Police pay 73-year-old driver £20,000 after officers smashed his Range Rover's window and windscre

Police pay 73-year-old driver £20,000 after officers smashed his Range Rover's window and windscreen for driving without a seatbelt Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk

A retired businessman today won more than £20,000 damages from police who smashed his car windows for driving without a seatbelt.
Grandfather Robert Whatley, 73, was pulled over in his Range Rover last year and expected the officer to gently knock on his window.
But one policeman hit the glass 15 times with his baton - while another climbed onto the bonnet to kick in the windscreen of the £60,000 car.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

(visit the link for the full news article)

What the?



seriously - jumping on a disabled old dudes car and kicking the crap out of the windscreen after your buddy has smacked the window 15! times with a baton to break it?!?

They do say the police are not out of control in this country.... and the dumb****'s were being filmed by their OWN patrol car video? Forget right or wrong: is a current requirement to join the police just an ability to sign your name, because these guys surely didnt pass any intellectual tests? Dumb Dumb Dumb.

At least this old man didn't take it lying down and sued the police force.

www.dailymail.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

i had to post this snippet from the same article

The two Pcs, who have not been named, were removed from front-line duty and were subject to an internal disciplinary hearing held behind closed doors.
But they pair were allowed back on duty after being cleared of any wrong-doing.
Gwent Police said the two officers ‘met the highest standards of professional behaviour’.
The force yesterday confirmed it had paid Mr Whatley compensation without admitting liability.
Mr Whatley’s solicitor Nogah Ofer said: ‘This payment shows up the police disciplinary system as a cosy club in which police officers’ explanations are accepted unquestioningly.
‘It follows threats by Mr Whatley’s lawyers to bring civil proceedings for excessive use of force.
‘It comes in stark contrast to the findings of an internal police disciplinary panel in June 2011 which concluded that the officers’ actions were entirely justified.


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...

Nothing to see here, just the Stasi doing their job scaring the hell out of people, breaking the law and being found correct to have done so by their own internal committees Carry on boys!

i seem to remember he'd driven off from the officers a few times so technically resisting arrest, but surely they could of done something a bit less violent to make him stop?

The two Pcs, who have not been named, were removed from front-line duty and were subject to an internal disciplinary hearing held behind closed doors.
But they pair were allowed back on duty after being cleared of any wrong-doing.
Gwent Police said the two officers ‘met the highest standards of professional behaviour’.
The force yesterday confirmed it had paid Mr Whatley compensation without admitting liability.

Daily Mail


This part made me want to puke.

There is no accountability when it comes to law enforcement. To think these guys hold the power of life and death over us all.

"Highest standards of professional behavior" my fat, hairy ass.

reply to post by spacedonk


My passenger window doesn't roll down on my truck. I got pulled over for speeding last week, and I had my 2 kids in the front seat with me, no car seats, just seatbelts, which is semi-legal depending on their age and size.

The officers walked up to the passenger window, and I told them that window does not roll down. The officer very kindly asked permission to open the door, which I granted. He talked to the kids for a second, asked them their ages, they answered him, and they said yes sir, and no sir to his questions. And then we all went on our merry way. Not even a ticket.

I suppose, the officer could have just smashed in the window, dragged me out of the truck, tazed me, and had my kids taken to Child Protective Services. That is another way the encounter could have ended.

WOW!!

No wonder those police were so amped up -
This chase went on at speeds of 40+ mph!
Surprised they didn't do a Rodney King on him.
How do they expect someone to know you're trying to pull them over when you're lagging 50 yards behind the other vehicle?
This was excessive force and general stupidity on the part of police.
But of course the officers did nothing wrong.
Sheesh!

reply to post by spacedonk


When i got my first degree, i applied to join the Police up here in Yorkshire. They were very keen because of my background degree but obviously i still had to go through the process. Part of this was a test to see what you were like at identifying suspects. They had various witness accounts and journalist reports of an incident and you had to work out who was guilty. For the purpose of the task, it could only have been one of 2 asian men - so that left you looking for other identifying features. Basically, think a Police version of guess who? (does he have glasses? etc).

It was so obvious, i was done in 2 minutes. The officer in charge of testing couldn't believe i had finished and looked amazed when i handed him the test, got up and walked out. Talking to the others afterwards, some had really struggled to identify the culprit. The funny thing is that those that struggled were the same people i saw at later stages of the interview process.

In the end, the whole thing left me so baffled i became a teacher instead!

Sorry for the length ramble but i think it illustrates why actions like the one described in the article just do not surprise me.

Part of the fitness test involved running 100m in less than 21 seconds! And people were failing left, right and centre.

reply to post by spacedonk


Actually the article leaves out one minor, yet important detail.

Police smash windows of disabled pensioner

This might be why the police appeared pissed off and might be the reason for the batons on the window -

But he drove off before police had finished with him, knocking an officer as he left, Caerphilly Magistrates Court heard.

Open mindset time - put yourself in place of the officers.

You stop a vehicle for a very minor infraction. Before your done, the guy decides to leave and in the process hits an officer and doesnt stop. Then he drives for over 17 minutes, ignoring the officers trying to pull him over. Upon contact the individual refuses to comply with commands to roll the window down / open the door etc.

Could it be possible, putting yourself in the officers place, that something else might have been going on in their minds?

Hit a cop with your car while leaving the stop before the police are finished, and then refsing to stop for them. I could see why the police went down this road based on the info. It doesnt mean their actions are acceptable, but I can see why, based on the info we have, they acted like they did.

The guys reason for not stopping for the police for 17 minutes?

The pensioner said he believed the officer had finished with him when he drove off, and failed to pull over in the chase because he thought the sirens and flashing lights indicated the police were giving him an escort home.

Im not familiar with laws in the UK. here in the states, at least where I am we are prohibited from giving that type of an escort. We have to have special permission just to give funeral / troops returning home type escorts. We wouldnt be allowed to give a person an escort home for a seatbelt violation.

Fantastic post and of course I was sensationalising the article to highlight my own point, however if there is more to it and the pensioner caused an officer to be knocked over then surely the police force would have defended their officers? Why spend (as reported) 80,000 pounds on legal fees to not defend the action in court. One assumes that with a video enabled patrol car they would have the alleged offence on tape too?

The lack of defence of the allegation and the straightforward payout of compensation is in itself an admission of guilt.

I do accept my blinkered representation of the article here was to enforce my frustration with what I see as an overbearing police force, your points are well noted though.

reply to post by spacedonk


No worries.. the article you linked did not contain any information on an officer being clipped / hit / what have you when the guy left the scene.

The Police did defend their officers. Their actions were reviewed, ruled justified and returned to duty.

As far as the payout goes that happens all the time here in the US, and since our tort laws are essentially the same as Britains, it makes sense to me.

I have seen time and again city councils paying out settlements just to avoid a prolonged court battle. 20k payout or a couple hundred thousand dollar legal bill for outside council to represent the city to fight the claim made. In todays economy, which is the safer bet for the city?

I dont like it as I think it undermines the officers. If the officers did nothing wrong, then the city should support that instead of yanking the carpet out from under them. Had the officers actions been based solely on the no seat belt, then yeah I would be asking the family how many zeros they want after the 1 on the settlement check and the officers would not be employed.

In this case with the info we have and knowing an officer was hit, I dont think the payout was warranted. In the court of public opinion this will be viewed as an elderly disabled retired person vs. the police. The guy probably could have run over both officers and all people will see is the disabled / elderly /retired and still side against the police lol.

reply to post by Xcathdra


Well, thanks Xcathdra - another lesson (yet to be learned it seems) about jumping in without fully taking in the article!

It certainly does put a different spin on the story and explains the reactions of the Officers concerned.

Originally posted by Maxatoria
i seem to remember he'd driven off from the officers a few times so technically resisting arrest, but surely they could of done something a bit less violent to make him stop?

Apparently he drove off before he had been issued with his penalty and when they pursued him with lights flashing he said he thought he was getting a police escort!! The police action was of course ridiculous but the driver is either taking the 'p' or he needs a mental health check.
b]I say sack the officers and ban this guy from driving. Job done.

After watching the recent series Coppers on Channel 4, I would have to conclude about 50% of police men are utter bell ends. I think those in the OP's article are probably from that 50%

If what these Officers did was acceptable, than why pay 20,000 for some windows? Windows do not cost that much money.

i feel i must add to this thread as im a local to this incident..
all welsh policemen ive come across are a bunch of jumped up idiots who were bullied at school and got the uniform and jabbed abit of roids into them and think they are a superhero or something!
after a few run ins with a young policeman that pulled me over came up to my window and said "we can do this the easy way or the hard way.. the easy way i give u a ticket..or the hard way we take a walk down round the corner out of sight and sort it out.
i accepted but the big ponce ended up giving me a ticket instead! lol
my m8 did some work on an extension recently for a local cop and he was telling my m8 in south wales there is only 8 police officers on a shift in between ystrad mynach and merthyr at any time(not including cid, drug squad etc)
but if anyone calls in sick and theres only 6 they end up driving around 1 cop to a car just to make it look like theres a police pressence..then when it gets late they play hide and seek with each other!!
no bull!!

Incredible short-sightedness from the police officers, knowingly filming their brutish behavior. But why would they care? They're more protected than anyone else from the very laws they are paid to enforce, These 'officers' are suspended ('off-duty" as the article puts it; no doubt with pay), and the driver has been compensated, yet they claim no liability.

However, the court cleared Mr Whatley of failing to stop after an accident. The IPCC supervised an investigation into the incident but a disciplinary panel made up of officers from another force later cleared the two Gwent officers, finding that their actions were justified.

So, the driver went to court and was cleared. The police were 'reviewed' by other police officers and 'cleared'.

Hold on a second... since when did any member of the police force have authority to pass legal judgement?

These thugs need to be tried in a court of law, not assessed for 'discipline'. But, of course, there's honour among thieves... and a similar honour amongst coppers apparently.

reply to post by Pr0t0


So then you didnt bother to do some more research before commenting? The OP article, through no fault of his, is missing one key detail (pointed out a few posts up with source).

When the guy decided to leave the traffic stop, he hit one of the officers with his car. The police pursued him for over 17 minutes (the guy thought he was getting a police escort) and when he finally did stop he refused all verbal commands to roll down the window, which is what forced the actions of the police.

They didnt drag him out because of the no seat belt issue. It was because of him leaving the stop early, hitting the cop in the process and failing to stop, then setting out on a 17 minute drive while the police are in pursuit with lights and sirens refusing to stop and once stopped he refuses to open the door / roll down the window, all because he assumed the stop was done and he was getting a police escort home.

This pensioner sounds like he is a hostage shy of a high jacking when it comes to his mental status.

reply to post by Pr0t0


No, in the UK, police officers are legally immune from prosecution for any action they make while on duty. A police officer cannot be prosecuted, ever. Therefore all disciplinary procedures are internal. There is an exception to this, however, in cases of serious misconduct, the chief constable can order charges brought against an individual officer, though I only know of that only ever happening once.

You can only prosecute the "police force" as a whole, and even for that, you need the permission of the home office to launch a prosecution.

The law was originally designed to make individual officers less afraid of making hard decisions, which may lead to prosecution if someone takes dispute with their decision. I don't agree with it, but that, to my understanding, is the law in the UK.

reply to post by BMorris


That law scares the hell out of me. We shouldn't have complete and total immunity. Here in the States we have whats called civil immunity, which works the exact same as you described with a few exceptions.

If the officers actions are found to be illegal under local / state law - we lose the immunity.
If the officers actions are found to be in violation of Federal Law - we lose the immunity.
If the officers actions are found to be in violation of department policy - we lose the immunity.

The department / city, in the above examples, can also disassociate themselves from the officer and the actions. It means the officer gets the full blunt of any civil legal action brought.

Even with all of that we still have cities who will quickly right a check, even if no wrong doing occurred by the officer / department, simply to make any bad PR go away, which is crap in my opinion but it is what it is.

Im not a fan of the police department being the ultimate reviewing authority either. Sounds like both sides of the pond need to update their laws.