When he understood that the police were not going to pursue the alleged fugitive, the man did not like it. He told the police that he did not find them professional.
The magistrates stressed that the man, despite repeated requests from the police, had never given a detailed description of the alleged perpetrator.
Magistrates also noted that he intended to leave the scene in his vehicle while potentially being under the influence of alcohol.
They felt that he had “showed himself to be disrespectful, even insulting, towards the police and claimed to give them instructions as to the procedure to follow to carry out an investigation and intercept an alleged thief who was not identifiable by his act, due to lack of description.“
The court noted that he was ready to leave the scene with his vehicle even though he had been drinking. He sometimes adopted “collaborator“, sometimes “non-cooperative“The judges pointed out that the man had raised his voice to constantly explain.”the same irrelevant facts.“
The magistrates completely validated the way in which the police intervened. “The court does not find any malicious intent on the part of the inspectors. On the contrary, she considers that they showed patience in the face of the disrespectful attitude and potentially dangerous behavior, as well as the nighttime noise it generated. The only solution to put an end to these actions was to administratively arrest him for the time necessary for him to calm down and regain his senses.“
These behaviors led judges to consider that the arrest was a justified measure to restore order. This decision concluded that the officials had properly handled the incident within the established legal framework, thus restoring their professional integrity.
Related News :