Lying cop caught on camera.

[truman]

I answered your question. The answer is a NO.

If this was a friend, then I would not let her drive at all.

If this was not a friend, then it is none of my business. So NO.

 

But from the persuasive arguments from others on this thread. I assume the answer to that question to them is a Yes?

Nevertheless, I still find the act of the taxi driver malicious. It does not remove the fact that his action was malicious to be honest.

 

Why was it malicious?

[Uptowngirl]

So the householder was reprieved by the testimony of his wife and others rather than the police having to prove he was driving the car that caused the accidents.

 

Exactly the opposite. The police had made an arrest but were forced to drop the charges because they would have had no chance of a conviction. So no one had to testify at all. However had the householder refused to give a sample of breath he would have been on a hiding to nothing.

[salsafan]

Why was it malicious?

 

You do not find it malicious ?

1 - Taxi driver see woman as possible customer.

2 - Customer refused to use taxi service.

3 - Customer drives home drunk.

4 - Taxi driver then calls police about customer being drunk.

 

If he was not a taxi driver and he was a barman who did this, then yes, the context of the situation looks differently but the fact is that, he was a taxi driver whose service was not used. Don't you question his moral radar ? I do.

 

It is the same as the situation with the police and the cameraman. Someone said that they were both being a tool, which I agree with, especially after you read the cameraman's blog, and see the various videos. The policeman also seem to know who he is too. So basically you have two people who has an agenda to antagonise one another. The situation could be turned around at any point but they did not do that.

 

To me it is a little bit sick because you know that these people learn the law, knows it, and then to use it against each other in a malicious way. With intent. Don't you find that kind of behaviour quite sickening? They are fighting til one of them falls. Which seems to be the intent of the day here.

 

As much as I would discuss currents affairs online and so forth, or to read into news articles regarding Mark Duggan, I still would not walk around in my daily life and use the law to shop against another person. That is not me as a person. But it seems that people do this in a daily basis as part of their own lives. They really have too much time on their own hands!

[Mr Clowning]

I guess it goes something like this-

 

PC "It's been reported that you were seen driving your car on the High Street having left the pub"

 

PC: "I saw you driving earlier on XYZ Street and talking to you now you smell of alcohol" (as in the case of the OP)

 

It's down to the accused to establish he wasn't driving at the claimed time or the alcohol in his system (if any) isn't responsible for him being over the limit.

 

They have zero evidence that he was driving. No one reported him for driving, the police officer is asking him if he did so they don't know if he did, and the man states that he has not been driving so what is the justification in this instance for a breath sample ?

 

They need something to go on, they cant just go on a presumption.

[truman]

You do not find it malicious ?

1 - Taxi driver see woman as possible customer.

2 - Customer refused to use taxi service.

3 - Customer drives home drunk.

4 - Taxi driver then calls police about customer being drunk.

 

If he was not a taxi driver and he was a barman who did this, then yes, the context of the situation looks differently but the fact is that, he was a taxi driver whose service was not used. Don't you question his moral radar ? I do.

 

It is the same as the situation with the police and the cameraman. Someone said that they were both being a tool, which I agree with, especially after you read the cameraman's blog, and see the various videos. The policeman also seem to know who he is too. So basically you have two people who has an agenda to antagonise one another. The situation could be turned around at any point but they did not do that.

 

To me it is a little bit sick because you know that these people learn the law, knows it, and then to use it against each other in a malicious way. With intent. Don't you find that kind of behaviour quite sickening? They are fighting til one of them falls. Which seems to be the intent of the day here.

 

As much as I would discuss currents affairs online and so forth, or to read into news articles regarding Mark Duggan, I still would not walk around in my daily life and use the law to shop against another person. That is not me as a person. But it seems that people do this in a daily basis as part of their own lives. They really have too much time on their own hands!

 

If I remember the story correctly 2 or 3 of the girl's friends did get into the taxi so the driver lost very little..another easy question..if someone did something against the law and because of this you became a victim,would you report them?

[Uptowngirl]

I think judges would have little interest in such a case since drink driving is a not an indictable offence, I didn't need to resort to Google to determine that.

 

Did I mention drink driving? No.

[salsafan]

If I remember the story correctly 2 or 3 of the girl's friends did get into the taxi so the driver lost very little..another easy question..if someone did something against the law and because of this you became a victim,would you report them?

Not always, I would use my judgement. Like my neighbour harrassing me on boundary issues. I could've reported her and then an ASBO would be issued, but I did not. I also have to make a judgment call too. Whereas some kid was so bold to steal my gates. I did report this to the police. I think with enough evidence, they were indeed caught in the end. As it was not just myself who was affected. It depends on the severity and the reasons and why something happened. In the case of the taxi driver, I would not at all. It has never crossed my mind to report a drunk person who drove off in their own car for drink driving. Seriously.

 

Let me ask you this question then. If this was in a workplace, and that your colleague was drunk, and he has to work a machinary, say a big digger, would you tell on him to your supervisor to stop him from working on that machine ?

[Qualtrough]

It has never crossed my mind to report a drunk person who drove off in their own car for drink driving. Seriously.

 

Let me ask you this question then. If this was in a workplace, and that your colleague was drunk, and he has to work a machinary, say a big digger, would you tell on him to your supervisor to stop him from working on that machine ?

 

What judgement? Every so often we hear about people being killed by drink drivers, sometimes children. Not only do you say you wouldn't report such a driver you say seriously as if that would be a strange thing to do.

 

In your world the police are the enemy, nobody should report anyone the laws irrelevant and everybody can do as they please as nobody can judge. This probably explains why you supported gangster Duggan and have come into conflict with your neighbour.

 

Now you seem to think it would be wrong to report an intoxicated person using heavy machinery. Your morality seems to be the opposite of most people's.

 

"Tell on him", that phrase says it all.

 

---------- Post added 05-02-2014 at 16:50 ----------

 

I answered your question. The answer is a NO.

If this was a friend, then I would not let her drive at all.

If this was not a friend, then it is none of my business. So NO.

 

But from the persuasive arguments from others on this thread. I assume the answer to that question to them is a Yes?

Nevertheless, I still find the act of the taxi driver malicious. It does not remove the fact that his action was malicious to be honest.

 

You're happy for lives to be put at risk as long as its nobody you know. Unbelievable.

[Itrytoplease]

This is typical behaviour for a police force that likes to film but hates to be filmed, the aggression from the officers stems from the fact that the recipient of their abuse had a camera, someone stated that the officer mistook the word TEA for two, it seems obvious to all the rest of us what the gent said especially as he repeated it on more than one occasion. Notice that the start of the video the police officer doesn't know the bloke from Adam, but after awhile starts calling him by name, so I presume the gent gave his name and address as requested, how long you think you will take a police officer with that information to gain the make model and colour your car.

 

Yes! Failure to supply a specimen of breath is illegal as it should be, but I don't think a member of the public should be harassed and manipulated in such a way that the inevitable result would be his arrest.

 

I was going to say defence of the police, but there is no defence that type of behaviour so I will say, the gent was a bit of a plonker all he had to do was take the breath test, but! Who would kick off, who wouldn't refuse, when you know you're in the right and you'd been set up, there's a good chance I would have refused the breath test

[Qualtrough]

If a friend was killed by a drink driver, I sure would hate the guy or woman who did this. But I also know that I need to let go too at some point. I may mourn as well. But I wouldn't wanted someone to stop anyone that way. Because you have no idea how things will work out, do you ?/QUOTE]

 

You wouldn't have wanted anyone to stop the drink driver killing your friend by reporting them? So you think not "telling on someone" more important than stopping a dangerous driver in a ton of steel?

 

What do you think the 999 number exists for? People report law breaking all the time. You appear to think its just a few tell tales as if you're in the playground. You'd be happy being paralysed from the neck down by a drink driver because a witness refused to phone 999? Do you realise what you're saying?