Crazy police stop.I didnt think it was real at first !

[Spr1985]

32 minutes ago, treetree said:

CrimeBodge's other videos are all worth a watch. Self taught expert on ensuring the police don't abuse their powers.

 

 

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

The horn incident, just goes to show , its his usual M O .
Disgusting contempt for road users.

Also worth noting on top of what @treetree has said that these videos are all sent to him (crime bodges). it is NOT him videoing the incidents, it’s members of the public and he just does the voice overs and pursues private prosecutions on behalf of the people that send the videos to him. therefore no “usual M O” at all, unless you are of course referring to the usual M O of the boys in blue. 
 

 

[Westley]

9 hours ago, Rewulf said:

'Decent pay , retire at 50 on a good pension, and the opportunity if you are so inclined to bully the public and make the law up as you go along' - Insp R. Jephcott

I think you may have got your facts (or fancies) a bit wrong. IF the job is as good as you are making it, WHY are you not doing it  ?

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Westley said:

I think you may have got your facts (or fancies) a bit wrong. IF the job is as good as you are making it, WHY are you not doing it  ?

Short answer, I'm not equipped or of good enough character to do so. 

If I had my time again, I would certainly consider it, or the other services that do a vital and often thankless job to the best of their abilities. 

Please don't think for one moment I am anti police, its a very small minority who tarnish the reputation of your colleagues. 

Their are some people in many walks of life, who upon given some authority or badge of office, let this small amount of power, to go 'full despot' mode. 

Inspector Jephcott being a prime example. 

Or do you really believe he has acted proportionately or indeed lawfully? Genuine question. 

[jall25]

13 hours ago, Vince Green said:

I'm 100% on the side of the copper. The driver of the car was a gobby little twunk playing it for the camera

Oh my !

You must live on planet Zogg 

 

Watch it again bud 

[Westley]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Short answer, I'm not equipped or of good enough character to do so. 

If I had my time again, I would certainly consider it, or the other services that do a vital and often thankless job to the best of their abilities. 

Please don't think for one moment I am anti police, its a very small minority who tarnish the reputation of your colleagues. 

Their are some people in many walks of life, who upon given some authority or badge of office, let this small amount of power, to go 'full despot' mode. 

Inspector Jephcott being a prime example. 

Or do you really believe he has acted proportionately or indeed lawfully? Genuine question. 

I would prefer to see any bodycam footage, or independent CCTV footage if it exists, before making any judgement. If he was in fear of the car taking off, then breaking the window to try and prevent that, is totally justified. Basing ANY opinion on just the footage of the complainants camera is unsafe. I certainly would not be happy bending down, talking to someone through a small gap of the open window. If he succeeds in starting the vehicle and attempts to drive off, you really are not going to stop him through a 3" gap  ! Some of the weapons I have found down between drivers seat and door would certainly make me want that door open, whatever that takes to achieve.

[eddoakley]

12 minutes ago, Westley said:

I would prefer to see any bodycam footage, or independent CCTV footage if it exists, before making any judgement. If he was in fear of the car taking off, then breaking the window to try and prevent that, is totally justified. Basing ANY opinion on just the footage of the complainants camera is unsafe. I certainly would not be happy bending down, talking to someone through a small gap of the open window. If he succeeds in starting the vehicle and attempts to drive off, you really are not going to stop him through a 3" gap  ! Some of the weapons I have found down between drivers seat and door would certainly make me want that door open, whatever that takes to achieve.

Wasn't going to comment on this thread but are you sure you want to stand by your statement? 

Paraphrasing obviously but basically " I found stuff in other vehicles so I'd open the door of completely different vehicle by any means" ?

 

Edd

 

[Rewulf]

24 minutes ago, eddoakley said:

Wasn't going to comment on this thread but are you sure you want to stand by your statement?

Ditto. 

Are you telling me all traffic stops involve immediate entry to the vehicle 'just in case'? I think not. 

The vehicle was stopped as the officer erroneously suspected the car to be a different make and colour to what was registered at DVLA. 

Perhaps he should have pepper sprayed or tazered the driver because of this? 

Again, the officer with 20 years experience, was incoherent, aggressive, and demonstrated a total lack of control, lack of procedure, and knowledge of the law, in the face of a mainly compliant suspect. 

It's embarrassing I know, but the facts are clear, the horn video demonstrated this to be a common trait with this officer. 

I'm not sure how this can be unclear for you? 

[Mungler]

Indeed, before this trundles on much further do bear in mind that the copper pulled the car over based on what Suspected murder? Robbery? Drug dealing?

No, wrong colour (in part). Indeed, anyone with a snazzy van with a factory upgraded paint pack will understand that whole solid colour is one word on the V5. I can’t be bothered to look it up but I can see solid roof colour may well be the determinative test of ‘colour’ to enter on the V5. Who knows, anyway, it’s not life or death or even interesting let alone important.

So, run the plates, see if anything is reported (eg stolen vehicle, plates, wanted driver etc) and then politely ask for name and address check and if further doubt issue a producer.

Where on earth in any of that or the clip was wracking the ASP necessary or proportionate?

.

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Mungler

[Dave-G]

For what its worth I've had two light green metallic X-trails - both log books stated they were grey.

[Dougy]

1 hour ago, Mungler said:

Indeed, before this trundles on much further do bear in mind that the copper pulled the car over based on what Suspected murder? Robbery? Drug dealing?

No, wrong colour (in part). Indeed, anyone with a snazzy van with a factory upgraded paint pack will understand that whole solid colour is one word on the V5. I can’t be bothered to look it up but I can see solid roof colour may well be the determinative test of ‘colour’ to enter on the V5. Who knows, anyway, it’s not life or death or even interesting let alone important.

So, run the plates, see if anything is reported (eg stolen vehicle, plates, wanted driver etc) and then politely ask for name and address check and if further doubt issue a producer.

Where on earth in any of that or the clip was wracking the ASP necessary or proportionate?

.

 

 

Exactly, 

i have an app on my simple Samsung mobile that gives me info on a virtually any car, it gives the following info, Tax, Insurance, Miles, MOT (Pass, fails  and advisory)  and it also gives me the make and colour. The only times it wont accept any reg is if the owner has requested that the info is removed from the data base thats accessible to jo public, but not police.  If that info is available to a simpleton like me why couldnt this be checked before the confrontation ? 

It would have been far less hassle and very likely far more productive for the nasty man with obvious issues if that had been done before. 

[Vince Green]

To me it still comes down to why didn't the driver just get out of the car and produce identification and insurance documents when first stopped?

 

[Rim Fire]

28 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

To me it still comes down to why didn't the driver just get out of the car and produce identification and insurance documents when first stopped?

 

To be honest if a copper stopped me tomorrow i could not produce any documents to prove who i am but if he ask me my name and it comes back as the vehicle owner  that's all you need to do you don't have to get out of the vehicle for that

[welsh1]

27 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

To me it still comes down to why didn't the driver just get out of the car and produce identification and insurance documents when first stopped?

 

Perhaps because he lawfully doesn't have to get out of the car, and a lot don't carry their id or insurance, a producer can be issued, and a check can be made to see if there is insurance.
If i was stopped in the rain i wouldn't get out or open my window wide.

[Rem260]

11 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Ditto. 

Are you telling me all traffic stops involve immediate entry to the vehicle 'just in case'? I think not. 

The vehicle was stopped as the officer erroneously suspected the car to be a different make and colour to what was registered at DVLA. 

Perhaps he should have pepper sprayed or tazered the driver because of this? 

Again, the officer with 20 years experience, was incoherent, aggressive, and demonstrated a total lack of control, lack of procedure, and knowledge of the law, in the face of a mainly compliant suspect. 

It's embarrassing I know, but the facts are clear, the horn video demonstrated this to be a common trait with this officer. 

I'm not sure how this can be unclear for you? 

Again I state the Sgt over reacted.

But have you considered that this Sgts 20 years experience of stopping cars late at night. With what he perceived to be false plates on a luxury motor and 2 young lads in it. May have put him on a heightened apprehension of it having been stolen. It is a well known fact that criminals who steal cars take false plates with them. It is also quite common for criminals to pull over and when the officer reaches their vehicle they drive off and are lost to sight by the time the officer gets back to their vehicle.

Not all traffic stops are where the officer believes a crime may have been committed. 

[Vince Green]

53 minutes ago, welsh1 said:

Perhaps because he lawfully doesn't have to get out of the car, and a lot don't carry their id or insurance, a producer can be issued, and a check can be made to see if there is insurance.
If i was stopped in the rain i wouldn't get out or open my window wide.

Technically that's not correct, if requested by a police officer you have to able to produce sufficient proof of your details to satisfy him that what you are telling him is true.

If he is not satisfied it is reasonable for him to seek further clarification including if necessary taking you in 

That clarification could be on your phone or credit card, work pass etc.

Saying I haven't got any documents (in the way it was said) to a police officer in these days when behaving suspiciously late at night simply isn't going to work.

The police officer would be at fault if he let you drive off in a vehicle that he wasn't completely satisfied was properly insured or that you had a licence.

There are thousands of uninsured cars out there, many cloned, being driven by unlicensed drivers. Its an epidemic. 

 

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

To me it still comes down to why didn't the driver just get out of the car and produce identification and insurance documents when first stopped?

 

 

I rarely have any ID documentation on me - I normally have my phone and a credit card. Why? Because that's all I need both in terms of my personal needs and the law. This isn't the states and we don't have or need ID cards.

I never have my driving license on me, nor do I know my vehicle insurance details - these are on line on the Motor Insurers database.

If a policeman asks me to identify myself I am obliged to provide my name and address, that's it. He should have no expectation that I have my physical driving license or insurance policy certificate on me.

Am I obliged to play along with his requests because he's got his batten out? Welcome to China.

 

 

 

[Mungler]

6 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Technically that's not correct, if requested by a police officer you have to able to produce sufficient proof of your details to satisfy him that what you are telling him is true.

If he is not satisfied it is reasonable for him to seek further clarification including if necessary taking you in 

That clarification could be on your phone or credit card, work pass etc.

Saying I haven't got any documents (in the way it was said) to a police officer in these days when behaving suspiciously late at night simply isn't going to work.

The police officer would be at fault if he let you drive off in a vehicle that he wasn't completely satisfied was properly insured or that you had a licence.

There are thousands of uninsured cars out there, many cloned, being driven by unlicensed drivers. Its an epidemic. 

 

 

Nope. Full name and address and post code can be easily checked and cross referenced to the vehicle and issued driving license at the roadside.

The explanation about color was simple but the copper wanted to be difficult. Again, baton out inside of 10 seconds of encounter and with no threatening behavior, no crime being committed and no crime reported either in the moment or against the vehicle or plates.

 

 

 

[Vince Green]

4 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

 

If a policeman asks me to identify myself I am obliged to provide my name and address

 

You have to satisfy him that what you are telling him is true. He has a responsibility to verify the facts

What you stated correctly is that you have to PROVIDE your name and address.

A verbal name and address would not be considered acceptable if there are other grounds for thinking offences are being committed . For obvious reasons

 

 

 

[Rewulf]

5 minutes ago, Rem260 said:

But have you considered that this Sgts 20 years experience of stopping cars late at night. With what he perceived to be false plates on a luxury motor and 2 young lads in it. May have put him on a heightened apprehension of it having been stolen.

Yes , considered it , tried to cut the officer some slack ect. But.

#Here’s a list of everything the officer did wrong:
1) Insisted the driver step out of his vehicle when he was under no obligation to do so
2) Threatened to smash the drivers window because he explained himself
3) Threatened to ticket the driver punitively
4) Lied about his suspicion the driver had consumed alcohol (no reasonable grounds to suspect it)
5) Falsifying an obstruction of police charge
6) Assaulted the driver
7) Lied about checking the tint on the windows as a means to get the driver to open the door
8) Had no equipment to test the opacity of the windows
9) Attempted to stop the driver from filming under threat of arrest
10) Refers to the Road Traffic Act as “the Road Traffic Law”
11) Arrested the driver without necessity (or lawful reason)
12) Placed the driver in handcuffs (maliciously) despite the driver not resisting
13) Misstated the caution: omitted “Anything you do say may be given in evidence”
14) Told the passenger he could not leave the vehicle, thereby falsely imprisoning him
15) Listed “potentially being intoxicated” as an offence
16) Suggested that his training elevated his ‘sergeant’ status to Inspector level.
17) Suggested the driver was preventing the officer from confirming who he was
18) Refused to state what station he was attached to
19) Refused to tell the driver if he had been filmed
20) Incapable of understanding the difference between delay and detention
21) Walks off petulantly when the driver makes a statement in his defence

1 minute ago, Vince Green said:

A verbal name and address would not be considered acceptable if there are other grounds for thinking offences are being committed . For obvious reasons

This is the whole point , there were no grounds.

 

[welsh1]

16 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Technically that's not correct, if requested by a police officer you have to able to produce sufficient proof of your details to satisfy him that what you are telling him is true.

If he is not satisfied it is reasonable for him to seek further clarification including if necessary taking you in 

That clarification could be on your phone or credit card, work pass etc.

Saying I haven't got any documents (in the way it was said) to a police officer in these days when behaving suspiciously late at night simply isn't going to work.

The police officer would be at fault if he let you drive off in a vehicle that he wasn't completely satisfied was properly insured or that you had a licence.

There are thousands of uninsured cars out there, many cloned, being driven by unlicensed drivers. Its an epidemic. 

 

You are only obliged to follow the law,the driver pulled over when requested.

The police can stop a vehicle for any reason. If they ask you to stop, you should always pull over when it’s safe to do so. You’re breaking the law if you do not stop.

If you’re stopped, the police can ask to see your:

• driving licence
• insurance certificate
• MOT certificate

If you do not have these documents with you, you have 7 days to take them to a police station. You’re breaking the law if you do not show the requested documents within 7 days.

The police can also give you an on-the-spot fixed penalty notice for many minor offences and make you take a breath test in certain circumstances.

You can also have your vehicle seized if you’re stopped on suspicion of driving without insurance and for some other offences.

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Rem260 said:

Not all traffic stops are where the officer believes a crime may have been committed. 

Random stops are very rare , and require a special reason , eg Xmas drink drive blitz ect.

Generally speaking a road side stop requires a reason that a crime has or potentially will be committed.
Again , this officer erroneously believed the car was a wrong un , because of the colour , and the fact he was incapable of discerning the make, despite his 20 years experience, and possibly 100s of road side stops.
God knows how he would deal with something that had been wrapped in firms colours.

It makes me wonder how he would deal with a belligerent traveller stop, with all their dodgy vehicles, not that that happens very often.
But it would clearly be beyond Mr Jephcotts mental capacity.

[Vince Green]

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

 

Nope. Full name and address and post code can be easily checked and cross referenced 

 

 

 

So next time I am stopped I give your name address and postcode and that's OK is it ?

One of the big problems the police have is actually determining who an individual really is when stopped. Its not that easy

2 hours ago, Mungler said:

0

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2023 by Vince Green

[Vince Green]

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Random stops are very rare 

Not round here, the police set up a road block and divert random cars into a side road or car park where they check everything. They catch loads of people and impound many cars.

They have one just down the road from here about every six months and it's very reassuring to me because I hear so many stories of people being involved in accidents with uninsured drivers.

In North London it's anarchy now

[Rem260]

24 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Random stops are very rare , and require a special reason , eg Xmas drink drive blitz ect.

Generally speaking a road side stop requires a reason that a crime has or potentially will be committed.
Again , this officer erroneously believed the car was a wrong un , because of the colour , and the fact he was incapable of discerning the make, despite his 20 years experience, and possibly 100s of road side stops.
God knows how he would deal with something that had been wrapped in firms colours.

It makes me wonder how he would deal with a belligerent traveller stop, with all their dodgy vehicles, not that that happens very often.
But it would clearly be beyond Mr Jephcotts mental capacity.

Are you saying that you view minor motoring offences as crimes ? Defective lights. Non standard licence plate, No seat belt, bald tyre etcetera. As I would say that most traffic stops come under this capacity.

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

In North London it's anarchy now

I feel for you , my sister lives in Harrow , as house prices go up , the area goes down , its mind boggling how bad its getting.

 

1 minute ago, Rem260 said:

Are you saying that you view minor motoring offences as crimes ? Defective lights. Non standard licence plate, No seat belt, bald tyre etcetera. As I would say that most traffic stops come under this capacity.

Well yes .
If they werent crimes , they wouldnt be able to fine you or give you points ?
The fact they are dealt with by Fixed penalties, doesnt mean they dont get put on your record as a conviction/crime.