Policeman schooled

My name is URL

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The voice sounds familiar, I think he is one of those "freeman" people

Has anyone ever used that excuse (or whatever it is) in court?

Hookah

My name is URL wrote: »

Has anyone ever used that excuse (or whatever it is) in court?

There wasa guy in a recent conspiracy theories thread who claimed to have won 3 cases using the concept.

It seems to work for low level cases. Speeding fines, parking tickets, drug possession etc

The jury is out in my mind about a lot of the concepts, admiralty law etc.

On a bigger scale it hasn't really been tested, though two Scottish brothers, David and William Stirling, are trying to challenge the drug laws there.

If you look up a pdf called Blank of Ireland, people facing foreclosure are using the concept to try and deal with the banks.

thebullkf

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I absolutely hate pompous gob****es like that. He'll learn his lesson the hard way though when he eventually gets taken out of it by a truck after going through a red light.

+1000

upandcumming

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Little guy on a bicycle 1, heavy handed state official 0.

I'd say your arse is very jealous of your mouth.

Iwasfrozen

ch750536 wrote: »

1. The guy didn't break the law, he was accused of breaking the law.
2. The officer lies to him numerous times, he never lies to officer.
3. The smug one (in the beginning) is the officer, not the accused.
4. The officer illegally & forcefully tried to obtain the camera.

However, we are in Ireland so I'd better join in with the usual 'how dare someone question authority, they are wrong, I want them dead' that I see every single day.

1. He was seen running through a red light by a policeman.
2. How?
3. That prick radiates smugness "I won't be taking any paperwork today", I mean wtf?
4. And the guy illegally ran away from a policeman.

Whether you're in Ireland or any other country we don't need childish dickheads like this guy making the police's job any harder then it already is.

Orando Broom

a-k-47 wrote: »

plenty of gardai here . cop started off smug didnt finish to nicely for him. wp

That cop was trying on the hardman act big time there and got hoisted. You see it far too often in this country too. If they were more even handed and gave themselves time to establish what actually went down rather than the breathless stream of consciousness roaring and shouting down of the detainee they might find less of their collars thrown out of court.

I would imagine need to firstly establish whether an actual law was violated, how and why and then proceed to execute the caution. That cop wanted a quick statistical collar by over egging the gravity of the situation but rather than a stream of profuse apologies and the citizen putting himself in the prone position the cop found himself dominated and ultimately his actions proved that he was incapable of adequately dealing with the situation. His boss should have his balls.

That footage is essential viewing for any trainee officer of the law.

Hookah

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Whether you're in Ireland or any other country we don't need childish dickheads like this guy making the police's job any harder then it already is.

And his point is, is that it's a policeman's job to keep the peace, not enforce money making policy.

Since I can't comment on the red light the cyclist went through, I'll have to reserve judgement on whether it constituted a breach of the peace or not.

This guy posts a lot on youtube educating people on their rights, and I guess he took this opportunity to educate a little further.

Reg'stoy

Hookah wrote: »

And his point is, is that it's a policeman's job to keep the peace, not enforce money making policy.

Since I can't comment on the red light the cyclist went through, I'll have to reserve judgement on whether it constituted a breach of the peace or not.

This guy posts a lot on youtube educating people on their rights, and I guess he took this opportunity to educate a little further.

And what number would both you and he be dialing when you hear someone breaking in to your home or when you get mugged.

"did you steal that TV from this house sir"
"am I obliged to answer that Guard"
"is the TV yours sir"
"again Guard, am I obliged to answer that question"
"you're correct sir, may I hold the TV for you while you open your van"

Hookah

Reg'stoy wrote: »

And what number would both you and he be dialing when you hear someone breaking in to your home or when you get mugged.

"did you steal that TV from this house sir"
"am I obliged to answer that Guard"
"is the TV yours sir"
"again Guard, am I obliged to answer that question"
"you're correct sir, may I hold the TV for you while you open your van"

For a breach of the peace such as those, you'd be ringing the Guards.

bluto63

davetherave wrote: »

So he should just be allowed to break the law whenever he feels like it then?
Can you quote me the exact wording of the act to back up that statement?

:rolleyes:
I think the police should find better ways to spend his tbh

davetherave

ch750536 wrote: »

1. The guy didn't break the law, he was accused of breaking the law.
2. The officer lies to him numerous times, he never lies to officer.
3. The smug one (in the beginning) is the officer, not the accused.
4. The officer illegally & forcefully tried to obtain the camera.

However, we are in Ireland so I'd better join in with the usual 'how dare someone question authority, they are wrong, I want them dead' that I see every single day.

The guy did break the law...

The offence was breaking a red light. This is covered under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act.
The police officer in the video was attempting to issue a fine for said offence, in order to do so he must have the name and address of the person, in the form of some identification.
If the person refuses to offer these details, then the police officer canarrest the person without a warrant under section 24 Police and Criminal Evidence act until such time that the name and address of the person in question can be determined.

We only have that gob****es word that the officer attempted to take the camera off of him. Have you considered that the officer may have been attempting to place him under arrest?

davetherave

bluto63 wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I think the police should find better ways to spend his tbh

Good comeback. So you do think cyclists should be allowed to break all the red lights that they please?

Should every policeman in England be sitting in the the station waiting to a mass murderer to appear or should they be out policing the streets?

bluto63

davetherave wrote: »

Good comeback. So you do think cyclists should be allowed to break all the red lights that they please?

Should every policeman in England be sitting in the the station waiting to a mass murderer to appear or should they be out policing the streets?

I think that if a cyclist wants to run the risk, then yes go ahead. In the end, he's the only one who'll suffer so let him do it.
And sitting in the station is not the only alternative to wasting peoples time giving tickets so stop trying to make it seem like it is.

cursai

I hope these same anti establishment posters dont ring the guards when they have a prob. Cant have it both ways. The law is there to protect. There is no existing law that is intentionally there to abuse people.t

bluto63

The law is there to protect people from harm. That doesn't apply here.

cursai

bluto63 wrote: »

I think that if a cyclist wants to run the risk, then yes go ahead. In the end, he's the only one who'll suffer so let him do it.
And sitting in the station is not the only alternative to wasting peoples time giving tickets so stop trying to make it seem like it is.

What about the poor sod who knocks him over?
I 4 people at a crossroad continuosly take a chance odds are theyll eventually all hit someone

bluto63

Not with a little awareness. Just look at what you're doing. If you can't do that, get off the bike.

cursai

bluto63 wrote: »

The law is there to protect people from harm. That doesn't apply here.

Tell me your taking the mick and/or under 16yrs old.

bluto63

Why? I don't see how he's harmed anybody. Again it comes back to that we don't know what he's done. If he just bombed it down the road and flew into the lights, then yea, the guy's retarded. But I doubt that's what happened. I'd say he looked both ways and made the decision it was safe to cycle. No problems arose.

cruizer101

bluto63 wrote: »

I think that if a cyclist wants to run the risk, then yes go ahead. In the end, he's the only one who'll suffer so let him do it.
And sitting in the station is not the only alternative to wasting peoples time giving tickets so stop trying to make it seem like it is.

Are you taking the mick, how does a cyclist running a red light be the only one who could potentially suffer. What if he crashes into a car and causes damage, what if he crashes into another cyclist and knocks him of his bike, what if he hits a motorcyclist causing him to crash, what if a car hits him and ends up killing him or even just injuring him, you don't think that is going to have an effect on the driver.

Cyclists have to obey the rules of the road just as much as other vehicles.

If he, and I'd imagine he did, broke the red light why should he not suffer the consequences of breaking the law, what makes him above the law. Fair enough the officer might not of dealt with the situation in the best way but that still doesn't mean he can get away with breaking the law.

wonderfulname

I find if you are courteous with the guards they are equally courteous with you. There was no need for the guy to use the tone or language he did, if he had been more respectful he probably could have pulled off the whole thing without a hitch, example;

Officer: Do you know why I'm stopping you?
Idiot: I'm afraid I'm not aware of having broken the law, exactly what did I do?
Officer: You just ran a red light.
Idiot: I'm terribly sorry, but, just to know, what law is that exactly?
Officer fails to answer.
Idiot: Sorry?
Officer: May I have your details please?
Idiot: I'm sorry I don't feel comfortable giving you my details when I am not wholly sure what I have done wrong.

All without the attitude of course, and with a great deal of sincerity. I don't understand barking "My lawyer told me not to speak to you, I am a student of law you know" at someone before the situation has even been clarified, I also don't understand why he needed to hire someone to tell him that when he's a law student himself. I don't agree with any of his crap by the way, I just don't understand why he has to act like such an arse about said crap, its like he has some messed up superiority complex.

And to those pointing out the nitty gritty of what he may or may not have done wrong and how worthwhile the policeman's cause was, it doesn't matter, he has a duty to uphold the law, all of it, and he doesn't have the luxury of deciding whether or not he should stop the man. If you think our basic road traffic laws should be more complex so as to allow for a variety of scenarios then take it up with your TDs.

Hookah

davetherave wrote: »

The guy did break the law...

The offence was breaking a red light. This is covered under section 36 of the Road Traffic Act.
The police officer in the video was attempting to issue a fine for said offence, in order to do so he must have the name and address of the person, in the form of some identification.
If the person refuses to offer these details, then the police officer canarrest the person without a warrant under section 24 Police and Criminal Evidence act until such time that the name and address of the person in question can be determined.

There is a difference between a law and a statute.

These guys respect the law, but instead protest against (a lot of) statutory regulation.

Their argument is that the police are there to uphold the law, not enforce legislation.

That is the distinction, which exists in law, and is the basis of their argument.

Grumpypants

Two arses acting like arse's, one arse video's it and puts in on youtube to show the world how much of an arse he is.

PK2008

If the police do not explain why they are stopping you and under what law they are in accordance with, you do not have to stop for them or answer their questions.

"Any person (note: including a Garda) who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, wilfully prevents or interrupts the free passage of any person or vehicle in any public place is committing an offence under Section 9 of the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (PUBLIC ORDER) ACT, 1994”.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994/en/act/pub/0002/sec0009.html#sec9

http://www.knowyourrights.ie/

Evolute

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I absolutely hate pompous gob****es like that. He'll learn his lesson the hard way though when he eventually gets taken out of it by a truck after going through a red light.

Sadly when that happens the truck driver will probably end up getting the blame:(

sdanseo

Kevin Irving wrote: »

I absolutely hate pompous gob****es like that. He'll learn his lesson the hard way though when he eventually gets taken out of it by a truck after going through a red light.

QFT. Have a look on youtube for jimmy justice. Makes me want to fly over and attack him with a crowbar.

karma_

fcuking hell, is it too much to ask that those who enforce the law know it? To be quite honest, it is the bare minimum I expect of a police officer. It's a bit shocking also, the volume of posters who do not expect this of a police force.

Well done cyclist.

Pj!

What an idiot.

The same idiot will be straight on the phone to the police if he ever gets robbed/mugged/crashed into, expecting them to come running and sort it all out (which they will).

The guy broke a red light and gets pulled up on it. What exactly does he think is wrong with that?


The policeman didn't handle it well. If the guy tries that everytime he gets pulled up he'll be made look the bigger fool more often than not. I'll bet he wouldn't post those videos though.

seanybiker

What a complete bellend. Hopefully he forgets to look both ways the next time.

Tinie

RichieC wrote: »

Hate these idiots.. there's one on you-tube of these Ayn Rand fanatics driving through police stops just so he can pull off this self important nonsense for the camera.. arseholes.

Got a link to that?