UK cops smash OAP driver's windscreen and dragged him out of car over minor offence

madness, the cops were way OTT

I'm sure they didn't know it was an OAP till they'd got him out. In these times cops always assume the worst and a car with tinted windows which doesn't stop gets the full works. I think PC stuff these days has gone too far, just because the person is an OAP they can do as they please. Would this have made the news if it was a 20 year old ? Not a hope.

We don't know what happened when the driver failed to stop. No point really speculating about it...

In the video it looked like a wee little fella in a high viz jacket went totally crazy attacking (and shattering) the drivers door window. Another man jumped onto the bonnet and kicked the windscreen without much conviction. I take it these two are police officers who are now suspended?

He's clearly got a hearing problem and maybe some dodgy vision if he honestly didn't see or hear the police car behind him. So maybe he shouldn't have been on the road to begin with?

If I were a cop and I see some guy refusing to pull over in a quite new, black, Range Rover with blacked out windows... I would be thinking there's a fair possibility that the driver is some sort of drug dealer.

The first cop got out and straight away started smashing the driver window which was a bit over the top. But in saying that, he couldn't see the driver was an OAP because of the tinted windows.

No idea what the hell the cop on the bonnet was thinking. Hardly police practice to get up on someones bonnet and start kicking in the window?

Imagine if some of the shards of glass hit the drivers face from the windscreen or the driver window?
Or imagine if the driver was some scumbag and started driving off while the cop was on the bonnet?

Madeleine Ugly Eyelash wrote: »

A few of you here are saying that the police didn't know who they were dealing with... when in fact they did, as they had already been dealing with this man at an earlier incident; and followed him after he drove away.

I'm not saying who is right or wrong, just making that point.

That's true actually.

But I have even less sympathy for him after reading the last half of the article.

The cops pulled him over for not wearing his seatbelt and as one of the officers went around to the passenger door, the OAP drove off (and allegedly tipped the officer).
The OAP claimed that, the reason he drove away was because he thought he had been dealt with AND because of his medical conditions?

OAP wrote:

'I feel on health grounds I was justified,' he said. 'I was displaying my medication needs and the officer was ignoring me.

'My survival instinct was such was that I was trying to assist the officer the best I could. I feared another stroke.

'I thought he had finished with me. I just drove off coolly and calmly and not off at speed.'

Isn't that not a bit contradictory?
First he's saying his survival instinct kicked in and he felt he HAD to drive away to prevent a stroke.

Who exactly gets a stroke from being reprimanded for not wearing their seatbelt? God forbid a dog would run out in front of him and he'd have a full force coronary!

But then he says he was convinced that the officer had dealt with him and he was free to go?

And, the only reason he 'pulled over' was because the guy in front of the Range Rover that you see in the video actually threw out a spike strip that forced him to stop.
So god only knows how far he'd have driven without that.


Sounds like one of these d1cks that thinks because they're an OAP, they can get away with murder. And now he's going to milk this for all it's worth.

Anan1 wrote: »

A couple of points:

1. They knew that he was elderly, as they'd already seen him and spoken with him.
2. While being pursued, he was driving at between 30 and 40mph.
3. He stopped immediately when he saw police ahead of him.
4. Police had a stinger laid out ahead of him, so he clearly wasn't going anywhere.

Those officers had 17 minutes to decide how to handle a situation where they knew the driver to be elderly, where speeds never exceeded 40mph, and where the vehicle had already come to a complete halt before they approached it.

There may be extenuating circumstances of which I am unaware, but from what I have seen those police officers appear to have been lacking in either the judgement, the temperament, or both, to serve the public in that role.

1. They knew that he was elderly, as they'd already seen him and spoken with him.
2. While being pursued, he was driving at between 30 and 40mph.
3. He stopped immediately when he saw police ahead of him.
4. Police had a stinger laid out ahead of him, so he clearly wasn't going anywhere.


1. Elderly people don't commit crime?? Trust me, they're harder to catch than younger people.
2. Drunk/drug drivers (from experience) don't always drive at speed, it helps not to crash
3. Because he had no other choice, but who's to say that he couldn't have had a gun/knife/other weapon behind the tinted glass. In light of recent events in the UK, it's more than possible.
4. A stinger isn't going to stop a vehicle immediately, just slow it down (assuming that all 4 tyres get hit, which is rare). The result in this case would be a 2.5 tonne jeep effectively out of control, especially if its one or two tyres.

the only bit that was over the top was the jumping on the bonnet

The extreme action taken by the Police seems to be a direct result of the driver lurching forward and hitting the police when he was originally stopped.

What I believe probably happened to trigger such an over the top reaction (smashing windows and the like) was the OAP being an arrogant git over something as trivial as "wearing a seatbelt". I'd say the policemen were getting píssed off with his backchat, one of them walked round to the passenger side to check his tax disc and the OAP released his foot off the brake (more than likely an auto) and bumped the policeman.

This píssed them off no end and they told him to get out of the car, he told them to get stuffed and drove off.

I can't imagine it being any tamer than that to provoke such a reaction from the policemen.

CharlieCroker wrote: »

1. Elderly people don't commit crime?? Trust me, they're harder to catch than younger people.
2. Drunk/drug drivers (from experience) don't always drive at speed, it helps not to crash
3. Because he had no other choice, but who's to say that he couldn't have had a gun/knife/other weapon behind the tinted glass. In light of recent events in the UK, it's more than possible.
4. A stinger isn't going to stop a vehicle immediately, just slow it down (assuming that all 4 tyres get hit, which is rare). The result in this case would be a 2.5 tonne jeep effectively out of control, especially if its one or two tyres.

1. Elderly people also get confused, and sometimes react irrationally. I would have thought a basic understanding of human nature would be a prerequisite of policing.
2. Surely his unwillingness to exceed 40mph would have given the police some reason to question whether an elderly man even knew that he was being pursued?
3. They're police, not SAS - they should be well versed in the tactics of de-escalation.
4. Surely we can assume that when police place a stinger they also prepare for the possible consequences?

squod wrote: »

Those cops are fuhken stupid freaks.

Enough of that, we can discuss this without resorting to insults.