Police go on trial

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that when you step into the box it is you that are on trial? I am not talking about when you are called as a witness to the case of assault regarding Wayne and Waynetta where you put in your statement that you could clearly see the bruising about her face. No I am talking about the jobs where it it trivial, offensive weapon, going equipped, section 5 etc. That is where it is your evidence and solely your evidence that is going to convict the defendant. Never mind how solid your evidence is I still (where I work) always get butterflies when one of these jobs gets to court. I know full well that I am going to get a grilling about even the most minor drunk and disorderly.

I don't know where the rot started to set in. I am a sworn Constable and as such have much to lose by lying. The defendant on the other hand has nothing to lose. A few examples, there is a sporting event going on and I happened to drive past a street where numerous cars where parked. Traffic was slow and I saw a male in a tracksuit walking along trying the doors of parked cars. I turned into the road and the subject saw me and started to run. There was nowhere he could go as it was a terraced street with alley gates and no side streets. GOTCHA, search him and it turns out he has a glass hammer and a blue handled screwdriver. Locked up for going equipped. A few months later in court and I am in the box facing the defence solicitor. He states that his client was merely checking that all the cars were secure and if he found one he was going to do his citizens duty and make sure that no-one took anything from the vehicle. A kind of self appointed guardian angel. The glass hammer and screwdriver, well they must surely have been planted by the officer to justify his arrest. The magistrates asked for the clerk to discount the glass hammer because it also has the seat belt cutter on it so the individual could have been carrying it just in case he witnessed a car crash! The screwdriver was on it's way into fantasy land as well when I protested. The defence then tried to then discredit the fact I even found it on him at all stating something along the lines that I had stopped him purely because of his attire. When pointed out to him that I could stop half of Notgreatside in that case purely due to their attire he then started to suggest that the screwdriver was a figment of my imagination despite it being in a tube with a crime exhibit label on it. It was later classed as a red herring, at that point I asked whether I could approach the bench. They looked shocked but agreed. I then picked up the tube and said, your worships, does this look like a red herring to you? In my mind it is definitely a blue handled screwdriver. They fidgeted quietly whilst I stood there with the tube in my hand and thanked me. The clerk smiled and offered no advice to the confused ones. One of them actually cleared her throat and asked me if it was the same tool I had seen the defendant use. I told them that I had not seen him use it but he had it on his person after being seen trying car doors. I resisted the urge to scream at them to listen to what had been said and stop arsing about. Again they thanked me and looked desperately at the clerk of the court, she smiled at me and asked me to return to the stand. A brief huddled mutter and the defence was asked if he had any further questions, he had a couple one of which included me reciting the caution?

Anyway the scrote was found guilty of vehicle interference and got a minor slap on the wrist, wow that was worth it!

How about the 15 year old stopped because he looked too young to be drinking the can of Stella he had. Turn out your pockets lad. Out comes the phone, about £90, the inevitable packet of long Rizzla and a lighter. Quick check of his pockets and oh, what's this? A Stanley knife (retractable) blunt but still able to inflict a nasty cut. Yes he was 16 not 15 and when asked about the knife couldn't provide the legitimate reason to have it.

Anyway off to court we go, he is a prolific offender and not suitable for diversion. The reason he has the knife? Just in case he learns of someone who needs assistance in fitting carpets. He can help and it my assist him in getting a job if he has his own tools. That's why he carries it around with him! I am not making this up. He never mentioned this in interview despite the bit about inferences when that caution is explained. End result .........you guessed it not guilty. How the hell??????????

Oh toss, I give up. Not sure I can be bothered explaining the time when someone jumps on the bonnet of my car and shows me just what he feels about the police by peeing all over the windscreen. Locked up D+D, end result not guilty, the officer must have been making it up. How about the time when there was a large scaler outside a pub and someone deemed it appropriate to try and smash a bottle on my neck? This one didn't even reach court, the offender was deemed eligible for a fixed penalty for S.5 the next morning? I wasn't there when this took place so how? His friend who was also locked up for affray along with several others, subsequently complained and was found not guilty in court. He only had one lung and it was deemed impossible that he could cause problems with his medical condition. They didn't see him on the night!

Going to try and find a padded cell and bounce off the walls until I go to sleep. Maybe when I wake up reality will have returned.