This one's going down

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

[/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

As you can see in the video he did not increase the vehicles speed until he drove down that stretch of road where the incident happened and prior to that increase he did have time for his blues and twos to be switched on.

Maybe this is reason enough for all traffic cars to be double manned.

At that speed the stopping distance go up exponentially

A car travelling a 40MPH can stop in 90 feet but a car travelling at 94MPH will take a further 700+ feet to stop so the is no way that you can stop in time on that type of road especially when unsighted in those conditions.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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"

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.

---------- Post added at 11:21 ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

[/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

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 Flyboy

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.

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

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by martyh

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

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

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

Originally Posted by Derek S

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.

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.

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

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 Flyboy

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?

as was proved in this case guidlines are only guidelines and when they work every thing is ok but if things go wrong then they can be changed at a moments notice to put all the blame on one individual (perhaps a bit of a cynicle stance but thats the way i see it)

Originally Posted by Derek S

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"

honestly I would think I would want the situation bought to a head safely. Life and safety is more important that property.

Of course they get it wrong but this case had quite a bit if evidence didnt it. Including a video of the who event. Cant get better than that. The court got to see this evidence I believe and arguements made from the beak but on the face of the evidence he was found guilty. Its almost as good as actually seeing the event for yourself

---------- Post added at 14:35 ---------- Previous post was at 14:30 ----------

Originally Posted by Derek S

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.

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

I believe the officer broke protacol basically meaning he was not doing his job properly. Now someone not doing their job properly (specially when in a job to protect the public) does so in a great lump of metal.

If he did his job properly A: he wouldnt have been found guilty and B:someone may be alive today that isnt.

As for colateral damage ,which I think you are inferring this death was is not acceptable on the streets of the UK.

To counter your what if its your car arguement what if it was your wife or daughter ......

---------- Post added at 14:36 ---------- Previous post was at 14:35 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

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

yes its what makes the basement section of this forum interesting isnt it

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

[Peter_]

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 Moldova

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.

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

[Peter_]

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

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.

with all respect Moldova all of your above points have been explained and knowing the road and the area as well as i do i feel that the officer was justified somewhat in what he did others feel different as did the judge it is a argument that is going to go back and forth forever ,i have nothing new to add to my side of the argument

[Peter_]

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 Moldova

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.

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.