Fedster + 1,307 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 I am sure this was on the other site, another freeman video but with a bit of wit and banter, the constables seem to enjoy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski + 1,057 Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Went on too long. Just nick him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotLass + 638 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 Went on too long. Just nick him. 20 mins of negotiation at the side of the road versus however many hours trying to get him booked into custody? No thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski + 1,057 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 20 mins of negotiation at the side of the road versus however many hours trying to get him booked into custody? No thanks! For the next offence to take another 20 minutes, and again and again and again. You let them play you around like that, they'll never learn. The law exists for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotLass + 638 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 For the next offence to take another 20 minutes, and again and again and again. You let them play you around like that, they'll never learn. The law exists for a reason. But do you think that they actually learn? The guy said it himself, the PF just gets bored with them and doesn't do anything with it. I understand the value of teaching a lesson but some people cannot be taught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski + 1,057 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 But do you think that they actually learn? The guy said it himself, the PF just gets bored with them and doesn't do anything with it. I understand the value of teaching a lesson but some people cannot be taught. That should never mean that we stop trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotLass + 638 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 That should never mean that we stop trying. But we are, we're just giving him a ticket for the moving vehicle offence rather than locking him up for obstruction. Let's face it, the cops are in a lose/lose scenario here. They nick him for obstruction, they're risking being accused of being heavy handed. They give him a ticket, then they're too soft. I agree we should never stop trying to teach people a lesson but locking this guy up is a complete waste of time and money. By using the threat of the stick instead of the actual stick maybe he'll actually be more willing to comply next time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamski + 1,057 Posted June 28, 2015 Share Posted June 28, 2015 But we are, we're just giving him a ticket for the moving vehicle offence rather than locking him up for obstruction. Let's face it, the cops are in a lose/lose scenario here. They nick him for obstruction, they're risking being accused of being heavy handed. They give him a ticket, then they're too soft. I agree we should never stop trying to teach people a lesson but locking this guy up is a complete waste of time and money. By using the threat of the stick instead of the actual stick maybe he'll actually be more willing to comply next time? I firmly believe otherwise. The law says that if someone commits an offence, I can require their credentials. The law says if they fail to provide those credentials, they're arrestable. So I'll arrest them. They'll either become very agreeable or wind up a judge. Chances are they won't do it again. Time and money well spent I would wager. EVERY job we attend, we should attend with a view to ensuring that the given situation never occurs again. Spending 20 minutes messing about with an idiot on the street and him getting away with it will lead him to do it again and again and again. We have powers at our disposal - use them. First time? Sure, fine, give them a ticket. This guy is clearly taking the rise. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin + 94 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 But we are, we're just giving him a ticket for the moving vehicle offence rather than locking him up for obstruction. Let's face it, the cops are in a lose/lose scenario here. They nick him for obstruction, they're risking being accused of being heavy handed. They give him a ticket, then they're too soft. I agree we should never stop trying to teach people a lesson but locking this guy up is a complete waste of time and money. By using the threat of the stick instead of the actual stick maybe he'll actually be more willing to comply next time? If they arrest him for obstruction then it's likely that the PF will bin the case. Failing to give details is not obstruction. If you are failing to comply with a legal requirement to give details (e.g. S13 CPSA , S165 RTA etc) then you commit an offence under that section for which you will be arrested (under common law unless the statute is not silent on powers of arrest). Obstruction is a very useful power but case law has shown it needs to be a 'wilful act' and that 'refusing to cooperate' will not in itself be obstruction. This is not aimed at you Mazza but I frequently see this misunderstanding banded about online. For example. I stop someone for urinating in the street. He refuses to give me his details and ends up getting arrested under S47 CGSA 1982. The circumstances around his refusal to give details are put in the report. However, if he runs away then he would be charged with obstruction in addition to the original offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScotLass + 638 Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 If they arrest him for obstruction then it's likely that the PF will bin the case. Failing to give details is not obstruction. If you are failing to comply with a legal requirement to give details (e.g. S13 CPSA , S165 RTA etc) then you commit an offence under that section for which you will be arrested (under common law unless the statute is not silent on powers of arrest). Obstruction is a very useful power but case law has shown it needs to be a 'wilful act' and that 'refusing to cooperate' will not in itself be obstruction. This is not aimed at you Mazza but I frequently see this misunderstanding banded about online. For example. I stop someone for urinating in the street. He refuses to give me his details and ends up getting arrested under S47 CGSA 1982. The circumstances around his refusal to give details are put in the report. However, if he runs away then he would be charged with obstruction in addition to the original offence. In which case change my term "obstruction" for "failing to provide" and chalk it up to tiredness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now