This one's going down

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

For many years, it has been the requirement of all police drivers to carry out dynamic risk assessments when conducting a pursuit. As I said earlier, the driver of the subject vehicle was not evading capture, so therefore it appears there was little need for that speed.

[QUOTE=Flyboy;34932295]For many years, it has been the requirement of all police drivers to carry out dynamic risk assessments when conducting a pursuit. As I said earlier, the driver of the subject vehicle was not evading capture, so therefore it appears there was little need for that speed.[/QUOTE]

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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 Cessna 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 Flyboy

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.

in the same situation Flyboy what would you have done ?

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

in the same situation Flyboy what would you have done ?

I would have:

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.

---------- Post added at 23:04 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

I have and still don't get the point you are making, perhaps you could explain.

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 23:04 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

Definition of pursuit and high speed, please explain.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

as is prescribed by the regulations he works under

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

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

It wasn't a pursuit. He was going fast to catch up with the car that was flagged up on his ANPR.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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

It wasn't a pursuit. He was going fast to catch up with the car that was flagged up on his ANPR.

Therefore the speed was most certainly unnecessary.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

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

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Therefore the speed was most certainly unnecessary.

*sigh*

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 Derek S

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



*sigh*

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.

am I mistaken but I thought the guy got found guilty and sent to prison which he is getting a few days off hence the case.( unless you are off topic and on about something else)

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

[Derek]

Originally Posted by zing

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

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.

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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.

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 Derek S

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.

well I can not see that in the post I just read and quoted of yours. Its looking like you are trying to justify his actions for which he was found guilty. 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

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

[Derek]

Originally Posted by zing

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

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.

Originally Posted by zing

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

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 Moldova

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.

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