Follow-up: UK cops smash OAP driver's windscreen and dragged him out of car

Vertakill

This is a follow-up to this thread.

And here is the latest news on the story.

Looks like that little fecker got a hefty settlement for something that I still think was his entirely down to his own stupidity and recklessness... as well as admitting to several other offences at the time of the incident.

He's already gotten 8k from them for damages to his RR... now he's gotten another 20k from them in a settlement.

What a joke!

BBC wrote:

He also admitted having a registration plate which did not adhere to regulations and was fined a total of £235 and ordered to pay £300 towards prosecution costs by Caerphilly magistrates.

BBC wrote:

Mr Whatley was later found guilty of not wearing a seatbelt, failing to stop for a police officer and having tinted car windows that did not conform to legal requirements.

Anan1

There's no new information there that I can see regarding what actually happened and why.

Tallon

Why a new thread?

Vertakill

Anan1 wrote: »

There's no new information there that I can see regarding what actually happened and why.

Well, we knew what happened from the original incident and why they acted like they did. The new information is the outcome... he made 28k from it and only had to pay back a fraction of that. So, he profited from the incident.

Tallon wrote: »

Why a new thread?

I dunno... coz the other thread was a year and a half old nearly?

Tallon

Vertakill wrote: »

I dunno... coz the other thread was a year and a half old nearly?

Like the story...

Vertakill

Tallon wrote: »

Like the story...

This is an update to the previous story, and it's on the front page of the BBC site.
Hence the 'follow-up' ... the old thread had no closure to it and this settlement has only came about in the last 24 hours.

Don't know why I'm even defending myself here...

Cuddlesworth

Vertakill wrote: »

Don't know why I'm even defending myself here...

Maybe you should slow down in future. Speed kills!

Anan1

Vertakill wrote: »

Well, we knew what happened from the original incident and why they acted like they did. The new information is the outcome... he made 28k from it and only had to pay back a fraction of that. So, he profited from the incident.

Eh no, we don't. And the police paid out without admitting liability. We're not a jot closer to finding out exactly what happened.

deandean

Classic example of payday after engaging a good solicitor.

Anan1

deandean wrote: »

Classic example of payday after engaging a good solicitor.

With a video like that, who needs a solicitor?

Vertakill

Anan1 wrote: »

Eh no, we don't. And the police paid out without admitting liability. We're not a jot closer to finding out exactly what happened.

I really don't know what more information you're looking for here? We know nearly everything now I would have thought?

18 months ago: Yer man wasn't wearing his seatbelt... he wouldn't stop, the police gave chase, he still wouldn't stop... they stopped him and smashed up his car and pulled him out.....

Today: He got done for not wearing a seatbelt, not stopping and having illegal tinted windows and reg plate.... but the police were adjudged to have been too rough and were made pay 8k in damages.
He then threatened to take them to court over and rather than risk it, the police paid out 20k+ to him.
The police paid out rather than the cost of legal fees and possibly losing even more than 20k.

Anan1

Vertakill wrote: »

I really don't know what more information you're looking for here? We know nearly everything now I would have thought?

18 months ago you were here:

Vertakill wrote: »

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.

and I was here:

Anan1 wrote: »

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.

We now have a payout from the police, albeit without any admission of fault. How does that shed any more light on either your earlier position or mine?

Vertakill

Anan1 wrote: »

18 months ago you were here:and I was here:We now have a payout from the police, albeit without any admission of fault. How does that shed any more light on either your earlier position or mine?

Anan1 wrote: »

There may be extenuating circumstances of which I am unaware

When you saw the news article you were clearly expecting a good reason or extenuating circumstances for why the OAP tried to evade them for so long.
It looks like there isn't any and it just means your assumptions were possibly wrong 18 months ago.

It looks a lot more likely that the OAP had no proper reason and was just trying to pull a fast one?

If he had a legitimate reason, I'm sure he would have told the papers by now - but he clearly hasn't and telling them "Well, I thought I'd just ignore them until they smashed my car to pieces and dragged me out!" probably wouldn't endear him to too many people.

Anan1 wrote: »

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.

The police were found to be acting entirely within parameters by their peers. I do think they were very aggressive in my eyes but they were deemed to be reasonable actions apparently.

Anan1

Vertakill wrote: »

When you saw the news article you were clearly expecting a good reason or extenuating circumstances for why the OAP tried to evade them for so long.

It looks like there isn't any and it just means your assumptions were most likely wrong 18 months ago.

It looks a lot more likely that the OAP had no proper reason and was just trying to pull a fast one?

If he had a legitimate reason, I'm sure he would have told the papers by now - but he clearly hasn't and telling them "Well, I thought I'd just ignore them until they smashed my car to pieces and dragged me out!" probably wouldn't endear him to too many people.

SO why did the court clear him of failing to stop?

Vertakill wrote: »

The police were found to be acting entirely within parameters by their peers. I do think they were very aggressive in my eyes but they were deemed to be reasonable actions apparently.

Stop and think about what you're saying here for a minute.:)

Vertakill

Anan1 wrote: »

Stop and think about what you're saying here for a minute.:)

There's a reason why I wrote that I felt they were a bit too aggressive and there's also a reason why I wrote 'peers' in there too.

Doesn't really make a great deal of difference anyways in truth. They were cleared by the panel that the police put in front of them RE their jobs - obviously the court room would've been a whole different story.

Anan1 wrote: »

SO why did the court clear him of failing to stop?

I'm guessing part of the settlement they agreed on took this into consideration - this is the only part of the story left unclear.
The police didn't want to go to court because they'd have a very tough job winning with that video as evidence... so I think they thought... let him off and give him a minor fine regarding his reg plate and tinted windows so it looks like they've actioned something and be done with it.

Which is what my problem with this whole thing was from the start... he's getting preferential treatment based on his age.

Anan1

Vertakill wrote: »

Which is what my problem with this whole thing was from the start... he's getting preferential treatment based on his age.

I think if he is getting preferential treatment it's because the police made such a public cock-up of the arrest. Just to be clear - i'm not in any way defending this guy's behaviour, it just doesn't seem to me that it came anywhere close to justifying the police response.

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

I think if he is getting preferential treatment it's because the police made such a public cock-up of the arrest. Just to be clear - i'm not in any way defending this guy's behaviour, it just doesn't seem to me that it came anywhere close to justifying the police response.

Hold on, have you actually watched the video? I feel those officers were very justified in doing what they did.

Lets put it together here:

Point 1 - Who is normally associated with driving a Range Rover, with tinted windows and an illegal number plate, apart from horse breeders? Drug dealers, and other undesireables. Very possibly armed with something more leathal than those officers were carrying.

Point 2 - The Police followed him for 17 minutes AFTER an officer had almost been knocked down by the vehicle when it was stopped originally. At this point, surely you assume that this person wants to get away from the law, and has a good enough reason to do so?

Point 3 - The OAP in question clearly resists officers requests to get out of the vehicle, and he has to be dragged from the car.

Now, if you are a police officer, consider the first 2 points above. The vehicle is pulled over, when an officer approaches the car it moves forward, striking him. It then leaves the scene, refuses to pull over for quite a distance despite being followed by a police car on blues.

What do you do as a police officer when this vehicle comes to a halt? Stroll up to the driver's window and very politely request the driver step out of the car, probably for the second time, all the while pontentially risking your life again because you don't know what's on the other side of the darkly tinted window? I know i wouldn't be thinking it was some old codger with no ability to drive. I would be assuming it was someone who poses much more threat to my life, and to others in the nearby area.

I think this case makes an absolute joke of policing, and furthermore, the judgement gives no protection to police officers whatsoever.

This guy -
- Almost ran over a police officer
- refused to stop for a police officer
- was wearing no seatbelt
- had illegal plates

And yet he gets a settlement for it all? Why don't I just go out on the road and do this? Surely I'll be 20k richer too?

Madness.

Anan1

@ Drummerboy

Point 1 - They'd already pulled this guy, so the whole coked up uzi carrier thing doesn't really stick.;)

Point 2 - Yes, at all of 30mph.

Point 3 - He didn't have to be dragged anywhere. Presumably the 17 minute 30mph 'chase' would have given the police ample time to find out who they were dealing with. He'd stopped, and there were police both in front of and behind him. An experienced officer would have had him voluntarily get out of the car, with no need for any of the Mr Bean antics we saw on the video. Those police endangered themselves more than the driver. Like you said, madness.

Drummerboy08

Anan1 wrote: »

@ Drummerboy

Point 1 - They'd already pulled this guy, so the whole coked up uzi carrier thing doesn't really stick.;)

There is no mention that the officer actually spoke to the driver at that point, or even seen him for that matter. We're told that "As the officer approached the passenger side, the vehicle lurched forward" As far as I'm concerned, the officer hadn't even spoken to the driver yet.

Point 2 - Yes, at all of 30mph.

30mph, or 80mph doesn't matter. He refused to stop. For anyone looking on, the driver could have been off his head on drugs or drink, and unable to drive any faster.

Point 3 - He didn't have to be dragged anywhere. Presumably the 17 minute 30mph 'chase' would have given the police ample time to find out who they were dealing with. He'd stopped, and there were police both in front of and behind him. An experienced officer would have had him voluntarily get out of the car, with no need for any of the Mr Bean antics we saw on the video. Those police endangered themselves more than the driver. Like you said, madness.

The police could have easily found out who the car was REGISTERED to, not who was driving it, in those 17 minutes.

It seemed clear from the video and the commentary, that none of the police officers were clear on who they were dealing with.

Anan1

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

There is no mention that the officer actually spoke to the driver at that point, or even seen him for that matter. We're told that "As the officer approached the passenger side, the vehicle lurched forward" As far as I'm concerned, the officer hadn't even spoken to the driver yet.

Now admittedly the Mail Online isn't perhaps the most trustworthy source, but here's the quote:

wrote:

A court heard yesterday that Mr Whatley, right, was originally pulled over in a country lane in Monmouthshire by traffic police who tried to issue him with a fine for not wearing a seat belt.
But when an officer went round to the passenger side, the car lurched forward and he was knocked over.

It seems clear that the officer did speak to him at this point.

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

30mph, or 80mph doesn't matter. He refused to stop. For anyone looking on, the driver could have been off his head on drugs or drink, and unable to drive any faster.

Of course it matters.

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

It seemed clear from the video and the commentary, that none of the police officers were clear on who they were dealing with.

I can't see how you can deduce that from the short clip we saw?

However, for the sake of argument, let's say that the police genuinely had no idea of who they were dealing with and suspected the worst. In that situation, would you really recommend jumping on the bonnet of an SUV and kicking at the laminated windscreen with the driver still at the wheel? Whatever way you cut it, the police recklessly endangered themselves.