Stevo985 Posted January 7, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2013 I'm with Eames. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I'm with Eames. Careful - Your husband might be giving you a slap later.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 7, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2013 Nah lads seriously. If I have to explain why chasing a criminal rather than tracking him and meeting him further up the road is a bad idea then it's not worth it. Usually the police DO track while trailing from a distance precisely because high speed chases can cause an accident. No-one's suggesting the guy being chased was innocent but the point is not to cause further damage and the chase did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I can't see any reference to high speed in the article though BOF...... other than that yes I agree.... knobbing past schools or whatever at 70 isn't a good plan, but there is no information about how fast the cars were going, what distance the plod were away from the car they were chasing. Just strikes me as best to give PC49 the benefit of the doubt unless otherwise stated. (As naive as this may be) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 7, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2013 I can't see any reference to high speed in the article though BOF...... other than that yes I agree.... knobbing past schools or whatever at 70 isn't a good plan, but there is no information about how fast the cars were going, what distance the plod were away from the car they were chasing. Just strikes me as best to give PC49 the benefit of the doubt unless otherwise stated. (As naive as this may be) Well I can see a picture of a car that now resembles a pancake. I might give the benefit of the doubt if I didn't see that. I also see an internal investigation being carried out as to the reasons behind; and details of; the chase. So actually, the assumption based on what's in the article is that piggy f**ked up and senior piggy wants to know why. It's reasonable to assume the scummer was going that fast because he could see he was being followed. The end doesn't justify the means and you are right, it is naïve to give piggy the benefit of doubt in the face of some damning evidence and consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I've seen the picture now too.... clearly thats just whats been swept up post crash. The parcel shelf is neatly stacked on top and all. Also aren't the IPCC routinely asked to look at any incident where a member of the public is killed in an incident involving plod. I would also repeat the assertion that the one responsible is the bloke driving the car who should have stopped. To be fair - I'm sure the truth of the matter lies somewhere between our povs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 7, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2013 I'm not saying the police are blameless. But blaming them primarily for this is ludicrous, imo. The people at fault are the criminals, not the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 7, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2013 Not primarily Stevo. But they made the situation worse which resulted in a death. That's all I was saying from the start. You expect that from a criminal, not from piggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shillzz Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) You'd like to think that the police only engaged in a persuit because it was no longer possible or feasible to track the suspect without being noticed. But as BOF says, the fact that the police who were involved are now being investigated could suggest that they were being unnecessarily trigger happy with the accelerator pedal. Criminals will always be a danger to society, it's the job of the police to minimize that danger, not accentuate it. Edited January 7, 2013 by Shillzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Tricky one but I'm leaning towards the police being right to pursue the assailant here. Every case is different I'm sure but I think in general if they're tracking someone and it's lead to having unmarked police cars out and about, it's someone who matters. You might only get one chance to reel them in and if you lose them it's hundreds of wasted hours and it means the same situation is likely to crop up again when you next track them down. It could also be said that if the police straight away stopped in certain areas like near schools, that'd be no good because crims would speed as fast as they can into densely populated areas like schools to get away. Sad story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Sorry BOF but I'm another for stick the blame on the runaway criminal. Its a really unfortunate incident and really awful for the little girls and her family but the Police were just trying to catch a criminal. We'd be up in arms again if the stance was "he was driving a bit quick so we didn't persue and then lost him". The police officier has to make a call to follow or not, he has no idea what is up the road or which way the car is going to go. He can't give up 'just in case'. I expect there are dozens of these chases every day. Sadly, now and again something like this happens. Not the police's fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 7, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2013 Here's a fairly simple moral question. Pick one Approach #1 Risk killing an innocent person in order to capture a guilty person. Approach #2 Risk allowing a guilty person to escape in order to safeguard an innocent person. See, my approach would be that under no circumstances should the innocent person be at undue risk. Collateral damage the likes of what happened is completely indefensible. EVEN IF it means someone gets away with a crime. Your priority seems to be to capture the criminal under any circumstances. I would have hoped that your priority (and certainly the priority of the police) would be to first and foremost use measures that would not exacerbate the situation and to safeguard the public. Then secondly to capture the criminal. We're just wired differently I suppose. I wonder would the family of the dead person see her as a fair trade for catching the criminal in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 7, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2013 Thing is, there's ALWAYS risk when chasing a criminal. Approach #2, imo, basically means never chasing a criminal if they're driving a car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 7, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2013 Hence use of the word 'undue'. Come on now. At least read my post properly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 7, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2013 Do we know that this accident was caused by the innocent being at undue risk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) Ah, but what if they let the criminal get away to save the one life, but that criminal was Hitler or summit? What then? I'll tell you what then. Godwin, bitches. I win. Edited January 7, 2013 by GarethRDR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted January 7, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted January 7, 2013 I'll tell you what then. Godwin, bitches. I win. Wait. A. Minute. He invoked Godwin intentionally to end a debate. That's not allowed. That's not Godwin. Get back here. Get back here! Do we know that this accident was caused by the innocent being at undue risk? Don't go down the VT 'but but but' straw-clutching route. You're better than that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Its just an accident, and the blame with the criminal not stopping when asked by the Police. I expect that if the car was heading towards a school at 3.30pm then he would have back off for sure. PC made a call, criminal then crashed in to another car. Of course the family wouldn't think it was a fair trade. Maybe the family will one day realise it was a really sad accident and appreciate that the police were doing their job of trying to keep us all safe and the criminal crashed into their car. I agree with Stevo the only way to avoid any risk is to not bother chasing them. "Undue" or not there is always a risk and where there's risk then these things will happen from time to time. I expect in the USA this kind of thing happens several times a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted January 7, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 7, 2013 (edited) I'm not. I'm just saying this could be a similar situation to 1000 chases prior to it that have never resulted in an innocent death. Where do you draw the line of "undue" risk? My point is they were chasing a car at 80mph in a heavily populated, busy, 30mph limit road outside a school during rush hour, then I'd be on your side, BOF. They should have backed off. But if they were chasing a car on a 60mph limit dual carriageway doing 70mph at 11pm I'd say that was acceptable. But in that situation luck could have it that they could still hit an innocent vehicle and cause a death. I don't think I'm even necesarily disagreeing with you. Edited January 7, 2013 by Stevo985 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10333211 Oh-Kay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts