Camera man & rozzer confrontation.

[vindaloo]

A very NOT! good idea. Just the ticket to blind people recklessly. 'Cos that's what it'll be unless you can build the rig to stabilise and aim it.

 

A colleague of little Bro has had eye surgery because of some "tykes" who decided to play with a laser bought off Chinese eBay. Sight still isn't right and won't be until/unless stem cell or similar becomes routine.

 

Simply use a low power laser as an aiming device for the paint bomb missile that coats the back of the van.

[Mr Ree]

Wonder if his balls will be as big in court?

What why when,who's going to court then?  :think:

[Mr Ree]

what's all this talk about lasers anyway?

 

Seem to have lost the track of all this now tbh.

[gadgetman]

What why when,who's going to court then? :think:

Obstruction of an officer & their duties

[Mr Ree]

Obstruction of an officer & their duties

Do we have some updated info on this story then, as I haven't seen anything about him being taken to court?

 

"Chief Inspector Stone said that enquiries were “ongoing” into the incident."

 

I personally, am infuriated by that wummun rozzer  suggesting that he may have some mental issues.

How bloody dare she! 

 

Absolutely no doubt in my mind that she was deliberately goading him, hoping he'd react and lead to a consequential arrest.

Disgusting behaviour.

Edited 21 August, 2014 by Mr Ree

[Huskoda]

Obstruction of an officer & their duties

I thought the point here is the guy is NOT an officer?

[dieselV6]

Obstruction of an officer & their duties

There was no police officer in the van.

[Mr Ree]

Obstruction of an officer & their duties

But the bloke in the van wasn't an officer, he was a civilian....in a fully liveried van.

[Mr Ree]

All three of us simultaneously it seems, singing from the same charge sheet! 

[Aspman]

So a good laser will work ?

 

A laser will knock out the digital sensor in the camera. But you're unlikely to be able to hit the sensor from distance whilst in a moving car doing 70+.

 

Unless you're in this -

 

 

Or work for NASA, DARPA, BAE etc.

 

But in those cases I guess you've got better options for taking out a 'Safety Camera' Van.

Edited 21 August, 2014 by Aspman

[DaKKs_152]

I didnt mean drive around with a laser mounted on the roof.

But a laser on a tripod is quite effective agaisnt stationary cameras. Like this van. And since the operator uses a screen to view the footage, his eyesight isnt in any danger.

[Lady Elanore]

I hate speed cameras of all types, but guys!! These non-Police haven't actually done anything wrong.

 

I'm confused as to the posts in this thread. Some people have admitted to some pretty serious criminal acts and others are discussing others, not all of which seem to be in jest to me. Why would you want to put that on a public forum?

 

I've been nicked for speeding several times, but much as I detest these money makers, it was me that committed the crime and I took my punishment with a hanged head, a fair bit of regret, much annoyance and also a reasonable dose of 'it served me right'

[DanHarper]

No one asked for rational thinking here!

 

 

 

Burn the witch!

[Mort]

I hate speed cameras of all types, but guys!! These non-Police haven't actually done anything wrong.

 

That does kind of depend on your point of view, to play devils advocate.

 

If a normal citizen setup a white van with police livery and started to film motorists then they'd probably get a firm visit with the words 'impersonating a police officer'. And if that stands, then how (legally) grey is the line when you're doing it, with permission, on behalf of the police? (Rhetorical, but I have no idea on the word of the law in this case anyway).

 

If impersonating a police officer is and offence, and travelling above the speed limit is an offence - then the only difference is motive really. If you've just got 3 points for doing 32 in a 30 then pedantry may be uppermost in your mind.

[Lady Elanore]

Well my way of thinking is they are going about their business quite lawfully. And to read this threads talk of some pretty unpleasant 'retribution' style vengeance is ridiculous. I don't think the Officers had a right to step foot in the videographers house and keep the door open for (apparently) no genuine reason, but that seems to be another issue.

[bealine]

Well my way of thinking is they are going about their business quite lawfully. And to read this threads talk of some pretty unpleasant 'retribution' style vengeance is ridiculous. I don't think the Officers had a right to step foot in the videographers house and keep the door open for (apparently) no genuine reason, but that seems to be another issue.

Impersonating a police officer is a serious offence.   The "Safety Camera Partnerships" are not allowed to use civilians - it is illegal, period!   To dress a civilian in  a white uniform shirt with epaulettes to attempt to "pass him off" as a policemen is inexcusable.

To me, this video should throw the whole issue of "Safety Camera Partnership" mobile cameras into Parliamentary debate as unqualified camera operators may obtain erroneous readings.   (We have all seen how a stationary garage door can read 120 mph when a gust of wind ripples it.)   ALL the fines and penalty points issued in the last 6 years from mobile cameras should be immediately annulled and the money refunded.

Regardless of the "attitude" of the film-maker, this video clearly shows that the police and local authorities cannot be trusted to do the job fairly and any "Safety Camera Partnerships" need to be overseen by a fair and unbiased regulator.

Edited 21 August, 2014 by bealine

[Soot1e]

That taffycam man is a total plonker, he should find something more meaning full to do.  I just don't understand these so called do gooders with cameras looking for trouble.    As mentioned before, the Black cyclist adorned with flashing lights and cameras is probably the No. 1 'Waste Of Space' on the planet.

[DaKKs_152]

I'm confused as to the posts in this thread. Some people have admitted to some pretty serious criminal acts and others are discussing others, not all of which seem to be in jest to me. Why would you want to put that on a public forum?

Forum posts are inadmissible in court in accordance with EU law unless the prosecutor can, without a doubt, prove you wrote the post in question. And unless you have a camera in front of you that recorded everything, that's impossible. You have to be tied to the computer at the time the crime was committed. Ownership of said computer is not enough. 

The same is true for all computer related crimes with the exception of a select few. They proved that to me a dozen times over in three countries. I'm still here, aren't I?

Edited 21 August, 2014 by DaKKs_152

[mdon]

That does kind of depend on your point of view, to play devils advocate.

If a normal citizen setup a white van with police livery and started to film motorists then they'd probably get a firm visit with the words 'impersonating a police officer'. And if that stands, then how (legally) grey is the line when you're doing it, with permission, on behalf of the police? (Rhetorical, but I have no idea on the word of the law in this case anyway).

If impersonating a police officer is and offence, and travelling above the speed limit is an offence - then the only difference is motive really. If you've just got 3 points for doing 32 in a 30 then pedantry may be uppermost in your mind.

But he's a member of police staff, not just some joe blogs off the street. The old police employed traffic wardens used to drive marked police vehicles, CSI and detention officers still do.

As for the mental state issue, it is up to the police to refer you to dvla if they think you are not of sound mind, who else is going too if they don't and you'd all soon by crying on if they didn't and a person suffering mental issues killed one of your family members and the police had been aware and did nothing. All that said, I don't agree with interpersonal skills of the female officer but then again we only have a snapshot of what actually went on, no one knows what happened before the heavily edited video.

Also the guys law knowledge is nonexistent (much like the forum members here).

[Lady Elanore]

A man was sitting in a van that speeding motorists didn't even realise was a speed camera van until it was too late. That's a ruddy big object parked at the side of the road for someone not to spot, but instead worry about the operator, who may or may not be a police officer. I see no offence, just sore 'losers'.

 

My reference to people happily condoning and revealing destructive and criminal behaviour on this forum, is perhaps just a sign of how times have changed over the years :(

[David 8]

The whole valley knows it's there before he parks it up.

It would be a miracle if he actually catches anyone. And you get warned about mile either way by the public.

And grant appears to be a giant douche looking for trouble as said.

Who give a **** who's sat in there.

So does a fixed one have an officer squashed inside it or is the computer guilty of impersonating an officer ??

I don't know about you lot but I've got far more important things to worry about.

[niceyellow vrs]

I got to 3 minutes and 56 seconds and then got bored

[seboni121]

Wonder if his balls will be as big in court?

? But justice has a massive pair of scales

[gadgetman]

I thought the point here is the guy is NOT an officer?

They're classed the same way as PCSOs as I understand, who although not real officers, are afforded the same standing when it comes to the obstruction law.

[grr666]

Different slant on a linked topic. 

Nicked the link from another forum...

 

This time you have Police officers (with a speed gun) impersonating the public....

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/video-sneaky-scots-police-officers-4086708