Teen dead and another injured after police chase moped in lo
Discussion
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It doesn't say anywhere in the article they were guilty or not, and I'm certainly not condoning theft or riding a scooter more to the point just that we have a judicial system and maybe we should use it.
Just perhaps I'm feeling a bit wet today but bloody hell come on, some people witnessed somebody lose their life in front of them, someone probably cares that a family member didn't go home today as agreed.
But everyone else is happy because some guy who may or may not have done something is dead. Good on you
It doesn't say anywhere in the article they were guilty or not, and I'm certainly not condoning theft or riding a scooter more to the point just that we have a judicial system and maybe we should use it.
Just perhaps I'm feeling a bit wet today but bloody hell come on, some people witnessed somebody lose their life in front of them, someone probably cares that a family member didn't go home today as agreed.
But everyone else is happy because some guy who may or may not have done something is dead. Good on you
MotorsportTom said:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It doesn't say anywhere in the article they were guilty or not, and I'm certainly not condoning theft or riding a scooter more to the point just that we have a judicial system and maybe we should use it.
Just perhaps I'm feeling a bit wet today but bloody hell come on, some people witnessed somebody lose their life in front of them, someone probably cares that a family member didn't go home today as agreed.
But everyone else is happy because some guy who may or may not have done something is dead. Good on you
The problem is that the Police are usually denied authorisation to pursue scrotes on bikes because this might happen. And the scrotes know it. And we're all fed up with the scrotes having the law on their side while the rest of us get bent over at every turn.It doesn't say anywhere in the article they were guilty or not, and I'm certainly not condoning theft or riding a scooter more to the point just that we have a judicial system and maybe we should use it.
Just perhaps I'm feeling a bit wet today but bloody hell come on, some people witnessed somebody lose their life in front of them, someone probably cares that a family member didn't go home today as agreed.
But everyone else is happy because some guy who may or may not have done something is dead. Good on you
Are we glad the 'potentially guilty' scrote dies? Perhaps not. But are we sad? Again, perhaps not.
Koofler said:
MotorsportTom said:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
It doesn't say anywhere in the article they were guilty or not, and I'm certainly not condoning theft or riding a scooter more to the point just that we have a judicial system and maybe we should use it.
Just perhaps I'm feeling a bit wet today but bloody hell come on, some people witnessed somebody lose their life in front of them, someone probably cares that a family member didn't go home today as agreed.
But everyone else is happy because some guy who may or may not have done something is dead. Good on you
The problem is that the Police are usually denied authorisation to pursue scrotes on bikes because this might happen. And the scrotes know it. And we're all fed up with the scrotes having the law on their side while the rest of us get bent over at every turn.It doesn't say anywhere in the article they were guilty or not, and I'm certainly not condoning theft or riding a scooter more to the point just that we have a judicial system and maybe we should use it.
Just perhaps I'm feeling a bit wet today but bloody hell come on, some people witnessed somebody lose their life in front of them, someone probably cares that a family member didn't go home today as agreed.
But everyone else is happy because some guy who may or may not have done something is dead. Good on you
Are we glad the 'potentially guilty' scrote dies? Perhaps not. But are we sad? Again, perhaps not.
Agreed it makes me neither sad nor happy that some "potentially innocent" chap has died. That doesn't mean we should all begin jumping to conclusions which may or may not be correct.
MotorsportTom said:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Hold on one minute. The police didn't kill anybody. They killed themselves, by riding like t
ts into a van, spoiling quite a lot of people's days.Why did they do that? Because they decided they didn't want to talk to the police about whatever the police wanted to talk to them about.
Why did they decide that? Buggered if I know...
So what were the police meant to do? The kids refused the invitation to stop for a chat. Should the police shrug and say "Well, OK. It wasn't important. Ride carefully, lads" and give them a cheery wave?
TooMany2cvs said:
MotorsportTom said:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Hold on one minute. The police didn't kill anybody. They killed themselves, by riding like tts into a van, spoiling quite a lot of people's days.Why did they do that? Because they decided they didn't want to talk to the police about whatever the police wanted to talk to them about.
Why did they decide that? Buggered if I know...
So what were the police meant to do? The kids refused the invitation to stop for a chat. Should the police shrug and say "Well, OK. It wasn't important. Ride carefully, lads" and give them a cheery wave?
I haven't argued that they committed a crime (assuming failing to stop is a crime?) BUT they may or may not be the parties involved in the smash and grab for which presumably they were chased.
What are the police meant to do? Draw the pursuit to a close safely as they are meant to stop the pursuit if it is becoming to dangerous, I'm pretty sure that (or close too) is given as a guideline to pursuits.
Just because someone decides not to stop doesn't mean they are guilty of what they were intending to be stopped for. Otherwise you could do away with the courts and just say "well he decided to not pull over so he must have killed that bloke/sold those drugs/stole that gold bullion"
MotorsportTom said:
TooMany2cvs said:
MotorsportTom said:
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Hold on one minute. The police didn't kill anybody. They killed themselves, by riding like tts into a van, spoiling quite a lot of people's days.Why did they do that? Because they decided they didn't want to talk to the police about whatever the police wanted to talk to them about.
Why did they decide that? Buggered if I know...
So what were the police meant to do? The kids refused the invitation to stop for a chat. Should the police shrug and say "Well, OK. It wasn't important. Ride carefully, lads" and give them a cheery wave?
I haven't argued that they committed a crime (assuming failing to stop is a crime?) BUT they may or may not be the parties involved in the smash and grab for which presumably they were chased.
What are the police meant to do? Draw the pursuit to a close safely as they are meant to stop the pursuit if it is becoming to dangerous, I'm pretty sure that (or close too) is given as a guideline to pursuits.
Just because someone decides not to stop doesn't mean they are guilty of what they were intending to be stopped for. Otherwise you could do away with the courts and just say "well he decided to not pull over so he must have killed that bloke/sold those drugs/stole that gold bullion"
JacquesMesrine said:
This thread started off so promisingly and has now drifted into handwringing and cries of "Won't someone think of the children".
fk them, they were scum and they killed themselves. One less benefit scrounged IMO.
Chavs killing themselves fleeing? Good riddance to bad rubbish f
k them, they were scum and they killed themselves. One less benefit scrounged IMO. 
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff