More Met Bad Apples
Discussion
Just watched the body camera footage and the female officer says "you just shot off at speed from the police, you made a definite attempt to try and avoid us.. the driver has... which makes us suspect there is something in the car there shouldn't be"
So in that regard I can see why the stop happened.
The other thing thats weird is its like the officer with his baton out (I assume Franks) is in training (not mentioned in the reports) as there is another officer standing there saying "go through it all" as in GOWISELY I presume and what not as the guy tries to get out the reasons for the stop, which section of PACE, station, etc etc etc... all whilst trying to get the guy out of the car.
Hm.
So in that regard I can see why the stop happened.
The other thing thats weird is its like the officer with his baton out (I assume Franks) is in training (not mentioned in the reports) as there is another officer standing there saying "go through it all" as in GOWISELY I presume and what not as the guy tries to get out the reasons for the stop, which section of PACE, station, etc etc etc... all whilst trying to get the guy out of the car.
Hm.
XCP said:
gotoPzero said:
CoolHands said:
I thought they didn’t need a reason to stop a car so if so inventing a reason is stupid. Can they not stop any car they want without a reason?
The police can stop any vehicle being driven on a road to establish the driver has a licence to drive said vehicle.From the reports I read the reason for the stop was actually manner of driving and they smell was only detected when they were stopped?
CoolHands said:
So why say they can smell weed? Which was either a lie or mistaken but either way a logic fail.
Just need to be smarter - if you don’t need reason to stop then don’t give a reason, which otherwise just trips you up later. Seems obvious to me?
Grounds to search. Simple as that.Just need to be smarter - if you don’t need reason to stop then don’t give a reason, which otherwise just trips you up later. Seems obvious to me?
The police cant search for no reason.
gotoPzero said:
Grounds to search. Simple as that.
The police cant search for no reason.
no but the initial problem was simply stopping them wasn’t it? And they made up cannabis smell excuse. So stop for general docs check (I assume that is allowed) would be more sensible. But this situation they escalated it out of all proportion, they should have simply calmly asked the driver for his docs when he eventually stopped instead of going in like the SAS!The police cant search for no reason.
CoolHands said:
o but the initial problem was simply stopping them wasn’t it? And they made up cannabis smell excuse. So stop for general docs check (I assume that is allowed) would be more sensible. But this situation they escalated it out of all proportion, they should have simply calmly asked the driver for his docs when he eventually stopped instead of going in like the SAS!
What a fluffy world you must live in.CoolHands said:
I thought they didn’t need a reason to stop a car so if so inventing a reason is stupid. Can they not stop any car they want without a reason?
They can stop a vehicle for any reason under PACE, but it's their bungled approach and delivery. I think it's the poor vetting as recruitment can bring in all types from across society. But in any job, there's good and bad types. Some may be exemplary officers, others would struggle with security work at a Tesco Metro in a bad part of town 
They can't disband the Met, (what would they replace it with, it would be like a bad restaurant re opening under another name) but it does boil down to years of cuts from government as more police stations close. Interesting choice of panda cars in Corolla hybrid estates which aren't exactly quick off the lights, having had one as a company car. Poor acelleration from that CVT box. They won't last three years the way they are driven. Lots of brake fade too from high speed. Not sure if they are still phasing out the X5's for Volvos (who also soon will switch to hybrid or electric and drop their 5 cylinder petrols)...
Inventing a reason for the stop was stupid but that's been going on for years...
numtumfutunch said:
No sympathy from me
When did they (not) actually smell weed?
As their car drove past (yeah, right) or after theyd decided to stop them (for no legitimate reason)?
My experience of police is possibly different from the majority on PH and Im really happy these 2 have been sacked
Cheers
Exactly, they don't do themselves any favours, in my experience, they have a very selective way of how they uphold the law.When did they (not) actually smell weed?
As their car drove past (yeah, right) or after theyd decided to stop them (for no legitimate reason)?
My experience of police is possibly different from the majority on PH and Im really happy these 2 have been sacked
Cheers
119 said:
This all smells a bit fishy to me in all honesty but then again i dont think we have all the facts either so its hard to judge.
The panel did and they judged that two of them were untruthful and they were sacked for lying.Why would you feel you might know something the panel doesn't?
It's very odd to see people basically saying they don't mind if Police officers are untruthful and tell lies.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said:119 said:
This all smells a bit fishy to me in all honesty but then again i dont think we have all the facts either so its hard to judge.
The panel did and they judged that two of them were untruthful and they were sacked for lying.Why would you feel you might know something the panel doesn't?
It's very odd to see people basically saying they don't mind if Police officers are untruthful and tell lies.
In fact, I pretty much stated exactly that in my post.
CourtAgain said:
CoolHands said:
I thought they didn’t need a reason to stop a car so if so inventing a reason is stupid. Can they not stop any car they want without a reason?
They can stop a vehicle for any reason under PACE, but it's their bungled approach and delivery. In this case I suspect - from the BWC anyway - that there was indeed a manner of driving that was the initial reason for that vehicle to draw attention. But after that its all gone to sh*t. Waving batons around on fairly run of the mill traffic stops is kind of overkill. If you are looking for drugs then I suspect going in with both boots is just increasing the chance of a bad reaction, drive off or a runner whatever. Softly softly approach can yield better results.
Making up the smell of weed is just asking for trouble. They found out I guess!
Earthdweller said:
So the athletes weren’t racially profiled
They weren’t unlawfully stopped
The use of force was justified
All officers found not guilty of any wrongdoing in relation to the conduct of the stop
However, two officers who claimed they smelt cannabis during the stop didn’t do enough to ascertain whether the smell came from the car or not.
The panel haven’t said they lied, haven’t said they didn’t smell cannabis just that in the opinion of the panel they should have done more to rule out whether it could have come from somewhere else!!
And sacked them because of that opinion that the panel held, rather than the honestly held belief of the officers
Very strange judgement imo
I can definitely see an appeal for wrongful dismissal coming
Because it was the word of the police against the word of the victims.They weren’t unlawfully stopped
The use of force was justified
All officers found not guilty of any wrongdoing in relation to the conduct of the stop
However, two officers who claimed they smelt cannabis during the stop didn’t do enough to ascertain whether the smell came from the car or not.
The panel haven’t said they lied, haven’t said they didn’t smell cannabis just that in the opinion of the panel they should have done more to rule out whether it could have come from somewhere else!!
And sacked them because of that opinion that the panel held, rather than the honestly held belief of the officers
Very strange judgement imo
I can definitely see an appeal for wrongful dismissal coming
And the only charge that could be supported by evidence was that there was definitely no cannabis consumption occurring as both were tested athletes and nothing was found.
Evanivitch said:
Because it was the word of the police against the word of the victims.
And the only charge that could be supported by evidence was that there was definitely no cannabis consumption occurring as both were tested athletes and nothing was found.
Because nothing was found does not (as a rule of thumb) mean the initial grounds for the search did not exist for all manner of reasons. In this instance one could be a passenger who smoked it had been present in the vehicle in the hours beforeAnd the only charge that could be supported by evidence was that there was definitely no cannabis consumption occurring as both were tested athletes and nothing was found.
pavarotti1980 said:
Because nothing was found does not (as a rule of thumb) mean the initial grounds for the search did not exist for all manner of reasons. In this instance one could be a passenger who smoked it had been present in the vehicle in the hours before
Again noting that there were two drugs tested athletes and a baby in the car.Cops lied. Got caught.
I can see how police might be alarmed that "one of their own" isn't being protected by the system any more. No one has mentioned them as a political sacrifice yet, but the mindset on some of these posts seems similar to the met AFO being charged for murder.
But looking at the facts: two of the five police there were found to have lied to justify an course of action that wasn't justifiable.
That is not a personality trait that should exist in people with this much power and responsibility given to them.
Without getting bogged down in "what is a lie" theory, the panel didn't find their explanation credible or believable.
And in my (limited) experience of fraud investigations, if people are doing something wrong in one area of their live, they're usually doing it wrong in others. So this behaviour needs stamping out, which it has happened in this case.
(Not to ignore the other officers were censured to some extent: being required to take on reflective practice training, though I suspect a greater level of reflection will be achieved the next time they put their hi-viz on)
Implications:
- is "driving whilst black" a thing? The athletes maintain there is a still a real problem with this. But weren't the windows tinted, and the manner of driving the trigger rather than colour?
- the rest of the stop was valid - indicating people of colour can't just "veto" a police stop because they feel profiled, or get aggressive if they don't like the situation
- how much of this goes on? One of the athletes had won something recently, and their coach was linford Christie. Without that exposure, would this case even have made the news? The police should be able to demonstrate that out of X number of stops, Y prosecutions resulted.
The counter point is that car crime is high, especially at night and for valuable cars being driven erratically. The driver's anger didn't do much to de-escalate the situation either.
Without the lying about cannabis I would be pretty much 100% behind the police given the accounts I've read.
But looking at the facts: two of the five police there were found to have lied to justify an course of action that wasn't justifiable.
That is not a personality trait that should exist in people with this much power and responsibility given to them.
Without getting bogged down in "what is a lie" theory, the panel didn't find their explanation credible or believable.
And in my (limited) experience of fraud investigations, if people are doing something wrong in one area of their live, they're usually doing it wrong in others. So this behaviour needs stamping out, which it has happened in this case.
(Not to ignore the other officers were censured to some extent: being required to take on reflective practice training, though I suspect a greater level of reflection will be achieved the next time they put their hi-viz on)
Implications:
- is "driving whilst black" a thing? The athletes maintain there is a still a real problem with this. But weren't the windows tinted, and the manner of driving the trigger rather than colour?
- the rest of the stop was valid - indicating people of colour can't just "veto" a police stop because they feel profiled, or get aggressive if they don't like the situation
- how much of this goes on? One of the athletes had won something recently, and their coach was linford Christie. Without that exposure, would this case even have made the news? The police should be able to demonstrate that out of X number of stops, Y prosecutions resulted.
The counter point is that car crime is high, especially at night and for valuable cars being driven erratically. The driver's anger didn't do much to de-escalate the situation either.
Without the lying about cannabis I would be pretty much 100% behind the police given the accounts I've read.
Evanivitch said:
Again noting that there were two drugs tested athletes and a baby in the car.
Cops lied. Got caught.
Luckily athletes never take drugs eh?Cops lied. Got caught.
Read my example how the presence of a smell could occur whilst simultaneously not being the responsibility of the driver or passenger. If you smoke a cigarette in your mates passenger seat while he drove would:
there be a tobacco smell present?
was it your mate driving who smoked it?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff