An off-duty policeman was mown down by a motorist he had confronted about sounding his horn at 6am.How terrible, how awful, how….
Detective Inspector Peter Howarth collapsed in a driveway screaming 'Don't let him kill me' after 22-year-old Nathan Phipps ran him over and then reversed back over him in a revenge attack.
Wait. Just how did he ‘confront’ him?
The jury heard Phipps had driven to an address in Wanstead, east London, at about 6am where his girlfriend was staying after the couple split up.Right.
After driving up and down the street repeatedly sounding his horn to get his girlfriend's attention, he was challenged by Mr Howarth along with several other neighbours.
Mr Howard asked Phipps to wind down his side window but fearing the driver was reaching for a weapon, smashed the glass and pulled him from the vehicle.
OK.
Umm….
"but fearing the driver was reaching for a weapon, smashed the glass and pulled him from the vehicle."
ReplyDeleteSomehow I doubt that particular arrest technique is in the police handbook. Rather I'd have thought, when dealing with an armed suspect, 'Run The Fuck AWAY and Call Armed Response' would be the standard response from a force who seem to feel that they need Stab Vests and Kung Fu batons to talk to OAPS and Kids.
Oh well, by reversing the car for a 2nd go, the charge has to be attempted murder (Unless WOAR knows better?) and the courts have always taken trying to kill a police man,on or off duty, very very seriously.
Here's the proof if any were needed, that even off duty police should carry automatic weapons and hollow tipped ammunition.
ReplyDeleteNo violent uniformed nutter can rely on just a metal crowbar.
Must have only ran over his head though, as he seems to be OK.
ReplyDeleteImagine if I pulled a copper through the window of his patrol car, a window I had just smashed, punched plod in the kite and gave the excuse (far more likely, actually) 'I thought he was going for a weapon'. He would have received a medal for bravery if he had then ran me over.
BTW He's a detective. He should learn to mind his own business, but no doubt years of interfering in other people's lives, with an arrogant, know it all attitude compelled him to 'act in the public good'.
@ E-V
ReplyDeleteReceipt of a detective's pay is probably the main reason why Mr Howarth believes he is a detective.
It would have kept two psychos off the streets indefinitely, had a judicial verdict determined that imprisonment of both parties in the same cell until they had acquired mutual respect, was the decent thing to do for society.
He smashed the car window? - With what? I can't believe he used his fist, so what suitable implement was he carrying at 6am?
ReplyDeleteWho's that trip-trapping over my bridge....
ReplyDelete*Waits for Jaded*
No worries, SBC.
ReplyDeleteJaded remains in Trollenberg Health Spa on a convalescence accidentally paid for by some journo, after a car accidentally reversed over her.
Anon above,
ReplyDeleteI bet it wrote the car off.
ran him down and then reversed back over him
ReplyDeleteDanged if I know, SBC, why not a charge of attempted murder? It looks murderous to me.
I can only guess that the CPS was worried about the chance of him walking if they couldn't establish the very high level of intent. Personally, I'd have thought reversing back over someone indicated an intention to take life rather than injure, but in the context of somebody smashing a windscreen it might make self-defence a viable explanation.
"Somehow I doubt that particular arrest technique is in the police handbook."
ReplyDeleteActually, yes. Yes, it is...
"Imagine if I pulled a copper through the window of his patrol car, a window I had just smashed, punched plod in the kite and gave the excuse (far more likely, actually) 'I thought he was going for a weapon'."
We'd all get together and bake you a cake with a file in it, EV...
"He smashed the car window? - With what? I can't believe he used his fist, so what suitable implement was he carrying at 6am?"
Good point!
"Personally, I'd have thought reversing back over someone indicated an intention to take life rather than injure, but in the context of somebody smashing a windscreen it might make self-defence a viable explanation."
The first time maybe, but reversing again? That wouldn't pass the Tony Martin test, surely?
SBC-genuinely funny comment-made me laugh out loud...sorry for the wait for my retort but the wi-fi is rubbish here in this expensive health spa.
ReplyDeleteI know nothing about this case except what I have read in the paper.I am assuming that the jury heard all the evidence-not the edited for shock value bits-and found the driver guilty.
Dealing with stuff off-duty is a minefield.We are given no guidelines on what we should or shouldn't do.We have to do what we feel is right at the time and then suffer the comments of Monday morning quarterbacks like you lot.
I have to go for a lie-down now,the (ex) Commissioner is next door having a massage and I need to ask him something.
Jaded