Starts_23

Resident Members
  • Content count

    87
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Starts_23 last won the day on October 11 2016

Starts_23 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

26 Sound

About Starts_23

  • Rank
    Getting There
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Police Force
    Kent

Recent Profile Visitors

90 profile views
  1. No thanks- when off duty only badge out for life or limb scenarios and even then run yourself through a ndm. Wheels can come off very quickly with no ppe or comms. Each to their own but that's my advice. Stick in an 5x5 and direct it to licensing
  2. Asp make their own believe it's called a sidebreak. I'd standby on purchasing your own as it should be issued by the job.
  3. This goes down to informed consent. Two guys sparring in a park. No problem as by its nature is a contact sport. The issue here would be has anyone's actions passed the level of consent. This goes for all sports. Example I play rugby amd by partaking the sport I consent that I may be injured whilst doing it, this is my informed consent. However if I get tackled and then someone beats me unconscious and kicks me in the head that would be an assault. No offences in the above example for me though
  4. What about a Community First Responder? Normally trained by your local ambulance trust? Or depending on where you are in the world the local search and rescue teams. My force works closely with KSAR (Kent S&R)
  5. Test both and if clear them deal with the cannabis. Hopefully we have bodycam rolling if thwyve admitted to driving the xar ona public road to get to where they are now. If the supervisor has coughed it then I'd run them both through see if they're WM. Then depending on what his offence history fwc, pnd (as long as he's not under 18) or arrest.
  6. What's his mate saying?
  7. Is he alone in the car? If so he'd be pnd/lifted poss.class B
  8. Only thing to be mindful of is ECHR article 8. Right to private life. Not in this scenario but some mop might start banging on about it.
  9. Yes that wouldn't go down well!
  10. EK I feel you're over thinking this. Whether in this instance it's a twoc or a disqual driving you need to deal with it as an offence. Either way you need to Confirm identity of the potential offender to prove the offence. The male is not allowing you to do this. So if it is disqual then s. 24 Pace allows you necessity to arrest to prove identity. If this wasn't the case then everytime you issued a tor/fpn the offender would just refuse to give you their details wouldn't they. If an offence has occurred you need to deal with it and I'm sure this officer has done his best. Like I've said hindsight is a wonderful thing.
  11. Firstly yes it could go downhill. But policing is about chatting to people. Not being willing to talk to members of the public without the risk of it causing an argument shouldn't stop you from talking to people. Secondly the manner in how you speak to people will quite often dictate the course of the conversation. Of course she may not be happy about me speaking to her on which case of she goes. However she might equally say something that I can use, such as she was intimidated by the group into buying them- so potentially some public order offences or educate her in licensing act. It's only a chat and at the end of the day if you can't talk to people you shouldn't be doing this job. Theres no powers needed to talk to anyone and as such you need no evidence like you're suggesting. Plus if someone is buying young kids cigarettes then it's not that much of a 'leap' to say that in the future they may buy alcohol in a similar situation. I did not say that she was buying alcohol for them in this scenario.
  12. Off duty I'd do nothing. On duty I'd have a chat with the female about it, as if she's buying cigarettes for under age kids she may also be buying alcohol on separate occasions- remind her that it's an offence under the licensing act. She may also have felt threatened into doing it by the group. Who knows? But worth a nose if you have the time
  13. Criminal Law Act or 117 Pace. He believes the driver is disqualified, driver refuses to get out of the car. Use of force is justified.
  14. It's a 2 min video so hard to judge exactly why the aggression was ramped up by the pc. Hindsight is 20/20 they say. Might have been 10 mind prior to this of the officer going through his 5 step appeal etc... end of the day the driver refused to show ID after traffic stop. He's obliged to do this under the road traffic act. Uses force to gain entry to the vehicle. So if you judge by legislation he's OK. Just looks awful to members of the public which is why unfortunately he will probably be thrown under the bus until it all blows over