PRESLEY Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Just like out of control Daleks . exterminate exterminate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janlizzy Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The reason was he smelt alcohol on the mans breath. This is just cause for a request to provide a specimen. Nice try?? What am I trying to do? I generally dislike the police, it is highly unusual for me to stick up for them. Are you saying that it is not possible to confuse the words "tea" and "two"? You do know that Andrew Mitchell wasn't ever arrested don't you? So far from Plebgate being a "perfect example", it is an awful example! Did Mitchells career a world of good though,a perfect example of police lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Both the guy and the police were arses. Even if he failed the test, they had no proof of him driving anyway, so I don't get the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Both the guy and the police were arses. Even if he failed the test, they had no proof of him driving anyway, so I don't get the point? Public intoxication? Agreed. They were both arses. Is it wrong that I laughed when the cop shoved the guy taping everything and the next camera angle is looking up from the ground? I didn't notice any lying, just police doing what police do. Law enforcement HATES it when you quote the law at them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Both the guy and the police were arses. Even if he failed the test, they had no proof of him driving anyway, so I don't get the point? The officer said he saw him driving and said the make of car he got out of. You get the proof after you have arrested someone, you need only reasonable suspicions to arrest someone. That is why when you are arrested the copper says "blah blah blah.... I am arresting you for suspicion of..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 Diversionary tactic to get the camera away from the arrest. He should have given the camera to the other guy to go film it, that would have stopped the hassling about the fake concern about drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
megalithic Posted February 4, 2014 Author Share Posted February 4, 2014 The officer said he saw him driving and said the make of car he got out of. You get the proof after you have arrested someone, you need only reasonable suspicions to arrest someone. That is why when you are arrested the copper says "blah blah blah.... I am arresting you for suspicion of..." He states the guy admitted to having two drinks. That didn't happen ! It's fabricating evidence. I don't know how anyone could dispute that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charmer Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 He states the guy admitted to having two drinks. That didn't happen ! It's fabricating evidence. I don't know how anyone could dispute that. Because it is reasonable to believe that when the guy said "I've had tea to drink", That the copper thought he heard; "I've had two to drink". The copper knew he was being filmed so it would be pointless to lie. He smelt what he believed to be alcohol on the mans breath and did what he is paid to do. What you don't seem to be getting is that the claim that the officer heard him say two drinks is NOT evidence. The only evidence required in this situation is the road side breathalyser. No court in the land will convict on the word of one person, copper or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sierra Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 He states the guy admitted to having two drinks. That didn't happen ! It's fabricating evidence. I don't know how anyone could dispute that. I must have missed that part. But to prove the officer wrong, if he truly hadn't had anything to drink, why not do the breath test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The officer said he saw him driving and said the make of car he got out of. You get the proof after you have arrested someone, you need only reasonable suspicions to arrest someone. That is why when you are arrested the copper says "blah blah blah.... I am arresting you for suspicion of..." True enough I suppose. Though they would have to prove when he h a d the drink. Probably wouldn't be easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.