Turn on thread page Beta

So apparently, I should be in bed, not driving around at 3am according to the police watch

    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I got stopped once coming home from the Uni Library at about 11pm. I remember I had a big assignment to do at the time. I had my hoodie on as I was cold so when they wanted to talk to me I just took my hoodie off & was happy to talk. They just said do you live around here & I was like yeah my house is just a few minutes walk away. They're just doing a job, as long as they're nice & polite about it I don't see the issue.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SloaneRanger)
    Depends how a glorified look out asked you those questions. So the fact he has to account for his duties to his sergeant when he gets back to the station etc.....he isn't looking to ticket someone? Or arrest someone to fill his custody suite,lol. I doubt a police officer wants to write n/a across his duties log,lol. When you can have stopped a kid at 3am etc, at least you can account for your time.
    Yes, I'm sure that's partly true. But if, for every five people he stops, one is over the limit, then I think that's a pretty legitimate use of his time. If he let every 3am driver go by without question - merely because people should be "entitled" to drive around at 3am - then he's doing a pretty poor job of preventing accidents on the road.

    And, in any event, how many times in your job/education have you done something unnecessary purely so you can account for your time?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you should literally have just driven off lol. unless your under arrest then you can do what you want
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rupsam88)
    you should literally have just driven off lol. unless your under arrest then you can do what you want
    s.163 Road Traffic Act.

    failing to stop or making off once stopped ends only one way for silly little children like you, that is face down on the floor with a taser pointed at you.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rascacielos)
    Yes, I'm sure that's partly true. But if, for every five people he stops, one is over the limit, then I think that's a pretty legitimate use of his time. If he let every 3am driver go by without question - merely because people should be "entitled" to drive around at 3am - then he's doing a pretty poor job of preventing accidents on the road.

    And, in any event, how many times in your job/education have you done something unnecessary purely so you can account for your time?
    Everyday i do stuff that is pure unnecessary, so i can account for time. It would be evidently more so for a person who is a police officer. Seeing they are under strict guidelines and pressure to perform certain tasks. Again its a judgement call as too who they stop and you get good policemen and bad ones. Its down to conflict management though, if a policeman is going to agitate and upset members of the public is that right? By stopping 1 in 5 cars, taxpayers money should be spent on actually preventing crimes and improving the quality of life for the masses.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SloaneRanger)
    Everyday i do stuff that is pure unnecessary, so i can account for time. It would be evidently more so for a person who is a police officer. Seeing they are under strict guidelines and pressure to perform certain tasks. Again its a judgement call as too who they stop and you get good policemen and bad ones. Its down to conflict management though, if a policeman is going to agitate and upset members of the public is that right? By stopping 1 in 5 cars, taxpayers money should be spent on actually preventing crimes and improving the quality of life for the masses.
    Of course you get good and bad police officers. But it seems as though they're in a no win situation: if they stand back and do nothing then, once something happens that shouldn't (a person dies in a car accident; someone else gets murdered; buildings get damaged; whatever) then immediately everybody says "why didn't the police do anything?" On the other hand, as soon as there is a suggestion that a police might stop you for a 30-second conversation when you're driving down a country road at 3am in the morning, immediately it's "hold on a minute, I want my privacy!"

    Police officers in general don't go around trying to agitate and upset members of the public, but there are certain people who do seem predisposed to getting agitated about any kind of police presence at all. And I wonder whether that reaction is actually proportionate to the inconvenience caused.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fizzel)
    No just from background where people regularly experience harassment from the police for the crime of going about their lives. I'm sure when being white becomes a good reason for being stopped and searched you'll simply grow up.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    No, not any reason.

    IE They cannot stop you because you are black
    I refuse to believe that the police are so racist that they stop black people out of hatred for their skin colour, and not for some other, perfectly valid reason.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Being anything other than extremely polite and helpful to the police is just asking for trouble. You're lucky this isn't the states, talking back with childish rubbish like "I'm allowed to eat" would have earnt you a night in the cells.
    True, but you don't have to suck their dicks, OP's retort was a little angry but it wasn't that rude. It's not like he chimped out completely at them.

    I agree with what others have been saying, they are just doing their job, they don't know anything about you or what you're doing, only way to know is to stop you. If they had tried to stop you from going about your business for no reason then that would be a different story as you of course have every right to drive anywhere public you want at whatever time, but this guy just stopped you to ask what you were doing out so late, nothing wrong with that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    I refuse to believe that the police are so racist that they stop black people out of hatred for their skin colour, and not for some other, perfectly valid reason.
    I'm convinced it's how you're walking or if you're with a large bunch of people wandering around aimlessly. I walk around a dodgy area in hoodies and tracksuits and I've never been stopped so it can't be because of skin colour or what you wear. Some people just have this "shifty walk" that is a sign they are up to no good.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    I refuse to believe that the police are so racist that they stop black people out of hatred for their skin colour, and not for some other, perfectly valid reason.
    Like black people commit more crime so we better stop more of them
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowyowl)
    I refuse to believe that the police are so racist that they stop black people out of hatred for their skin colour, and not for some other, perfectly valid reason.
    Then you refuse to believe statistics as it been shown in countless studies. This being on of the most recent.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24902389

    Regardless of motive, I didn't mention, the only thing I'm interested in is if I'm being stopped. Just doing their job, isn't an excuse for examples such as this.

    A week later, the Inspectorate of Constabulary found in a report that police in England and Wales failed to record the "reasonable" reasons for stopping and searching people in 27% of 8,783 cases examined.
    In those cases, it found that either no grounds had been recorded or the officer had entered a reason which would not justify a search, such as speeding.
    From the same report.
    The report found that less than half of forces complied with the requirements of the code to make arrangements for stop and search records to be scrutinised by the public.
    The inspection found that the majority of forces - 30 out of 43 - had not developed an understanding of how to use the powers of stop and search so that they are effective in preventing and detecting crime.
    Only seven forces recorded whether or not the item searched for was actually found, the study found.
    So just going about their jobs, disproportionally, incorrectly and often illegally.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by russellsteapot)
    Once or twice. I don't really mind to be honest. Suspicion is always going to be based on things out of the ordinary, and a young man driving around at 3am is out of the ordinary.

    Policing relies heavily on instinct and looking for unusual things. It might seem like you're being treated as a criminal but I think it's reasonable to sacrifice a tiny bit of freedom for good policing.
    I agree that policing relies partly on suspicion, but someone going for a drive? I have plenty of friends who do this.

    I go for walks at 3am; I'd be pretty pissed off if I got stopped for it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WGR)
    True, but you don't have to suck their dicks, OP's retort was a little angry but it wasn't that rude. It's not like he chimped out completely at them.

    I agree with what others have been saying, they are just doing their job, they don't know anything about you or what you're doing, only way to know is to stop you. If they had tried to stop you from going about your business for no reason then that would be a different story as you of course have every right to drive anywhere public you want at whatever time, but this guy just stopped you to ask what you were doing out so late, nothing wrong with that.
    What the ****? The police need to know everything about us and what we're doing all of the time? It's frankly none of their business unless it's what, a stolen car, is similar to a car used nearby in a crime, etc.

    A police officer wanting to know what you're upto or what kind of burger you've bought is not a reason to stop you.

    Innocent until proven guilty. The police should stop people with reasonable suspicion, and the reason petrol stations are open 24/7 is because people drive 24/7.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why people have such an issue with being asked questions by police?

    Their job is to keep the public safe so sometimes they have to investigate things that are a bit out of the ordinary.

    When I was a student I got stopped (on foot) by police quite often. They just ask some questions and I answer them and that's it. There's no point getting all "ooh my rights are being violated", if you aren't doing anything wrong then they can't arrest you or anything.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by czechmishaout)
    I understand the cop was doing his job, but seriously, it's none of his business. I can go for a drive at night if I want to and don't have to explain.
    I'm 19, but look about 15, so I often get those 'what are you doing behind the wheel' looks. Especially when I drive across the town at 2 am to pick my dad up from a social gathering. As long as I'm not endangering anybody, it's my business.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Of course is his business. It's illegal for 15 year olds to drive cars (whether they're endangering anybody or not), and it's the policeman's job to stop them. If he sees someone that looks like a 15 year old driving a car, what else is he supposed to do, other than investigate? He'd have to be a terrible police officer to just ignore it and "mind his own business".

    In any case, I don't really see why getting stopped by the police is a big deal, if you've got nothing to hide. Just answer a couple of questions and you can go. Personally I get stopped at airports all the time because I'm a young Muslim male of South Asian origin, but I'd say a few minutes of my time in exchange for knowing that someone's making sure the planes are safe is a fair trade.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cole-slaw)
    Being anything other than extremely polite and helpful to the police is just asking for trouble. You're lucky this isn't the states, talking back with childish rubbish like "I'm allowed to eat" would have earnt you a night in the cells.
    Interesting for a country that bangs on and on and on and on about being 'the land of the free' if 'talking back with childish rubbish' = twelve hours of imprisonment.

    Carry a lethal weapon, don't talk back to a police officer. Hmm.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    What the ****? The police need to know everything about us and what we're doing all of the time? It's frankly none of their business unless it's what, a stolen car, is similar to a car used nearby in a crime, etc.

    A police officer wanting to know what you're upto or what kind of burger you've bought is not a reason to stop you.

    Innocent until proven guilty. The police should stop people with reasonable suspicion, and the reason petrol stations are open 24/7 is because people drive 24/7.
    How would you suppose the police catch drink drivers, stolen cars, uninsured, banned or otherwise illegal drivers, cars used for moving drugs, cars in an un-roadworthy condition, or cars whose occupants are on their way to commit crime without spot checks?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pjm600)
    How would you suppose the police catch drink drivers, stolen cars, uninsured, banned or otherwise illegal drivers, cars used for moving drugs, cars in an un-roadworthy condition, or cars whose occupants are on their way to commit crime without spot checks?
    Drink drivers? Erratic or dangerous driving; it's pretty obvious.
    Stolen cars/uninsured cars/banned/illegal drivers? Registration plates; those police cars have fancy ANPR systems.
    Cars used for moving drugs or in un-roadworthy conditions? Apart from intelligence, sure, spot checks, but these are at least dedicated efforts, not pulling somebody over because they're enjoying a drive.

    But they didn't pull the OP over because they thought any of the above was true. They were pulled over because they were driving at 3am, as is clear from the officer's dialogue.

    Can you imagine this was applied to the rest of life? You're walking down the street at 3am, headphones in, burger in hand, and you get stopped by two police officers who do a 'spot check' because you're out at 3am in a country without a legislated curfew. They're not even allowed to do that under 'stop and search' without reasonable suspicion.

    You come out of a 24/7 Tesco with a bag of shopping and you're subject to a 'spot check', because, ya'know, you could be carrying drugs or you might not have paid your Council Tax.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DarkWhite)
    I agree that policing relies partly on suspicion, but someone going for a drive? I have plenty of friends who do this.

    I go for walks at 3am; I'd be pretty pissed off if I got stopped for it.
    The thing is, you know your friends are going for a drive. The police just see someone acting oddly. People driving around at 3am are, by the very fact that the roads are typically pretty empty, behaving 'out of the ordinary', which is the primary ingredient for suspicion.

    Being out at night outside a city centre is going to be suspicious to some degree until everyone starts doing it, and the percentage of the 'available population' who might be out with criminal intent is far, far higher during the night.

    Much as it's inconvenient for those of us who aren't doing anything wrong, I can absolutely understand why people are stopped whilst doing unusual things.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by russellsteapot)
    The thing is, you know your friends are going for a drive. The police just see someone acting oddly. People driving around at 3am are, by the very fact that the roads are typically pretty empty, behaving 'out of the ordinary', which is the primary ingredient for suspicion.

    Being out at night outside a city centre is going to be suspicious to some degree until everyone starts doing it, and the percentage of the 'available population' who might be out with criminal intent is far, far higher during the night.

    Much as it's inconvenient for those of us who aren't doing anything wrong, I can absolutely understand why people are stopped whilst doing unusual things.
    But is it that 'out of the ordinary'?

    I've lost count of the number of times I've had friends leave at 3am to get home before an early work shift, or who've helped me move things out of my house at some point in the night, or who have fancied a late night trip to a 24/7 Tesco.

    How are people meant to get to Tesco to get their cookies, get to motorways to drive home, or move things from house to house if not for normal roads?

    If it's that out of the ordinary they should just save themselves the hassle of stopping people and set up mandatory checkpoints between 11pm-5am.

    If I was on foot, I would walk away from the officers, same as if I was on a bike, in a go kart, a skateboard or whatever. It's only in a road vehicle that they're allowed to stop you without reasonable suspicion, and frankly being out at a certain time shouldn't be a reasonable suspicion in the UK.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.