moped scum, gloves off?

[Rookandrabbit]

Regarding the above can I draw your attention to 17 May 1989 a frightened youth on his own moped pursued  by the police ended up dying .... reason just scared....innocent people can do crazy things just because they are young inexperienced and frightened. It’s not only the young either.....To quote the Police Federation  Tim Rodgers has said” it is dangerous to drive a car deliberately at another road user. The law clearly classifies this as dangerous driving, and officers could be prosecuted. No defence. No exemption.”  Stood in the dock of the crown court saying that is what I have been taught to do or I was carrying out orders which I thought were lawful won’t wash. If It was me as the police driver I would want my posterior set in concrete and new legislation required to protect me from prosecution.....but then would that open a whole new can of worms where Gung ho police officers are turning themselves into judge, jury and executioner thinking they are above the law and can’t be touched. There is no simple answer .

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Rookandrabbit said:

Regarding the above can I draw your attention to 17 May 1989 a frightened youth on his own moped pursued  by the police ended up dying .... reason just scared....innocent people can do crazy things just because they are young inexperienced and frightened

With respect, innocent people die on the roads every day, some times its just a freak accident involving no one else.
Sometimes its due to the poor driving of another party, or a criminal act by another party.

As many people have said, do we just give the streets over to these criminals ?
'Oh hes a kid on a stolen moped, best not tackle him in case he hurts himself'
'Be alright, hes only off to violently mug someone up the road, or throw acid in someones face'

Youve heard of live by the sword ..?

[Rookandrabbit]

As I stated in my previous posts my concern is for that of the Police driver who carry out this procedure not for the suspected perpetrators because after all its one thing suspecting somebody has or is about to commit a crime but it’s another thing proving it. 

When senior police officers and the Police Federation state that the police drivers are open to prosecution you are on a hiding to nothing. Please do not think for one moment that I in any way want robbers thieves and general scum to get away with their heinous crimes but my argument has been a police officer who does this needs to have the back up of the law on his side not to be hung out to dry!

[timmytree]

I like to try and have a balanced approach to discussions like this, there are always 2 sides to every story. It's a bit like the debate about hanging, the inate fear that an innocent person may hang through a miscarriage of justice? Well not quite. A miscarriage of justice is when an innocent is convicted but these moped riders are certainly breaking the law as soon as they fail to stop. The police are not about to go knocking off anyone on 2 wheels. Similarly with drug addicts? Warnings about dangerous drugs in Essex, well if you decide to smoke, inhale, inject various dangerous drugs and then end up on a slab whose fault is that?

If the police can knock these little scumbags off their bikes and reduce the incidence of similar crime by 44% then I say train twice as many coppers to ram the little scrotes and get it down by 88%. There is a risk that someone will get hurt or maybe die but that's the risk they should take if they want that lifestyle. 

The numbers of criminals likely to be killed or injured is far lower than the number of innocents affected by their criminality, so I'm all for a tough response.

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Rookandrabbit said:

When senior police officers and the Police Federation state that the police drivers are open to prosecution you are on a hiding to nothing.

Then nothing has changed has it ?
When a cop needs to forcibly take down a suspect, he needs to clearly think out the rules of engagement .
There will always be some perps that will squeal police brutality, sometimes they are even right.
We cant keep pussyfooting around with them though, this is why we have accrued the problem in the first place.
Do you think some of these feral youths would put themselves out to mischief on a nightly basis, if they knew there was a good chance of a brutal smackdown coming their way from the cops ?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

14 minutes ago, Rookandrabbit said:

As I stated in my previous posts my concern is for that of the Police driver who carry out this procedure not for the suspected perpetrators because after all its one thing suspecting somebody has or is about to commit a crime but it’s another thing proving it. 

When senior police officers and the Police Federation state that the police drivers are open to prosecution you are on a hiding to nothing. Please do not think for one moment that I in any way want robbers thieves and general scum to get away with their heinous crimes but my argument has been a police officer who does this needs to have the back up of the law on his side not to be hung out to dry!

 

5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Then nothing has changed has it ?

 

7 minutes ago, timmytree said:

I like to try and have a balanced approach to discussions like this, there are always 2 sides to every story. It's a bit like the debate about hanging, the inate fear that an innocent person may hang through a miscarriage of justice? Well not quite. A miscarriage of justice is when an innocent is convicted but these moped riders are certainly breaking the law as soon as they fail to stop. The police are not about to go knocking off anyone on 2 wheels. Similarly with drug addicts? Warnings about dangerous drugs in Essex, well if you decide to smoke, inhale, inject various dangerous drugs and then end up on a slab whose fault is that?

If the police can knock these little scumbags off their bikes and reduce the incidence of similar crime by 44% then I say train twice as many coppers to ram the little scrotes and get it down by 88%. There is a risk that someone will get hurt or maybe die but that's the risk they should take if they want that lifestyle. 

The numbers of criminals likely to be killed or injured is far lower than the number of innocents affected by their criminality, so I'm all for a tough response.

That is a fair way of looking at the matter!

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, Rookandrabbit said:

Regarding the above can I draw your attention to 17 May 1989 a frightened youth on his own moped pursued  by the police ended up dying .... reason just scared....innocent people can do crazy things just because they are young inexperienced and frightened

Without sounding callus, the second he failed to stop he committed an offence and was no longer innocent. Now I'm in no way suggesting that he deserved what happened, but most of the blame has to lay at his own door.

I don’t know the case, so have no idea if it was a case of mistaken identity or a routine stop, but the fact still remains that if he had complied with the law and pulled over then it wouldn't have happened.

The Police have a hard job and I'm 100% certain that it was not their intention to be part of the cause of a fatal accident. There is blame on both parties though, not just the Police.

Edited November 26, 2018 by Newbie to this

[Rookandrabbit]

Yes I agree with what you have said. Until the deterrent outweighs their desire to inflict their abhorrent behaviour upon decent society it will continue. At the minute criminals just laugh when caught because they know very little can touch them and there will be some do good lawyer who will find a loophole to get them off free to carry on. But to bring about the deterrent the law needs to be changed in favour of the police officer both civil and criminal because as it stands Justice is portrayed as being blind and carrying a sword which will cut both ways, so we have to determine which way those who live by the sword will be dealt with. I think immunity from prosecution for the police drivers would be a start to protect them . As I previously stated the police can’t win as it stands. Even with much simpler tactics it is easy for a police officer to find themselves in court or under investigation and having to justify why what and how they did their duty to protect and serve the public.

[Lloyd90]

On 25/11/2018 at 12:50, Delwint said:

Bang out of order that Tightchoke Imo

What’s out of order about it? 

Pistol Pete was the one that made the correlation between Police knocking motorbike thieves off their bikes and his cousins accident... 

If his cousin wasn’t knocked off by the police whilst commiting motorcycle crime then the comparison is totally stupid. 

 

Thats like someone complaining they were injured getting tackled in rugby so the Police shouldn’t tackle criminals anymore incase the criminals get hurt! 

The comparisons is totally irrelevant!! 

Tightchokes response is only questioning why PistolPete’s comparison was used 🤷‍♂️ It doesn’t make any sense to compare. 

[Scully]

18 hours ago, Rookandrabbit said:

Firstly not all motorcycles fleeing the police are stolen. Secondly people fail to stop for a myriad of reasons . Thirdly snap judgements in the heat of an exciting pursuit can cloud judgement leaving an officer open to litigation and prosecution. Fourthly your last comment does show the true level of protection that the police officers have when they go out on duty. Lastly my thoughts of dealing with these scum ( thieves and robbers who have total disregard for the lives of decent members of the public) is the same as those who attack 90+ year old war veterans in their homes and leave them for dead ..... but the protection of the European courts of human rights forbid any suggestions that I may put forward in dealing with them. I think it will not be long before some of these “suspects “ are seriously injured and then the crowd will turn and as I stated the Crown Court Dock is a lonely place to be but we will see what the future holds!

That's not an answer; what do you suggest the police do when in pursuit of a stolen moped on which the rider refuses to stop? 

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Rookandrabbit said:

Regarding the above can I draw your attention to 17 May 1989 a frightened youth on his own moped pursued  by the police ended up dying .... reason just scared....innocent people can do crazy things just because they are young inexperienced and frightened. It’s not only the young either.....To quote the Police Federation  Tim Rodgers has said” it is dangerous to drive a car deliberately at another road user. The law clearly classifies this as dangerous driving, and officers could be prosecuted. No defence. No exemption.”  Stood in the dock of the crown court saying that is what I have been taught to do or I was carrying out orders which I thought were lawful won’t wash. If It was me as the police driver I would want my posterior set in concrete and new legislation required to protect me from prosecution.....but then would that open a whole new can of worms where Gung ho police officers are turning themselves into judge, jury and executioner thinking they are above the law and can’t be touched. There is no simple answer .

It's also illegal to shoot someone, that doesn't stop the police shooting a terrorist as a last resort to protect themselves or someone else from an imminent threat to life, so it would be covered under article 2 of human rights act

[silver pigeon69]

3 hours ago, Lord v said:

I am desperately trying to think of the myriad of legit reasons someone may have for not stopping for a police car with full blues and twos.

 

Cos at the moment I have bupkis.  

I used to know an arms dealer(military weapons) who used to carry demo's for the military. Even he had to stop, BUT would not open the window and had a card explaining that he could not leave the vehicle and would follow the officers to the nearest Police station.

[Bazooka Joe]

Quote

We cant keep pussyfooting around with them though, this is why we have accrued the problem in the first place.

Yep...in one...

[Rookandrabbit]

Scully I would suggest the police act within the legal framework that currently exists. Please also read my further comments in this topic and do feel free to quote them.12 gauge the threat to life must be imminent and immediate for legal use of deadly force as the test cases have proved. May I further draw your attention to the bbc news website region London please read the comments regarding this matter for police drivers livelihoods and liberty... until the current legislation is amended or superseded it does appear to be as I feared all along the police driver who will be in court not the scooter motorcycle gang unless they are there to claim compensation with their barrister making out how badly done to and what a deprived life they have experienced! Sorry my only answer would be to demand legislation to protect the police driver. Would any of us risk a jail sentence the way the police officers are being asked to.......even senior officers and their own police federation are warning them as is the Mets own professional standards!!

[Lloyd90]

10 minutes ago, silver pigeon69 said:

I used to know an arms dealer(military weapons) who used to carry demo's for the military. Even he had to stop, BUT would not open the window and had a card explaining that he could not leave the vehicle and would follow the officers to the nearest Police station.

Bullet proof windows was it? 

[timmytree]

I think that as a society we have to accept that if we want a crackdown on criminals the police will have to employ tactics that may seem harsh. Take your choice.

Personally I would rather see a couple of little thugs crippled for life than one innocent person stabbed or disfigured by acid. Actually, if one person is saved from attack or one innocent persons moped is left for them to get to work then any force used is worth it. Protect the innocent law abiding populace at all costs. Criminals don't deserve consideration.

Just now, Rookandrabbit said:

Scully I would suggest the police act within the legal framework that currently exists. Please also read my further comments in this topic and do feel free to quote them.12 gauge the threat to life must be imminent and immediate for legal use of deadly force as the test cases have proved. May I further draw your attention to the bbc news website region London please read the comments regarding this matter for police drivers livelihoods and liberty... until the current legislation is amended or superseded it does appear to be as I feared all along the police driver who will be in court not the scooter motorcycle gang unless they are there to claim compensation with their barrister making out how badly done to and what a deprived life they have experienced! Sorry my only answer would be to demand legislation to protect the police driver. Would any of us risk a jail sentence the way the police officers are being asked to.......even senior officers and their own police federation are warning them as is the Mets own professional standards!!

I understand your point, we should be backing the police. All cases would still need investigating but if the scrote on wheels has failed to stop there should be no prosecution of police officers no matter what the outcome.

[12gauge82]

3 minutes ago, Rookandrabbit said:

Scully I would suggest the police act within the legal framework that currently exists. Please also read my further comments in this topic and do feel free to quote them.12 gauge the threat to life must be imminent and immediate for legal use of deadly force as the test cases have proved. May I further draw your attention to the bbc news website region London please read the comments regarding this matter for police drivers livelihoods and liberty... until the current legislation is amended or superseded it does appear to be as I feared all along the police driver who will be in court not the scooter motorcycle gang unless they are there to claim compensation with their barrister making out how badly done to and what a deprived life they have experienced! Sorry my only answer would be to demand legislation to protect the police driver. Would any of us risk a jail sentence the way the police officers are being asked to.......even senior officers and their own police federation are warning them as is the Mets own professional standards!!

Yes imminent means immediate, I'm not sure how the police view knocking someone off a moped and whether it's classed as a lethal force, the point is, under certain circumstances, any force at all can be justified so I'm sure to knock them off, they will have exhausted every other avenue and option first and the tactic only authorised if it met the criteria which would depend on the individual circumstances and them running it through their decision making process.

[Scully]

22 minutes ago, Rookandrabbit said:

Scully I would suggest the police act within the legal framework that currently exists. Please also read my further comments in this topic and do feel free to quote them.12 gauge the threat to life must be imminent and immediate for legal use of deadly force as the test cases have proved. May I further draw your attention to the bbc news website region London please read the comments regarding this matter for police drivers livelihoods and liberty... until the current legislation is amended or superseded it does appear to be as I feared all along the police driver who will be in court not the scooter motorcycle gang unless they are there to claim compensation with their barrister making out how badly done to and what a deprived life they have experienced! Sorry my only answer would be to demand legislation to protect the police driver. Would any of us risk a jail sentence the way the police officers are being asked to.......even senior officers and their own police federation are warning them as is the Mets own professional standards!!

I’m assuming the decision to ram wouldn’t have been down to the individual officer but would have been decided at a higher level. They have chosen to do this and I’m sure are well aware of the possible outcome; they’re adults and professionals; the decision is with them. 

Anyone who fails to stop when pursued by blues and twos has only themselves to blame in my opinion. 

You still haven’t come up with an alternative solution; the old ‘something has to be done’ is a complete cop out. 

Edited November 26, 2018 by Scully

[Newbie to this]

18 minutes ago, timmytree said:

Protect the innocent law abiding populace at all costs. Criminals don't deserve consideration.

This just about sums it up for me.

[manthing]

4 hours ago, Scully said:

Anyone who fails to stop when pursued by blues and twos has only themselves to blame in my opinion. 

This. ⬆️⬆️

[silver pigeon69]

4 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Bullet proof windows was it? 

No idea, but i knew quite a bit about the custom made gun cabinet in the boot, because my Dad fitted it!

[Jason_ox]

Just got sent this 😂

[Dave-G]

Hahahahahaha

 

[Saltings]

11 minutes ago, Jason_ox said:

Just got sent this 😂

looks like a Skoda not a spitfire may make the chav thieving scum think they are being targeted and give up before being taken out  saves the chase and innocent public getting hurt all good

[mel b3]

10 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Bullet proof windows was it? 

Carrying a card stating that you are unable to be searched at the roadside isn't that uncommon Lloyd,  think precious loads,  jewellery, booze, cigarettes, all have been targeted by criminals . You just show the card to the police officers , through the window , and you will be escorted to the nearest police station for the search to be carried out.