PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Deaths involving police cars jump by almost half in a year
Redivi
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 11:02
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,126
Joined: 31 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,238



42 deaths of which 30 involve pursuits and deaths of ten innocent parties
My personal view is that these should be prosecuted as manslaughter rather than death by dangerous driving

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime...s-a9092561.html

This post has been edited by Redivi: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 48)
Advertisement
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 11:02
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 21:22
Post #41


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,712
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 21:02) *
For once, take your head out of your own backside.


Starting off ad hom doesn't necessarily reflect well on the rest of your argument

QUOTE
I’m not sure what rose tinted society you live in, but the real world is different.

I drove at 140 mph down a dual carriageway last night and used TPAC to stop a high powered car that had been used in an aggravated burglary where the occupants had been tied up and robbed at knife point.

Is that dangerous? Yes. I put my vehicle less than a metre in front of a vehicle doing 70 mph after it had been stung and two colleagues positioned theirs around it. Is that dangerous.yes. Is it necessary? My view ..yes... because I want to catch criminals. Unfortunately until you’ve either been in the position of being a victim or a cop then your law degree is all very well but essentially useless to understand real life.

We didn’t know at that stage the car was stolen. The owner didn’t either. He’d parked it at a hotel where he was staying. You seriously suggest we don’t pursue it and send a S172 to the fleet company who owns it?


Presumably the driver had been doing a tad more wrong than simply driving too fast when the decision was made to deploy the stinger?




--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 21:39
Post #42


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,712
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 23 Sep 2019 - 20:59) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 22 Sep 2019 - 23:54) *
Unfortunately the law itself ignores training, skill and ability when determining whether or not driving was dangerous - the test is nominally objective, albeit applied against the subjective standards of the judge/jury.

This is due to be fixed, see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go..._-_Response.pdf


Depends on what you consider 'fixed' to mean.

The issue I was initially highlighting is police (generally on motorcycles) following speeding drivers (similarly also on motorcycles) who were subsequently convicted of dangerous driving and sentenced to jail, in part because the test for dangerous driving is objective and if Mavis down the road in her 1987 Ford Fiesta would not be safe at those speeds, then the criminal scum being followed by the heroic copper can not be as a matter of law. The same law ought to have found the heroic copper equally guilty, but for whatever reason it never occurred to anyone to prosecute him.

From what I can tell albeit from the link posted, there is a proposal that the objective test for the heroic copper should be changed, but not for the criminal scum.

I agree that it is lunacy that that highly trained police drivers could theoretically be convicted of dangerous driving on the basis that Mavis doesn't like going fast, but it is similarly crazy that civilians driving within their own capabilities can.



--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 21:48
Post #43


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,587
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



This isn't the Flame Pit, so we expect at least a modicum of civility when discussing the issues. Hence the mysteriously vanishing post.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 21:54
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 866
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849




QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 22:22) *
Presumably the driver had been doing a tad more wrong than simply driving too fast when the decision was made to deploy the stinger?


No, just excess speed at that stage.The rest of it was discovered once the car was stopped.

It’s called a pre emptive tactic. Google it.

Still reckon a 172 would be best?





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 22:11
Post #45


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,712
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 22:54) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 22:22) *
Presumably the driver had been doing a tad more wrong than simply driving too fast when the decision was made to deploy the stinger?


No, just excess speed at that stage.The rest of it was discovered once the car was stopped.

It’s called a pre emptive tactic. Google it.

Still reckon a 172 would be best?


So, you are saying that you saw a speeding car and rather than putting on the blues and twos and giving some indication for it to stop, you decided to deploy a stinger and box it in?


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
baggins1234
post Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 22:14
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 866
Joined: 17 Aug 2010
Member No.: 39,849



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 23:11) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 22:54) *
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 22:22) *
Presumably the driver had been doing a tad more wrong than simply driving too fast when the decision was made to deploy the stinger?


No, just excess speed at that stage.The rest of it was discovered once the car was stopped.

It’s called a pre emptive tactic. Google it.

Still reckon a 172 would be best?


So, you are saying that you saw a speeding car and rather than putting on the blues and twos and giving some indication for it to stop, you decided to deploy a stinger and box it in?


I’m good, but I couldn’t do all three by myself.

Someone else deployed the stinger. I was busy driving at the time.

Two others helped with the Tpac.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 09:28
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,760
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 22:39) *
I agree that it is lunacy that that highly trained police drivers could theoretically be convicted of dangerous driving on the basis that Mavis doesn't like going fast, but it is similarly crazy that civilians driving within their own capabilities can.

It's down to what we as a society think should be acceptable.

Let's take a simple scenario that does not involve speed, let's say there's stationary traffic at a light controlled junction but I want to get to the shop before closing time so I move to the offside, overtake the queuing traffic and, having checked that there are no crossing or oncoming vehicles, pass through the junction at a moderate speed and in the process move back to the correct side of the road, obviously while the lights are still red.

Putting s36 to one side, is this driving that falls below the standard of a competent and careful driver, whether the driver is me or Mavis? Well obviously yes, it would be ridiculous to suggest that driving in this manner should be generally acceptable.

Now let's take a police officer pursuing criminal scum, or going to a domestic where someone with markers for violence and weapons is said to be attacking their partner, or a terrorist incident, should the officer have a legal exemption that bars any prosecution providing he's acted in a manner which is proportional and in accordance with his skills and training? Absolutely.

That's what I consider to be 'fixed'.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 18:20
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,251
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 10:06) *
QUOTE (typefish @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 09:36) *
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...e-boss-16911796

To revise my point, just why is it acceptable for 130mph+ police pursuits to happen in residential areas?

Why over-egg it? The 130mph was on a wide straight road with a bus lane either side, at 3am.
QUOTE
Prosecuting Miss Gwen Henshaw, said: "There appeared to be four men in the Golf and the car accelerated away from the police vehicle hitting speeds of up 95 mph in a 30mph residential area.

"He passed through a junction and a red light and continued on Wellington Road North hitting at least 120mph and a further red light was crossed at speeds of about 80mph.



I would say far from backing your argument, your second quote presented an even stronger case for discontinuing the chase.

I wonder if the judge had been as complimentary of the officer if the golf or more so the police car had jndeed hit Mavis pulling out of a quiet side road onto a wide main road while quite understandably not expecting lewis hamilton to be testing.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Charlie1010
post Thu, 26 Sep 2019 - 13:06
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,324




In every single case?
Not in every single case.
Or are there shades of grey?
Of course.
Do you conduct a high speed chase in a residential area when the predicate offence is running a stop sign?
Depends.
They’re not stopping for a reason - what is it? Stop them to find out.
Are they a serial killer with a body in the boot? Maybe.
Or someone whose licence has expired? Could be.
How much risk do you expose the public to? Risk should be limited based on calculation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 16th October 2019 - 03:45
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.