What's wrong with these people, power crazed?
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Road Casualties Q1 2010
Next: Nexen tyres
From: GT on 6 Aug 2010 06:05 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message news:4c5bd66e$0$7735$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > "Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng08(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:YdadnYh8R_bwkMbRnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>I can't remember the last time I saw such an over the top reaction. It's a >>wonderful example of how some public servants think they're the masters >>and we are to do their bidding. >> >> There is a video on the website. >> >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300608/Policemen-suspended-smash-grab-raid-disabled-mans-Range-Rover.html > > Aww bless - even though he ran over 1 policeman, they still gave him a 17 > mile blues-n-twos escort home. That is service for you. I've just watched the video and its hardly a police persuit, is it? They just casually drive along behind him for a few minutes - a long distance behind him. Ignoring the fact that he ran over a policeman, I can actually see why he thought they were escorting him home! If a police car with blue lights was driving along at 30mph, 200 yards behind me, I wouldn't think they were trying to stop me either! Normally when trying to stop a car, they would get in front and indicate that you are to pull over.
From: GT on 6 Aug 2010 06:10 "NM" <nik.morgan(a)mac.com> wrote in message news:17069bb2-5ce6-410f-8a37-5c05b1d80d9d(a)f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On 6 Aug, 10:31, "GT" <a...(a)b.c> wrote: >> "Brimstone" <brimstone520-n...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> news:YdadnYh8R_bwkMbRnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d(a)bt.com... >> >> >I can't remember the last time I saw such an over the top reaction. It's >> >a >> >wonderful example of how some public servants think they're the masters >> >and >> >we are to do their bidding. >> >> > There is a video on the website. >> >> >http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300608/Policemen-suspended-s... >> >> Aww bless - even though he ran over 1 policeman, they still gave him a 17 >> mile blues-n-twos escort home. That is service for you. > > If he had the alleged collision with the policeman why wasn't he > charged or is that included in failing to stop? I think the 'running over' is the failing to stop charge, which was dropped. > Seems to me it's the usual bully boy tactics, nice to see them being > held to account for a change. I defence of the police (not my usual stance) they are trained to use these tactics. The smashing of the windows and the sudden, aggressive assault on the car are used to disorientate the driver and force him into submission - this is normally following a dangerous persuit, not for old men. However, the police didn't know who they were dealing with - to them the old man must have appeared a bit 'jekyll and hyde' - one minute he is all calm and apologising for no seatbelt, then the next minute he suddenly drives off, running down a police officer, then fails to stop for police for the next 17 miles. Obviously its a different story from the old man's point of view, but the police didn't have that information at the time, but I think they could have tried a little harder to stop the vehicle - 17 miles and they couldn't get in front of a car doing 30mph???
From: boltar2003 on 6 Aug 2010 06:24 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:10:59 +0100 "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >Obviously its a different story from the old man's point of view, but the >police didn't have that information at the time, but I think they could have >tried a little harder to stop the vehicle - 17 miles and they couldn't get >in front of a car doing 30mph??? Seems to me that both parties are at fault. Knocking over a plod then buggering off thinking "it was dealt with" just sounds like pure BS to me. He obviously panicked and legged it. And as for thinking the police were giving him an escort home with their blues on , give me a bloody break. No one is that stupid or senile and still able to drive a car. As for police , smashing up his windscreen when they already knew he was just a pensioner not a gun toting nutter is just aggro for its own sake. Perhaps they were just practising for their upcoming transfer to the Met! :) B2003
From: GT on 6 Aug 2010 07:30 <boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message news:i3gnsq$lfc$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:10:59 +0100 > "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: >>Obviously its a different story from the old man's point of view, but the >>police didn't have that information at the time, but I think they could >>have >>tried a little harder to stop the vehicle - 17 miles and they couldn't get >>in front of a car doing 30mph??? > > Seems to me that both parties are at fault. Knocking over a plod then > buggering off thinking "it was dealt with" just sounds like pure BS to me. > He obviously panicked and legged it. Or just got confused, but I agree. > And as for thinking the police were > giving him an escort home with their blues on , give me a bloody break. No > one is that stupid or senile and still able to drive a car. I tend to agree with the sentiment on paper, but watching the video and the police are just sedately following him from a few hundred yards back - they make no attempt to get close to him or try to stop him in the 2 minutes of video posted! If a police car followed me, 200 yards back, at 30mph and made no indication for me to stop, I wouldn't stop either! They draw along side, or in front and wave you to stop if they really want a car to stop. > As for police , smashing up his windscreen when they already knew he was > just a pensioner not a gun toting nutter is just aggro for its own sake. They definitely knew he was a pensioner, but from their point of view they stopped a car and before they had finished warning the driver, he suddenly set off, knocking over / running down a policeman and then failed to stop for the next 17 miles - they didn't really know who they were dealing with on the second stop!
From: GT on 6 Aug 2010 07:34
"Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:j3pxq05wh509.luk4k6gh0xlp.dlg(a)40tude.net... > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:05:17 +0100, GT wrote: > >> If a police car with blue lights was driving along at 30mph, 200 yards >> behind me, I wouldn't think they were trying to stop me either! Normally >> when trying to stop a car, they would get in front and indicate that you >> are >> to pull over. > > more like 50 yards and the road is quite narrow, somebody who had driven > off is likely to ram you as you go past. They smash the glass to get the > door open, hes hardly dragged out. The idea you drive off from a police > stop and then they follow you with sirens and lights and you think its an > escort is laughable. Well the distance in the video ranges from 50 yards minimum to 200 yards max - which is way too far behind if you are trying to indicate that someone should stop! I agree generally, but in the video, the police don't make any effort to stop the vehicle. Clearly they have their lights on, but other than that, there is no indications or signals for the range rover to pull over - the police car is not even close to the car, never mind passing it to stop in front. |