Chat & Social > The Bar - General Chat
Fail to stop...
drmike:
I totally agree you don't make the laws and you'd be irresponsible not to use an effective tool that the law makers have given you.
Still doesn't make it a good law or justice!
Mike
Lyndsey731:
Boggert
Just a quick (and daft) question but it's always been sat in the back of my mind.
Section 163 of The Road Traffic Act states that you can be arrested for failing to STOP when requested by an officer in uniform to do so.
Is there a law that states that you have to stay there?
One of the definitions of stop in the dictionary is (funnily enough) to cease movement
For example you are in uniform, on foot and request me to stop, which I duly do so, I then drive off before you have chance to walk round to the drivers side of the vehicle, so effectively I have complied with letter of the law and ceased movement, what law have I broken by driving off.
Before you get too concerned, I'm in my mid thirtys with three children, don't go tearing up the streets and am pretty sure the boss wouldn't want a bad boys exhaust and spoiler bolted to the back of my company car, Just as I said a daft question that I have always wondered about.
Thanks
Gav
Boggert:
--- Quote from: "Lyndsey731" ---Boggert
Just a quick (and daft) question but it's always been sat in the back of my mind.
Section 163 of The Road Traffic Act states that you can be arrested for failing to STOP when requested by an officer in uniform to do so.
Is there a law that states that you have to stay there?
One of the definitions of stop in the dictionary is (funnily enough) to cease movement
For example you are in uniform, on foot and request me to stop, which I duly do so, I then drive off before you have chance to walk round to the drivers side of the vehicle, so effectively I have complied with letter of the law and ceased movement, what law have I broken by driving off.
Before you get too concerned, I'm in my mid thirtys with three children, don't go tearing up the streets and am pretty sure the boss wouldn't want a bad boys exhaust and spoiler bolted to the back of my company car, Just as I said a daft question that I have always wondered about.
Thanks
Gav
--- End quote ---
Not a silly question at all, I've never thought about it that way! I think That would be classed as a fail to stop. However the only to test it would be in court.
On foot I would turn around and signal you to stop again and continue to do so until A) we both got bored of the game B) you drove off and failed to stop C) I was sitting on you bonnet :lol:
Most of the laws we deal with on a regular basis are open to interpretation one way or another and can only be tested in court. Which is why we have courts.
When it comes to Policing, its a job, when I go home at the end of the day I want to forget about work like anyone else. I've only been in the job 3 years and have to seek advice on these things all the time, If I didn't I would be failing the public in my role. There is so many laws and definitions of offences you have to ask questions.
I take no pleasure in messing up peoples lives and accept we all cock up from time to time, we are human, all of us.
Highlander1:
--- Quote from: Boggert ---
--- Quote from: "Bob696" ---I find the use of a section 59 in this very dubious.
As was said doing him for failing to stop was "a bit iffy" so a section 59 was issued. In what manner did he cause distress to the public? It was said that everyone had a good laugh at his expense, how does this constitute 'distress'?
It does seem to me that section 59's are being used for "annoying a police officer who can't actual get a prosecution because you haven't actually done anything that is illegal"
Whilst I think that a catchall antisocial behaviour charge is a good idea I cant help but feel that leaving it completely in the hands of individuals is a very bad step.
Very worrying.
--- End quote ---
Quote: / I see where you are coming from, however he had failed to stop at a closed road, which had been closed by the highways dept at the request of the Police, so that is a case of Fail to Stop. The reason a 59 was issued was because I was annoyed at his reckless action.
Boggart
You still haven't answered the question. Was the sign a rectangular road closed sign? It isn't mandatory to comply with them regardless of who ordered them to be placed police or otherwise.
Only the round are mandatory.
If lives were at risk why not section 2 for manner of driving.
The way it reads he got a ticket cos he pi**ed you off personally which isn't the object of the exercise impartiality and all that.
Each to their own. I think that the way the Police are portrayed towards the public is more important than seeming to show off.
That's just the way the thread appears to me and it's not a dig or criticism. Just my personal opinion. On this particular issue.
I'm sure you do a fine job and all credit for those times when your out there saving lives.
If it was a case of recklessness then I'm sure every one of the poor souls including the AA truck driver on the news would be issued with a section 59 for causing themselves to be rescued from the floods. :!: :wink: :?
--- End quote ---
Lyndsey731:
Boggert
I used the on foot bit as I thought that once I'd driven off you couldn't get me again where as in a car you could, as for trying it out I don't think I've got the dangly bits to try it myself, but as a great deal of my job is interpretation of documents and arguing the point to the letter of those documents I think it would be fun to try, unfortunately my knowledge of the law is shall we say poor and knowing my luck I'd get the judge without a sense of humour.
Thanks for the response, any other of you coppers come across this?
Gav
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version