Just clocked a Road Wars prog. on TV
Discussion
A youth got caught (after a demolition car chase, smashing into cop car and a.n.other).
Done for 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected, in a stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars. (Seriously endangering life during the chase).
Sentence: 100 hours community service. No fine, no ban.
Thoughts?
[ducks for cover!]
Done for 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected, in a stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars. (Seriously endangering life during the chase).
Sentence: 100 hours community service. No fine, no ban.
Thoughts?
[ducks for cover!]
GetCarter said:
A youth got caught (after a demolition car chase, smashing into cop car and a.n.other).
Done for 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected, in a stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars. (Seriously endangering life during the chase).
Sentence: 100 hours community service. No fine, no ban.
Thoughts?
[ducks for cover!]
The judge should get a stiff sentence. Good few years locked up with those he did put away.Done for 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected, in a stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars. (Seriously endangering life during the chase).
Sentence: 100 hours community service. No fine, no ban.
Thoughts?
[ducks for cover!]
t Bingo cards?GetCarter said:
A youth got caught (after a demolition car chase, smashing into cop car and a.n.other).
Done for 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected, in a stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars. (Seriously endangering life during the chase).
Sentence: 100 hours community service. No fine, no ban.
Thoughts?
[ducks for cover!]
All too often on that show (and others of the same ilk) the charges are dropped 'due to lack of evidence' Done for 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected, in a stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars. (Seriously endangering life during the chase).
Sentence: 100 hours community service. No fine, no ban.
Thoughts?
[ducks for cover!]
motco said:
All too often on that show (and others of the same ilk) the charges are dropped 'due to lack of evidence'
Probably explained that way for ease of understanding. They never say 'the victim later refused to go to court' or reference any of the myriad other ways that a solid charge can be discontinued before court, probably because the viewing public wouldn't understand.Hasn't a police officer died this week after being hit by a stolen car in Reading? He was hit a while ago, months or so.
I watched the Channel 4 documentary Cops about 5 years ago and about 3 episodes in they were talking to a dog handler and one of his former colleagues had been killed trying to stop a car.
When you look at the sentences given out it makes me wonder why they endanger themselves like that? Red mist, adrenaline hit? Yes, it's good to stop criminals that don't respect others or the law, but is it worth endangering your life over?
Sentencing really doesn't make much sense at all.
Meanwhile look at the expenditure and effort targeting speeding motorists. Get caught doing a ton on a lightly trafficked M-way or dual carriageway in good conditions and you're public enemy number one. Conduct yourself like the young man in the TV programme mentioned by the OP and you get 100 hours community service.
The penalties and punishment are not proportionate and I can't see who benefits other than the criminals that are unlikely to be apprehended and will get a derisory sentence if they are, and those that benefit from the money traffic offences generate.
The chap described by the OP should be taken out with a high velocity round while on a coastal ramble and be dumped in the sea.
I watched the Channel 4 documentary Cops about 5 years ago and about 3 episodes in they were talking to a dog handler and one of his former colleagues had been killed trying to stop a car.
When you look at the sentences given out it makes me wonder why they endanger themselves like that? Red mist, adrenaline hit? Yes, it's good to stop criminals that don't respect others or the law, but is it worth endangering your life over?
Sentencing really doesn't make much sense at all.
Meanwhile look at the expenditure and effort targeting speeding motorists. Get caught doing a ton on a lightly trafficked M-way or dual carriageway in good conditions and you're public enemy number one. Conduct yourself like the young man in the TV programme mentioned by the OP and you get 100 hours community service.
The penalties and punishment are not proportionate and I can't see who benefits other than the criminals that are unlikely to be apprehended and will get a derisory sentence if they are, and those that benefit from the money traffic offences generate.
The chap described by the OP should be taken out with a high velocity round while on a coastal ramble and be dumped in the sea.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 7th April 22:18
carinaman said:
Hasn't a police officer died this week after being hit by a stolen car in Reading? He was hit a while ago, months or so.
I watched the Channel 4 documentary Cops about 5 years ago and about 3 episodes in they were talking to a dog handler and one of his former colleagues had been killed trying to stop a car.
When you look at the sentences given out it makes me wonder why they endanger themselves like that? Red mist, adrenaline hit? Yes, it's good to stop criminals that don't respect others or the law, but is it worth endangering your life over?
Sentencing really doesn't make much sense at all.
Meanwhile look at the expenditure and effort targeting speeding motorists. Get caught doing a ton on a lightly trafficked M-way or dual carriageway in good conditions and you're public enemy number one. Conduct yourself like the young man in the TV programme mentioned by the OP and you get 100 hours community service.
The penalties and punishment are not proportionate and I can't see who benefits other than the criminals that are unlikely to be apprehended and will get a derisory sentence if they are, and those that benefit from the money traffic offences generate.
The chap described by the OP should be taken out with a high velocity round while on a coastal ramble and be dumped in the sea.
The real difference is between those that are part of the system and those that aren't.I watched the Channel 4 documentary Cops about 5 years ago and about 3 episodes in they were talking to a dog handler and one of his former colleagues had been killed trying to stop a car.
When you look at the sentences given out it makes me wonder why they endanger themselves like that? Red mist, adrenaline hit? Yes, it's good to stop criminals that don't respect others or the law, but is it worth endangering your life over?
Sentencing really doesn't make much sense at all.
Meanwhile look at the expenditure and effort targeting speeding motorists. Get caught doing a ton on a lightly trafficked M-way or dual carriageway in good conditions and you're public enemy number one. Conduct yourself like the young man in the TV programme mentioned by the OP and you get 100 hours community service.
The penalties and punishment are not proportionate and I can't see who benefits other than the criminals that are unlikely to be apprehended and will get a derisory sentence if they are, and those that benefit from the money traffic offences generate.
The chap described by the OP should be taken out with a high velocity round while on a coastal ramble and be dumped in the sea.
Edited by carinaman on Friday 7th April 22:18
Any responsible individual that has a decent job, mortgage, savings, etc cannot afford to get on the wrong side of the State because they have the power to ruin his/her life over the most minor issues should they choose.
The individual that opts out of the system, thieves, lives off the State (i.e. the responsible taxpayers) and pays for nothing can pretty much get away with most things bar serious criminal offences (if caught) because they have nothing for the State to take or threaten.
It absolutely isn't fair but a major change in attitude from all sides is required to change that. It won't happen.
Watch probably road wars or traffic cops a few years ago, the copper i felt sorry for was the one who arrested a drunk driver who passed out at the wheel at a set of lights, was reported by a member of public and arrested , when the police breathalysed him it was the highest result he had seen, unfortunately the drunk couldnt blow again so was charged with failure to give a breath test.
Ive stopped watching those programmes as the im sick of hearing not charged due to insufficient evidence, yet there crims are caught on the polices own cameras.
Ive stopped watching those programmes as the im sick of hearing not charged due to insufficient evidence, yet there crims are caught on the polices own cameras.
gtidriver said:
Watch probably road wars or traffic cops a few years ago, the copper i felt sorry for was the one who arrested a drunk driver who passed out at the wheel at a set of lights, was reported by a member of public and arrested , when the police breathalysed him it was the highest result he had seen, unfortunately the drunk couldnt blow again so was charged with failure to give a breath test.
Ive stopped watching those programmes as the im sick of hearing not charged due to insufficient evidence, yet there crims are caught on the polices own cameras.
Failing to produce a specimen of breath is actually worse or the same as producing a high level one.Ive stopped watching those programmes as the im sick of hearing not charged due to insufficient evidence, yet there crims are caught on the polices own cameras.
How about that guy who nicked a JCB in Derbyshire I think and went on a rampage hitting police cars, destroying a graveyard and so on? Whereas in the USA he probably would have been shot dead, in the UK he got what? 2 years suspended
SlimJim16v said:
Lucky he wasn't speeding, or they might've sentenced him to life.
Yes, made me think back to the thread that was running a couple of months ago about the biker in the Highlands of Scotland who was given a custodial sentence simply for doing a high speed which was deemed to be dangerous driving. His punishment was in pretty stark contrast to that handed-out to the individual described by the OP and, while we obviously aren't privy to the full facts of either case, on face value it's difficult to see how both verdicts can be correct and appropriate. Either one was dealt with far too harshly, the other dealt with far too leniently, or perhaps a combination of the two.GetCarter said:
A youth got caught (after a demolition car chase, smashing into cop car and a.n.other).
Done for 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected, in a stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars. (Seriously endangering life during the chase).
Sentence: 100 hours community service. No fine, no ban.
Thoughts?
[ducks for cover!]
It's a pretty pathetic sentence but it just goes to show how poor the criminal justice system is in this country. As a way of comparison, back in March 2014 a guy in Colorado stole a car with a child inside, carjacked two other vehicles, struck and seriously injured a police officer deploying a stop stick, before finally crashing and being caught. Done for 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected, in a stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars. (Seriously endangering life during the chase).
Sentence: 100 hours community service. No fine, no ban.
Thoughts?
[ducks for cover!]
His punishment? 160 years in prison (although he will be eligible for parole after a mere 75
). Link to the story here. If you want to watch the chase itself it is here on youtube.
[quote=exelero]
Failing to produce a specimen of breath is actually worse or the same as producing a high level one.
If you cant/refuse to provide, since mid 2013, you now get classed as a "high risk offender" and have to have a medical before getting your licence back- which is difficult if you've got a drink problem.
Failing to produce a specimen of breath is actually worse or the same as producing a high level one.
If you cant/refuse to provide, since mid 2013, you now get classed as a "high risk offender" and have to have a medical before getting your licence back- which is difficult if you've got a drink problem.
Perhaps the judge read the probation report and didn't think to incarcerate him was the best thing.
There are loads of ways to reason with locking people up. Safety, punishment, rehabilitation are the top three I can think off. The problem with removing people for the safety of others is that eventually, we have to let them out. So if the rehabilitation doesn't work (or heaven forbid they become worst) then it's only a sticking plaster at best. If you aim to punish people then we should do so in a humane way. And if the person involved would have a better chance of integrating with society with a none custodial sentence then it's surely the morally correct course of action.
People on here always complain that prison is too soft, or punishments are too lenient. Yet when they get caught for speeding they complain about the trivial matter of a few quid and some points that disappear after a few years. And I don't know anyone who has either been inside a prison or worked in one who would describe them as soft. And I'd be willing to bet that the people claiming them to be too soft would be pooing their pants if they ever faced the possibility of going into one.
There are loads of ways to reason with locking people up. Safety, punishment, rehabilitation are the top three I can think off. The problem with removing people for the safety of others is that eventually, we have to let them out. So if the rehabilitation doesn't work (or heaven forbid they become worst) then it's only a sticking plaster at best. If you aim to punish people then we should do so in a humane way. And if the person involved would have a better chance of integrating with society with a none custodial sentence then it's surely the morally correct course of action.
People on here always complain that prison is too soft, or punishments are too lenient. Yet when they get caught for speeding they complain about the trivial matter of a few quid and some points that disappear after a few years. And I don't know anyone who has either been inside a prison or worked in one who would describe them as soft. And I'd be willing to bet that the people claiming them to be too soft would be pooing their pants if they ever faced the possibility of going into one.
photosnob said:
Perhaps the judge read the probation report and didn't think to incarcerate him was the best thing.
There are loads of ways to reason with locking people up. Safety, punishment, rehabilitation are the top three I can think off. The problem with removing people for the safety of others is that eventually, we have to let them out. So if the rehabilitation doesn't work (or heaven forbid they become worst) then it's only a sticking plaster at best. If you aim to punish people then we should do so in a humane way. And if the person involved would have a better chance of integrating with society with a none custodial sentence then it's surely the morally correct course of action.
People on here always complain that prison is too soft, or punishments are too lenient. Yet when they get caught for speeding they complain about the trivial matter of a few quid and some points that disappear after a few years. And I don't know anyone who has either been inside a prison or worked in one who would describe them as soft. And I'd be willing to bet that the people claiming them to be too soft would be pooing their pants if they ever faced the possibility of going into one.
And yet, people, with families, children, jobs, mortgages, clean records, are jailed for exceeding the speed limit (I know, they call it "dangerous driving"), without the extra "demolition car chase, smashing into cop car and a.n. other... 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected... stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars... seriously endangering life during the chase".There are loads of ways to reason with locking people up. Safety, punishment, rehabilitation are the top three I can think off. The problem with removing people for the safety of others is that eventually, we have to let them out. So if the rehabilitation doesn't work (or heaven forbid they become worst) then it's only a sticking plaster at best. If you aim to punish people then we should do so in a humane way. And if the person involved would have a better chance of integrating with society with a none custodial sentence then it's surely the morally correct course of action.
People on here always complain that prison is too soft, or punishments are too lenient. Yet when they get caught for speeding they complain about the trivial matter of a few quid and some points that disappear after a few years. And I don't know anyone who has either been inside a prison or worked in one who would describe them as soft. And I'd be willing to bet that the people claiming them to be too soft would be pooing their pants if they ever faced the possibility of going into one.
gareth_r said:
And yet, people, with families, children, jobs, mortgages, clean records, are jailed for exceeding the speed limit (I know, they call it "dangerous driving"), without the extra "demolition car chase, smashing into cop car and a.n. other... 6 admitted burglaries, 2 suspected... stolen car, banned driver, dangerous driving, no licence, no insurance, no tax, 2 drug offences, failing to stop - and smashing up 2 cars... seriously endangering life during the chase".
How many people do you know personally who have been sent to prison for speeding? I've never even heard of it happening in England or Wales. In fact I've never even known someone charged with Dangerous driving for only driving above the speed limit. I don't know all the facts of the case. But maybe the bloke involved had been a heavy drug addict. He'd since then turned his life around. Was free of drugs, and had paid employment. He was genuinely looking like someone who could lead a normal life. Do you really think that it wouldn't be worth giving him a chance?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff