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.

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.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34931805)

And many will get out so why should it be different to him.

He is NOT being given any preferential treatment.

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.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 34931815)

Now, don't try wriggling off. I'm not talking about him, I'm talking about his family. After all, less than half an hour ago you said:



Feel no pity for him, by all means. But don't be so harsh on his kids. They didn't ask for this. They didn't do anything wrong. I don't say he should get special treatment because he has kids - but I do say his kids deserve some sympathy for what they've been put through.



One missed Christmas is plenty bad enough. I know a family where two kids missed their dad over Christmas, a few years back, because he was stupid enough to video himself tearing down a dual carriageway on his motorbike at speeds well over 100mph. He deserved a good slap for it and he got one (4-6 weeks IIRC). But they didn't deserve it.

They suffered it, because it's inevitable part of him being locked up, but they didn't deserve it. And thankfully they were surrounded by friends and family who did not think the way you seem to. They had sympathy for the children's predicament and went into overdrive to try to ensure they had as fun a Christmas as they could without their dad being around.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34931749)

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

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?

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

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.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932481)

[/B]


agree 100% there ,i am sure that all officers would prefer to have a co-driver with them when engaging in pursuits of any kind ,but sadly in this case that didn't happen and the end result is a tragedy
Maybe we should also be looking at the way the police force operate in respect to these cases ,should drivers even be on there own? is it safe for drivers however well trained to operate the electronics in such cars whilst driving at high speed ,is it even legal?
the police are in a very hard position because they have to adopt a one rule for everyone attitude ,if a passing car is flagged as stolen then it must be stopped ,the officer doesn't know if that car is genuinely stolen or a error on the system ,he doesn't know if it's joy riders or a murderer escaping the scene or indeed a innocent driver who's car had been stolen ,then recovered but the system not updated quickly enough ,all of this must be taken into consideration imo and do go some way to explain the drivers actions

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34932470)

I do disagree with the verdict but thats the beauty of living in a free country. Do you agree with all the verdicts decided upon in courts in the UK or do you sometimes think they get it wrong.



Its a balancing act. The safest thing to do would be never break the speed limit at all. If you've ever had a car nicked how would you feel if the Police had it in their sights but didn't follow the driver "Just in case"

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932481)

[/B]


agree 100% there ,i am sure that all officers would prefer to have a co-driver with them when engaging in pursuits of any kind ,but sadly in this case that didn't happen and the end result is a tragedy
Maybe we should also be looking at the way the police force operate in respect to these cases ,should drivers even be on there own? is it safe for drivers however well trained to operate the electronics in such cars whilst driving at high speed ,is it even legal?
the police are in a very hard position because they have to adopt a one rule for everyone attitude ,if a passing car is flagged as stolen then it must be stopped ,the officer doesn't know if that car is genuinely stolen or a error on the system ,he doesn't know if it's joy riders or a murderer escaping the scene or indeed a innocent driver who's car had been stolen ,then recovered but the system not updated quickly enough ,all of this must be taken into consideration imo and do go some way to explain the drivers actions

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932490)

I would rather that a child was not killed for the sake of piece of metal. I would rather that the police officer behaved in a responsible manner, in accordance with his job. If a police officer told me that the reason they did not recover my vehicle, was because to do so would have caused a greater danger to the public, I would have most certainly accepted it.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932490)

As far as I am aware, the ANPR system will tell the officer why it has been flagged. I am pretty sure that if it was an armed robber, or a murder escaping the scene, it would be a foolhardy exercise to pursue someone without knowing why. This will more than likely put that officer in greater danger.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932496)

I'ts very easy for us to sit back and pull apart a certain incident and making judgements with the benefit of hindsight but out there in the real world it's totally different

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932496)

well in the ideal world that would happen but out here in the real world the police have to take risks both with there own lives and the publics because the criminals don't care about either and thanks to the massive ammount of training our police get loss of life and injury are kept to a absolute minimum
I'ts very easy for us to sit back and pull apart a certain incident and making judgements with the benefit of hindsight but out there in the real world it's totally different

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34932498)

So if you were a cop in a Police car and a car sailed through a set of red lights in front of you would you follow him?
If he then started to drive erratically would you keep on following him?

And on a side note what do you think happens with stolen cars? Do you think they get parked up on a side road for a bit or do they get used in committing more serious crimes.

If you don't want the Police to drive fast anywhere then please tell them, write to your MP demanding the Volvos, BMWs and Evos get replaced with smart cars, preferably with mattresses strapped to the front just in case. Either that or pay people to walk about in front of them with a red flag. :dozey:

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34932536)

What utter tosh. Are you seriously suggesting that police officers have carte blanche to put the public at risk, that they have some sort of "get out of jail free" card? The "risks" you speak of are totally unacceptable, in any walk of life. The police are not there to put the public's lives in danger, irrespective of the goal. This was not some master criminal he was chasing, it was someone whose car had been flagged by his ANPR, ( I do not know why, perhaps someone could enlighten me) and he decided that his speed was more important than the protection of the public, his highest priority. It seems that the judge and jury agreed, that is why he is in prison.



well every time you get into a car you risk killing pedestrians but you deem it an acceptible risk ,don't you and i assume you stick ridgedly to the speed limit but then you aren't trying catching criminals

---------- Post added at 13:24 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------



So let me ask you, is driving at speeds, close to one hundred miles per hour, in a residential area, at night, an acceptable risk to take? Bear in mind the result of this driver's actions.


yes it is imo , high speed driving happens all the time in that area because it is a high crime area ,lots of car crime ,drunk teenagers ,beatings ,muggings ect

Are you suggesting that I do not have the right to have an opinion, because I am not a police officer?


of course you have as we have the right to disagree with them

Has anything that I have written here contradicted the ACPO guidelines on pursuits? What are the guidelines police officers have to follow when driving at speeds in excess of the prescribed limits?

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34932470)

I do disagree with the verdict but thats the beauty of living in a free country. Do you agree with all the verdicts decided upon in courts in the UK or do you sometimes think they get it wrong.



Its a balancing act. The safest thing to do would be never break the speed limit at all. If you've ever had a car nicked how would you feel if the Police had it in their sights but didn't follow the driver "Just in case"

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34932498)

So if you were a cop in a Police car and a car sailed through a set of red lights in front of you would you follow him?
If he then started to drive erratically would you keep on following him?

And on a side note what do you think happens with stolen cars? Do you think they get parked up on a side road for a bit or do they get used in committing more serious crimes.

If you don't want the Police to drive fast anywhere then please tell them, write to your MP demanding the Volvos, BMWs and Evos get replaced with smart cars, preferably with mattresses strapped to the front just in case. Either that or pay people to walk about in front of them with a red flag. :dozey:

---------- Post added at 11:28 ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 ----------



:tu: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932496)

well in the ideal world that would happen but out here in the real world the police have to take risks both with there own lives and the publics because the criminals don't care about either and thanks to the massive ammount of training our police get loss of life and injury are kept to a absolute minimum
I'ts very easy for us to sit back and pull apart a certain incident and making judgements with the benefit of hindsight but out there in the real world it's totally different

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932496)

w out here in the real world the police have to take risks both with there own lives and the publics

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34932570)

The is no way that the Police can be allowed to take risks with the general public as that is akin to giving them carte blanche to do anything that they feel is necessary to apprehend a criminal even if it means killing the odd innocent bystander in the process.


This the UK not Chile or Brazil where such actions are acceptable.

Are we supposed to accept that because a Police officer has been issued with a warrant card that he can go out and kill innocent people in the course of carrying out his duty and then be let off with a pat on the back.

I dearly hope that this country never turns into that kind of Police state were the citizens are classed as 2nd rate and therefore it becomes acceptable for them to be killed by the people who are supposedly there to uphold the law.



you are of course correct ,that is why the police go through so much training to minimalize the risk to the public when chases have to happen





-----------------------------

Flyboy the ANPR pinged that the was some kind of traffic offence that had been perpetrated by the driver being pursued, not a life of death warrant in any case.


it was pinged as a stolen car (not that it makes any difference to the discussion)

The driver saw the incident in his rear view mirror and stopped and when questioned it was found that the warrant was invalid and out of date.

So a chase that should not have been instigated led to the death of a innocent 16 year girl because off incompetence by the police force for not keeping their system updated.


i agree with you here it should not have happened and putting the drivers' contribution aside for the moment do you think the force should be held partly to blame aswell

Also if you look at the video you will see that when Hayley the victim comes into view the is no time to brake from that ridiculously high speed as it would take around 800 feet to stop on a straight dry road, she never ever stood a chance and that is why he was jailed.

The protection of the public should be of paramount importance not the possibility of a feeling someones collar.

I have no doubt that many similar tragedies will happen if this kind of policing is allowed to continue.

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34932595)

It was a incorrectly pinged car and the driver was making no effort to escape which raises the question about why was such excessive speed was used in the first place.

Driving well in excess of the speed limit at well over 90MPH the is absolutely no way that the driver can be in complete control of his vehicle on that type of road as he does not know what is around the next bend.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34932602)

the police driver was trying to catch up with car which was out of sight
the car might well have proved to have been stolen and inside there may well have been criminals the officer doesn't know this at the time only hindsight proved otherwise ,it could quite easily have been the other way round given the area and most often is

this has been stated soooo many times in this thread

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34932623)

It happens in most cities but police drivers do not seem to travel at such high velocities in chases there.

But first and foremost this was not a chase and he was alone so if the were other people on board that car he had no back up so his use of excessive speed once again comes into question.

If he had radioed for assistance he would have been told not to pursue but try to keep in contact if possible.

Remember in that video he came to a T - junction and turned left and after a few seconds he decided that he had gone the wrong way, next he turned around and proceeded towards the incident area and then for reasons only known to him he accelerated up to speed far in excess of what would be thought prudent given the the surroundings and the type of road.


This road was a single carraigeway with crossings and houses in close proximity to the road plus it was neither straight nor level so obviously unsighted as to what may be around the next bend, yet he continued to accelerate and around the next corner we catch a glimpse of his victim starting to cross the road oblivious to the oncoming speeding car that showed no blue lights or even a siren to warn of his approach.

If she had heard a siren then she may not have attempted to cross at that moment and survived his passing at such a speed.

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34932728)

The is never an excuse for taking a life unnecessarily as in this case as he travelled at a totally unrealistic speed for the type of road he was on and therefore rightly was prosecuted and jailed for killing a young girl.

You may live in the area but I very much doubt that even you would drive at such a speed on that very same stretch of road because you know it is not a sensible thing to do because of the type of road.

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34932783)

He was found guilty in a court of law. He acted against his training and he paid the price. All you lot backing this guy up should think on because if the police are allowed to act like this other innocents may die as a result.

If the driver had his blues and twos on chances are the starred out teenager would still be alive and the car theif that still got away would have still got away

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34932808)

if its proven negligent then there are consequences

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34932824)

Im not baying for blood im just countering the arguements that are backing this guy up

This guy did make the wrong choice and yes he is paying the price but I am happy he was found guilty I agree with the sentence. Ive seen enough of the crappy cop shows on TV to know that public safety is more important than the capture of a car thief and as ive said loads of times if he followed proper protacol which he surely knew well enough then he wouldnt be in this mess and the girl wouldnt be dead

Originally Posted by Tuftus (Post 34932765)

For the love of god...

He was travelling that speed to catch up with what he thought at the time was a stolen car. He may have known that road very well and thought the speed he was doing was within his limits to catch up with the *potential* criminal.

Unfortunately for him a ****ed up schoolgirl decided at the same time to cross the road.

Why don't you just come out and say what you mean, that cops should not chase crims, because as far as i have seen you have evaded most of Dereks questions?

Otherwise feel free to go around in circles.

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34932855)

I have answered the questions but you seem to be of the opinion that we are in a police state and whatever the police do is fine by you.

Originally Posted by Tuftus (Post 34932765)

For the love of god...

He was travelling that speed to catch up with what he thought at the time was a stolen car. He may have known that road very well and thought the speed he was doing was within his limits to catch up with the *potential* criminal.

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34932807)

And if my uncle had tits he'd be my auntie.

Would you say that every doctor who makes an honest mistake and loses a patient as a result should get life inside?

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34932816)

If that logic was applied we would run out of doctors pretty sharpish.

No human is infallible, regardless of background or training.

Ignoring the fact many posters in this thread don't have to make split-second descisions under great pressure - If you make a mistake, you buy another motherboard. If I make a mistake, I delete a file and re-write it.

If doctors, paramedics, soldiers, fire and police make a mistake, people can die. Not bigger mistakes. Simple mistakes that have bigger consequences. That doesn't seem to be appreciated by a lot of people. To say they shouldn't be expected to make mistakes is just ludicrous.

He made a descision which he thought was in the best interests of his community and paid a high price for it. If that weren't hard enough there are far too many people baying for blood in this thread.

---------- Post added 25-12-2009 at 00:08 ---------- Previous post was 24-12-2009 at 23:59 ----------

BTW, let's have some perspective here.

He pursued a car which under the circumstances could have posed a serious risk to the public. In the course of the pursuit the girl was killed and he got 3 years.

In another thread we have an illegal immigrant who is disqualified from driving, mows down a young girl and then runs off leaving her trapped under his car wheels to die. He gets 4 months.

If people are looking for blood there are far more worthier causes here.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34933516)

---------- Post added at 21:48 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------



These two cases are unconnected and are totally separate. You cannot say that because one got a lighter sentence the other should. Otherwise the prisons would be empty and the streets full of criminals.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34933552)

How do you work that out then? What logic are you referring to?

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34933564)

your logic ,you refuse to accept that a balance must be achieved between catching criminals and public safety .now i agree that public safety is the most important ,i don't deny that ,but sometimes a officer has to make a descision wether or not to chase a criminal he weighs up the risk to the public and makes that descision . in this case the officer felt that because the road and the path were deserted it was acceptible to chase the supposed criminal at speed for the short period it would take to catch him up ,under your logic that chase would never happen because the risk is too great

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34933569)

So now he has psychic powers and knew that the road was deserted but when he turned that bend he realised that his ability had failed him and mowed down the pedestrian.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34933564)

your logic ,you refuse to accept that a balance must be achieved between catching criminals and public safety .now i agree that public safety is the most important ,i don't deny that ,but sometimes a officer has to make a descision wether or not to chase a criminal he weighs up the risk to the public and makes that descision . in this case the officer felt that because the road and the path were deserted it was acceptible to chase the supposed criminal at speed for the short period it would take to catch him up ,under your logic that chase would never happen because the risk is too great

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34933579)

well concidering he had just drove down the road turned round then drove back i think he was in a good position to see that the road was deserted

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34933588)

Quite impossible to say who is going to appear in that timeframe and no excuse to accelerate to that speed.

The video shows him coming out of a side road and turning left then going a couple of hundred yards then turning into a side road to turn back then accelerating on one stretch of road and not turning right to go back on his original route.

He obviously thought by turning left that the driver had obviously gone right and thought I know lets hurry up as that naughty tax disc evader or similar may get away so decided to increase his speed beyond what that road is set to and designed for and come unstuck when he rounded a bend.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34933593)

like i have said repeatedly his descision turned out to be wrong on this occasion ,nevertheless that descision had to be made and only hind sight can prove it right or wrong
if the driver of the other car had turned out to be a mass murderer and pulled over because of a out of date task disc or similar offence following the same pursuit with the same result i.e public member killed what would the reaction be ?

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34933595)

Given the type of road it happened on a slower speed may have saved a life and the car that was pinged would still have been stopped and no one would be dead and and a man would not be in jail.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34933602)

i understand what your saying Moldova but they are all ifs and don't forget the police driver was very familiar with the street and i feel i have to mention that the road looks a lot worse through the video camera than in real life there are no blind bends the road is relatively smooth and quite wide .you would understand my point if you could drive down it

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34933607)

You only have to be unsighted for a split second at that speed and it is a single carraigeway with pedestrian crossings and she was by some house when she crossed, the wider ones do tend to have crossings to give pedestrians time to cross, so the road is similar to many others nationwide.

If he had been going even half the terminal speed he would probably have missed her and even caught the driver, but we will never know.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34933613)

there should always be 2 officers in the cars one to drive and one to operate the radio and watch for pedestrians

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34933752)

If you need another one to watch for pedestrians. what's the driver doing?

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34933753)

Speeding.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34933754)

So we have a speeding car with no lights or siren, and no co-pilot to do the job of watching out for people crossing the road.

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34933757)

that's correct that is why i think that the driver is not 100% to blame here ,police procedure is wrong and should be changed so the force should imo shoulder some blame

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34933761)

In law, when you are in charge of a motor vehicle, you are responsible for looking where you're going. spotting pedestrians, spotting hazards, and even spotting what colour the traffic lights are on.

to suggest that the police need a mate to be able to do all this for him while he's concentrating on the rear end of a car he's chasing is silly.

that's why he's a superior driver. he can do it all for himself. he only needed a co-pilot when he <expletive> up :)

Originally Posted by martyh (Post 34933767)

come on Gary common sense should tell you that at the speeds some of these drivers have to go it's impossible to see everything ,as Moldova pointed out 1 second of looking the other way means you miss something elsewere

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34933771)

So take it all into account. it's dark, you won't put your lights and sirens on. you don't have a pedestrian spotter sitting in the passenger seat.

computer says risk assessment is very high. possible fatality. action required.

Originally Posted by NoKnowledge (Post 34935046)

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34935102)

Good news for everyone. I can bet money he's not very happy about it.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34935102)

Good news for everyone. I can bet money he's not very happy about it.

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34935116)

But Hayley's mum is and that is really what matters in this case.

Originally Posted by NoKnowledge (Post 34935126)

So not everyone then ;)

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34935116)

But Hayley's mum is and that is really what matters in this case.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935506)

So someone who is absolutely no risk to the public gets harsher treatment than career criminals some of whom will almost certainly have killed people. That's fairness for you.

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by punky (Post 34935507)

Yes, what we really need in this society is to throw away courts, judges, and the probation service and just leave people in the hands of the victims' families.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34935586)

The hypocrisy on this thread is astounding.

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34935594)

All this is about is people feeling sorry that a policeman was jailed for supposedly doing his job correctly, a policemans job does not entail killing people and then lying to try and wriggle out of his responsibility as a human being.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34935596)

I'm sure that's only because it's somebody elses daughter, and not their own :)

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34935600)

They really need to get real as no one has the right to kill because they want the kudos of an arrest.

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34935600)

He killed and was found rightfully guilty in a court of law and duly sentenced to 3 years.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935641)

and due to a tragic combination of circumstances someone died. He never set out that day to kill someone.

Originally Posted by Gary L (Post 34935647)

Which is the case with many murderers and drunk drivers.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935641)

Yeah. Every cop gets a bonus when they get an arrest, if they manage to get two in a day they get a days extra holiday. :rolleyes:

It wasn't about kudos, he was doing a job, which by all accounts, he was very good at and due to a tragic combination of circumstances someone died. He never set out that day to kill someone.



Yes and now he is being treated differently to other prisoners. He is being singled out for harsher treatment which regardless of your views on the conviction and sentence is not right.

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34935650)

Does this case make you feel vunerable Derek? surely you do not think coppers should not be held accountable for their actions?

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34935650)

Like it or not he was found guilty and all the arguements in the world are not going to change that. You personally do not like it cuz he is part of the old boys network

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34935600)

THey should be able to comprehend what this man has done and how wrong it was and why therefore he deserved to be jailed.

Many people in this thread say that they would feel different when asked what would you want to happen if she was your daughter.

But because she is not their daughter they then continue to say that he should not have been jailed and try to give supposedly valid reasons why he can drive around with scant disregard for public safety at a ridiculous speed on a ordinary road.

They really need to get real as no one has the right to kill because they want the kudos of an arrest.

He killed and was found rightfully guilty in a court of law and duly sentenced to 3 years.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935641)

Yeah. Every cop gets a bonus when they get an arrest, if they manage to get two in a day they get a days extra holiday. :rolleyes:

It wasn't about kudos, he was doing a job, which by all accounts, he was very good at and due to a tragic combination of circumstances someone died. He never set out that day to kill someone.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935654)

No but I think sometimes the public don't realise the pressures and split second decisions that need to be made on a daily basis and will be endlessly gone over by armchair experts if you get it wrong.
It is a risky job, the same way firemen and ambulance drivers get involved in accidents when people die.

I still think his actions that night were acceptable and don't think anything anyone can say will change that. So do the vast majority of cops I know including a number of very highly trained traffic officers and driving instructors.

I don't like the verdict but I accept it. I don't like the way that the probation service changed their mind due to some bad headlines.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935654)

No but I think sometimes the public don't realise the pressures and split second decisions that need to be made on a daily basis and will be endlessly gone over by armchair experts if you get it wrong.
It is a risky job, the same way firemen and ambulance drivers get involved in accidents when people die.

I still think his actions that night were acceptable and don't think anything anyone can say will change that. So do the vast majority of cops I know including a number of very highly trained traffic officers and driving instructors.



I don't like the verdict but I accept it. I don't like the way that the probation service changed their mind due to some bad headlines.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935641)

Yeah. Every cop gets a bonus when they get an arrest, if they manage to get two in a day they get a days extra holiday. :rolleyes:

It wasn't about kudos, he was doing a job, which by all accounts, he was very good at and due to a tragic combination of circumstances someone died. He never set out that day to kill someone.



Yes and now he is being treated differently to other prisoners. He is being singled out for harsher treatment which regardless of your views on the conviction and sentence is not right.

Originally Posted by Moldova (Post 34935727)

He tried to lie his way out of it as well is that how you want a fellow officer to behave.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34935731)

Any news on confirming the ACPO guidelines for pursuits.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935773)

How did he try to lie his way out of it?

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------



Nope. You want them you find them. It isn't too hard to do.

BTW this wasn't a pursuit (as defined by police) so its pretty pointless but if you want to batter in and do it be my guest.

Originally Posted by zing (Post 34935782)

so he wasnt trying to capture the alleged car thief then?

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935773)

How did he try to lie his way out of it?

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------



Nope. You want them you find them. It isn't too hard to do.

BTW this wasn't a pursuit (as defined by police) so its pretty pointless but if you want to batter in and do it be my guest.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935773)

How did he try to lie his way out of it?

---------- Post added at 13:48 ---------- Previous post was at 13:47 ----------



Nope. You want them you find them. It isn't too hard to do.

BTW this wasn't a pursuit (as defined by police) so its pretty pointless but if you want to batter in and do it be my guest.

Originally Posted by Flyboy (Post 34935798)

Throughout this thread we a have been told that he was "pursuing" an alleged criminal; please, can you enlighten us as to what he was actually doing then and how this was within his job description, i.e. within the rules he has to follow and what these rules actually are.

Originally Posted by Derek S (Post 34935827)

I'll bullet point it for you. You are obviously incapable of understanding it any other way. I'm not going into the full training and policies for pursuits for a variety of reasons.