This one's going down - Page 26

Flyboy · 22-12-2009, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julian

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

I really have no idea, do you?

Julian isn't the one who seems to be suggesting he's an unfit father.

22-12-2009, 14:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flyboy

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

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

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.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

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.

22-12-2009, 20:27

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

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?

22-12-2009, 20:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

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.

Peter_ · 22-12-2009, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derek S

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

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.

22-12-2009, 20:47

Quote:

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.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

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

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.