Cable Forum
Page 4 of 6 123 4 56
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   This one's going down (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33648048)

xpod 03-05-2009 21:47
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
I wasn't referring especially to this case (although I don't think hearing is blocked by hills) but in general people think the lights and sirens are enough to make everyone behave in a sensible manner and I can assure you that they don't.
Well i can agree with that.
Lights & sirens can indeed make people act in all manner of senseless ways.:tiptoe:
It`s just a pity that the lack of lights and sirens at 94Mph were deemed the sensible thing to do in this case.

Lord Nikon 04-05-2009 02:28
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34787859)
I wasn't referring especially to this case (although I don't think hearing is blocked by hills) but in general people think the lights and sirens are enough to make everyone behave in a sensible manner and I can assure you that they don't.
With all due respect Derek, and without knowing the area myself at all, it's entirely possible that the reflection of sound from the hill and / or surrounding buildings could have led to the impression that the car was a street or more away. The fact that it was night sometimes exacerbates that effect due to reduced traffic, The biggest help at night is the flashing of the beacons on the roof of the police vehicle and the presence of the headlight strobes, since at night the eyes tend to notice perceived movement more readily and a strobe gives the impression of rapid movement. Furthermore, today's modern vehicles have a low audible signature even under aggressive driving conditions. The main VISUAL indicators to pedestrians and other road users present on the police vehicle also were not in operation, and since the battenberg markings are reflective high visibility strips designed to reflect directed light, they would not have helped in the circumstances.

This is not in any way an attack on any posts in this thread, or posters, but an observation.

zing_deleted 04-05-2009 07:27
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34787780)
Ah nice to see the usual feelings of goodwill and peace are still about on CF. Oh...




Broken legs and nooses all round for some people. I suppose all people convicted of Death by Dangerous Driving automatically get a bullet in the kneecaps or back of the head in Zingle and Moldova land? Or just the ones in white hats? :rolleyes:



I suppose that would all depend on if you had a reason to drive at 90MPH which despite what some people want is sometimes necessary to do and is sometimes safe enough to justify doing it.

Have a good look at the video from inside the car.

I'll even go through the salient points for you.

0 - 49 Seconds - Car is travelling at around 30MPH, the driver isn't hooring it about for a laugh. He gets up to just over 40MPH for a few seconds.

50 seconds - A car goes past him in the opposite direction. It is read by his ANPR camera and alerts him by means of a noise and he (I imagine) looks down at the screen to see the vehicle is wanted in connection with a crime.

51 - 72 seconds - Still going at about 30MPH (probably reading why the vehicle is wanted and deciding if it is acceptable to pursue it he finds a spot to turn his vehicle




73 - 96 seconds - He accelerates hard away up a hill to catch the vehicle. In these 20 seconds or so he has to (he is alone in the car so no neighbour to do it
  • Continue driving
  • Make ground on the vehicle
  • Inform his control room he is pursuing a vehicle
  • Decide whether to activate his lights and sirens which may alert the vehicle (still unsighted) he is after it any allow it to dive down a side street
Those 20 seconds has cost a girl her life but he wasn't out with the express intention of killing someone and his driving was in no way dangerous or unprofessional till that point.
As well as him losing his job he'll probably never drive again and he *will* feel remorse for the death, far more than half the people who kill when driving.

The other thing which I've noticed is the only other people in the entire video are at the very end when they were crossing the road. In the previous footage not one other pedestrian was seen and bearing in mind it was after 11 its possible that might have had an impact onto whether or not he activated his warning equipment.

But hey why let that get in the way of a decent witchunt. :mad:

Each case on its own merits

This guy denied it he didnt hold his hands up so let him rot

How you can speak for how he feels I do not know? Will he feel remorse for causing a death or right now will he be feeling remorse cuz he is locked up where he belongs??

You just feel vunerable Derek cuz one of your own has been sent down earlier in the thread you were happy to wait for the verdict now the verdict has been read you are still defending the guilty

zingle land is not that bad you are not surrounded by fairies and pansies and do gooders in it ;)

Hugh 04-05-2009 09:59
Re: This one's going down
 
I quite like my land of fairies and pansies and do gooders, actually - feel the love....:hugs:

zing_deleted 04-05-2009 10:16
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar (Post 34788117)
I quite like my land of fairies and pansies and do gooders, actually - feel the love....:hugs:
Problem is when someone comes into the land with hate no one knows what to do with them and as you try to stroke their hair and say hello they are sticking a knife in your guts ;)

Maggy 04-05-2009 10:27
Re: This one's going down
 
Well it might be nice and an eye opener for the judgemental types here to actually walk a mile in a policeman's shoes. :(

So many of you really seem to equate ALL policemen as being of the same mettle..they are not.Some of them are decent people doing their best whilst being tarred by armchair critics as a bunch of violent speed freaks with no regard for the public.

I wonder how many of us would fare as policemen and if we could actually take split second decisions that do involve life and death decisions and make the correct decision.

Gary L 04-05-2009 10:31
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34788135)
Well it might be nice and an eye opener for the judgemental types here to actually walk a mile in a policeman's shoes. :(
You're generalising Maggy. it's all about this one officer and the death he caused. nobody is really talking about the police in general.

Maggy 04-05-2009 10:34
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34788141)
You're generalising Maggy. it's all about this one officer and the death he caused. nobody is really talking about the police in general.
I've seen too many threads on CF that really show that a few of those posting in this thread dislike the police intensely..

As for generalising try re-reading some of the posts in this thread.

zing_deleted 04-05-2009 10:34
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy J (Post 34788135)
Well it might be nice and an eye opener for the judgemental types here to actually walk a mile in a policeman's shoes. :(

So many of you really seem to equate ALL policemen as being of the same mettle..they are not.Some of them are decent people doing their best whilst being tarred by armchair critics as a bunch of violent speed freaks with no regard for the public.

I wonder how many of us would fare as policemen and if we could actually take split second decisions that do involve life and death decisions and make the correct decision.
I have made it clear on many occasions that there are a few bad apples that need to be got rid of. Talking of being judgmental my uncle is a copper when I was about 15 I stole some money off my mother he took me to see the chief constable as a frightener. Well he made a judgment on me that day thats lasted about 10 or more years after I had totally cleaned myself up and my twin cousins were visiting my uncle (his nieces my mum has 4 siblings) I was at his brothers house and he told me about the visit so he called my policeman uncle and asked if I could go visit. He said once a thief always a thief and he refused to let me visit . So we are all capable of being judgmental

He is also the same one who was violent and the old boys brigade covered it up

I judge as I see on individual merit. I have had my run ins with the law in my youth and I have experienced both sides good coppers and bad coppers so I do know what I am talking about

Derek 22-09-2009 20:14
Re: This one's going down
 
I wonder what this guy will get. I'd imagine a hell of lot more than 3 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8269173.stm

Quote:
An ex-Met police officer who crashed into a woman after driving at 100mph on an errand in a patrol car has admitted causing death by dangerous driving.

Gary L 22-09-2009 20:22
Re: This one's going down
 
Hopefully about 15.

papa smurf 22-09-2009 20:23
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34876803)
I wonder what this guy will get. I'd imagine a hell of lot more than 3 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8269173.stm
a life time to reflect on what he has done:(

Derek 22-09-2009 20:28
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34876809)
Hopefully about 15.
14 is the maximum IIRC. With a guilty plea knocking at least a 1/3 off it even if the judge puts him as an example he'd only get 10-ish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf
a life time to reflect on what he has done
Yep. A stupid, stupid thing to do.

punky 22-09-2009 20:47
Re: This one's going down
 
I can't see him getting the maximum. Noone does. Its rare anyone does end up even with a custodial sentence.

This chap was considerably worse and only got 7 years http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/8268874.stm

Probably 3/4 is what he would get.

soicky 22-09-2009 21:48
Re: This one's going down
 
It'll be a lot worse for him though being a copper.

SMG 22-09-2009 23:14
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by soicky (Post 34876908)
It'll be a lot worse for him though being a copper.

Yes, & a lot of decent traffic cops will have to live him down. He deserves everything he gets.

Gary L 26-10-2009 15:15
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34876803)
I wonder what this guy will get. I'd imagine a hell of lot more than 3 years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8269173.stm
He got 6.5 years.

Quote:
IPCC investigators found Searles had gone on the personal errand, while on duty, to his sister's house in Swanley, Kent.
He used a police car and had driven at speeds of more than 100mph during the evening.

IPCC commissioner Mike Franklin said: “Our investigation found that Malcolm Searles undertook a high speed joyride in a police vehicle on residential streets for nothing more than personal errands. "In doing so, he grossly abused the high levels of trust and responsibility placed in any police officer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8326133.stm

zing_deleted 26-10-2009 15:51
Re: This one's going down
 
excellent sentance. It does not bring back the woman but it sends a message. Nasty time inside for him one hopes

martyh 26-10-2009 16:14
Re: This one's going down
 
good sentence ,but the damage to the force will last a lot longer

punky 26-10-2009 16:27
Re: This one's going down
 
Why is it people want him to have a worse time purely because he's a copper? They are only human like everyone and prone to making the same mistakes as everyone else. When a painter & decorator kills someone through excessive speed or drink or talking on his mobile it doesn't illicit the same response?

Scratch that, I know why. Its just a shame.

He's made a mistake, he'll be paying the price and that should be the end of it like it is for every other profession than the police.

zing_deleted 26-10-2009 16:33
Re: This one's going down
 
he abused a position of trust Punky simple as, let him rot

You say he made a mistake? yeah driving a police car in excess of 100 mph on a errand thats a little more than a mistake.

I do no understand why some people have a softly softly approach to people who simply do not deserve it

BTW it would illicit such a response from me if it was newsworthy and posted here. The fact he was a copper gives the story a high profile and means it merits a post here on the forum where we are to offer our opinions

punky 26-10-2009 16:37
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zing (Post 34898371)
he abused a position of trust Punky simple as, let him rot
More or less the same trust is given to millions of other people on the roads. It was the speed that killed this person not that the fact he was a copper.

Quote:
You say he made a mistake? yeah driving a police car in excess of 100 mph on a errand thats a little more than a mistake.
And yet many other people do the same in non-police cars and doesn't illicit the same reaction

Quote:
I do no understand why some people have a softly softly approach to people who simply do not deserve it
Who's saying softly? He made a mistake and was punished with a fair sentence. It should be said though i've known people with criminal records to get much lower sentences for very similar offences.

Quote:
BTW it would illicit such a response from me if it was newsworthy and posted here. The fact he was a copper gives the story a high profile and means it merits a post here on the forum where we are to offer our opinions
Justice is blind but unfortunately some people just can't see past the uniform.

martyh 26-10-2009 16:45
Re: This one's going down
 
The difference with this case compared to the one at the start of the thread is this officer did not have a legitimate reason to speed he was showing off to family members ,and so deserves to have the book thrown at him
When anybody abuses a position of trust were they are supposed to be upholding the law and setting a example to us lesser mortals they should be treated harsher

zing_deleted 26-10-2009 18:38
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky (Post 34898375)
A\More or less the same trust is given to millions of other people on the roads. It was the speed that killed this person not that the fact he was a copper.



B\ And yet many other people do the same in non-police cars and doesn't illicit the same reaction



C\Who's saying softly? He made a mistake and was punished with a fair sentence. It should be said though i've known people with criminal records to get much lower sentences for very similar offences.



Justice is blind but unfortunately some people just can't see past the uniform.
A\ normal people do not have blues and twos to hide behind.

B\As I said it would if it was posted here.

C\ He did not make a mistake he willingly abused his position for his own aims . We do not know how many time he did the same before this

NoKnowledge 21-12-2009 12:33
Re: This one's going down
 
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/north...2703-25439948/

PC John Dougal will soon be released to spend three days with his family after Christmas.

Chris 21-12-2009 13:48
Re: This one's going down
 
Fair enough. His stupid mistake is his, not his childrens'. They've had to deal with their dad not being around for them for most of this year, at least they'll now get some time with him over Christmas.

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 14:17
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34930956)
Fair enough. His stupid mistake is his, not his childrens'. They've had to deal with their dad not being around for them for most of this year, at least they'll now get some time with him over Christmas.
I can't agree with you here, his children can visit him in prison if need be and if that's not enough, tuff, there is a mother who'll never see her daughter again let alone spend a Christmas with her.

Peter_ 21-12-2009 14:22
Re: This one's going down
 
He should serve his full term behind bars as Hayley's mum cannot see her child at Christmas then why should he, jail should be a punishment not an inconvenience.:mad:

I have ZERO pity for this man or his family as he brought this on himself and took a life.

Chris 21-12-2009 14:22
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34930968)
I can't agree with you here, his children can visit him in prison if need be and if that's not enough, tuff, there is a mother who'll never see her daughter again let alone spend a Christmas with her.
Again, none of that is the children's fault. I assume you've never had to visit anyone in prison. I assure you, it's not a pleasant experience.

LondonRoad 21-12-2009 14:27
Re: This one's going down
 
So should we open the gates and let everybody who has chldren out of prison for Christmas.

Hang on, that isn't fair on the poor prisoners who don't have kids. :erm:

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 14:39
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34930973)
Again, none of that is the children's fault. I assume you've never had to visit anyone in prison. I assure you, it's not a pleasant experience.
You assume wrong. There is one person at fault and that's their father and his punishment is time in prison, not time in prison with a few days of at Christmas, you'll be saying "let Rose West out next, after all she has children".

Damien 21-12-2009 14:42
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34930990)
You assume wrong. There is one person at fault and that's their father and his punishment is time in prison, not time in prison with a few days of at Christmas, you'll be saying "let Rose West out next, after all she has children".
I think that's a bit extreme. They obviously looked at this case, assessed his danger to the public (none), the risk of him absconding (presumably none), and his character and behaviour and decided that on balance it would be a decent thing to let him out for Christmas.

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 14:44
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34930998)
I think that's a bit extreme. They obviously looked at this case, assessed his danger to the public (none), the risk of him absconding (presumably none), and his character and behaviour and decided that on balance it would be a decent thing to let him out for Christmas.
Decent for whom, his victims mother who they didn't even bother to notify...

Russ 21-12-2009 14:44
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 34930998)
I think that's a bit extreme. They obviously looked at this case, assessed his danger to the public (none), the risk of him absconding (presumably none), and his character and behaviour and decided that on balance it would be a decent thing to let him out for Christmas.
Whereas I agree with most of what you say, why should the authorities do anything 'decent' for him?

Derek 21-12-2009 14:45
Re: This one's going down
 
He won't be the only prisoner out for Xmas by any means, some prisons are actually closed over the festive season as all the cons are on leave.

As Damien says what risks are there to the public with him being released?

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 14:47
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931003)
He won't be the only prisoner out for Xmas by any means, some prisons are actually closed over the festive season as all the cons are on leave.

As Damien says what risks are there to the public with him being released?
This isn't about risk, it's about punishment, his actions caused some ones death, it's not like he was caught shop lifting after all

Chris 21-12-2009 14:51
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931005)
This isn't about risk, it's about punishment, his actions caused some ones death, it's not like he was caught shop lifting after all
Punishment is only one aspect of prison. There is also public protection and rehabilitation. All three should be in evidence, and all three should be in proportion to the crime.

Causing death by dangerous driving is rated way down the scale in comparison to manslaughter in our system (and rightly so). Intent should always be a significant factor when deciding on an appropriate sentence. The usual cries of "well there's a family that doesn't have its little girl for Christmas ever again" are part of the consideration but they're not all of it.

Damien 21-12-2009 14:51
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931000)
Decent for whom, his victims mother who they didn't even bother to notify...
Decent to his family, anyway I was making the point that the comparison to Rose West is not fair.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ (Post 34931001)
Whereas I agree with most of what you say, why should the authorities do anything 'decent' for him?
Some compassion, to the right people of decent character, should be a feature of our justice system.

LondonRoad 21-12-2009 14:52
Re: This one's going down
 
The guy was still in denial during his trial claiming he did nothing wrong and his driving was in line with his training. My sympathies lie with the families of victims not with the families of the guilty.

martyh 21-12-2009 14:54
Re: This one's going down
 
i don't have a problem with this ,i didn't agree with him going to prison in the first place

Chris 21-12-2009 14:56
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonRoad (Post 34931014)
My sympathies lie with the families of victims not with the families of the guilty.
Then you have a *lot* to learn about the effects of crime on the families of criminals.

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 14:57
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931011)
Punishment is only one aspect of prison. There is also public protection and rehabilitation. All three should be in evidence, and all three should be in proportion to the crime.

Causing death by dangerous driving is rated way down the scale in comparison to manslaughter in our system (and rightly so). Intent should always be a significant factor when deciding on an appropriate sentence. The usual cries of "well there's a family that doesn't have its little girl for Christmas ever again" are part of the consideration but they're not all of it.
Funnily enough the judge decided an appropriate sentence, 3 years, not a few days of after serving a several months.

Derek 21-12-2009 14:59
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931005)
This isn't about risk, it's about punishment, his actions caused some ones death, it's not like he was caught shop lifting after all
Depends what you want prison to be. If its pure punishment then everyone should pretty much be in solitary for the duration but its not and people get some form of rehabilition for when they get out.

Of course, IMO, he should never have been convicted in the first place but that discussion has been done to death. He was convicted and is now being treated as if he were any other prisoner with no special treatment.

Chris 21-12-2009 14:59
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931021)
Funnily enough the judge decided an appropriate sentence, 3 years, not a few days of after serving a several months.
Funnily enough, judges are generally well aware of exactly how long someone will actually spend inside for any given length of sentence, and tend to take that into account. ;)

Derek 21-12-2009 15:00
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931021)
Funnily enough the judge decided an appropriate sentence, 3 years, not a few days of after serving a several months.
How many people do you think serve anything like what they are sentenced to?

martyh 21-12-2009 15:01
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931024)
Depends what you want prison to be. If its pure punishment then everyone should pretty much be in solitary for the duration but its not and people get some form of rehabilition for when they get out.

Of course, IMO, he should never have been convicted in the first place but that discussion has been done to death. He was convicted and is now being treated as if he were any other prisoner with no special treatment.

exactly ,and as such he is entitled to home leave ,as the other prisoners are ,he will probably be released next year anyway

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 15:06
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931024)
Depends what you want prison to be. If its pure punishment then everyone should pretty much be in solitary for the duration but its not and people get some form of rehabilition for when they get out.

Of course, IMO, he should never have been convicted in the first place but that discussion has been done to death. He was convicted and is now being treated as if he were any other prisoner with no special treatment.
For people who cause death then hell yes prison should be all about punishment. I am usually vocal in support of rehabilitation due to my past occupations but when some one dies as a result of anothers crimes I can't show the same levels of understanding.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:04 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931025)
Funnily enough, judges are generally well aware of exactly how long someone will actually spend inside for any given length of sentence, and tend to take that into account. ;)
I bet he never envisaged him being let out for Christmas after serving a couple of months, what next caveats about no home leave and the like.

LondonRoad 21-12-2009 15:08
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931020)
Then you have a *lot* to learn about the effects of crime on the families of criminals.
Perhaps, My sheltered life is such that I've had more contact with victims of crime rather than the perps and their families. I just don't move in those circles. ;)

I can read though and can form opinion based on what I've read. Imho the perpetrators and their families are given far more consideration than the families of the victims.

Chris 21-12-2009 15:10
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931030)
I bet he never envisaged him being let out for Christmas after serving a couple of months, what next caveats about no home leave and the like.
Given that his crime was dealt with as a serious motoring offence, rather than manslaughter, and that he poses no risk to the public, I'm quite sure the judge was aware that he would be treated as a low-risk, low-category prisoner and therefore eligible for everything that comes with that.

martyh 21-12-2009 15:12
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931030)
I bet he never envisaged him being let out for Christmas after serving a couple of months, what next caveats about no home leave and the like.






he's done 8 months of a three year sentance ,given that most low security prisoners only serve 1/3 of their sentance he's due parole next year also entitled to home leave this year ...exactly the same as prisoners who's crimes are 10 times worse than his

Derek 21-12-2009 15:14
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931038)
exactly the same as prisoners who's crimes are 10 times worse than his
Plus I'd imagine he had no prior convictions to this one unlike 99% of prisoners who are repeat offenders.

Chris 21-12-2009 15:14
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonRoad (Post 34931032)
I can read though and can form opinion based on what I've read. Imho the perpetrators and their families are given far more consideration than the families of the victims.
Then your reading has been very one-sided. You need to put the tabloids down and take a look at what actually happens. Much is unavoidable, because criminals do need to be caught and dealt with, but making a conscious decision not to have any sympathy for families - especially children - who are affected by having a close relative jailed is just needlessly harsh.

LondonRoad 21-12-2009 15:21
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931041)
Then your reading has been very one-sided. You need to put the tabloids down and take a look at what actually happens. Much is unavoidable, because criminals do need to be caught and dealt with, but making a conscious decision not to have any sympathy for families - especially children - who are affected by having a close relative jailed is just needlessly harsh.
I didn't say no sympathy. ;)

You like to pigeon hole people don't you Chris. Do you mean you read something other than your Daily Mail?. :D

You have a *lot* to learn about not reading things that aren't in posts. ;)

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 15:29
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931034)
I'm quite sure the judge was aware that he would be treated as a low-risk, low-category prisoner and therefore eligible for everything that comes with that.
Maybe, not that we'll ever find out but it'd be interesting to know what the judge makes of this decision, I'd like to think he'd be a little annoyed

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931038)
he's done 8 months of a three year sentance ,given that most low security prisoners only serve 1/3 of their sentance he's due parole next year also entitled to home leave this year ...exactly the same as prisoners who's crimes are 10 times worse than his
10 times worse, what they killed 10 young women :confused:

Chris 21-12-2009 15:33
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonRoad (Post 34931044)
I didn't say no sympathy. ;)
You have a *lot* to learn about not reading things that aren't in posts. ;)
I'm sorry, I thought you made a pretty black-and-white statement about your sympathies when you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonRoad (Post 34931014)
The guy was still in denial during his trial claiming he did nothing wrong and his driving was in line with his training. My sympathies lie with the families of victims not with the families of the guilty.
I.E, one and not the other. 'Not' leading, by a very small and entirely reasonable leap of deduction, to 'no' as in 'no sympathy'.

Quote:
You like to pigeon hole people don't you Chris. Do you mean you read something other than your Daily Mail?. :D
I like to think I can get the measure of someone if I read their posts for long enough. ;) You need to try a bit harder if you think I have any regard for the Daily Heil though ... except as a possible source of lavatory paper. :D

martyh 21-12-2009 15:37
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931048)
Maybe, not that we'll ever find out but it'd be interesting to know what the judge makes of this decision, I'd like to think he'd be a little annoyed


why would he be annoyed?if the judge wanted him to serve longer he would have given him a longer sentance

---------- Post added at 16:29 ---------- Previous post was at 16:29 ----------



10 times worse, what they killed 10 young women :confused:

this man wasn't tried as a murderer ,wasn't found guilty of murder ,wasn't tried for drug dealing yet all these crimes i would deem more offensive to society than his and yet these criminals are treated with similar leniency
this man deserved leniency they don't

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 15:43
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931056)
this man wasn't tried as a murderer ,wasn't found guilty of murder ,wasn't tried for drug dealing yet all these crimes i would deem more offensive to society than his and yet these criminals are treated with similar leniency
this man deserved leniency they don't
Murderers aren't allowed out for New Year eight months into their sentence and a lot of people would say he has already recieved a lenient sentence.

martyh 21-12-2009 15:48
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931063)
Murderers aren't allowed out for New Year eight months into their sentence and a lot of people would say he has already recieved a lenient sentence.

you're absolutely correct they are not, but some will only serve a third of the sentence which this man has done (nearly)
whether you agree with the justice system or not doesn't matter the point is he is being treated exactly the same as other prisoners with a three year sentence and given that the privilege of home leave depends on prisoners behaviour i would suggest he has been a model prisoner

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 16:01
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931064)
you're absolutely correct they are not, but some will only serve a third of the sentence which this man has done
and perhaps if they had murdered with a car they'd have only got 3 years to. Actually that is a little unfair, I have no doubt it was unintentional and he'll be carrying guilt around for the rest of his life.

martyh 21-12-2009 16:16
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931073)
and perhaps if they had murdered with a car they'd have only got 3 years to. Actually that is a little unfair, I have no doubt it was unintentional and he'll be carrying guilt around for the rest of his life.

that's the whole point ,the judge recognised it wasn't intentional hence the three year sentance

TheDaddy 21-12-2009 16:37
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931083)
that's the whole point ,the judge recognised it wasn't intentional hence the three year sentance
Some one still died and 3 years isn't a lot for a life when you have shown a complete disregard for others safety, the whole thing was completely avoidable.

martyh 21-12-2009 16:51
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 34931090)
Some one still died and 3 years isn't a lot for a life when you have shown a complete disregard for others safety, the whole thing was completely avoidable.
so are most deaths but they still happen ,they are dealt with how we as a society see fit.I think in this case he should not have gone to prison but obviously the judge did .A prison sentence in this case was purely to satisfy the punishment factor ,it had nothing to do with rehabilitation

Flyboy 21-12-2009 18:08
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34930971)
He should serve his full term behind bars as Hayley's mum cannot see her child at Christmas then why should he, jail should be a punishment not an inconvenience.:mad:

I have ZERO pity for this man or his family as he brought this on himself and took a life.
I shouldn't think that it is for his benefit, but the children's. But then, I would say that they could probably do without him as a father.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:02 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by LondonRoad (Post 34930982)
So should we open the gates and let everybody who has chldren out of prison for Christmas.

Hang on, that isn't fair on the poor prisoners who don't have kids. :erm:
Many prisoners are released, on home visits, over Christmas. There are several reasons for this. For example:
  • So that the criminal's family doesn't have to suffer
  • So that the prison population is reduced and therefore allows more prison officers to have time off and spend it with their families.

This release is not restricted to parents either, it happens to non-parents as well. Also, it is a privilege earned and can be (and often is) withdrawn at a moment's notice.

martyh 21-12-2009 18:10
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34931152)
I shouldn't think that it is for his benefit, but the children's. But then, I would say that they could probably do without him as a father.
it's being done for anyones benefit it's being done because he's due paroll next year,has been a model prisoner and so gets home leave ,no different to any other prisoner ..simple

realy don't see what the big deal is

Peter_ 21-12-2009 20:10
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931098)
I think in this case he should not have gone to prison but obviously the judge did .
Oh but he should have gone to prison and for a damn sight longer, he killed an innocent young girl for no reason and at a ridiculously high speed and you think he should be walking the streets with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

If she had been your child you would be thinking very very differently about this man who killed a girl with a weapon, his speeding car.

martyh 21-12-2009 20:24
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931224)
Oh but he should have gone to prison and for a damn sight longer, he killed an innocent young girl for no reason and at a ridiculously high speed and you think he should be walking the streets with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

If she had been your child you would be thinking very very differently about this man who killed a girl with a weapon, his speeding car.

the problem is though Moldova it wasn't a weapon it was a police car doing legitimate police buisness ,he didn't murder her .he didn't set out to kill her ,and he most certainly didn't get a slap on the wrist ,his life is ruined along with his families for an error in judgement that he most assuredly wishes had never happened .

Peter_ 21-12-2009 20:39
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931232)
the problem is though Moldova it wasn't a weapon it was a police car doing legitimate police buisness ,he didn't murder her .he didn't set out to kill her ,and he most certainly didn't get a slap on the wrist ,his life is ruined along with his families for an error in judgement that he most assuredly wishes had never happened .
A Police Car doing 94 MPH on a normal housing estate road without his blues and two's on and the was absolutely no need for him to be speeding in such a way as this was just because ANPR bleeped.

So when did it become legitimate for the Police to speed on normal roads without using all means at their disposal to warn the public of their approach.

That is not the behaviour of a Police officer who is supposed to be highly trained but an idiot driving a car at high speed.

I would advocate longer jail terms for anyone who killed an innocent victim at those kind of speeds.

Remember the ANPR only bleeped because it was a motoring offence and it was also a no longer valid warrant and a young girl died for that reason.

10 years without parole or day release would be a fair sentence, his kids should have to spend Christmas in jail with daddy, at least he can still see them at this time of year.

martyh 21-12-2009 20:52
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931236)
A Police Car doing 94 MPH on a normal housing estate road without his blues and two's on and the was absolutely no need for him to be speeding in such a way as this was just because ANPR bleeped.

So when did it become legitimate for the Police to speed on normal roads without using all means at their disposal to warn the public of their approach.

That is not the behaviour of a Police officer who is supposed to be highly trained but an idiot driving a car at high speed.

I would advocate longer jail terms for anyone who killed an innocent victim at those kind of speeds.

Remember the ANPR only bleeped because it was a motoring offence and it was also a no longer valid warrant and a young girl died for that reason.

10 years without parole or day release would be a fair sentence, his kids should have to spend Christmas in jail with daddy, at least he can still see them at this time of year.

well i'm pleased people like you don't make the rules ,like i said he made an error of judgement acting on outdated information from his computer ,he made a judgement call and got it wrong ,that does not mean he should spend the next 10yrs in the nick ,he is not a murderer legally or moraly imo

Peter_ 21-12-2009 20:59
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931240)
well i'm pleased people like you don't make the rules ,like i said he made an error of judgement acting on outdated information from his computer ,he made a judgement call and got it wrong ,that does not mean he should spend the next 10yrs in the nick ,he is not a murderer legally or moraly imo
So hitting someone at 94 MPH in a car requires no punishment because he was a Policeman who was not actually doing his job correctly, as he failed in so many ways by speeding at excessive speed in a built up residential area and did not switch on his siren or blue lights which may have possibly prevented this tragedy from happening.

Not the kind of person I want policing my roads or anyone elses roads.

Just a thought if this guy had done this to your son or daughter would you just shrug your shoulders and think well he is a policeman doing his job and then when you met him afterwards would you shake his hand and say no hard feelings mate as you were only doing your job.

martyh 21-12-2009 21:07
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931244)
So hitting someone at 94 MPH in a car requires no punishment because he was a Policeman who was not actually doing his job correctly, as he failed in so many ways by speeding at excessive speed in a built up residential area and did not switch on his siren or blue lights which may have possibly prevented this tragedy from happening.

Not the kind of person I want policing my roads or anyone elses roads.
but he has been punished ,he got three years ,some think it too much and some think it not enough ,he made a mistake and got punished ,do you not make mistakes? things go wrong for the most sensible and professional people in the world ,we should not as a society lump them together with murderers ,rapists,drugdealers ect

and to answere your question ,yes i probably would react differently if it was my child as would most ,but i can also guarantee you would think differently if your wife or son/daughter killed someone while driving ,that's just human nature

NoKnowledge 21-12-2009 21:15
Re: This one's going down
 
If anybody care for a read http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov...ing-advice.pdf

also whether this applies to highly trained drivers of police or not I don't know. I would've thought they be more strict with the sentencing guidelines with police as they are trained, going by the law of
if you don't have a licence the sentence is lenient if you cause death and if you have a licence and cause death you get the full effect of the law.

Derek 21-12-2009 22:54
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931236)
Remember the ANPR only bleeped because it was a motoring offence and it was also a no longer valid warrant and a young girl died for that reason.
Have you seen the video of the incident?

It's not someone screaming about doing donuts and J-turns. The actual time from the vehicle pinging on the ANPR and the impact is about 15 seconds if I recall correctly.

In that time a single crewed car has a lot to do, firing on the blue lights when the car is already in the distance gives the driver far more time to put his foot down before the Police car could get anywhere near him.

Julian 22-12-2009 07:35
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34931152)
I shouldn't think that it is for his benefit, but the children's. But then, I would say that they could probably do without him as a father.

At what point in your opinion did he become unfit to be a father?

When he crashed his car into a drunk 16 year old schoolgirl?
Or when he joined the police force?

LondonRoad 22-12-2009 07:37
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931053)
I'm sorry,
No need to apologise. ;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931053)
I thought you made a pretty black-and-white statement about your sympathies when you said:



I.E, one and not the other. 'Not' leading, by a very small and entirely reasonable leap of deduction, to 'no' as in 'no sympathy'.
I doubt if most people would read into that what you have. Maybes us tabloid reeedurs don't nede as meny wurds to get the jist of an internet post,:D so for clarities sake for those broadsheet readers with bigger brains than mine, :erm: My sympathy lies mainly, but not exclusively, with the family of the victims. :D

It's right that families and prisoners are given support. I feel more sympathy for the victims who find about releases/home visits by the local press knocking on their front door. It's a very emotional time of the year for anybody who has suffered a bereavement. The first couple of Christmases must be particularly hellish for a parent who has lost a child. I can only imagine hearing such news 3rd hand must be extremely upsetting to those who are grieving.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931053)
I like to think I can get the measure of someone if I read their posts for long enough. ;) You need to try a bit harder if you think I have any regard for the Daily Heil though ... except as a possible source of lavatory paper. :D
If you think you can get the measure of me reading the drivel I post you are way off the mark.:D If you had been as observant as you think you are you would have noticed the smiley icon and deduced that I've been observant enough to notice your feelings about that particular rag.;) If you'd been more observant in your attempt to get the measure of me you'd already know that it's a viewpoint we share. :D

Peter_ 22-12-2009 08:01
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931306)
Have you seen the video of the incident?

It's not someone screaming about doing donuts and J-turns. The actual time from the vehicle pinging on the ANPR and the impact is about 15 seconds if I recall correctly.

In that time a single crewed car has a lot to do, firing on the blue lights when the car is already in the distance gives the driver far more time to put his foot down before the Police car could get anywhere near him.
I do not go with the excuse that he was a lone driver, if he had not accelerated to such an extreme speed he would have been able to switch his blues and twos on and possibly not killed Hayley.

It was a residential housing estate and no one has the right to barrel down a ordinary road at that speed policeman or not and regardless of the possibility of warning the criminal that he is being pursued the safety of the public should be and must be paramount in any public servants mind and his siren and blue lights should have been switched on.

When did the members of the public become second fiddle to a copper handing out a ticket?

If anyone in your job thinks in this way then they should resign with immediate effect as they are a liability and a danger to the public.

He is a killer and thus should be treated as such regardless of his previous status and therefore his family should have to visit him in prison at Christmas to remind him of what he has done.

---------- Post added at 09:01 ---------- Previous post was at 08:56 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian (Post 34931363)

When he crashed his car into a drunk 16 year old schoolgirl?
He killed a 16 year old girl for no reason other than he thought he had to nick someone by driving at a ridiculously high speed without any warnings, her possibly being drunk has no bearings on the fact that he killed her through excessive use of speed.

Flyboy 22-12-2009 13:48
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian (Post 34931363)
At what point in your opinion did he become unfit to be a father?
I really have no idea, do you?

Quote:
When he crashed his car into a drunk 16 year old schoolgirl?
Or when he joined the police force?
What does her status have anything to do with being mowed down at speeds close to one hnundred miles per hour? Does that make it her fault then?

Russ 22-12-2009 13:54
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34931541)
I really have no idea, do you?
Julian isn't the one who seems to be suggesting he's an unfit father.

martyh 22-12-2009 14:43
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34931541)
I really have no idea, do you?



What does her status have anything to do with being mowed down at speeds close to one hnundred miles per hour? Does that make it her fault then?

because she was drunk she had been drinking in the nearby dean with her friends

and why is he a unfit father ?

Derek 22-12-2009 20:03
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931372)
It was a residential housing estate and no one has the right to barrel down a ordinary road at that speed policeman or not and regardless of the possibility of warning the criminal that he is being pursued the safety of the public should be and must be paramount in any public servants mind and his siren and blue lights should have been switched on.
There is a risk in every car journey. There is a higher risk when you start going above the speed limit. There is a risk when a criminal makes off from the Police. There is a risk in the second it takes to turn on the warning equipment or use the radio.

Everything is a risk, you have to balance all the risks with the interests of justice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931372)
When did the members of the public become second fiddle to a copper handing out a ticket?
It wasn't exactly 'handing out a ticket' He thought he was going after a stolen vehicle.
Unless of course you think thats not something the Police should get involved with. :rolleyes:

If someone drives off from the Police do you think they should be pursued or should the police just sit back and let them go just in case?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931372)
If anyone in your job thinks in this way then they should resign with immediate effect as they are a liability and a danger to the public.
There would be a whole lot of coppers resigning if that were the case.

Peter_ 22-12-2009 20:11
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931734)
There is a risk in every car journey. There is a higher risk when you start going above the speed limit. There is a risk when a criminal makes off from the Police. There is a risk in the second it takes to turn on the warning equipment or use the radio.

Everything is a risk, you have to balance all the risks with the interests of justice.
So you think he just took a risk that backfired then especially as ther driver of the car was not actually speeding to get away because he was innocent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931734)
It wasn't exactly 'handing out a ticket' He thought he was going after a stolen vehicle.
Unless of course you think thats not something the Police should get involved with. :rolleyes:

If someone drives off from the Police do you think they should be pursued or should the police just sit back and let them go just in case?
Speed was the issue and his speed killed a young girl unnecessarily all for the sake of a possible stolen car which he pursued at high speed with scant disregard for the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931734)

There would be a whole lot of coppers resigning if that were the case.
Then we would have a lot of potential killers off the road if that is the kind of attitude they have.

Derek 22-12-2009 20:19
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931739)
So you think he just took a risk that backfired then especially as ther driver of the car was not actually speeding to get away because he was innocent.
Yep thats what I think. As I've stated before I don't think he should have been convicted but he was and now he is being treated like any other person convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931739)
Speed was the issue and his speed killed a young girl unnecessarily all for the sake of a possible stolen car which he pursued at high speed with scant disregard for the public.
Nice skipping of the question. Do you think the police should pursue drivers of stolen vehicles who may fail to stop?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931739)
Then we would have a lot of potential killers off the road if that is the kind of attitude they have.
Or maybe we'd have a lot of highly capable and competent drivers off the road who are trained to an exceptionally high standard.

Accidents happen. Thats a fact of life.
When you are going at speed and not adhering to all of the rules of the road (within reason) then it pretty obvious the consequences will probably be worse than a 'normal' crash.

Peter_ 22-12-2009 20:24
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931744)
Nice skipping of the question. Do you think the police should pursue drivers of stolen vehicles who may fail to stop?
No skipping of a question as the was no pursuit required as the driver of the car that was pinged was actually innocent and not trying to get away and actually stopped because he saw the accident in his rear view mirror if I remember correctly.

martyh 22-12-2009 20:27
Re: This one's going down
 
Moldova,police officers make on the spot judgement calls every day of the week at all times of the day if this incident had happened in the day time i doubt very much the officer would have driven like that ,the fact that it was almost midnight on a main road (not a housing estate as you say )he probably wouldn't expect to see a schoolgirl crossing the road so he made a descision and got it wrong ,it's a very easy thing to do ,you could do it ,i could do it, anyone could do it and that is not just limited to drivers ,scaffolders,electricians ,airplane mechanics most jobs involve some risk to peoples lives if not done 100%correct 100%of the time it does not mean that they should be hung ,drawn and quartered by people who think they are beyond fault

Derek 22-12-2009 20:29
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931747)
No skipping of a question as the was no pursuit required as the driver of the car that was pinged was actually innocent and not trying to get away and actually stopped because he saw the accident in his rear view mirror if I remember correctly.
Sadly they dropped the 100% perfect hindsight requirement a few years back.

At the time of the incident the officer involved thought the vehicle was stolen.

So for a third time.

Do you think the police should pursue drivers of stolen vehicles who may fail to stop?

martyh 22-12-2009 20:32
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931747)
No skipping of a question as the was no pursuit required as the driver of the car that was pinged was actually innocent and not trying to get away and actually stopped because he saw the accident in his rear view mirror if I remember correctly.

but modova the drivers innocence could not be verified until he had been stopped because the computer was out of date and the officer didn't know that so the officer was pursuing a stolen car

Maggy 22-12-2009 20:38
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931751)
Sadly they dropped the 100% perfect hindsight requirement a few years back.

At the time of the incident the officer involved thought the vehicle was stolen.

So for a third time.

Do you think the police should pursue drivers of stolen vehicles who may fail to stop?
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:

Peter_ 22-12-2009 20:44
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931751)
Sadly they dropped the 100% perfect hindsight requirement a few years back.

At the time of the incident the officer involved thought the vehicle was stolen.

So for a third time.

Do you think the police should pursue drivers of stolen vehicles who may fail to stop?
Through a housing estate at speeds up 100MPH without any warning to potential pedestrians who may not be aware of the fast approaching vehicle I would say not in those circumstances as the is a chance an incident such as this may occur.

He had a radio and could have radioed for assistance gave the registration and just reversed direction and followed the driver out of the estate and then attempted to stop him which then would not have ended in a fatality.

---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931754)
but modova the drivers innocence could not be verified until he had been stopped because the computer was out of date and the officer didn't know that so the officer was pursuing a stolen car
No reason to pursue at such a high speed through a residential area especially as he could have used his radio to call for assistance.

martyh 22-12-2009 20:47
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
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:
i think that is the police policy ,to back away if the danger to the public is deemed to great ,in this case an error of judgement was made because the officer didn't expect to see a child crossing that road at that time of night ,and it must be appreciated that the whole incident took place in under 1/4 mile of road so it was a short burst of speed to catch up with the vehicle

---------- Post added at 21:47 ---------- Previous post was at 21:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931758)
Through a housing estate at speeds up 100MPH without any warning to potential pedestrians who may not be aware of the fast approaching vehicle I would say not in those circumstances as the is a chance an incident such as this may occur.

He had a radio and could have radioed for assistance gave the registration and just reversed direction and followed the driver out of the estate and then attempted to stop him which then would not have ended in a fatality.

---------- Post added at 21:44 ---------- Previous post was at 21:42 ----------


No reason to pursue at such a high speed through a residential area especially as he could have used his radio to call for assistance.
Moldova ..it WASN'T a housing estate

Peter_ 22-12-2009 20:52
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931761)
i think that is the police policy ,to back away if the danger to the public is deemed to great ,in this case an error of judgement was made because the officer didn't expect to see a child crossing that road at that time of night
It could have been anyone as it was a housing estate or residential area


Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931761)
it must be appreciated that the whole incident took place in under 1/4 mile of road so it was a short burst of speed to catch up with the vehicle
A short burst of speed up to 94MPH was he in a drag race at Santa Pod or a residential area, no excuse works for his excessive speed.

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931761)



Moldova ..it WASN'T a housing estate
It was not on a dual carriageway or a motorway but in a residential area.

Derek 22-12-2009 21:03
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931758)
Through a housing estate at speeds up 100MPH without any warning to potential pedestrians who may not be aware of the fast approaching vehicle I would say not in those circumstances as the is a chance an incident such as this may occur.
*snip*
No reason to pursue at such a high speed through a residential area especially as he could have used his radio to call for assistance.
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.

Quote:
He accelerates hard away up a hill to catch the vehicle. In these 20 seconds or so he has to (he is alone in the car so no neighbour to do it

* Continue driving
* Make ground on the vehicle
* Inform his control room he is pursuing a vehicle
* Decide whether to activate his lights and sirens which may alert the vehicle (still unsighted) he is after it any allow it to dive down a side street
The video - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7990188.stm

---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931761)
i think that is the police policy ,to back away if the danger to the public is deemed to great
It is.

That said the entire incident takes place over about 20 seconds. Either you don't spontaneously pursue vehicles or you accept pursuits may start and will go on for a bit before either the cop or the local control room stands it down.

Peter_ 22-12-2009 21:13
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
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

---------- Post added at 22:03 ---------- Previous post was at 22:00 ----------



It is.

That said the entire incident takes place over about 20 seconds. Either you don't spontaneously pursue vehicles or you accept pursuits may start and will go on for a bit before either the cop or the local control room stands it down.
I have already said 94MPH and speeds approaching anywhere near 100MPH on that type of road is quite wrong as that video quite clearly shows, and the is actually pedestrian crossings and houses in that video at the point of impact.

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------

The point is really and I stand by it is that he was found guilty of killing someone and should be made to serve out the full term of his 3 year sentence without it being reduced for good behaviour and nor should he be let out on licence while serving his sentence even if it is only for Christmas and the sake of his children.

I feel absolutely no pity for this character or his family at Christmas and he should remain locked up for the remainder of his sentence.

martyh 22-12-2009 21:18
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931767)
It could have been anyone as it was a housing estate or residential area

thats part of the risk



A short burst of speed up to 94MPH was he in a drag race at Santa Pod or a residential area, no excuse works for his excessive speed.

no he was trying to catch a stolen car

---------- Post added at 21:52 ---------- Previous post was at 21:51 ----------


It was not on a dual carriageway or a motorway but in a residential area.
so criminals are allowed to get away crimes if it 's done in a built up area ?

Chris 22-12-2009 21:24
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931784)
The point is really and I stand by it is that he was found guilty of killing someone and should be made to serve out the full term of his 3 year sentence without it being reduced for good behaviour and nor should he be let out on licence while serving his sentence even if it is only for Christmas and the sake of his children.
Is this because you think the current way sentences are formulated and carried out is wrong, or because you don't understand how the system currently works?

No judge, anywhere in the UK, would expect a person of general good character to spend anywhere near his full term in jail. It just doesn't happen. Judges know this. When a judge passes a sentence of three years, he is totally aware that he is actually locking the man up for less than half of that time.

If you bring in a regime where everyone serves their full term, you will at a stroke cause judges to start passing more lenient sentences to take account of that.

Let me reiterate this, just to be absolutely crystal clear: the judge in this case knew there was a very good chance the police officer would be let out for Christmas leave this year and right now he knows this man is near certain to be let out altogether within a very few more months.

If the judge had intended the police officer not to be looking at release any time in the next few months, then he would have passed a far longer sentence.


Quote:
I feel absolutely no pity for this character
You're perfectly entitled to feel that way.

Quote:
or his family at Christmas
in which case, you sir, are a heartless fool. What, exactly, have this man's family done to deserve what has happened to them this year? It may be the unavoidable consequence of what the man has done, but that doesn't mean the rest of them deserve what they're getting. A little understanding would cost you nothing.

Quote:
and he should remain locked up for the remainder of his sentence.
You really shouldn't bother wearing out your keyboard demanding something that cannot happen without some very fundamental changes to the way prison works in this country.

Peter_ 22-12-2009 21:26
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931789)
so criminals are allowed to get away crimes if it 's done in a built up area ?
What crime gives him the right to accelerate like that in that kind of area with road crossings and houses and it was not even on a straight and level road.

Also that was not all within 1/4 of a mile as per your previous post.

Watch Dereks video link and you will see that she never stood a chance.

No Chris not a fool nor heartless as at least that would be some form of justice him serving his full sentence.

martyh 22-12-2009 21:31
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931784)
I have already said 94MPH and speeds approaching anywhere near 100MPH on that type of road is quite wrong as that video quite clearly shows, and the is actually pedestrian crossings and houses in that video at the point of impact.

---------- Post added at 22:13 ---------- Previous post was at 22:09 ----------

The point is really and I stand by it is that he was found guilty of killing someone and should be made to serve out the full term of his 3 year sentence without it being reduced for good behaviour and nor should he be let out on licence while serving his sentence even if it is only for Christmas and the sake of his children.

I feel absolutely no pity for this character or his family at Christmas and he should remain locked up for the remainder of his sentence.

then i feel sorry for you ,his family had nothing to with it and there life is wrecked .Sentiments like yours should be reserved for murderers,rapists,pheodophiles and such, not people who make a innocent mistake

Peter_ 22-12-2009 21:35
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931795)
then i feel sorry for you ,his family had nothing to with it and there life is wrecked .Sentiments like yours should be reserved for murderers,rapists,pheodophiles and such, not people who make a innocent mistake
I have nothing to feel sorry for, as it was him who killed someone and is being punished for it by being jailed.

Chris 22-12-2009 21:36
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931792)
No Chris not a fool nor heartless as at least that would be some form of justice.
Eh? Seriously, do you believe justice is served by intentionally ensuring a criminal's children suffer for their father's crime?

martyh 22-12-2009 21:37
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931792)
What crime gives him the right to accelerate like that in that kind of area with road crossings and houses and it was not even on a straight and level road.

Also that was not all within 1/4 of a mile as per your previous post.

Watch Dereks video link and you will see that she never stood a chance.

No Chris not a fool nor heartless as at least that would be some form of justice him serving his full sentence.

1/4 mile

probly should mention i live there

Peter_ 22-12-2009 21:43
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931799)
Eh? Seriously, do you believe justice is served by intentionally ensuring a criminal's children suffer for their father's crime?
If he is in jail for a crime that he was convicted of why should he get out for Christmas, many other criminals will not get out at this time so why should it be different for him.

He will not serve the 3 years as he will get out for good behaviour probably before next Christmas so what is one missed Christmas.

---------- Post added at 22:43 ---------- Previous post was at 22:40 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931800)
1/4 mile

probly should mention i live there
Maybe in a straightish line when he accelerated before the impact but he travelled further than that before speeding up as he went down a few roads searching for the car before that fatal burst of speed.

That is clearly seen in the video.

Derek 22-12-2009 21:44
Re: This one's going down
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34931802)
If he is in jail for a crime that he was convicted of why should he get out for Christmas, many other criminals will not get out at this time so why should it be different for him.
And many will get out so why should it be different to him.

He is NOT being given any preferential treatment.


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:41.
Page 4 of 6 123 4 56
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum