Lying cop caught on camera.

[megalithic]

I lost interest before reaching the end, I'm intelligent enough to have a low boredom threshold and not get thrills from daft clips. I guess the fascist pig used his discretion? Decided it wasn't worth it? I'm not bothered, you go and refuse tests etc then let us know how you got on perhaps?

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 23:36 ----------

 

 

In your not very important opinion.

 

Not really no.

 

That's the second insult. You're clearly losing the argument.

[salsafan]

Then you'd have been nicked which would have inconvenienced only you, too bad. The 'accusation', by which you mean question is irrelevant. All PC Smith has to do is tell him he smells booze, he's been seen driving so he'll be tested.

 

I love how the language can be twisted and re classified by conspiracists.

 

You have to see it this way. The police did not "ask" the guy, which is the point of this sorry affair. The policeman said this:

 

1:12 - You been drinking ? Are you drunk ? Have you been drinking this morning ? You been drinking this morning. You been drinking this morning. You been drinking. You been in your car this morning. You've had a drink. Haven't you ? You've had a drink this morning.

It is as if he was convincing himself and not actually letting the cameraman respond properly as he was moving him away from the situation and from filming further.

 

If you noticed, in the beginning of the film, the cameraman was actually filming a situation. Some women screamed as they were manhandled, then this guy was filming. A police officer saw him, and asked him to go away. The cameraman fell. Hence the low angle shot. Then he was bullied by this policeman about his "drinking".

 

In the context of the whole scene, don't you think that it looks quite bad for the police ?

 

(I also had another look, and realised that this clip only shows the situation partially as if the policeman actually knows this guy, as he mentioned the cameraman's name "Steve". Which is also the youtube blogger's username too. The question is if the police knew of this guy's presence and if he was a reporter of some kind of not, and if this was the police's way and their tactic to remove him and away from the scene as to not cause any issues too. It is quite obvious that the policeman white lied. )

[Qualtrough]

That's the second insult. You're clearly losing the argument.

 

There have been no insults and I'm not losing. You put forward your aggressive opinion as fact, I'm reminding you it's an opinion, one which most people wouldn't agree with.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2014 at 23:45 ----------

 

You have to see it this way. The police did not "ask" the guy, which is the point of this sorry affair. The policeman said this:

 

 

It is as if he was convincing himself and not actually letting the cameraman respond properly as he was moving him away from the situation and from filming further.

 

If you noticed, in the beginning of the film, the cameraman was actually filming a situation. Some women screamed as they were manhandled, then this guy was filming. A police officer saw him, and asked him to go away. The cameraman fell. Hence the low angle shot. Then he was bullied by this policeman about his "drinking".

 

In the context of the whole scene, don't you think that it looks quite bad for the police ?

 

No, this was a melee of protesters, not some quiet chat with a driver by a roadside.

[megalithic]

There have been no insults and I'm not losing. You put forward your aggressive opinion as fact, I'm reminding you it's an opinion, one which most people wouldn't agree with.

 

Well, right there you've shown a total lack of observing the obvious.

 

"Crusty". "In your not very important opinion".

My opinion is as valid as any other on SF, the place we are debating this.

[Mr Clowning]

Cop: (Agitated and shoving the observer) I could arrest you, but I'm not going to arrest you, although actually I am going to arrest you because I just thought of something I can fit you up with.

 

Some of that I just added as it can't be heard clearly enough on the recording

[Qualtrough]

Well, right there you've shown a total lack of observing the obvious.

 

"Crusty". "In your not very important opinion".

My opinion is as valid as any other on SF, the place we are debating this.

 

You asked me if I was a cop, I joked with you about your daftness. If you're upset take it to the mods. By any ordinary persons standards you've received some gentle banter, your choice.

 

You state your minority opinion as fact.

[megalithic]

You asked me if I was a cop, I joked with you about your daftness. If you're upset take it to the mods. By any ordinary persons standards you've received some gentle banter, your choice.

 

You state your minority opinion as fact.

 

"Take it to the mods" !

Oh dear.

[Qualtrough]

"Take it to the mods" !

Oh dear.

 

Now you're 'confused', well don't complain about being insulted then.

[Mr Clowning]

I have seen this sort of stuff from the police first hand when my friends car got pulled over and I was in the back seat. The officer asked all our names and I would not give him mine as we had done nothing wrong, so I asked him if I was a suspect in a crime to which he said no. I asked him if then why he would need my name and stated once again that I did not want to give it.

He walked over to another officer pretending to talk into his radio, came back and said he had seen me without a seat belt on and that he would arrest me if I did not give him my name, I still had the belt on the whole time this was happening !

[Obelix]

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

 

The police can only require a breath test if you are actually driving, or in teh process of doing something completing that journey. For example if I drove home, went in the house, sat down and turned on the TV I can quite legally refuse a request for a breath test. However, if they stopped me in the act of closing the garage door after parking the car, then they can require a breath test as that action is part of the journey.