Lying cop caught on camera.

[boyfriday]

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.

That may or may not be the case, but the man lost his ability to challenge the police when he refused to provide a sample.

 

 

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.

 

There have been many occasions where people have been convicted for being over the limit because they've done as you suggested, the onus is on them to provide evidence that the alcohol they've consumed post driving is the reason they've given a positive breath test. The prosecution can use their own tests based on the rate alcohol metabolises in the human body to counter such a claim.

[Xt500]

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.

 

Exactly but it wasnt about that was it? Its very clear to see what happened and why.

[boyfriday]

Exactly but it wasnt about that was it? Its very clear to see what happened and why.

 

It looks an unsavoury encounter doesn't it? I've been stopped erroneously by the police on a few occassions, it's what happens if you're chippy with them or 'dont look right', but had I been in the man's position I'd have accepted the offer, blown into the bag and been on my way. No harm done other than a slightly bruised ego.

[Xt500]

It looks an unsavoury encounter doesn't it? I've been stopped erroneously by the police on a few occassions, it's what happens if you're chippy with them or 'dont look right', but had I been in the man's position I'd have accepted the offer, blown into the bag and been on my way. No harm done other than a slightly bruised ego.

 

please dont turn this into yet another BF thread

[boyfriday]

please dont turn this into yet another BF thread

 

:huh:

[Qualtrough]

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.

 

Not really sure what you're going on about, nor the non Sherlock revelation at the end. Back in reality this is a dull clip showing nothing interesting. I find it comical it's evidence of corruption.

[RootsBooster]

No it wouldn't. It is obvious that the copper mistook the word "tea" for "two". Do you genuinely believe that a person can't get away with committing a crime because an officer misheard a word?

If that were the case, then why does the cop continue to pressure him to admit he's had a drink after the guy said he'd had tea?

 

I don't like the attitude of some of the coppers in the video. They seem a bit heavy handed right at the start but this guy was being a tool. A weasly little voice "but I'm on a public footpath officer" instead of complying.

The cop was trying to get him on drunk driving, would you rather the guy denied this in a mild manner or have him screaming it at the cop?

 

This man was arrested for failing to provide a specimen. The copper saw him get out of his car (could even tell the guy what make of car he drove) and smelt alcohol on his breath. I would want the officer sacked if he did not ask they guy to provide a specimen.

 

I am generally (though not uniformly) anti-police. However, they did very little wrong in this case.

 

I hope megalithic loses it's job on account of stunted intellect and poor social skills.

Ahh, personal attacks, always a sure sign of the well-informed

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 21:44 ----------

 

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?

 

Same goes for you, if the cop thought the guy said "two" then why did he continue to pressure him to admit drinking, after that point?

[Mr Clowning]

Exactly but it wasnt about that was it? Its very clear to see what happened and why.

 

Yes, its because they wanted him away with the camera, that's the reason for them being so pedantic about the supposed smell of alcohol.

 

The police had no other concerns other than not being filmed which they swiftly dealt with in the manor accustomed to them.

[Qualtrough]

If that were the case, then why does the cop continue to pressure him to admit he's had a drink after the guy said he'd had tea?

 

The cop was trying to get him on drunk driving, would you rather the guy denied this in a mild manner or have him screaming it at the cop?

 

Ahh, personal attacks, always a sure sign of the well-informed

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 21:44 ----------

 

 

 

Same goes for you, if the cop thought the guy said "two" then why did he continue to pressure him to admit drinking, after that point?

 

Because the cop thought he backtracked and was now saying tea to cover himself. Because people lie and the cop wanted to see what he would say. No debate was required anyway, just a test. The backbone of the lying angle is about words which were irrelevant. All that mattered was the smell.

[Mr Clowning]

I'm failing how they would require a breath test if he only saw him driving earlier in the morning ?

 

There had obviously been some time between his arrest and having been seen leaving the vehicle from what the officer was saying.

 

Police Powers

 

For the police to be able to require a breath test, a driver must have either:

 

(a) committed a moving traffic offence, e.g. speeding, failing to observe a stop sign, having a defective light etc.,

(b) have been involved in an accident to which the police were called, or

© have given the police grounds to suspect they had consumed alcohol above the legal limit, e.g. by draving erratically or walking unsteadily before getting into the car. It is questionable whether the mere fact of having driven out of a pub car park constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion

 

Although there have often been calls for the police to be given "unfettered discretion" to administer breath tests, this has never been implemented. However, in practice the police interpret the powers above very liberally - and who never exceeds the speed limit by at least a few mph? It is difficult to conceive of circumstances under which the current law prevents police from carrying out a breath test where they believe there is any chance of obtaining a positive result.

 

http://www.80mg.org.uk/ddlaw.html