- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Met police officer denies dangerous driving charge relating to patrol car crash with burglary suspect fleeing on bike
Read the story here. Unable to discuss the story there so I am posting a thread about it here.
Charging an officer for knocking down a burglar seems so wrong. Why have police if they are to be prosecuted for actually doing something useful. No wonder so many incidents are not properly investigated. Such things as this are a huge disincentive.
The man was a burglar so why does it matter so much that he gets injured? If he didn't commit a crime he wouldn't have been chased and come a cropper. Who makes these decisions?! Brain damaged snowflakes probably.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- Rendel Harris 2 sec ago
Tricky one to prove driver liability I'd say because if you look closely at the video the direct cause of the crash is that the #3 rider actually...
- WolfieSmith 27 min 9 sec ago
Damn. Oh well... My plan is... I cancel Zwift for the summer as usual. I take that saved cash and pay the TNT shysters for the Giro and TDF for 3...
- richliv 1 hour 3 min ago
"It's less likely that you’ll be paying for an indoor training app or expensive streaming service, though"...
- bensynnock 1 hour 22 min ago
Some models have a front section that you can remove and rotate to permit the dipped beam while mounted upside down.
- David9694 1 hour 33 min ago
Wiltshire drivers ignore advice amidst flood chaos https://www.wiltshiretimes.co.uk/news/24892767.wiltshires-drivers-ignore...
- David9694 1 hour 40 min ago
OK, OK, you get a £10 voucher to spend at the Diddly Squat farm shop.
- Muddy Ford 2 hours 14 min ago
"Failure to comply with any direction given by a constable or by a notice exhibited by order of the Secretary of State regarding the use of a pedal...
- 60kg lean keen climbing machine 2 hours 24 min ago
I think that the Wrexham Council should do this but concentrate on roads that many who cycle and walk would use, I do not know if they have access...
- brooksby 3 hours 7 min ago
Mine has a hinge along the bottom edge for the same purpose. But so few dog walkers seem to either have that or can't work out how to use it...
- ktache 3 hours 12 min ago
Don't forget the rollercoaster of driveway height/not driveway height. And worrying about concealed entrances, I mean there's signs...
Add new comment
20 comments
Criminals have rights, the alternative is a dystopian nightmare.
True, but don't forget:
There's something very wrong with assuming that if someone has committed a crime then they get what they deserve if the police decide to enact a bit of 'justice'.
There's a reason why we have a justice system rather than just leaving it up to the police - there's plenty of examples of mistaken convictions (e.g. later proven innocent when new evidence is uncovered) and there's plenty of examples of racism and other biases in the police.
I also think that just assigning someone a label (e.g. 'burglar') and then treating them as not deserving human rights is a lazy and particularly stupid way of thinking. In history, that kind of shortcut to thinking has led to genocides. Remember, someone doesn't become less human because they get caught up in crime.
Quite, it allows any member of the public to become a police target of violence. The risk of becoming a target of course then is skewed massively by factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background (AKA class)
Which is why tories are so keen on it - they are less likely to be at the receiving end....
I would have thought it as fairly obvious. The police cannot be allowed the job of unaccountable judge, jury and executioner, and they of all people must act within the law. As justice can only be dispensed with the inclusion of a fair trial, this was not justice.
Furthermore, as we of all people understand that cars are deadly weapons, and in this case the car was being used as such, it can hardly be proportionate to use deadly force (the fact that the victim is not dead is down to luck rather than the careful application of controlled aggression by the officer involved) on a suspect who was fleeing. Fleeing the scene of a property crime.
Much as I detest thieves (particularly bike thieves), there is a world of difference between that and giving a pass to systemic violent retribution, especially before the facts of the case have been presented to a court. We don't have to look very far to see where this breaks down - fun as it was to watch, a "Life on Mars" police force is far from desirable in the real world.
It's not about retribution or summary judgement though but apprehending the suspect. If the suspect had been on foot they could have been chased down, they would likely have been tackled to the the ground potentially causing injury.
If the suspect has been fleeing in a car it would be routine to bring a car to a stop usng the police car.
Obviously it would not be proprtionate to shoot a fleeing suspect, although in America this may well happen. Knocking the suspect down with a car falls somewhere between tackling/tripping a running suspect and shooting them. The jury will decide whether the force used was proportionate or acceptable.
It is a grey area, and I am a little uncomfortable with the message sent that criminals fleeing on bikes or mopeds become untouchable. As much as I am with the concept of cars being used as weapons by police.
I would not be surprised if the defence were able to convice 3 of 12 jurors that it was proportionate/required.
I'm glad to hear it....
That is not what happened......
Again, that is not what happened.....
Knocking the suspect down with a car and running over them.... This is heavily towards the shooting end of the spectrum
Too late. It is scant comfort to the victim to find that their life-changing injuries were actually unlawfully inflicted.
Untouchable? no, just that proportionate force is the limit of what is available to the police. Running someone over with a tonne and half of steel at speed is not a proportionate response.
A fleeing suspect of a property crime is not showing any risk the public - the officer driving in this manner however most definitely was.
Furthermore if this is policy, it is clear that of all people run over, sorry, apprehended in this manner a significant proportion would not be demonstrably guilty of any offence. As a member of the public, allowing the police to behave in this way as they see fit does me no favours at all.
That the defence might be unable to convince 3/4 of a jury that the response was proportionate is not a good benchmark for sound policy. Again the Police are supposed to obey the law, not test it (at the cost of health and well being of suspects) to see what they can get away with.
Brain damaged snowflakes probably.
Maybe move to America and then you can support Police who shoot unarmed people because they look shifty, then get cleared because they mention they felt there life was in danger. Or back to the 70's where the serious crime squad lived up to their moniker and committed serious crimes forcing confessions.
The incidents earlier this year were going too far. A certain person who got killed by police was already restrained. There is no way that can be justified which ever angle you look at it. There is a line to be drawn. Action needs to be taken if an individual is a hazard to society. Someone fleeing from police is just that. The degree of force being used should be proportionate to the level of threat the suspect poses. In this case I feel it was, and this is what I am trying to argue.
Good point. I sort of took that bit for granted when making this thread. I also made the assumption that the burglar was either caught red handed, or otherwise certain to be an actual burglar. The fact that the suspect was fleeing from police is a decent indicator that he is not a saint.
"The fact that the suspect was fleeing from police is a decent indicator that he is not a saint."
Plenty of people in this country fear the police because they don't believe they'll be treated fairly. And that may make their reactions different to yours or mine with their amygdala getting control over the rest of the brain.
If you are white and middle class in the UK you are less likely to be stopped by the police and more likely to be treated properly. Outside that demographic, you have a higher chance of being cuffed, searched, spending a night in a cell, etc.
I was stopped for speeding in France in the 90s. In the back of the police car I realised that the officer had a gun and almost had a bowel movement. Rational risk to me? Near zero. Unconscious response? A bit different.
So please do not assume that those who panic and make off are automatically guilty and deserve birching.
That is most definitely the case. To my knowledge, the victim has yet to be beatified. Same for my good self, but shouldn't be long now.....
So cos the copper "knows" the victim to be a wrong'un (cos he run, innit), the copper is permitted to mete a bit of street justice by way of running him over, in spite of the victim not appearing to be putting anyone at risk?
I'll save you the effort of trying to justify this silly assertion. It is not permitted. It is against the law. The copper is not denying deliberately running the victim over, but trying to make out he had legal justification. The copper is therefore no saint. Maybe he should be, I dunno, run over ??
In the words of Alan Partridge, 'he must be guilty otherwise they wouldn't have arrested him'.
It makes me laugh that the folk who throw up comments like this are those least likely to be able (or willing) to apply principles consistently, nor show any willingness to understand cause and effect.....
Edit - Added AlsoSomniloquism's full post, to be clear that they did not say snowflakes, rather were quoting someone else
In general, resorting to broad, non-specific labels is just a way to avoid thinking. It's a lazy political stance to demonise some opponents/disliked group but the main problem is how ill-defined these terms are. What exactly is a snowflake? (or gammon?)
There was a good long read article about this sort of issue last year: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jul/02/deaths-uk-police-pursuits-c...
Key points:
Really fantastic article, thanks
One of the things that screams out to me is that when management allows staff to undertake dangerous activities with inadequate risk assessment or process they are letting those staff down despicably - especially considering that lessons learned is stymied, therefore staff are exposed to that repeated risk unwittingly in the future. The decisions that these officers are required to make time and time again (and clearly unqualified to make) in the heat of the moment are decisions that should be made in the process meetings, in training, and so on. As one of the officers stated, where there is no direct risk to the public, they can always pick the suspect up later.
Perhaps it should be for the court to decide whether the guy was a burgler or not? Or should we allow the police to decide who is guilty or innocent, I'm sure that'd work out well...
Force used has to be proportionate. If a person was threatening to stab people then it might be appropriate to hit them at low speed with a car to save lives. If it's ok to hit suspects with cars then why stop at burglars; what if the suspect has stolen a wallet or items from a shop. It's all a matter of fact and circumstance.
Looking at me in a funny way
Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area after the hours of darkness
Having an offensive wife
Obv all good reasons.
Constable Savage IIRC.