - that's what the problem was.