Quote:
Originally Posted by Flyboy
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.
|
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.
- He was a highly trained driver in a marked Police car.
- The Police car was fitted with an ANPR system which alerted him to a potential stolen vehicle driving past him the other way
- In a very short space of time he had to decide whether to follow the vehicle, turn a car round and catch up with the vehicle
- During this time he didn't have time to do everything he would like to have done so had to prioritise keeping the car in view until he could radio in that he was in a pursuit situation
You may be some kind of hand-wringing apologist aghast at the thought the Police take any form of risk in apprehending criminals but I live in the real world. Risks need to be taken. If you automatically barred the Police from pursuits every criminal in the land would take to screaming about in stolen cars knowing they cant be touched.
Of course at this point the first time one of them takes out a pedestrian the cops will get a hard time for failing to stop them.
And I'll leave the thread at this point before I injure myself by hitting my head off the wall.
Just for clarification my viewpoint is.
I think the Police driver was justified for the way he was driving
I do not think he should have been convicted.
He has been convicted and as such he should be treated as any other criminal and not have his fate decided by media stories.