Everything is ok - BANNED - Police, Camera, Action(Video)

Originally posted by pazcat
Video has been made private?

Thanks for reposting the video.

Sooooooooooooooooooooo, it's not even about weather or not running a red light is illegal, it's the sheer fact that the LEO didn't know the law, and how could one enforce a law, that they themselves don't understand?

That does make it fraud. Then he assaults him with the attempt to forcefully remove the camera from his hands...

Under what provision is that legal?

HA... this was hilarious....

Thanks for posting. important to see.
There are many intersting things about the law, and how the law is manipulated without most of the people knowing about.

What if i could show you the words of a legal document which may suggest they are going for more than your pocket, more like a metaphysical part of you... ???

Hello, Namaste everyone, I am a new member on ATS.

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]


Source

So doesn't matter if the word is driver, cycler, operator of a non-engined vehicle or whatever. The law still applies. Dummies?

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

Statutes are not LAW, they are given the FORCE of law by your consent...if you revoke your consent, is the force of law still in effect?

Of course not...because without consent, there can be no contract-one of the earliest fundamentals of law.

The ONLY way that PC can give that guy a ticket and have it stand is if buddy on the bike CONSENTS to contract with him.

I know, it's a difficult concept to grasp, but many people are doing it. Research it, I dare you

Oh god not this argument again...

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by duality90

Rather enjoyed it, although I am actually reasonably certain that the Constable was correct in asserting that s.24 Police and Criminal Evidence Act empowers him to arrest the individual in this instance (i.e. where he refuses to identify himself in order that a ticket can be issued). The relevant provision is s.24(5)(e),(f) PACE 1984. In running a red light he is prima facie guilty of an offense under s.28 or s.29 Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended by RTA 1991).

I cant argue points of British 'Law', as I have little study of the same. I have no doubt that the PC believes that he has the authority to detain someone until identified, and and some Act 'authorizing' the same..IMHO, the point is moot...you have the right to not give evidence against yourself...is not providing an identity giving evidence? I won't even delve into the issue of duress here.


Remember, a ticket is merely an order to appear before a court so that you can defend your innocence and the state can try to prove your guilt. You can contest it in court, but it is unfortunately the discretion of the officer to give them. That is why we have a judicial system which acts as a check on the power of Police.

In current practise, yes..at Law, I would argue that an information need be sworn to properly compel someone to attend. If an information is not sworn, was there really a crime committed? I would argue 'no', he rightfully refuses to contract with the PC, which is the way they 'trick' you to court absent a sworn information.

That being said, I'm pretty sure the guy would probably have just gotten off with a warning for running the red light (assuming he did) had he not challenged the authority of the constable. Again, on the spot, much is left to the discretion of the officer to issue or not. By and large, I don't really think it's worthwhile to risk the potential fine. Other people may feel otherwise inclined, but for something minor like a traffic violation, chances are that you're going to be ticketed if you question the constable. Obviously, for more serious offences I would keep schtum and not say a bloody word, but for something so minor.

Sadly the chap in the video probably was in the legal wrong in this case. A police officer is not allowed to simply demand you to produce identification on demand, but when he has witnessed or has reason to suspect you have committed an offence (as in this case) then he is probably well within his authority to do so. That being said, the obvious check against open and free discretion to do so is the fact that he would probably be fired if he was found to be writing frivolous tickets and abusing his authority.

I guess it all comes down to how you define 'offence', but I would argue he was excercising his common-law right to travel, and accosted by an agent of the Crown whilst breaking no Law. Rightfully, he refused to contract with the said Agent, even under duress, and perhaps assault. The Crown Agent (who knew EXACTLY what was going on at common law) allowed the subject to leave, as he rightly should, after he determined the subject would sand firmly under his MC-guaranteed rights

...or thats the way I see it, anyways

Very brave!

and again...

Not this argument again...

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
The 'police' have no right to detain you and hold you on a whim, regardless of the current practice. 'Runiing a red light' is no crime, and both participants in the video knew that...why do you think chase was not given?

Since when? Do you have a source or is this just a misguided illusion?

In England, it is guaranteed by Magna Charta of 1215.

Do you argue that the police SHOULD be able to detain you without warrant?

Are you claiming that police need a warrant to write you a ticket? Or tickets for running red lights shouldn't be given?
Yes I do absolutely argue that they have the right to temporarily detain you while the ticket is given. Or should he magically teleport it into your home address?

Please...not at all! You may contract with whomever you wish...if you choose to contract to pay a sum of money, go right ahead

that's all a ticket REALLY is-you agree to pay a sum of money by signing for the 'ticket' (contract), or refusing signature but accepting paper (Bills of Exchange Act).

(ETA There is a process for real crime that has been in effect since roman days, and likely earlier. Somebody swears that you have comitted a crime before someone empowered to administer an oath...Serious business, and sadly this has seemingly fallen into disuse...and people routinely contract to attend court and pay sums of money)

I'm saddened to find that arbitrary detention is something you agree with...in contravention of THE law of the land, no less.

edit on 31-3-2011 by servumlibertatem because: edit to add

edit on 31-3-2011 by servumlibertatem because: (no reason given)

Such a troll post. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 has nothing to do with the criminal law.

If you're looking for a nice, tedious thread on how all of these annoying 'freeman' arguments are completely baseless, search for a thread called "Video: Judge admits court is a common law court".

The person who came up with the idea that you 'contract' to pay a fine obviously decided to skip the section of the legal textbooks which talk about the necessity of an intent to enter into legal relations in order to found a valid contract...

Edit: incidentally if you ever read a traffic citation, it says nothing about guilt or paying a fine. It merely compels you to attend a court hearing so that you may either admit guilt, not contest the fine, or prove your innocence.

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by DaMod
If the guy ran a red light (which is a very dangerous thing to do and is the cause of many potentially fatal accidents) then he deserves to get a ticket... He broke the law, he needs to pay the consequences.

The guy was on a bike. Agreed, running a red light on a bike is a serious matter that may have cost him his life. Assume that he got hit and killed...who is at fault? Him, of course...whould his heirs have a right to sue the driver of the car that killed hime? Of course not! That is LAW

Yes this video is hilarious but it doesn't make it right. The police officer was just doing his job and was holding his temper quite well considering how big of a jerk the one taping this was. I'm not a police officer and I have met many that do not deserve to wear the badge.. In this particular case however, the police officer was just doing his job.. and correctly I might add.

I wholeheartedly agree...the PC was just doing his 'job' of imposing a monetary penalty for foolishly risking his own life. The guy chose not to contract with the PC (as is required absent warrant) and went on his merry way. I guess it's just a matter of perspective

If you look at the provisions of PACE which I pointed out, it explicitly spells out the powers to arrest without warrant.

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]


Source

So doesn't matter if the word is driver, cycler, operator of a non-engined vehicle or whatever. The law still applies. Dummies?

I would challenge you to find where I have ever stated it was not against the law, in fact as I clearly referenced in my post it is against the law to ride a bicycle through a red light in the UK

I also see a lot of people referencing American law here, guys this happened in the UK and no matter how eloquently you state US law, it is not law here in the UK.

However the police officer also broke the law, he tried to grab the guy and snatch his camera, that would of been illegal here and was quite stupid behaviour, something I think he realised and probably constituted towards his decision not to chase the guy or put radio through to HQ to have him apprehended. So which is worse, a citizen who breaks a minor law, or a police who commits a more serious crime?

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by PrinceDreamer

You MUST obey all traffic signs and traffic light signals.
[Laws RTA 1988 sect 36 & TSRGD reg 10(1)]


Source

So doesn't matter if the word is driver, cycler, operator of a non-engined vehicle or whatever. The law still applies. Dummies?

I would challenge you to find where I have ever stated it was not against the law, in fact as I clearly referenced in my post it is against the law to ride a bicycle through a red light in the UK

I also see a lot of people referencing American law here, guys this happened in the UK and no matter how eloquently you state US law, it is not law here in the UK.

However the police officer also broke the law, he tried to grab the guy and snatch his camera, that would of been illegal here and was quite stupid behaviour, something I think he realised and probably constituted towards his decision not to chase the guy or put radio through to HQ to have him apprehended. So which is worse, a citizen who breaks a minor law, or a police who commits a more serious crime?

I've not idea what the TSRGD is, but the RTA 1988 is a UK statute.

reply to post by PrinceDreamer


Quoted you to reply to servumlibertatem. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

reply to post by duality90


Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
The 'police' have no right to detain you and hold you on a whim, regardless of the current practice. 'Runiing a red light' is no crime, and both participants in the video knew that...why do you think chase was not given?

Since when? Do you have a source or is this just a misguided illusion?

In England, it is guaranteed by Magna Charta of 1215.

Do you argue that the police SHOULD be able to detain you without warrant?

Are you claiming that police need a warrant to write you a ticket? Or tickets for running red lights shouldn't be given?
Yes I do absolutely argue that they have the right to temporarily detain you while the ticket is given. Or should he magically teleport it into your home address?

Please...not at all! You may contract with whomever you wish...if you choose to contract to pay a sum of money, go right ahead

that's all a ticket REALLY is-you agree to pay a sum of money by signing for the 'ticket' (contract), or refusing signature but accepting paper (Bills of Exchange Act).

(ETA There is a process for real crime that has been in effect since roman days, and likely earlier. Somebody swears that you have comitted a crime before someone empowered to administer an oath...Serious business, and sadly this has seemingly fallen into disuse...and people routinely contract to attend court and pay sums of money)

I'm saddened to find that arbitrary detention is something you agree with...in contravention of THE law of the land, no less.

edit on 31-3-2011 by servumlibertatem because: edit to add

edit on 31-3-2011 by servumlibertatem because: (no reason given)

Such a troll post. The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 has nothing to do with the criminal law.

Agreed. It has everything to do with bills of exchange

If you're looking for a nice, tedious thread on how all of these annoying 'freeman' arguments are completely baseless, search for a thread called "Video: Judge admits court is a common law court".

This thread is about a dude on a bike running a red light and refusing a ticket. Apples to oranges much?

The person who came up with the idea that you 'contract' to pay a fine obviously decided to skip the section of the legal textbooks which talk about the necessity of an intent to enter into legal relations in order to found a valid contract...

Silence is an admission of consent. Does not a wet signature on a 'ticket' prove intent/consent?

Edit: incidentally if you ever read a traffic citation, it says nothing about guilt or paying a fine. It merely compels you to attend a court hearing so that you may either admit guilt, not contest the fine, or prove your innocence.

edit on 1-4-2011 by duality90 because: (no reason given)

Varies from country to country. Here (Canada) they take pictures of you over limit, or running red lights and send them to your house. Nothing compels you to attend court, although you may dispute it. There are other avenues for dispute in commerce as well. People are doing it here, successfully, en masse.

Do you have an alternative explanation of how the copper let buddy on his way without ticket or arrest? Because I'd like to hear it...

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by DaMod
If the guy ran a red light (which is a very dangerous thing to do and is the cause of many potentially fatal accidents) then he deserves to get a ticket... He broke the law, he needs to pay the consequences.

The guy was on a bike. Agreed, running a red light on a bike is a serious matter that may have cost him his life. Assume that he got hit and killed...who is at fault? Him, of course...whould his heirs have a right to sue the driver of the car that killed hime? Of course not! That is LAW

Yes this video is hilarious but it doesn't make it right. The police officer was just doing his job and was holding his temper quite well considering how big of a jerk the one taping this was. I'm not a police officer and I have met many that do not deserve to wear the badge.. In this particular case however, the police officer was just doing his job.. and correctly I might add.

I wholeheartedly agree...the PC was just doing his 'job' of imposing a monetary penalty for foolishly risking his own life. The guy chose not to contract with the PC (as is required absent warrant) and went on his merry way. I guess it's just a matter of perspective

If you look at the provisions of PACE which I pointed out, it explicitly spells out the powers to arrest without warrant.

I'm not interested in reading British Statute...at all...or arguing the same. I have NO doubt that there is a statute that says a person can be held for identification...

It begs the question of why the copper didn't act on it, hmmm?

Listen, Psyko/Duality:

I'm not here to derail the thread or argue the minutae of law....I like the video, gave an opinion on why the guy went on his merry way, and generally encourage people to have an understanding of law.

On and for the record, I'm not a freeman, get tickets once in awhile, and grudgingly pay them.

Given this video, I don't think one can seriously argue that, right or wrong, there is merit in the bike-rider's argument with the PC? If not why wasn't he ticketed? Or held for identification?

If several people had have been injured by the bike rider's actions then we'd be demanding he should be arrested, but because the officer couldn't remember his laws he's suddenly more accountable then the perpetrator?

He is showing such a lack of respect and instead of holding his hands up and admitting he's in the wrong, he's instead chose to be condescending because he knows a thing or two about law.

Yes the officer got it wrong but in his actions he was right, it's just a shame he let him go.

ive seen many examples in this thread of people complaining because somebodies used his rights, and stood up for his rights, and used them to ensure the policeman was doing his job properly.

dumb sheep.

i bet you would just let a policeman accuse you of anything and fine you, even if he is making it up.

one thing that is being assumed in this thread is that the rider passed through a red light. wheres the evidence? is it because the policeman said it? what you don't think they ever wrongly quote laws and try fine you or take your details when you have not broken a law.
we should all throw our freedoms away?

dumb sheep.

there are a lot of good policemen out there, but you have to understand there are some bad to, you know the ones that no matter what the law is or what you have done they are determined to arrest you regardless even if that means lying to you about the law.

HHEEEEEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYYY YOU! a policeman once said to me on my way home from work just walking along the path minding my own business. so i said my name is not hey you it is "excuse me sir", the copper said "don't you get cheeky", i suppose i deserved that, i mean what was i thinking just walking home from work like that and not being obedient when shouted at in rude manner by police.

i should of been fined.

another thing nobody knows is if he did go through a red light, did he ride through it, or did he jump of the bike and cross the road like a pedestrian then jump back on the bike once he had crossed?

assuming the guy is guilty does not prove he was wrong. we see no evidence in the video of the said crime.

But assuming the Policeman is wrong is acceptable?

I've read that I'm a sheep because I have a difference of opinion but it's merely a clash of morals. A policeman wouldn't just pull you over to fill a quota, he will pull you because you have done something wrong and there really isn't much to it other then social paranoia.

They have a difficult job enough without having upstarts question there means, furthermore it's this PC policing that is making England and it's surrounding neighbours a laughing stock.

reply to post by lifeform11


The ticket would still be valid. He has a timeframe to challenge it.

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by duality90

Originally posted by servumlibertatem

Originally posted by DaMod
If the guy ran a red light (which is a very dangerous thing to do and is the cause of many potentially fatal accidents) then he deserves to get a ticket... He broke the law, he needs to pay the consequences.

The guy was on a bike. Agreed, running a red light on a bike is a serious matter that may have cost him his life. Assume that he got hit and killed...who is at fault? Him, of course...whould his heirs have a right to sue the driver of the car that killed hime? Of course not! That is LAW

Yes this video is hilarious but it doesn't make it right. The police officer was just doing his job and was holding his temper quite well considering how big of a jerk the one taping this was. I'm not a police officer and I have met many that do not deserve to wear the badge.. In this particular case however, the police officer was just doing his job.. and correctly I might add.

I wholeheartedly agree...the PC was just doing his 'job' of imposing a monetary penalty for foolishly risking his own life. The guy chose not to contract with the PC (as is required absent warrant) and went on his merry way. I guess it's just a matter of perspective

If you look at the provisions of PACE which I pointed out, it explicitly spells out the powers to arrest without warrant.

I'm not interested in reading British Statute...at all...or arguing the same. I have NO doubt that there is a statute that says a person can be held for identification...

It begs the question of why the copper didn't act on it, hmmm?

Listen, Psyko/Duality:

I'm not here to derail the thread or argue the minutae of law....I like the video, gave an opinion on why the guy went on his merry way, and generally encourage people to have an understanding of law.

On and for the record, I'm not a freeman, get tickets once in awhile, and grudgingly pay them.

Given this video, I don't think one can seriously argue that, right or wrong, there is merit in the bike-rider's argument with the PC? If not why wasn't he ticketed? Or held for identification?

haha, I suspect the reason is probably alot more practical than legal. How absurd would you feel radioing in a pursuit of a suspect...

...on a bicycle?

Probably felt like the effort wasn't worth it.

Originally posted by servumlibertatem
reply to post by duality90

 

Consternation is your rebuttal to that argument?

Long history debating it with other users on the forum.

No personal attack on you of course. I just get fearful when I see arguments like that being made because people on this site (and this is an honest-to-god example) are taking those arguments and using them in court . Worrying stuff.