Cyclist questions policeman

alejandro1977

I came across this in the Cool Vids forum.

I think it's relevant to cyclists here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz7JE60T7ls

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bz7JE60T7ls&feature=player_embedded#at=282
worth watching anyway

Cookie_Monster

What a tosser

Ardennes1944

that is absolutely brilliant. cant even put into words how glad i am to see the cyclist do that

brayblue24

The age old line "Oi'm a Lawr student at (insert college here) and oi'll sue your orse off".

Tosser is right


Incredibly patient policeman. Shouldn't have let him go though

mikemac

Was mentioned in other thread but he's probably one of those "freemen". Has issues recognizing jurisdiction

Reminds me of those self important wasters who made my life hell in retail, "I'm a law student/barrister/nephew to Minister of Justice,etc and I know my rights!"
Student of the law indeed

Back on topic, I cycle myself, if I break a red light I'll take it on the chin

Ardennes1944

did he admit to breaking it? im not being smart merely asking? i like seeing guards know if they know their stuff

easygoing39

He broke a red light and got caught.Why does he think he's above the law??

Peetrik

I love that. Thanks for sharing

650Ginge

Very funny, that camera is worth whatever it cost.

Good to see someone not be pushed over by police, often they seem to forget the reason they are there, to protect and uphold the law of society. I think you need to know it to enforce it....

If he did run the red light then he should have got a ticket, the cop should have nothing to fear from a camera.

DirkVoodoo

feelingstressed wrote: »

Was mentioned in other thread but he's probably one of those "freemen". Has issues recognizing jurisdiction

Reminds me of those self important wasters who made my life hell in retail, "I'm a law student/barrister/nephew to Minister of Justice,etc and I know my rights!"
Student of the law indeed

Back on topic, I cycle myself, if I break a red light I'll take it on the chin

Yeah, I've seen that "freeman" bull**** before, it's a load of garbage, there is an entire website dedicated to them slapping each other's backs for breaking the law and getting away with it.

Personally I wouldn't be applauding that kind of behaviour, he broke a red light and those guys are one step up (or maybe down) from being a complete smart ass. Oh look, a loophole, I'm above the law.

Lumen

Dim-witted police officer. Arrogant RLJing tosser.

They deserve each other.

Lumen

Oh yeah, and whilst the cyclist does comes across as an arrogant tosser, the level of personal and institutional stupidity frequently demonstrated by the Met has to be seen to be believed.

I wouldn't react like that cyclist did in Ireland, but in London it's gloves off I'm afraid.

An Garda Síochána are a whole different kettle of fish.

Undercover Elephant

Deutschlandfürimmer7 wrote: »

did he admit to breaking it? im not being smart merely asking? i like seeing guards know if they know their stuff

He did. He correctly identified PACE section 24, which says amongst other things that the police can nick you if they reasonably suspect you of having committed an offence and they can't establish your name or address. And he knew the acronym for the various other circumstances.

Asking for the precise wording is beyond ridiculous. And I bet that if the PC had known it, another bunch of inane questions would have followed.

Undercover Elephant

Lumen wrote: »

Oh yeah, and whilst the cyclist does comes across as an arrogant tosser, the level of personal and institutional stupidity frequently demonstrated by the Met has to be seen to be believed.

That's true. Careful they don't shoot you for pointing it out though.

Daniel S

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY4gZ4UNMuw&feature=related

Change the lyrics to "I'm above the law!".

Icyseanfitz

two of them are just as bad as each other

Lumen

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

Asking for the precise wording is beyond ridiculous

Yes, but easily countered with "Please quote the legislation which requires me to complete your law education".

Daniel S

Lumen wrote: »

Yes, but easily countered with "Please quote the legislation which requires me to complete your law education".

Nah, he'll have another stupid "I'm a law student!" comeback. He's the sort of person that give us cyclists a bad name. With him on a bike, rightly so.

doozerie

Basically yer man with the camera is an arrogant and self-righteous cyclist bullying his way out of a situation that he created. I'm sure he believes himself to be some kind of role model for others, which is sad. I've met personalities like that amongst car drivers too, and they are not a role model for other drivers either. If the highlight of my day was some supposed moral victory over a garda/policemen after I'd been a git to start with, I think I'd despair at my existence.

Certainly the policeman was struggling but given how he was basically being provoked I'm surprised he kept his calm. I doubt the cyclist would be so obnoxious to someone other than a police officer - he is relying heavily on the policeman demonstrating restraint so basically he wants the policeman to actually act like a policeman for certain things (such as not just punching him) but doesn't want the policeman to carry out his obligations for other things (such as enforcing basic traffic law). Maybe he'll grow up at some stage and realise that the world doesn't really revolve around him and his priorities, or maybe not.

Mutz

Just be warned that if you attempted this type of thing in Ireland i.e. refusing name and address if after committing an offence under road traffic act, you could be arrested under Section 107 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 to establish your identity.

Think that copper wasn't very savy with the law.

Both muppets if you ask me.

AstraMonti

I am a fan of his "Everything is ok" work, but this was plainly retarded.

doozerie

Mutz wrote: »

Just be warned that if you attempted this type of thing in Ireland i.e. refusing name and address if after committing an offence under road traffic act, you could be arrested under Section 107 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 to establish your identity.

If I understand correctly, a garda can confiscate your bike if you refuse to provide your details. Perhaps that's always a precursor to arresting you but "just" losing your bike is a silly risk to take too.

Mutz

doozerie wrote: »

If I understand correctly, a garda can confiscate your bike if you refuse to provide your details. Perhaps that's always a precursor to arresting you but "just" losing your bike is a silly risk to take too.

Never heard of that one before but I'd still be wary of being so obnoxious to a police man. In that video it seemed to work for the "student of the law".

If a policeman tried to take my bike from me there would be war! :pac:

fat bloke

Thought yer man was a prat at the start, but I did enjoy watching the officer squirm a little

What is the story exactly over here? There have been a couple of instances of cyclists being stopped for breaking red lights. Irish people are not required to carry identification cards with them so it's quite feasible to have no documentation to corroborate whatever name/address you wish to proffer to a garda.

"Yes, Garda. My name is UberhauptKapitan Beasty Havoc, and I live on Upmyownar$e road, Lumen Avenue, Dublin 69.":D

Seriously, there is no confirming or denying that, so what happens then???

Wolfe Tone

I said on the other thread that I believed him to be a "freeman" so I did a wee bit of investigating and I believe that this is his blog...

http://www.dannyshine.blogspot.com/


He is no law student.


Here are some entries which caught my eye after a quick glance;

I just received a fascinating message form a youtube viewer and I wanted to put it out there.

Many of you will have heard about the 'freeman' or sovereignty movement around the world. I kn ew about it before my court case but didn't feel I knew enough and understood enough to be able to withstand the onslaught of the (il)legal system. who aint just going to let a few clever guys ruin their game without a fight.

I think that anyone who is brave enough to take the system on I am sure those who have would agree that you must first and foremost completely know and understand your stuff. The way to test it in my experience si to go to courts as often as you can and test it out on lawyers and barristers and even clercs by just catching them here and there, tell them that you are going to court for something or that a friend is and that you are going to say this and that. You will then experience a taste of what it will be like in court. Finally, if you want to try it our perhaps its best to do it on something like council tax for which the punishment is simply paying the bill ! Its a good way of practicing

Anyway, here is the letter he sent which you can also use. I would be fascinated to hear form any barristers or lawyers who read this. I suspect I know what they will say.

And this too...

"I told them that I was into peaceful non compliance (they couldnt really hear what I was saying) and that I would meditate on the matter."

doozerie

Mutz wrote: »

Never heard of that one before but I'd still be wary of being so obnoxious to a police man. In that video it seemed to work for the "student of the law".

If a policeman tried to take my bike from me there would be war! :pac:

Here it is, an amendment to Section 108 of 1961 Road Traffic Act:

108.— A member of the Garda Síochána may demand of a person in charge of a pedal cycle whom the member suspects of having committed any crime or offence or of having been concerned or involved in a collision or other event in a public place causing injury to person or property, the name and address and date of birth of such person, and if such a person refuses or fails to give his or her name and address or date of birth or gives a name or address or date of birth which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, the member may take the cycle, by reasonable force if necessary, and retain it until such time as he or she is satisfied as to the identity of such person.

Funnily enough, the above amendment refers to "by reasonable force" whereas the original just says "by force". Neither is appealing, mind you, but the newer wording just seems, er, nicer!

Jawgap

Cyclist was a total nobhead.

Why didn't the video start with it showing that he didn't break the red light?

If he did, he should've had enough about him to take responsibility for his actions rather than squirming out of it. What a coward!

calerbass

A right smart ass... The cop gave him too much scope to act the tit

spyderski

He was a knob alright, but I have to laugh at the utter perplexion of the cop. I'd say he was delighted when your man cycled away.
BTW, the cop was blowing fairly hard when he stopped him first. The bike cops here are obviously a lot fitter!;)

gman2k

brayblue24 wrote: »

The age old line "Oi'm a Lawr student at (insert college here) and oi'll sue your orse off".

Tosser is right


Incredibly patient policeman. Shouldn't have let him go though

Yeah, sure thing 'Blue'

But would you agree that he was assaulted by the policeman at the end of the video? Amazing the viewpoints people take based on what they want to see.

Peetrik

gman2k wrote: »

But would you agree that he was assaulted by the policeman at the end of the video?

Actually I think this is quite a valid point, if he had tried the same thing on the policemans notebook you can bet your ass it would have been assault

spyderski

He may well have assaulted him, but that video shows no proof of same, other than the cyclists histrionics after his camera wobbles. There is not one frame on that video which would hold up in court as a proof of assault.

Peetrik

Well there is no proof that the policeman wasnt an actor etc etc etc.

It looks like the policeman in his frustration attempted to mug the guy for the camera... which is pretty ironic

monument

There's so many wrongs on both sides in that I'm unsure how anybody can come down on one side or the other.

The fellow behind the camera questions the police a lot -- off bicycles mostly it seems. From what I can see on YouTube, he is mostly far, far less aggressive, and mostly in very good humour. He seems to get talked to because of his street performances (using a megaphone) or while filming. At other times he gets in the way. Seems odd, but harmless, even of he is somewhat annoying at times.

heliguyheliguy

bet he knows it word for word now, but it wont come up for another ten years and he'll have forgotten it then.:D

is there a law that says a bicycle has to stop for red lights??

TinyExplosions

Undercover Elephant wrote: »

He did. He correctly identified PACE section 24, which says amongst other things that the police can nick you if they reasonably suspect you of having committed an offence and they can't establish your name or address. And he knew the acronym for the various other circumstances.

Asking for the precise wording is beyond ridiculous. And I bet that if the PC had known it, another bunch of inane questions would have followed.

I don't think it's ridiculous -if you are an officer of the law and are arresting someone, you should be able to articulate the reason for that arrest. Throwing acronyms around is a very different matter. Simply saying "Section 28 says I can arrest you as your name is not known or unverifiable" would be the minimum I would expect when being cautioned/arrested/ticketed.

Section 28

A constable may arrest any person he has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing, is about to commit, or has committed an offence, and the arrest is necessary because one or more of the following Conditions are satisfied:

C - Protect a Child or vulnerable person
O - Prevent Obstruction of the highway
P - Prevent physical injury to the relevant person, or any other person
P - Prevent offences against Public Decency
L - Prevent Loss or damage to property
A - Address not known or not verifiable
N - Name not known or not verifiable
I - Allow a Prompt and Effective Investigation of the offence
D - Prevent the investigation being hindered by the Disappearance of the person

Mutz wrote: »

Just be warned that if you attempted this type of thing in Ireland i.e. refusing name and address if after committing an offence under road traffic act, you could be arrested under Section 107 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 to establish your identity.

Think that copper wasn't very savy with the law.

Both muppets if you ask me.

The laws here are quite different than in the UK -the fuzz over here can compel you to provide information at any time and you are obliged to give it to them, whereas in the UK it is only if you have committed an offence that you are obliged to give your details

alejandro1977

brayblue24 wrote: »

The age old line "Oi'm a Lawr student at (insert college here) and oi'll sue your orse off".

Tosser is right


Incredibly patient policeman. Shouldn't have let him go though

That line is incredibly annoying, I have friends working in bars get dogs abuse from law students and people who claim to be lawyers for trying to close the bar at [shock!] the bar's closing time. People claim their rights are being infringed by being refused a drink :rolleyes:

However, having being at the receiving end of sloppy, unprofessional if not downright lazy behaviour from police I have limited sympathy for someone who 'flubbs his lines' like that

Harrybelafonte

A constable may arrest any person he has reasonable grounds to suspect is committing, is about to commit, or has committed an offence, and the arrest is necessary because one or more of the following Conditions are satisfied:

C - Protect a Child or vulnerable person
O - Prevent Obstruction of the highway
P - Prevent physical injury to the relevant person, or any other person
P - Prevent offences against Public Decency
L - Prevent Loss or damage to property
A - Address not known or not verifiable
N - Name not known or not verifiable
I - Allow a Prompt and Effective Investigation of the offence
D - Prevent the investigation being hindered by the Disappearance of the person

Copland?

Jawgap

I'm sure as a law student he'd be familiar with the old adage

"When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. And when you don’t have either the law or the facts on your side, pound the table!"

Mr knobhead is doing the equivalent of pounding the table.

The copper is just trying to do his job - yes, he's never going to be the Met's Commissioner, but if the cyclist felt the copper was wrong the proper forum for arguing that out is the court (as any good student of the law would know) - of course he's probably too much of a coward to put his case before a magistrate - probably scared he'd end up in front of a stipendary magistrate and that'd be it for him and his camera.

I'd also guess he was about 30 seconds away from mentioning Magna Carta......

depadz

Mutz wrote: »

Never heard of that one before but I'd still be wary of being so obnoxious to a police man. In that video it seemed to work for the "student of the law".

If a policeman tried to take my bike from me there would be war! :pac:

not sure of the legalities of it but many years ago, a motor bike copper made me deflate my tyres after catching me for a second time cycling along the quays at dusk without lights.

Cookie_Monster

Mutz wrote: »

Just be warned that if you attempted this type of thing in Ireland i.e. refusing name and address if after committing an offence under road traffic act, you could be arrested under Section 107 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 to establish your identity.

ignorance of the law is also not an excuse, so you shouldn't have any right to have a law explained to you in detail, you should already know it in full.

Of course in reality no-one knows all the laws of the land inside out but you still have to be aware of that need.

The officer should have truncheoned him for being a tosser, attempting to prevent an officer carrying out his duty, wasting his time and being a tosser.

TinyExplosions

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

ignorance of the law is also not an excuse, so you shouldn't have any right to have a law explained to you in detail, you should already know it in full..

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but you should be told why an officer is requesting information from you. It's why there's laws and not just "cops do what they like". If an officer is requesting your details (in the UK, not in Ireland) they should tell you the reason for it, and if asked for the section of the law they are being detained for, should provide it, not just spout acronysims

It's like the miranda -everyone should know it, but you have to be told it

petethedrummer

Couldn't the policeman radio someone in the office with an internet connection to find out the exact wording of the law being broken?

spoonface

depadz wrote: »

not sure of the legalities of it but many years ago, a motor bike copper made me deflate my tyres after catching me for a second time cycling along the quays at dusk without lights.

In fairness he was probably doing you a favour. But if you're stuck again, there's a garage on the quays for refilling them!

blorg

depadz wrote: »

not sure of the legalities of it but many years ago, a motor bike copper made me deflate my tyres after catching me for a second time cycling along the quays at dusk without lights.

Legally you have 30 minutes AFTER sunset before you are obliged to have lights. Deflation of tyres is not in the statute book but if it was after that the alternative would be a summons and (I think) he would have the option of confiscating the bicycle.

gman2k

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

The officer should have truncheoned him for being a tosser, attempting to prevent an officer carrying out his duty, wasting his time and being a tosser.

But supposing the copper was in the wrong? Should he still be allowed to truncheon him?

Should ordinary Joe Citizens be allowed to assault cops if they feel the cop is a tosser? Why not? Oh yeah, it's the law....
Maybe in your universe coppers are above the law.

alejandro1977

spoonface wrote: »

In fairness he was probably doing you a favour. But if you're stuck again, there's a garage on the quays for refilling them!

or you can borrow a pump from Cyclelogical !

doozerie

This section from the Citizen's Information website might clarify some of the things being raised here:

Common law powers

Most of the powers given to the Gardaí to stop and question members of the public are set out in law (known as statutory powers). There are, however, a number of instances where a Garda is entitled to stop and question you where no statutory power exists. This is known as a common law power.

An example of this would be where a Garda observes you acting suspiciously late at night, in an area where a lot of crimes are being committed. The Garda is entitled to stop you in order to detect and prevent crime. You are under no legal obligation to co-operate with the Garda and the Garda cannot use force to restrain your freedom under common law, short of arresting you.

However, if the Garda has reasonable grounds for suspecting that you committed an offence, the Garda can use a statutory power to demand your name and address. If you refuse to provide them, then the Garda can arrest you.

The Gardaí have a common law power to stop motorists at random in order to detect and prevent crime. This power can be used, for example, to stop cars near pubs to identify drunk drivers or in order to check cars passing through an area where a lot of crime had been committed.

Plus, the "Failing to comply with the direction of a Garda (Section 8)" from here seems to give gardai a lot of scope too. Click on the link and subsequent links to the relevant sections to see exactly where it can be applied but it's a broad set of circumstances (e.g. "Threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour in public place."). Good luck arguing against them if they decide to quote that at you, 'cos at that point you should really be digging upwards, and quickly.

poochiem

This isn't a thread about Gardaí, the MET as we've all seen again recently are a law unto themselves. They demand and deserve no respect whatsoever so fair play to the tosser on the bike. He just better watch his back if he's walking home from work with his hands in his pockets or they might kill him.

doozerie

@poochiem, That makes no sense. Yes, some members of the MET have done some appalling things, as have some members of the gardai too, but that doesn't justify labeling the entirety of either police force as undeserving of any respect. The cop in the video was trying to do his job, in the face of obnoxious behaviour on the part of the guy with the camera. The cop failed to do his job in the end, but that doesn't absolve the other idiot of being an idiot and neither is it some kind of victory against the MET.

TinyExplosions

doozerie wrote: »

@poochiem, That makes no sense. Yes, some members of the MET have done some appalling things, as have some members of the gardai too, but that doesn't justify labeling the entirety of either police force as undeserving of any respect. The cop in the video was trying to do his job, in the face of obnoxious behaviour on the part of the guy with the camera. The cop failed to do his job in the end, but that doesn't absolve the other idiot of being an idiot and neither is it some kind of victory against the MET.

The MET have proven time and again to come down heavy handed and without provocation, so a little bit of built up anger is justified in my view.

Yes, the cyclist was a bit of a prick, but was perfectly within his rights to ask the policeman why he was being detained, and to have the reasons for the questions asked, and not to be fobbed off with "Section 25 mate" -you should be perfectly entitled to ask what that section is, and why you are being detained.

Yes, he was being an arse, but the cop didn't discharge himself very well either, and grabbing for the camera is way off the mark, so I think it -1 to each of them