Everything is ok - BANNED - Police, Camera, Action(Video)

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
reply to post by LargeFries

 

It's pretty much this situation. I don't know how the cops are in England, but here in America, you don't talk back to a cop. They don't give a crap if they're breaking the law or the amount of fancy words you throw at them. If you refuse to produce your ID and you get all smart alec with them, they'll beat you with a club and arrest you, simple as that. You think you can sue the cop for assault?

This is America. Good luck with that.

To be fair, police in England are not so bad, by and large. There is a much greater scrutiny of police powers both in members of the public and in Parliament. Whereas in America people seem to insanely support the police irrespective of the situation, people in the UK are much more hesitant to invest such unfettered power in the police.

I'm sure if you try and take a swipe at them they probably won't like it, but by and large in all dealings I've had with the police here, they're usually pretty decent and seem quite lenient unless you act like a dickhead and give them a reason to write you a ticket. Case and point, during my first week at University, I blatantly and obviously broke a local by-law which prohibits public consumption of alcohol on the high street (hadn't lived in the UK before I came to Uni and had no idea it was illegal). He asked me to finish it off or to throw it away, so I did. The maximum fine for that was sickeningly high as well (several hundred pounds), so I was happy he didn't write me a ticket for it.

Then again, I'm sure I would have been immediately arrested for "public intoxication" were I caught doing that in Texas (my parents now live there).

Originally posted by HighMaintenance
I certainly hope PC Stout went home that evening and brushed up on his 'arrest laws'. The fact that he faltered and seemed uncertain was his downfall. I'm not saying the cyclist was in the right, he was stopped for a reason, and IMO he was right to assert his knowledge of his rights, although perhaps with a little less smugness. He neither denied nor confirmed any wrongdoing (kinda like 'pleading the 5th' in a roundabout way). Had PC Stout been in the same position knowledgewise, instead just assuming that his position entitled him to unquestioned authority (which only leads to little wannabe dictators harassing the public because they think their badge gives them the authority to act like a pillock) and instead of losing his cool, he would have been able to assert his rightful authority to control the situation, either fine him, caution him or arrest him. In my mind that is BASIC policing, he should KNOW without a shadow of a doubt when he can and can't arrest someone. And if he's going to stop someone for a traffic violation, he needs to know those laws too. That said, even with the appalling smugness and equally appalling lack of policing, it did make I larf

!

As for the other coppers messing about, well I think they have a really tough job and it's good to let off steam now and then or we end up with rigid robocops unyielding to any misdemeanor. Please let's keep them human, after all laughter is the best medicine. Anyway it's the old ladies taking on the thugs these days

!! I am, and I'm sure many others are, guilty of taking the mick when we know the boss isn't watching.

I really don't know what it is but in Europe we largely do a good job of keeping the police in check. I have no idea why they are so unbelievably uptight back in America. SO annoying.

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
The 'police' have no right to detain you and hold you on a whim, regardless of the current practice. 'Runiing a red light' is no crime, and both participants in the video knew that...why do you think chase was not given?

Since when? Do you have a source or is this just a misguided illusion?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
The 'police' have no right to detain you and hold you on a whim, regardless of the current practice. 'Runiing a red light' is no crime, and both participants in the video knew that...why do you think chase was not given?

Since when? Do you have a source or is this just a misguided illusion?

Do read through my posts. I've identified the relevant statutory provisions criminalising (even though that word is quite strong, regrettably it is probably the most appropriate haha) those actions on a bicycle in the UK.

I must be missing something, the guy broke the law by running a red light and he suddenly has the right to act like a complete tool because he was caught.

Originally posted by MushroomWig
I must be missing something, the guy broke the law by running a red light and he suddenly has the right to act like a complete tool because he was caught.

Everyone's a human-rights lawyer these days, eh? haha

Edit: not that the proper protection of human rights is a bad thing. Just that people extend 'human rights' to apparently include their 'right' to not be inconvenienced or prejudiced in any possible way. Annoying.

If the guy ran a red light (which is a very dangerous thing to do and is the cause of many potentially fatal accidents) then he deserves to get a ticket... He broke the law, he needs to pay the consequences.

Yes this video is hilarious but it doesn't make it right. The police officer was just doing his job and was holding his temper quite well considering how big of a jerk the one taping this was. I'm not a police officer and I have met many that do not deserve to wear the badge.. In this particular case however, the police officer was just doing his job.. and correctly I might add.

Originally posted by duality90

Rather enjoyed it, although I am actually reasonably certain that the Constable was correct in asserting that s.24 Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers him to arrest the individual in this instance (i.e. where he refuses to identify himself in order that a ticket can be issued). The relevant provision is s.24(5)(e),(f) PACE 1984. In running a red light he is prima facie guilty of an offense under s.28 or s.29 Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by RTA 1991).

I cant argue points of British 'Law', as I have little study of the same. I have no doubt that the PC believes that he has the authority to detain someone until identified, and and some Act 'authorizing' the same..IMHO, the point is moot...you have the right to not give evidence against yourself...is not providing an identity giving evidence? I won't even delve into the issue of duress here.


Remember, a ticket is merely an order to appear before a court so that you can defend your innocence and the state can try to prove your guilt. You can contest it in court, but it is unfortunately the discretion of the officer to give them. That is why we have a judicial system which acts as a check on the power of Police.

In current practise, yes..at Law, I would argue that an information need be sworn to properly compel someone to attend. If an information is not sworn, was there really a crime committed? I would argue 'no', he rightfully refuses to contract with the PC, which is the way they 'trick' you to court absent a sworn information.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the guy would probably have just gotten off with a warning for running the red light (assuming he did) had he not challenged the authority of the constable. Again, on the spot, much is left to the discretion of the officer to issue or not. By and large, I don't really think it's worthwhile to risk the potential fine. Other people may feel otherwise inclined, but for something minor like a traffic violation, chances are that you're going to be ticketed if you question the constable. Obviously, for more serious offences I would keep schtum and not say a bloody word, but for something so minor.

Sadly the chap in the video probably was in the legal wrong in this case. A police officer is not allowed to simply demand you to produce identification on demand, but when he has witnessed or has reason to suspect you have committed an offence (as in this case) then he is probably well within his authority to do so. That being said, the obvious check against open and free discretion to do so is the fact that he would probably be fired if he was found to be writing frivolous tickets and abusing his authority.

I guess it all comes down to how you define 'offence', but I would argue he was excercising his common-law right to travel, and accosted by an agent of the Crown whilst breaking no Law. Rightfully, he refused to contract with the said Agent, even under duress, and perhaps assault. The Crown Agent (who knew EXACTLY what was going on at common law) allowed the subject to leave, as he rightly should, after he determined the subject would sand firmly under his MC-guaranteed rights

...or thats the way I see it, anyways

Very brave!

Why can't there be more police officers like that? They can engage in conversation, goof off, help others, ect., that is what they are there to do: To uphold the law and have a good time in the best manner-like way possible.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
The 'police' have no right to detain you and hold you on a whim, regardless of the current practice. 'Runiing a red light' is no crime, and both participants in the video knew that...why do you think chase was not given?

Since when? Do you have a source or is this just a misguided illusion?

In England, it is guaranteed by Magna Charta of 1215.

Do you argue that the police SHOULD be able to detain you without warrant?

Originally posted by DaMod
If the guy ran a red light (which is a very dangerous thing to do and is the cause of many potentially fatal accidents) then he deserves to get a ticket... He broke the law, he needs to pay the consequences.

The guy was on a bike. Agreed, running a red light on a bike is a serious matter that may have cost him his life. Assume that he got hit and killed...who is at fault? Him, of course...whould his heirs have a right to sue the driver of the car that killed hime? Of course not! That is LAW

Yes this video is hilarious but it doesn't make it right. The police officer was just doing his job and was holding his temper quite well considering how big of a jerk the one taping this was. I'm not a police officer and I have met many that do not deserve to wear the badge.. In this particular case however, the police officer was just doing his job.. and correctly I might add.

I wholeheartedly agree...the PC was just doing his 'job' of imposing a monetary penalty for foolishly risking his own life. The guy chose not to contract with the PC (as is required absent warrant) and went on his merry way. I guess it's just a matter of perspective

Lol great video, that cop got owned. As for people saying he shouldn't have broken the law, how do you know he even did? Just because the cop says so, does not mean it happened.... Maybe you never been pulled over and given false tickets before, well consider yourself lucky.

reply to post by FreedomCommander


Absolutely right. The officer should be commended for his knowledge of the law...despite his underhanded attempts to contract, he did the right thing by letting the guy ride off. Easier fish to catch

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
The 'police' have no right to detain you and hold you on a whim, regardless of the current practice. 'Runiing a red light' is no crime, and both participants in the video knew that...why do you think chase was not given?

Since when? Do you have a source or is this just a misguided illusion?

In England, it is guaranteed by Magna Charta of 1215.

Do you argue that the police SHOULD be able to detain you without warrant?

Are you claiming that police need a warrant to write you a ticket? Or tickets for running red lights shouldn't be given?
Yes I do absolutely argue that they have the right to temporarily detain you while the ticket is given. Or should he magically teleport it into your home address?

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
The 'police' have no right to detain you and hold you on a whim, regardless of the current practice. 'Runiing a red light' is no crime, and both participants in the video knew that...why do you think chase was not given?

Since when? Do you have a source or is this just a misguided illusion?

In England, it is guaranteed by Magna Charta of 1215.

Do you argue that the police SHOULD be able to detain you without warrant?

Are you claiming that police need a warrant to write you a ticket? Or tickets for running red lights shouldn't be given?
Yes I do absolutely argue that they have the right to temporarily detain you while the ticket is given. Or should he magically teleport it into your home address?

Please...not at all! You may contract with whomever you wish...if you choose to contract to pay a sum of money, go right ahead that's all a ticket REALLY is-you agree to pay a sum of money by signing for the 'ticket' (contract), or refusing signature but accepting paper (Bills of Exchange Act).

(ETA There is a process for real crime that has been in effect since roman days, and likely earlier. Somebody swears that you have comitted a crime before someone empowered to administer an oath...Serious business, and sadly this has seemingly fallen into disuse...and people routinely contract to attend court and pay sums of money)

I'm saddened to find that arbitrary detention is something you agree with...in contravention of THE law of the land, no less.

reply to post by MushroomWig


no he has the right to excercise his rights, if you think that is acting like a ****head fine. but in reality all he was doing was exercising his rights.

now all because most of the sheeple do not exercise their rights and are ignorant to the law, dos'nt mean the guy on the bicycle has to follow the herd and throw away his rights.

reply to post by servumlibertatem


Well actually you already agreed to pay the amount when you used a road and ran the red light. No signature needed.

reply to post by PsykoOps


He did no such thing, but I guess you are entitled to that opinion.

Have you read the Magna Charta? Interesting document...particularly the bit about the right to travel on the Kings' highways unmolested by Crown Agents.

So he wasn't on the road? Or didn't ran a red light? Even then the ticket is valid and he has a timeframe to challenge that in court.

here is a little gem i found through the link on the O.P. video.

i highly recomend all 9 parts.