Police smashed elderly driver's windscreen for not wearing a seat belt:

Praxius

Praxius

Mass'Debater
Dec 18, 2007
10,609
99
48
Halifax, NS & Melbourne, VIC


Police smashed elderly driver's windscreen after stopping him for not wearing a seat belt | News.com.au

TWO police officers have been suspended after they stopped a 70-year-old motorist for not wearing a seat belt, smashed in his windscreen and dragged him out of his car.

Robert Whatley's terrifying arrest was caught on video (see below) and the footage shows one officer jumping on the car bonnet and kicking the windscreen and the other hitting the glass 15 times with his baton until it smashed.

Mr Whatley, who had recently suffered a stroke and has a heart condition, told The Daily Mail: "The police went completely over the top – you would have thought I had robbed a bank.

"I was terrified when they started smashing in the window and trying to kick in the windscreen."

Mr Whatley, from Usk, in Wales, was originally stopped for not wearing a seat belt.
Click to expand...

Jeez.... just imagine what would have happened if his tail light was out.
 
Curiosity

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
Oh boy I thought I was beyond getting upset but that 'bit of humanity' made me cry.

For all our inventions and wonderful gifts we have created in our world, some have not advanced
beyond the caveman mentality.

Is there any follow-up?
 
JLM

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
lone wolf said:
I can understand the old gent's confusion ... but what I want to know is why is he driving after recently having a stroke?
Click to expand...

Yep, I think that needs answering, but maybe after a couple of other answers are forthcoming. Why did they do it? and Who hired this pair of bozos?
 
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
A 17-minute chase then locking the cops out had nothing to do with it?
 
Risus

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
I like the way the media and you guys skew the facts. None of you mentioned he left the scene of the original incident knocking down a policeman. Praxius conveniently left that out of his original copy and paste of the story. The media claims that he was dragged out of his car, while the video shows him climbing out of the car and then being grabbed by the cops. Unbelievable!

Kreskin said:
A 17-minute chase then locking the cops out had nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...
Good point as well!
 
Goober

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Kreskin said:
A 17-minute chase then locking the cops out had nothing to do with it?
Click to expand...

True enough - Fuk the trial - Shoot him - save a lot of people a lot of trouble and their Health Care would be saving money - Yep - All positives.

Now back to reality - 17 minutes - an old man - frightened confused - Sounds pretty reasonable.

2 cops beating the tar out of his vehicle - Yep - Sounds reasonable as well. Right

Wonder how they deal with the tough ones - You know - Those gossipy old women, 60, and fit. How woud they do then

Facts are these 2 lost it over nothing - a 17 minute chase - got him stopped.

These officers lost it - pure and simple - No excuse as in a 17 min chase can justify their actions.
 
Risus

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Goober said:
True enough - Fuk the trial - Shoot him - save a lot of people a lot of trouble and their Health Care would be saving money - Yep - All positives.

Now back to reality - 17 minutes - an old man - frightened confused - Sounds pretty reasonable.

2 cops beating the tar out of his vehicle - Yep - Sounds reasonable as well. Right

Wonder how they deal with the tough ones - You know - Those gossipy old women, 60, and fit. How woud they do then

Facts are these 2 lost it over nothing - a 17 minute chase - got him stopped.

These officers lost it - pure and simple - No excuse as in a 17 min chase can justify their actions.
Click to expand...

I guess you only choose to read the facts you want to read so you can make your point and ignore the rest of them??
 
Goober

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Risus said:
I guess you only choose to read the facts you want to read so you can make your point and ignore the rest of them??
Click to expand...

1 - Was he a direct and immediate threat to himself or anyone - No
2- Was the situation contained - Yes
3- Did they take appropriate action as per their training - No
4- Did they over react - Yes

What else do you need.
 
Risus

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Goober said:
1 - Was he a direct and immediate threat to himself or anyone - No
2- Was the situation contained - Yes
3- Did they take appropriate action as per their training - No
4- Did they over react - Yes

What else do you need.
Click to expand...
I would say he was a threat to someone else the moment he knocked over the policeman, or are you just ignoring that fact???
 
Goober

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Risus said:
I would say he was a threat to someone else the moment he knocked over the policeman, or are you just ignoring that fact???
Click to expand...
Did they not get that old guy to stop - Yes

Then what I stated stands - Refute those points please.
 
Risus

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Goober said:
Did they not get that old guy to stop - Yes

Then what I stated stands - Refute those points please.
Click to expand...

Point 1 wrong as stated above

Point 2: he was ignoring their orders and locked himself in.

Point 3: just your opinion. Do you know how they were trained? I doubt it.

Point 4: just your opinion. Not if he was ignoring their orders and had himself locked in.
 
Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Goober said:
1 - Was he a direct and immediate threat to himself or anyone - No
2- Was the situation contained - Yes
3- Did they take appropriate action as per their training - No
4- Did they over react - Yes

What else do you need.
Click to expand...
How do they know why he ran for 17 minutes then wouldn't let them in the vehicle? Should they stand outside the car while he pulls out a gun? They aren't psychic and can't know his medical history from the outside of the windshield. He could be a deranged nut based on the info available.
 
Goober

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Kreskin said:
How do they know why he ran for 17 minutes then wouldn't let them in the vehicle? Should they stand outside the car while he pulls out a gun? They aren't psychic and can't know his medical history from the outside of the windshield. He could be a deranged nut based on the info available.
Click to expand...

He drove 8 miles in 17 minutes - never exceeding the speed limit - he pulled over when he saw they were going to use a device that punctures tires

Now you have him as an armed and dangerous wacko -
But that is a small possibility and you are reaching for a life line here:roll:

If he was suspected of being armed and dangerous -
1 - called for back up - which they did not - so guess what - Life line broke on that one
2- Prevented him and his vehicle from leaving - They had the equipment - did they use it - No - Why - No reason or suspicion or gut feeling they had to.

Lastly - Do you think that this qualifies as professional behavior by Police?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom