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

Run_to_da_hills

A police dashboard camera caught two cops pulling in a pensioner, smashing his windscreen and dragging him out of the car. The pensioner was fined for minor offences ie failing to stop, not wearing a seatbelt and having a tinted windows that did not conform. The two cops were suspended.

Watch video at end of article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300608/Policemen-suspended-smash-grab-raid-disabled-mans-Range-Rover.html

SV

Failing to stop is not a minor offence.

Run_to_da_hills

SV wrote: »

Failing to stop is not a minor offence.

He probably forgot his hearing aid and didn’t hear the siren.

patrickc

madness, the cops were way OTT

SV

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He probably forgot his hearing aid and didn’t hear the siren.

Remove the 'probably' out of that and you too could write for the daily mail.

Del2005

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.

TW Mr Tayto

I'm sure it's their training - to stun the driver. I may be exaggerating, but would be "PC" to let age make a difference?


EDIT: I'm not arguing with the last post - I was actually posting before I seen that ! :L

unkel

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?

galwaytt

SV wrote: »

Failing to stop is not a minor offence.

....it's quite obvious they were on a power trip. They should be dismissed from the force and brought up on charges tbh. The penalties for the no plate and tint windows are grasping at straws, not having anything else to get him for.

Oh, and it's Welsh Police, I see........Wales is effectively a no-go area for anything on wheels these days........AMHIK........

Drummerboy08

From reading the article, he had originally pulled over. He then drove away before the officers issued him with the fine, and drove on for another 8 miles thinking he was getting a Police escort?

Seems to me, that between his confused state, and his very unstable health condition, maybe he shouldnt be driving at all?

Besides, had he not thought of himself as being above the law and put his seatbelt on,he wouldnt have this kind of issue.
No doubt his family would be screaming for more police action were he killed in an accident as a result of not wearing his belt. :rolleyes:

TW Mr Tayto

unkel wrote: »

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?

TThe radio chatter sounds like they're gearing towards having to persue him "40, still on the right side of the road - I'm happy to continue"

Vertakill

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?

CharlieCroker

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The driver drove away from police, in a vehicle that is a high value target for car thieves (who usually break into a house for the keys), failed to stop when indicated to do so by lights and sirens and refused to get out of the vehicle when it was stopped. He can count himself lucky that he wasn't pepper sprayed.
The officers in question didn't know:
-was he drunk
-was he insured
-was the vehicle stolen
etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and 11 months after the incident its very easy to say he's a pensioner, and so on. What if it was a stolen vehicle that hadn't been reported yet. I'd hate to imagine a 2.5 tonne Range Rover ramming a patrol car at speed trying to get away. Those officers had minutes (if even) to make a decision as to how to proceed and I prob would have done the same thing in the same situation.

az2wp0sye65487

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.

Guy:Incognito

The papers love to throw "OAP" around to make people sound defenseless when it suites them.

Sly Stallone is a pensioner in a year, Arnie in 2. Just for comparison.

Vertakill

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.

Run_to_da_hills

Stekelly wrote: »

Sly Stallone is a pensioner in a year, Arnie in 2. Just for comparison.

Both of them would beat the cr*p out of any cop.

MagicMarker

These policemen would not be suspended if it were some 19 year old driving.

I feel no sympathy for the OAP whatsoever.

Anan1

CharlieCroker wrote: »

I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. The driver drove away from police, in a vehicle that is a high value target for car thieves (who usually break into a house for the keys), failed to stop when indicated to do so by lights and sirens and refused to get out of the vehicle when it was stopped. He can count himself lucky that he wasn't pepper sprayed.
The officers in question didn't know:
-was he drunk
-was he insured
-was the vehicle stolen
etc.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and 11 months after the incident its very easy to say he's a pensioner, and so on. What if it was a stolen vehicle that hadn't been reported yet. I'd hate to imagine a 2.5 tonne Range Rover ramming a patrol car at speed trying to get away. Those officers had minutes (if even) to make a decision as to how to proceed and I prob would have done the same thing in the same situation.

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.

corktina

Shock and Awe is a recognised Police tactic designed to give the police vital seconds to apprehend a suspect whilst he recoils from the onslaught.

SV

I'm positive I recognise his picture from somewhere else..
He's been in the papers for something before, keep this in mind if it gets unearthed, I know I'm right :P

CharlieCroker

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.

x in the city

CharlieCroker wrote: »

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.

whats that guy doing driving a 60 grand jeep in the first place, surprised no one has brought that up.

he didn't seem fit to drive a daewoo lanos.

but the cops were crazeyyy, like someone out of that film. the crazies.

kasper

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

squod

They didn't even try opening the door using the handle. Those cops are fuhken stupid freaks.

Voodoomelon

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.

TW Mr Tayto

squod wrote: »

They didn't even try opening the door using the handle. Those cops are fuhken stupid freaks.

It's their training - it stuns the driver, or have I been watching too much road wars?:D

Anan1

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?

SV

Voodoomelon wrote: »

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.

Don't give a reasoned out post like that that justifies what they did!
That'd go against the angry mobs!




Well done btw

Anan1

squod wrote: »

Those cops are fuhken stupid freaks.

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

copacetic

this is the key bit for me:

But when an officer went round to the passenger side, the car lurched forward and he was knocked over.

Mr Whatley told Caerphilly magistrates court, , that he then drove off because he thought the matter had been dealt with, felt ‘frail and vulnerable’ and was worried he would suffer another stroke.

Thats a pile of crap, he knocks a cop over and then drives off? pull the other one, obviously he rightly pissed off the pair of them. They went a bit over the top but they hardly 'dragged' him out of the car.

Usually rtdh and daily mail rubbish...

Vertakill

Voodoomelon wrote: »

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.

That's exactly how I would imagine it panned out as well.

You don't just drive away (and bump into a cop) from a reprimand while the police are still dealing with you and expect to drive a few miles down the road, ignoring the sirens and flashing police lights, and then expect them to greet you with a hearty hello.

Anan1

copacetic wrote: »

this is the key bit for me:

But when an officer went round to the passenger side, the car lurched forward and he was knocked over.

See, this is a problem for me. We don't have this on camera, and what we do have is a situation where one side has a very strong vested interest in asserting this, as does the other in denying it. I'd like to see the full tape.

copacetic

Anan1 wrote: »

See, this is a problem for me. We don't have this on camera, and what we do have is a situation where one side has a very strong vested interest in asserting this, as does the other in denying it. I'd like to see the full tape.

I'm assuming he admitted this, otherwise the mail and rtdh would be all over it? No sign of a denial anyway?

The story is written entirely from the anti police angle so if there was any sniff of not having to put that in they wouldn't have imo.

Anan1

copacetic wrote: »

I'm assuming he admitted this, otherwise the mail and rtdh would be all over it? No sign of a denial anyway?

The story is written entirely from the anti police angle so if there was any sniff of not having to put that in they wouldn't have imo.

I honestly don't know. Even if he did, it still doesn't explain why the police felt the need to take such an aggressive approach to removing an elderly driver from a car that wasn't moving and that had a stinger laid out in front of it.

Vertakill

Anan1 wrote: »

I honestly don't know. Even if he did, it still doesn't explain why the police felt the need to take such an aggressive approach to removing an elderly driver from a car that wasn't moving and that had a stinger laid out in front of it.

Because he wouldn't stop? Usually people that give police a chase are people that are trying to hide something. He wouldn't be the first OAP to commit a crime.

If the spike strip wasn't used, when do you think he would've stopped?
And do you believe he genuinely thought he was receiving a police escort or is he just trying to pull a fast one?

There are so many little busy body OAP's who think that they know it all.
For example, not wearing seatbelts! He probably never wears one.

He also probably didn't take kindly to be scolded by these young bucks who are half his age (the police) about what he can and can't do on the road, so he just took off whilst clipping one of the cops.

You don't get the tone of how the first encounter went between the OAP and the Police based on the article alone, so you don't know if he brought a lot of this on himself.

Tragedy

But when an officer went round to the passenger side, the car lurched forward and he was knocked over.

Mr Whatley told Caerphilly magistrates court, South Wales, that he then drove off because he thought the matter had been dealt with, felt ‘frail and vulnerable’ and was worried he would suffer another stroke.

The police followed him for 17 minutes, during which time he did not break the speed limit. Mr Whatley said he thought the blue lights and siren of the police car meant the officers were giving him an escort home.

He finally pulled over when he was confronted by a police ‘stinger’ device to puncture his tyres on the road into Usk.

Hopefully the two policemen are cleared of any charges, the driver was clearly either senile or a sly conniving chancer.

supersaint3

lads come on, there's nothing here about who this 'poor old oap' is, he could be well known to the old pd! and he thought he was being escorted home? pshaw! Nobody is stating the obvious here, a 70 plus year old with a custom reg range rover and blacked out windows, I'm going to go with the stereotype and say dodgy!

corktina

he isnt "elderley" he's 70 thats not old nowadays.

-Chris-

I have to say I'm with the cops on this one.

They have a driver who has driven away from a police stop and has refused to stop when being "chased" by a car with full lights and sirens on.

Listening to the police driver's voice he seems very calm and so I wouldn't chalk it down to red mist.

When they do pull him over, they go for the default of smashing the driver's side window.

They can't get through the side window presumably due to reinforced glass, so another officer is quick-thinking enough to try and go through the windscreen (he doesn't climb on the bonnet until the first officer has made 5 or 6 ineffectual hit on the side window).

It takes 15 hits of the side window before they're in a position to grab the keys, so obviously the glass is reinforced somehow.

They get access to the keys/car at 18:56:15, it's 14 seconds later before they actually get the door open (i.e. he's hardly cooperating).

As soon as the door is open, the "high-viz" officer leaves so that it's just one officer trying to get the driver out of the car - presumably so it's less intimidatory and another sign that there's no red mist involved.

From door open to driver actually exiting the car it's another 25 seconds. Bearing in mind that the driver's not wearing a seatbelt, you'd have to say they're hardly being heavy handed in removing him. In fact you'd have to say they removed him quite gently from the car.

Max Power1

MagicMarker wrote: »

These policemen would not be suspended if it were some 19 year old driving.

I feel no sympathy for the OAP whatsoever.

+1

Age discrimination against younger drivers again. In addition to having to pay higher insurance, and are always blamed for accidents/poor driving.

Anan1 wrote: »

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?

WRt to points 1-3,

We COULD do that - but would you rather the cops "hum and haw" about whether to pursue someone, and in that time the person driving erratically has crashed and injured/killed someone? Policing is, and always should be, a case of public safety first, PC horse sh!t later (or preferably never)

Matt Simis

Del2005 wrote: »

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.

Not saying who is right or wrong in the video case, but I think your statement above is completely incorrect. Respect for the elderly is a relic of ages past, not a nuvo-PC symptom (and not demonstrated). This absolutely would have got massive publicity 20+years ago, the only reason its tolerated now is the Police have more invasive powers and a near carte-blanche in the UK to deal with perceived terror threats.

Nearly anything can be explained away as a potential terrorist, bomb, drug dealer etc. Again, Im not saying its not the world we live in, but PC-mad is more a media favourite than UK Cops ROE.

Ghost Train

They do seem to attack the car very quickly, it wasnt a dangerous police pursuit so maybe they could have given him more time to exit the car himself.

Good that they were suspended while its investgated. If they followed standard procedure then fair enough they should be ok, if not then punish them. All the evidence is on video so should be simple enough to decide on what happens next

Tea 1000

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

From reading the article, he had originally pulled over. He then drove away before the officers issued him with the fine, and drove on for another 8 miles thinking he was getting a Police escort?

Seems to me, that between his confused state, and his very unstable health condition, maybe he shouldnt be driving at all?

Besides, had he not thought of himself as being above the law and put his seatbelt on,he wouldnt have this kind of issue.
No doubt his family would be screaming for more police action were he killed in an accident as a result of not wearing his belt. :rolleyes:

You're right, that justifys them smashing his window and hauling him out alright.
Next time you're jay-walking you better watch out, cause a cop would be fully justified in breaking your legs for it.
No amount of :rolleyes: makes what they did OK, they're professional law enforcers, not vigilanties high on dope.

Anan1

Vertakill wrote: »

Because he wouldn't stop? Usually people that give police a chase are people that are trying to hide something. He wouldn't be the first OAP to commit a crime.

If the spike strip wasn't used, when do you think he would've stopped?
And do you believe he genuinely thought he was receiving a police escort or is he just trying to pull a fast one?

There are so many little busy body OAP's who think that they know it all.
For example, not wearing seatbelts! He probably never wears one.

He also probably didn't take kindly to be scolded by these young bucks who are half his age (the police) about what he can and can't do on the road, so he just took off whilst clipping one of the cops.

I agree, all of the above is quite possibly true.

Vertakill wrote: »

You don't get the tone of how the first encounter went between the OAP and the Police based on the article alone, so you don't know if he brought a lot of this on himself.

This is where we differ. Regardless of the drivers' behaviour, we have a right to expect police to remove him from the car in the most gentle way consistent with the safety of all concerned. Does it look to you as though that's what happened?

Anan1

Max Power1 wrote: »

Policing is, and always should be, a case of public safety first, PC horse sh!t later (or preferably never)

'PC horse ****' and public safety are often the same thing. It seems obvious to me that whacking on the window of a stopped SUV with an elderly, scared/angry and possibly confused 70 year old at the wheel carries an elevated risk of him flooring it and somebody getting hurt.

SV

Tea 1000 wrote: »

You're right, that justifys them smashing his window and hauling him out alright.
Next time you're jay-walking you better watch out, cause a cop would be fully justified in breaking your legs for it.
No amount of :rolleyes: makes what they did OK, they're professional law enforcers, not vigilanties high on dope.

In what world is hitting a police officer with your car and then refusing to stop the same as jaywalking? Or is it just suitable for your little argument?

Viper_JB

I never cease to be amazed as to what people can justify when it comes to enforcement of the law, if you think that the police are pissed off after the first incident and behaving in this manor because they want a little revenge, doesn't that seem a little wrong? Shouldn't the people responcible for public saftey be able to show a little restraint and common sense even in a situation like this? Either way they would not have been suspended if they were doing it by the book instead of trying to emulate what they see on american cop shows.

Anan1

SV wrote: »

Or is it just suitable for your little argument?

Easy now, you can make your point without being snide.

eamo12

Tea 1000 wrote: »

You're right, that justifys them smashing his window and hauling him out alright.
Next time you're jay-walking you better watch out, cause a cop would be fully justified in breaking your legs for it.
No amount of :rolleyes: makes what they did OK, they're professional law enforcers, not vigilanties high on dope.

Agreed with this statement. I just knew the do-gooders here on boards would jump on this and defend the police despite the clear evidence they completely over reacted and acted irrationally. They stopped him before so they knew he was a pensioner, not some high value terrorist.

just as an aside, I bet the do-gooders on these boards would be falling over themselves to defend this this driver if he was a black, gay, muslim asylum-seeker? Just wondering...

SV

eamo12 wrote: »

Agreed with this statement. I just knew the do-gooders here on boards would jump on this and defend the police despite the clear evidence they completely over reacted and acted irrationally. They stopped him before so they knew he was a pensioner, not some high value terrorist.

just as an aside, I bet the do-gooders on these boards would be falling over themselves to defend this this driver if he was a black, gay, muslim asylum-seeker? Just wondering...

How does who the driver is even make a difference to those defending the police? It's clearly only making a difference to those defending the driver.