Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932281)

What has the fact that she was a schoolgirl and that it was at night have anything to do with her getting killed. How different would it have been, if she had been sober and thirty years old. This person was not pursuing someone who as refusing to stop, he didn't bother making his presence known, as is prescribed by the regulations he works under and he was driving too fast; faster than many officers knows not to go in the circumstances. This is why he is in jail. He had a total disregard for the safety of the public and this is what caused the death of a child.

---------- Post added at 22:09 ---------- Previous post was at 22:08 ----------





The other car's driver was not evading the officer, so there was no need for a high speed pursuit.

Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34931756)

Well surely that depends on how dangerous the whole incident becomes and just what crime has been committed.Sometimes it must be a better policy of backing off and trying to calm the situation down so there is no danger to the public from a high speed car pursuit unless a crime of murder or armed robbery or kidnapping are involved.:erm:

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931778)

100MPH? Can't recall the speed getting that high on the video or in the evidence at the trial.

Surely you aren't using emotive numbers to try and back up your argument?

Anyway as for the radio part I've no idea whether or not he asked for assistance but I'll refer you to post 285 in this thread which shows the video of the incident that I'd recommend you watch. In case you don't want to check the post I'll repost the highlights.

The video - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7990188.stm

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932316)

I don't understand your point. It doesn't take long to flick a switch. I presume that police cars are equipped with some form of hands free comms, perhaps a push-to-talk system, like I have in my Cessana 182. Talking of which, if you can imagine the procedures taken to avert a spinning dive, before the fifteen seconds it would take to smash into the ground at three hundred knots, I would pretty much believe a police officer in a car could flick a switch to turn on his lights.

Ninety-four miles per hour, is not that short of a hundred really is it. If any other person was approaching a blind corner, in a residential area, wouldn't they slow down a bit? It would not have taken much off the pursuit time, to have slowed down to forty miles per hour, allowing enough stopping time in the event of an emergency.

Informing the control room is part of the pursuit procedure, the control room supervisor would be the pursuit commander and authorisation would happen in a matter of seconds.

The greater risk is to the public when not using lights and sirens. The priority is their safety, not the apprehension of a driver who is not evading capture.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932321)

in the same situation Flyboy what would you have done ?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932300)

i suggest you watch the video again and try to understand what was happening

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932287)

the whys and wherefors of what he did wrong have been done to death you have your opinion i have mine ,we will never agree so i don't see the point of rehashing old news

and there wasn't a high speed pursuit ,he accelerated to catch up with the car that is not by any stretch of your imagination a high speed pursuit

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932281)

as is prescribed by the regulations he works under

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932281)

The other car's driver was not evading the officer, so there was no need for a high speed pursuit.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34932352)

There is nothing in the rules that say you *must* have on your warning equipment.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932358)

Come now, even you can't find that argument worthy.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932358)

Therefore the speed was most certainly unnecessary.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34932362)

It's not an argument. You made an statement that is wrong and I pointed out that it is wrong.



*sigh* :banghead:

No it was not unnecessary, the driver of the Police car was trying to catch up with a car that he believed was stolen. He needed to get behind it quickly to confirm that it was stolen and then if the driver made off he would have started a pursuit.

Watch the video. There is a gap between the two cars that the Police driver has to make up. He can't just dawdle along and hope the car he is after goes slow enough so he can get behind it.

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34932372)

This being the case the law has spoken and unless you think you and other police officers are above the law you are onto a losing fight here

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34932429)

I'm just trying to correct some of the misconceptions some people have that he was screaming around like a loon during the incident.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34932429)

No he was found guilty and I've acknowledged that several times in this thread.

I'm just trying to correct some of the misconceptions some people have that he was screaming around like a loon during the incident.

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34932449)

It certainly looks to me from the contents of your posts that you disagree with the verdict hence the reason I posted what I did

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34932449)

weigh up the risks catch a car thief or kill someone? think he missed the ball on that one eh?

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34932448)

No the video does show quite clearly that he was actively searching for the car and then quite inexplicably he increased his speed to 94MPH on a non straight and undulating section of road with at least one crossing and some houses on it.


knowing the road as i do it does seem reasonable that the officer has come to the conclusion that the car is still on the same road and not turned off into a cul-de-sac or scotswood road and wants to catch up with the car before it gets to the roundabout a few hundred yards up the road were the there is a choice of 3 exits

Finally in the last section you see a person obviously unaware of the approaching danger start to cross the road outside of what looks like houses and the video stops because after that he impacts with the pedestrian killing her probably instantly.

If this vehicle had been double manned and the blues and twos had been on and the watch commander informed of the situation then maybe the would have been a different outcome to this sad story.