flynnroy Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 i hope the guy sues the cops shocking display by the police and all on camera Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 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. Your talking out of your top hat, the man clearly corrects the officer every time he came out with the lie. Even if in the first instance he misheard him, he could not have miss heard him repeatably correcting him. It was just a bully cop who thinks the law is for them to determine how they wish, nothing new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The copper is clearly convinced the man said two. Or does the conspiracy theory stretch to him thinking "I know he said tea but I'm going to pretend I heard two on camera and hope nobody notices"? As has been pointed out, the words are irrelevant, if the copper believes its on the bloke's breath he can request a a breath test. The protester will either pass or fail. I fail to see how such a simple clip is being used as more tiresome propaganda. Desperation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The copper is clearly convinced the man said two. Or does the conspiracy theory stretch to him thinking "I know he said tea but I'm going to pretend I heard two on camera and hope nobody notices"? I think the point is that the guy told him that he said "tea" several times after the initial possible misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 If nothing else you can see why cops hate cameras they dont have control over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 No its not./ police cant ask for a breath specimen just because they dont like you./ they have to have a reason ./ this officer should be sacked who does he think he is god. They had no reason or cause to require a specimen anyway, though. ..and that's the problem with arriving at a conclusion based on video evidence exclusively. Personally, I don't know the circumstances of this incident, the copper could be lying, the cameraman a drunkard, however the copper used the cameraman's name (Stephen) and mentions the make of his car (blue Mercedes) which suggests some background to their 'relationship'. Had the policeman spoken to him before? Had he seen him arrive at the protest driving it? The video doesn't provide evidence one way or another, but the arrest wasn't unlawful because: a) the copper claimed the suspect had been driving and his breath smelled of alcohol-rightly or wrongly that's all that's required in order to request a sample of breath. b) the cameraman failed to provide a sample when requested to do so. ---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 20:45 ---------- Your talking out of your top hat, the man clearly corrects the officer every time he came out with the lie. Even if in the first instance he misheard him, he could not have miss heard him repeatably correcting him. It was just a bully cop who thinks the law is for them to determine how they wish, nothing new. That's largely irrelevant, the copper was not required to ascertain from the man how much or what he'd been drinking. He said he smelt alcohol on his breath and suspected he'd been driving-reasonable cause to request a breath sample. The man wouldn't have been arrested had he provided a negative breath sample, which he should have been confident doing since he'd only had 'two cups of tea;' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 if you say so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 The police officer says he saw him getting out of the car that morning, he could have got blind drunk after that and not had to produce a breath test. If they wanted to get him for drink driving they should have waited until he got back in the car. If I was that bloke I would have said yes I just drunk a bottle of vodka when I got out of the vehicle, at which point they would have had no grounds to challenge him further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qualtrough Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 I think the point is that the guy told him that he said "tea" several times after the initial possible misunderstanding. At which point you think the copper should have dropped the idea having been told only tea had been drunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted February 4, 2014 Share Posted February 4, 2014 At which point you think the copper should have dropped the idea having been told only tea had been drunk? Of course:hihi: " I didn't say I killed him officer, I said billed" Officer " oh. That's ok then. Off you go" People ( as well as police ) lie as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.