You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Bad choices all round, but it was a perfectly reasonable stop.
Probably. I'm not going to go all conspiratorial and say that anything untoward has happened here WRT the stop, because clearly the guy has a funky coloured car that doesn't (at first glance) match the V5.
But...
I don't know how widespread the 'car colour vs V5' problem is, or indeed how many cars of the 'wrong' colour you have to stop before you find stolen cars / evidence of insurance fraud. From the evidence presented on STW, V5 colour mismatch appears quite common! Is there a risk of it being the UK's version of 'I smelt marijuana'? As in, it's used as an excuse to stop people when the police want an excuse to search an individual?
And honestly - who the hell really took perchys taser comment literally? 🤣
There’s a lot of people who don’t seem to understand or accept how the law, the Police, and the society that created them are supposed to work.
Many of them joined the police force which is the problem.
Whichever side of the argument you fall on this one, one thing is clear, if the generally law abiding middle class of singletrack respond the way they have, the relationship the police have with the public is in crisis.
And honestly – who the hell really took perchys taser comment literally?
Nobody does...until they taste that sweet, sweet voltage
BruceWee and onzadog make fair points I guess
There’s a lot of people who don’t seem to understand or accept how the law, the Police, [...] are supposed to work.
I think you might be one of those people. The police were created in the Middle Ages to protect the crown and, later, the business interests of the wealthy. Precious little has changed since. At no point in the history of the police have they been ever been about sticking up for the little guy, the impoverished, the weak. People with privilege enjoy the protection that the police provides and it is in their (our!) self-interest to abide by their rule.
Is there a risk of it being the UK’s version of ‘I smelt marijuana’?
I think the UK’s version of ‘I smelt marijuana’ is already ‘I smelt marijuana’, even if you're an Olympic athlete who's testecd regularly for drugs.
I'm from Bournemouth. Lots of nobheads there, that's why i left. 🙂
Are the police really allowed to smash windows?
Of course they are aidy. How else do they arrest a criminal locked in a car and its an oft used tactic.
With a baton?
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. That being the case there's only one reason he's waving a truncheon about and it's nothing to do with the window.
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
if you do not comply with lawful instructions which include " open the window"
Is a copper also allowed to make up charges,
A cop does not charge. he arrests on suspicion but as far as I can see the cop did not. He could have arrested him for the nice catchall " obstructing an officer in the course of his duty"
I am not a cop so not 100% clear on all this but its obvious some of you have no idea how widespread a cops discretion and powers are
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.
This thread hasn't reached a satisfactorily pedantic level for my liking yet so I'm going to throw this in.
My understanding is that the DVLA is only interested in the chassis colour. That excludes the bonnet, doors, and boot since they are ancillary and not part of the chassis.
Therefore, if the roof is still the original colour and the area of the roof is larger than the wings then the majority of the chassis is the original colour.
Seems like the kind of thing the DVLA should probably clear up.
Cop should’ve used pepper spray. From my extensive research (watching Jackass) it’s much more painful than a taser
A cop has the power to use force to make people comply
So if you don't produce your documents because you don't have them with you, he's allowed to baton you to unconsciousness while you try and crawl home to get them? That isn't how the privilege (not power, - authority under the law to exercise a privilege) of use of force works.
He could have arrested him for the nice catchall
For contempt of cop, which happens all too often despite not actually existing.
Which is exactly why we are in the situation we are. You have to push back on authorities which act unreasonably. Threatening to give him a ticket for something which will be found or made up as required is also not legal.
You might expect that coppers should understand the laws they are enforcing but they don't. We have ample evidence of that. See stop and search, taking photographs in public places etc.
My understanding is that the DVLA is only interested in the chassis colour. That excludes the bonnet, doors, and boot since they are ancillary and not part of the chassis.
I was wondering, based on the coppers stance, if he pulls over every commercial vehicle that is wrapped in "Bob the plumber" graphics and pictures of plumbing accoutrements. Would the Dvla have it down under colour as garish pictures of shitters with Bob on them? Does he pull over every single one of them for not matching the colour on file? The "colour doesn't match" thing only goes so far if not.
Not watched the video because it'll probably just get me riled up.
These kind of threads always bring out the "if you've got nothing to hide..." lot. "Just comply and call the officer Sir" etc.
You snivelling little sycophants. Where's your self respect? Shall we allow the police to set up road blocks to search commuters for marijuana every morning? CCTV in your home to make sure no crimes are being committed? After all, if you've nothing to hide... Of course, one should always be polite when dealing with anybody, not just the police. But it's perfectly reasonable to know and assert your rights. It should not be made easy for the police to stop and question the public. In a free society, authoritarianism should be fought tooth and nail. Like with the 'no comment' tactic, it's a reasonable and wise response. If the police want to accuse you of a crime, they need to put in the work and show you what proof they have. Not just hope you say something stupid that they can spin to incriminate you.
Not having a crack at the police, they're human too and do a tough job so not saying the copper should be prosecuted or anything, but from what I've read so far should absolutely lose his job.
Thank god for mobile phone cameras.
You snivelling little sycophants.
It should not be made easy for the police to stop and question the public.
Huh. Why not?
and the law requires you to identify yourself
No it doesn't.
Fill your boots...
https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-to-stop-and-search-your-rights
It should not be made easy for the police to stop and question the public.
Or rather "It should not be made easy for the police to stop and question the public without a good reason".
In this case there was a reason, in cases such as many stop and search there is no reason.
Oh my gawd, this little non-event has made the TV news! Dorset Police are going to "act". Golly gosh
Agressive policing? Yeah right!
Clearly no one on this forum has had to deal with the old RUC or the B-Specials or the Brits or the Black and Tans or plain clothes Garda or Special Branch or The SAS or the Paras or The UVF or INLA or The UDR or indeed the local Battalion of the 'RA.
Oh my gawd, this little non-event has made the TV news! Dorset Police are going to “act”. Golly gosh
Dear god. The Dorset version of Serpico.
I am not a cop so not 100% clear on all this but its obvious some of you have no idea how widespread a cops discretion and powers are
And once again we find ourselves in a position where the situation isn't clear but you're 100% certain that whatever it is, you're right and everyone else is wrong.
You should consider becoming a cop. You'd suit driving a black & white.
Jeez, there's some pedantic whataboutery on this thread.
“ obstructing an officer in the course of his duty”
A couple of weeks ago, my Bipolar was keeping me awake. A bit manic. No sleep for two days. I went for a walk in the early hours of the morning. Two policemen in a car went past, u turned, stopped by me and got out.
Hi
Good Morning. Where are you off to?
Nowhere really. Just walking.
Why? It’s the middle of the night.
Can’t sleep.
What’s your name?
Why do you ask?
We have a right to know!
Know you don’t...
Yes we do. What’s your address?
I’m not going to tell you
What’s your [b]name?[b]...
To and fro for about 10 mins...
Was I obstructing an officer in the course of his duty?
Agressive policing? Yeah right!
Clearly no one on this forum...
Wow.
The existence of bad things does not justify less bad things.
The cop was aggressive and unprofessional, this is undeniable. Sure, he may have been provoked by a bit of an arse, but it's literally his job to deal with people who might turn out to be arses.
Comparing a traffic cop to paramilitary groups as a defence is beyond ludicrous. Godwin is rolling in his grave.
The copper is gonna get lectured by manangement, but the prick in the car is not satisfied and is going to prosecute privately.
Even Better Than That! It was followed by a story about a local mountain biker who won a Junior WC race and that was actually [i]interesting![/i] - an international race winner from a place with no hills at all (Fareham) good lad! Ethan Craik, he's called.
Was I obstructing an officer in the course of his duty?
No, you were perfectly within your rights. This bit I do know. You're not obliged to answer those questions, or even break stride, unless they're detaining you.
After 10 minutes of that I'd have been making a harassment complaint the following day.
And once again we find ourselves in a position where the situation isn’t clear but you’re 100% certain that whatever it is, you’re right and everyone else is wrong
Exactly the words I was looking for!
Police and military jobs attract similar types of people.
Mostly poorly educated and with authoritarian and right wing views.
When they act badly, which is often, they receive support from likeminded people.
Lets support our brave boys.
copa
Free Member
Police and military jobs attract similar types of people.
Mostly poorly educated and with authoritarian and right wing views.
When they act badly, which is often, they receive support from likeminded people.
Lets support our brave boys.
Thank you. Very consise summary and spot on 👍
Didn't watch all of it but the copper came across as the idiot to me
With regard to the post above by Monksie.....how did it end at the 10 minute point? Did you tell them who you were or did they give in and let you walk off?
Two people acting like dicks.
That would be my executive summary of the situation too.