Penge police pursuit deaths
Discussion
The why's and wherefore's can be discussed for ever
However to me it boils down to one thing
The rule of law and an ordered society
Is there a point where some crimes do not merit punishment ?
Is there a point where some offences are disregarded ?
We as a civilised society appoint a parliament to govern us and create laws to regulate and protect us
We as a society employ citizens in uniform to regulate and Protect us on our behalf enforcing the laws we elected parliament to make
We are only a short stroll away from anarchy respect for law and order by the masses allows the few to protect us from those that would harm us
Once that respect is lost then society is the loser
However to me it boils down to one thing
The rule of law and an ordered society
Is there a point where some crimes do not merit punishment ?
Is there a point where some offences are disregarded ?
We as a civilised society appoint a parliament to govern us and create laws to regulate and protect us
We as a society employ citizens in uniform to regulate and Protect us on our behalf enforcing the laws we elected parliament to make
We are only a short stroll away from anarchy respect for law and order by the masses allows the few to protect us from those that would harm us
Once that respect is lost then society is the loser
Edited by Earthdweller on Thursday 1st September 09:28
The thief should be held fully accountable for the deaths of these people.
It was their choice to steal the car.
It was their choice not to stop
It was their choice to drive dangerously
It was they who lost control and crashed into the pedestrians
I honestly can't see how the police can be held accountable for the perpetrators actions, short of attempting to ram him off the road.
It was their choice to steal the car.
It was their choice not to stop
It was their choice to drive dangerously
It was they who lost control and crashed into the pedestrians
I honestly can't see how the police can be held accountable for the perpetrators actions, short of attempting to ram him off the road.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Digga said:
The police didn't steal the car, they didn't make the situation, they were just there on hand to deal with it the best they could.
Given that 2 innocent people ended up dead, I think it's only right that an investigation takes place to see if that's what they did. Did they deal with it as best they could?We don't know the facts yet. Was it a straight forward car theft, was it not even theft but perhaps the car flagged up on ANPR, was it an IS backed terrorist on his way to blow up hundreds? Let's wait and see.
If 2 people are dead because the car had no insurance, then serious questions need to be asked of the police. If it's an IS terrorist, then less so.
I'm not arguing against a proper investigation, I'm arguing that there seems to be no deterrent to criminals.
Bigends said:
Forensic examination of recovered stolen cars plus some ANPR imaging evidence leads to more arrests and convictions of car thieves than those caught following pursuits
I genuinely laughed at that one. You must have your head in the clouds if you think they bother with that. Let me tell you what happens because i have first hand experience unfortunately. They find the car after a few days with no petrol, no oil, but thankfully not burnt out. They then simply call you to tell you where it is so you can arrange to have it lifted. Nothing more than that, no CSI like you suggest, no forensics or collecting witness statements. They also knicked the wheels off it which i then found on Gumtree. When i called the police they said there was nothing they could do as they need a warrant to get into the house and one wouldn't be awarded without knowing 100% they were in there.
Digga said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Digga said:
The police didn't steal the car, they didn't make the situation, they were just there on hand to deal with it the best they could.
Given that 2 innocent people ended up dead, I think it's only right that an investigation takes place to see if that's what they did. Did they deal with it as best they could?We don't know the facts yet. Was it a straight forward car theft, was it not even theft but perhaps the car flagged up on ANPR, was it an IS backed terrorist on his way to blow up hundreds? Let's wait and see.
If 2 people are dead because the car had no insurance, then serious questions need to be asked of the police. If it's an IS terrorist, then less so.
I'm not arguing against a proper investigation, I'm arguing that there seems to be no deterrent to criminals.
AJL308 said:
A point I have heard made on many occasions from a friend who is an ex copper - "What the f
k are the police doing chasing stolen cars? It's a stolen car FFS; the potential consequences (a massive and horrific accident like this) are simply not worth the potential benefit (the recovery of a car and apprehension of the thief)".
If it was indeed a stolen car, that is.
Yes, I agree with this. Probably not a popular opinion on here but whilst the man in the stolen car is clearly not absolved of any blame, the police should not be involved in any high speed chases in residential areas. The potential consequences are far too severe for the gain.k are the police doing chasing stolen cars? It's a stolen car FFS; the potential consequences (a massive and horrific accident like this) are simply not worth the potential benefit (the recovery of a car and apprehension of the thief)".If it was indeed a stolen car, that is.
Elroy Blue said:
There comes a point when the public have to look at the constant vilification of the Police by the media and Politicians and decide what they want.
I don't want to see children dying because someone pinched a car. That may not be the case here but I'd be very happy for the police to only pursue a vehicle in a built up area in exceptional circumstances.TwigtheWonderkid said:
Digga said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Digga said:
The police didn't steal the car, they didn't make the situation, they were just there on hand to deal with it the best they could.
Given that 2 innocent people ended up dead, I think it's only right that an investigation takes place to see if that's what they did. Did they deal with it as best they could?We don't know the facts yet. Was it a straight forward car theft, was it not even theft but perhaps the car flagged up on ANPR, was it an IS backed terrorist on his way to blow up hundreds? Let's wait and see.
If 2 people are dead because the car had no insurance, then serious questions need to be asked of the police. If it's an IS terrorist, then less so.
I'm not arguing against a proper investigation, I'm arguing that there seems to be no deterrent to criminals.
BuzzBravado said:
Bigends said:
Forensic examination of recovered stolen cars plus some ANPR imaging evidence leads to more arrests and convictions of car thieves than those caught following pursuits
I genuinely laughed at that one. You must have your head in the clouds if you think they bother with that. Let me tell you what happens because i have first hand experience unfortunately. They find the car after a few days with no petrol, no oil, but thankfully not burnt out. They then simply call you to tell you where it is so you can arrange to have it lifted. Nothing more than that, no CSI like you suggest, no forensics or collecting witness statements. They also knicked the wheels off it which i then found on Gumtree. When i called the police they said there was nothing they could do as they need a warrant to get into the house and one wouldn't be awarded without knowing 100% they were in there.
Really ? Doesn't happen .. CSI has been massively cut and the processing has been outsourced to private companies at massive cost if done
Marks on outside of vehicle are worthless .. Marks/DNA inside may have some merit when attached to other stronger evidence ., but standing alone would never result in a charge
ANPR trawls ?
For a recovered stolen car ?
Without any serious or aggravating factors ?
Not a cat in hells chance ! Sorry to burst your bubble
Earthdweller said:
The why's and wherefore's can be discussed for ever
However to me it boils down to one thing
The rule of law and an ordered society
Is there a point where some crimes do not merit punishment ?
Is there a point where some offences are disregarded ?
According to Bigends, Yes.However to me it boils down to one thing
The rule of law and an ordered society
Is there a point where some crimes do not merit punishment ?
Is there a point where some offences are disregarded ?
Bigends said:
If there are no aggravating factors - eg the cars fleeing from a serious crime scene, then these chases in busy built up areas cant be justified as there are just too many risks to the public - as evidenced today.
I was going to ask Bigends last night to define "serious crime scene" but CBA in the end. When people CBA that's when the problems start just look at politics.Should a serious crime now only be anything that includes assault or injury to a person. Anything else seems to be fair game because "It's a civil matter innit"
speedyguy said:
I was going to ask Bigends last night to define "serious crime scene" but CBA in the end. When people CBA that's when the problems start just look at politics.
Should a serious crime now only be anything that includes assault or injury to a person. Anything else seems to be fair game because "It's a civil matter innit"
This is very obtuse of you. There's a difference between making something a civil matter and disregarding the safety of innocent people in your pursuit of a criminal.Should a serious crime now only be anything that includes assault or injury to a person. Anything else seems to be fair game because "It's a civil matter innit"
Car theft is not a serious enough crime to put other people at serious risk, IMO.
BJG1 said:
speedyguy said:
I was going to ask Bigends last night to define "serious crime scene" but CBA in the end. When people CBA that's when the problems start just look at politics.
Should a serious crime now only be anything that includes assault or injury to a person. Anything else seems to be fair game because "It's a civil matter innit"
This is very obtuse of you. There's a difference between making something a civil matter and disregarding the safety of innocent people in your pursuit of a criminal.Should a serious crime now only be anything that includes assault or injury to a person. Anything else seems to be fair game because "It's a civil matter innit"
Car theft is not a serious enough crime to put other people at serious risk, IMO.
greygoose said:
Car theft can be a very serious crime, there have been many instances of armed gangs breaking into homes to get car keys off the owners. The example of not pursuing moped riders as mentioned before has lead to their use in all sorts of crimes. No one wants to see bystanders killed but you can't give a free pass to criminals using stolen cars.
You don't have to give them a free pass, but even if an armed gang broke into a house to get the keys (which there's no evidence was the case here) I don't think that justifies risking people's lives in a built up area, personally. If the car poses an immediate threat to life anyway, either because it's going to be or has been involved in a terrorist incident, murder or has a kidknapped person it it I'd see that as a justification. Well I certainly don't want the Police to drive dangerously in my name (speeding in built up areas/running red lights etc) just to apprehend car theives, uninsured drivers etc - the risks far outweigh the gains.
If only all cars had tracking devices, it's really not expensive to fit them (I've had two of them) and it would make these high speed chases generally Unnecessary. All new cars should have them as standard.
If only all cars had tracking devices, it's really not expensive to fit them (I've had two of them) and it would make these high speed chases generally Unnecessary. All new cars should have them as standard.
yellowtang said:
Well I certainly don't want the Police to drive dangerously in my name (speeding in built up areas/running red lights etc) just to apprehend car theives, uninsured drivers etc - the risks far outweigh the gains.
If only all cars had tracking devices, it's really not expensive to fit them (I've had two of them) and it would make these high speed chases generally Unnecessary. All new cars should have them as standard.
Presumably you don't want ambulances or fire appliances speeding or going through red lights either?If only all cars had tracking devices, it's really not expensive to fit them (I've had two of them) and it would make these high speed chases generally Unnecessary. All new cars should have them as standard.
As for the idea of trackers for everyone that seems a huge can of worms, why should everyone pay for a device so the state can track us everywhere?
greygoose said:
Presumably you don't want ambulances or fire appliances speeding or going through red lights either?
How on earth did you reach that conclusion from my post?! I'm sure you have enough intelligence to know that Fire Engines and Ambulances are generally responding to life threatening incidents. Unlike Police chases of uninsured drivers etc
Dr Doofenshmirtz said:
In a few years time Drones will 'chase' people safely (well, observe from on high) - The tech is pretty much there now. There's certainly no need for expensive police helicopters any more.
Is that it, just observation? thats as lame as HS2.A drone that just observes is neither use nor ornament, we need Justice drones armed to the teeth with lethal and non lethal weapons.
yellowtang said:
Well I certainly don't want the Police to drive dangerously in my name (speeding in built up areas/running red lights etc) just to apprehend car theives, uninsured drivers etc - the risks far outweigh the gains.
If only all cars had tracking devices, it's really not expensive to fit them (I've had two of them) and it would make these high speed chases generally Unnecessary. All new cars should have them as standard.
You do realise that experienced car thieves can disable tracking devices very quickly ...don't you?If only all cars had tracking devices, it's really not expensive to fit them (I've had two of them) and it would make these high speed chases generally Unnecessary. All new cars should have them as standard.
greygoose said:
BJG1 said:
speedyguy said:
I was going to ask Bigends last night to define "serious crime scene" but CBA in the end. When people CBA that's when the problems start just look at politics.
Should a serious crime now only be anything that includes assault or injury to a person. Anything else seems to be fair game because "It's a civil matter innit"
This is very obtuse of you. There's a difference between making something a civil matter and disregarding the safety of innocent people in your pursuit of a criminal.Should a serious crime now only be anything that includes assault or injury to a person. Anything else seems to be fair game because "It's a civil matter innit"
Car theft is not a serious enough crime to put other people at serious risk, IMO.
BJG1 said:
disregarding the safety of innocent people in your pursuit of a criminal.
Same applies which criminals will you let go all of them once they use a car in any crime not just car crime and then exceed the speed limit ?As already noted, wrongly in my opinion that's already the scenario with Suspects on motorcycles 'removing helmets' to avoid arrest - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-329046... moped riders etc.
This was a good outcome
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-...Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff