The behaviour of UK police officers.

[smartcooky]

Once again I'm reminded of an incident involving my step brother...

After being pulled over for a traffic offence, the police officer noticed the handle of a sword poking out of a large kit bag on the back seat.

My step brother was asked to remove the bag and reveal the contents. (Swords, sais, nun chucks, etc.)

The officer said: "Please tell me you have a lawful excuse for carrying this stuff around."

"I'm a martial arts instructor and I'm on my way to teach a class."

"Good enough for me son, on your way."

Unfortunately, that is the exception not the common occurrence

The man who was the subject of this discussion told the cop 'I'm heading to a friend's place to play some baseball'. That answer should have been enough, but it wasn't for the arrogant little ◊◊◊◊ with the badge.

 

[Nessie]

Once again I'm reminded of an incident involving my step brother...

After being pulled over for a traffic offence, the police officer noticed the handle of a sword poking out of a large kit bag on the back seat.

My step brother was asked to remove the bag and reveal the contents. (Swords, sais, nun chucks, etc.)

The officer said: "Please tell me you have a lawful excuse for carrying this stuff around."

"I'm a martial arts instructor and I'm on my way to teach a class."

"Good enough for me son, on your way."

Reasonable excuse and context are part of the law regarding possession of an offensive weapon. The police will make a judgement call, but, when there is a rise in crimes of violence involving youths and gangs, the police will clamp down. That anecdote sounds like it happened in an area where there were few problems. Jump to another time and place and the cops may be more thorough and make checks to ensure the reasonable excuse of martial arts instruction is confirmed, rather that merely believed. Smartcooky erroneously believes that the police should not check reasonable excuses and just accept them.

 

[smartcooky]

Reasonable excuse and context are part of the law regarding possession of an offensive weapon. The police will make a judgement call

What do you think of this cop's judgement, coming up behind the guy and grabbing him without warning?

but, when there is a rise in crimes of violence involving youths and gangs, the police will clamp down.

That wasn't the case here

That anecdote sounds like it happened in an area where there were few problems. Jump to another time and place and the cops may be more thorough and make checks to ensure the reasonable excuse of martial arts instruction is confirmed, rather that merely believed.

But it wasn't another time an place, it was there and then, so your speculation is irrelevant

Smartcooky erroneously believes that the police should not check reasonable excuses and just accept them.

FTFY. It should not have even got to the point of excuses. Not sure if you have this in your country, but here, a cop must have reasonable suspicion (in the US, its called probable cause) to even stop you and talk to you in the street. Walking down a footpath carrying a cricket bat or a softball bat, still in its wrapper would not, on its own, be accepted by any court as "reasonable suspicion", and young cop that detained a person purely under those circumstances would get a flea in his ear from his supervisor.

 

[bluesjnr]

What do you think of this cop's judgement, coming up behind the guy and grabbing him without warning?


That wasn't the case here



But it wasn't another time an place, it was there and then, so your speculation is irrelevant


FTFY. It should not have even got to the point of excuses. Not sure if you have this in your country, but here, a cop must have reasonable suspicion (in the US, its called probable cause) to even stop you and talk to you in the street. Walking down a footpath carrying a cricket bat or a softball bat, still in its wrapper would not, on its own, be accepted by any court as "reasonable suspicion", and young cop that detained a person purely under those circumstances would get a flea in his ear from his supervisor.

We have been able to accurately deduce that cops are cops in this very thread. We have proved that even retired cops will go out of their way to make up a situation to put you on the wrong side of the law. The documented proof is right here and all because I dared to ask, "what would you do?"

In doing so he took the opportunity to brand me a danger to society, despite me telling him that I walked right past the guy in the story without pause.

#copforlife #ego #tyrant

 

[Nessie]

... Walking down a footpath carrying a cricket bat or a softball bat, still in its wrapper would not, on its own, be accepted by any court as "reasonable suspicion", and young cop that detained a person purely under those circumstances would get a flea in his ear from his supervisor.

Can you evidence that claim?

If the footpath was in an area, where gang violence was rampant and there had been ongoing trouble for which the police were in attendance, then yes, they would have reasonable suspicion. If the footpath led to the local cricket ground and the police met an elderly man in whites, then no, there is no reasonable suspicion.

 

[Nessie]

We have been able to accurately deduce that cops are cops in this very thread. We have proved that even retired cops will go out of their way to make up a situation to put you on the wrong side of the law. The documented proof is right here and all because I dared to ask, "what would you do?"

In doing so he took the opportunity to brand me a danger to society, despite me telling him that I walked right past the guy in the story without pause.

#copforlife #ego #tyrant

I have explained why I would have spoken to the male in Manchester city centre with the baseball bat. I have provided various scenarios to explain how reasonable suspicion works and why openly carrying a baseball bat in a city centre is going to attract the attention of the police. I will be watching this tonight, about Glasgow city centre;

Drugs, violence and racism: A week in Glasgow city centre

A BBC investigation captures people openly dealing and taking drugs, as well as thefts, arrests, and violence.

www.bbc.co.uk

With all the ongoing violence there, do you think the police should just walk past a male openly carrying baseball bat? Would you leap to the defence of police officers who did ignore that and ten minutes later the baseball bat was used in the commission of a crime?

 

[bluesjnr]

I have explained why I would have spoken to the male in Manchester city centre with the baseball bat. I have provided various scenarios to explain how reasonable suspicion works and why openly carrying a baseball bat in a city centre is going to attract the attention of the police. I will be watching this tonight, about Glasgow city centre;

Drugs, violence and racism: A week in Glasgow city centre

A BBC investigation captures people openly dealing and taking drugs, as well as thefts, arrests, and violence.

www.bbc.co.uk

With all the ongoing violence there, do you think the police should just walk past a male openly carrying baseball bat? Would you leap to the defence of police officers who did ignore that and ten minutes later the baseball bat was used in the commission of a crime?

We're past that. I'm referring to the part where you insisted, twice, that I am a danger to the public and should not be around anything with the potential to be used as a weapon. You used your slewed cop logic to arrive at your provably wrong assertion. That's the logic that earns the public hate.

 

[Nessie]

We're past that. I'm referring to the part where you insisted, twice, that I am a danger to the public and should not be around anything with the potential to be used as a weapon. You used your slewed cop logic to arrive at your provably wrong assertion. That's the logic that earns the public hate.

Here is you describing me as a danger to the public "Thank goodness you're retired. You're a danger to public and I should know because, according to you, I am too and it takes one to know one.". Please quote me describing you as a danger to the public.

 

[Mojo]

I have explained why I would have spoken to the male in Manchester city centre with the baseball bat. I have provided various scenarios to explain how reasonable suspicion works and why openly carrying a baseball bat in a city centre is going to attract the attention of the police.

"...citizens who take it upon themselves to do unusual actions which attract the attention of the police should be careful to bring these actions into one of the recognized categories of crimes and offences, for it is intolerable that the police should be put to the pains of inventing reasons for finding them undesirable." - Light LCJ in R v Haddock, (1935) Herbert's Uncommon Law 24

 

[theprestige]

"...citizens who take it upon themselves to do unusual actions which attract the attention of the police should be careful to bring these actions into one of the recognized categories of crimes and offences, for it is intolerable that the police should be put to the pains of inventing reasons for finding them undesirable." - Light LCJ in R v Haddock, (1935) Herbert's Uncommon Law 24

The US being car-oriented, a lot of this dynamic is expressed in terms of traffic stops and traffic infractions. Mostly, US police can pull a car over for just about anything - as long as they can give it a name from the list of infractions. Tinted windows. Didn't signal. No tag lights. Failure to maintain lane. Etc. Knee-jerk profiling is frowned upon. Any cop who pulls a car over just because it "looks suspicious" is a dick.

Seems like the same kind of calculus should apply here. The UK cop couldn't articulate an actual crime, but laid hands on a citizen without warning anyway. Personally I would understand if the citizen panicked and laid the bat upside this aggressive stranger's head. But I suppose in the UK if he did that he'd be convicted of the heinous crime of happening to be holding a piece of sporting equipment at the time the officer surprise-attacked him.

 

[zooterkin]

Seems like the same kind of calculus should apply here. The UK cop couldn't articulate an actual crime, but laid hands on a citizen without warning anyway.

Do we know this to be the case? Has someone documented what happened before the video recording started?

 

[bluesjnr]

Here is you describing me as a danger to the public "Thank goodness you're retired. You're a danger to public and I should know because, according to you, I am too and it takes one to know one.". Please quote me describing you as a danger to the public.

Certainly. My describing you as a danger to the public came after your casual, ego led, smear. Here's what you said about me.

You said (when I was telling you about the lad I encountered with an uncovered claw hammer in a side pocket of a back pack)

" it would be an advisory to keep himself safe, from people like you, who might try and grab it off him".

That's you, stating that you would have told the lad that he should keep himself safe from people "like" me. You said you'd warn him that there was a chance I'd grab that hammer. Are you going to argue that that is not a description of a person who is a, "danger to the public". Are you going to argue that a person who might grab claw hammers off of strangers is not dangerous and publicly so?

I then took you to task about it and you responded that you had concluded that I was a danger because I wrote that.

"As I passed I could easily have grabbed it." (the hammer)

You said that those words led you to a "reasonable" conclusion. There was nothing in those 9 words that inferred any intention, at all, to grab the hammer. It was, from me a... wait for it... "reasonable" observation describing the situation I encountered yet you considered me dangerous for making that observation.

The situation was real and as described. If you had of been there as a serving officer, which you once were, you said you would have had a "word with the lad about keeping, "himself safe", from me. You infer that I'm unsafe. You would have made me the one with criminal intent in that situation.

You favoured the guy sitting with what amounts to a potentially offensive weapon readily to hand and instead opted to criminalise me.

Now, if you're prepared to state that here, and it's clearly your opinion even though it's based on absolutely ◊◊◊◊ all, then I can make some "reasonable" conclusions about you also.

You were, while a police officer, a danger to the public if you carried out your duties as described here. Criminalising, in the way you did, innocent people who report concerns is not the way to earn public trust. If the public can't trust you to do your job then you're a liability and a liability is dangerous.

If you've carried that thought pattern and and poor reasoning into your retirement then I would be concerned about your ability to effectively assess any situation you might find yourself in, however unlikely that might be. We know that you were once a member of a clique and that clique would take your word over any Joe Public when investigating or asking for a statement and that being the case and based on this exchange, thus far, you're a liability and a liability is... dangerous.

 

[theprestige]

Do we know this to be the case? Has someone documented what happened before the video recording started?

I'm evaluating the scenario as presented. I'm happy to change my evaluation if new evidence comes to light.

Like if the officer or his department produce evidence that physical force was only used after repeated verbal warnings and commands were ignored. Then my whole calculus goes out the window.

 

[Darat]

Attempted to split the posts discussing Arday to its own thread so that this one remains on topic. Any further discussion regarding Arday please go to that thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Daray

 

[theprestige]

I have explained why I would have spoken to the male in Manchester city centre with the baseball bat. I have provided various scenarios to explain how reasonable suspicion works and why openly carrying a baseball bat in a city centre is going to attract the attention of the police. I will be watching this tonight, about Glasgow city centre;

Drugs, violence and racism: A week in Glasgow city centre

A BBC investigation captures people openly dealing and taking drugs, as well as thefts, arrests, and violence.

www.bbc.co.uk

With all the ongoing violence there, do you think the police should just walk past a male openly carrying baseball bat? Would you leap to the defence of police officers who did ignore that and ten minutes later the baseball bat was used in the commission of a crime?

It's amazing to me that UKians on the one hand will profess fear of visiting the US because of the chances of them getting shot... While on the other hand touting the UK as a place where there's a real risk that any goddamn man on the street could flip out at any moment, and start swinging on passerby with the nearest hand tool. To the point where you might get blindsided by an actual cop, just in case.

I'm beginning to think it's the behavior of cops everywhere to overreact to whatever the biggest perceived threat is. In the US cops will assume you're armed and dangerous if you try to flee from a traffic stop. In the UK, cops will assume you're armed and dangerous if you happen to be on the same side of the street as an unsecured claw hammer.

 

[bluesjnr]

It's amazing to me that UKians on the one hand will profess fear of visiting the US because of the chances of them getting shot... While on the other hand touting the UK as a place where there's a real risk that any goddamn man on the street could flip out at any moment, and start swinging on passerby with the nearest hand tool. To the point where you might get blindsided by an actual cop, just in case.

I'm beginning to think it's the behavior of cops everywhere to overreact to whatever the biggest perceived threat is. In the US cops will assume you're armed and dangerous if you try to flee from a traffic stop. In the UK, cops will assume you're armed and dangerous if you happen to be on the same side of the street as an unsecured claw hammer.

To be very specific the claw hammer owner won't be considered armed and dangerous in this situation, they'll be considered in need of an, "advisory".

However, the person who reports it to the police will be deemed dangerous to the public because they recognised how dangerous it is to have a claw hammer unsecured

It's complicated.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

The US being car-oriented, a lot of this dynamic is expressed in terms of traffic stops and traffic infractions. Mostly, US police can pull a car over for just about anything - as long as they can give it a name from the list of infractions. Tinted windows. Didn't signal. No tag lights. Failure to maintain lane. Etc. Knee-jerk profiling is frowned upon. Any cop who pulls a car over just because it "looks suspicious" is a dick.

Seems like the same kind of calculus should apply here. The UK cop couldn't articulate an actual crime, but laid hands on a citizen without warning anyway. Personally I would understand if the citizen panicked and laid the bat upside this aggressive stranger's head. But I suppose in the UK if he did that he'd be convicted of the heinous crime of happening to be holding a piece of sporting equipment at the time the officer surprise-attacked him.

Ummmmm, just in case you didn't know, Herbert's Uncommon Law was a work of satire...

 

[Mojo]

It's amazing to me that UKians on the one hand will profess fear of visiting the US because of the chances of them getting shot... While on the other hand touting the UK as a place where there's a real risk that any goddamn man on the street could flip out at any moment, and start swinging on passerby with the nearest hand tool. To the point where you might get blindsided by an actual cop, just in case.

Has it occurred to you that in the UK, baseball is usually a game played by children with a small bat and a tennis ball, and called "rounders"?

 

[theprestige]

Ummmmm, just in case you didn't know, Herbert's Uncommon Law was a work of satire...

Yes, I know it's satire. Satire is an art form that is often used to draw attention to absurd realities. The quotation is especially apt here.

 

[theprestige]

Has it occurred to you that in the UK, baseball is usually a game played by children with a small bat and a tennis ball, and called "rounders"?

I admit it had not in fact ever occurred to me that in the UK, baseball is usually not baseball, doesn't use baseball equipment, and isn't even called baseball.

What's your point? Because rounders exists in the UK, police should assume any baseball equipment they see is the harbinger of imminent violence?