Cops ram moped criminals, crime drops 36%

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I assume you are against the police shooting them to stop them? But fine with ramming them? So at what point in between these two methods would you draw the line?

If someone broke their arm because of this, should they be allowed to sue the police?

Not that these people don't deserve it, but some of these looked rather dangerous...

There is an obvious difference between shooting and ramming at a low speed.

No, they should not be able to sue. They should not be running away from the police in the first place.

I agree it looked dangerous I don't care if the little darlings got hurt I care that innocent person could be hunt/killed.

My colleague was mugged by two thugs on a moped at lunch time a few months ago he came in looking shocked. It was on a packed London high street the police could not give chase because an innocent person could have been killed.

Seems quite dangerous and could lead to lawsuits or riots if one of them dies

So at what point in between the two would you say "not acceptable"?

You think the police is allowed to use unprovoked violence?

I mean doesn't surprise me given your other posts around the board, but ok.

It’s not unprovoked is it?

Yes it is. Are the thieves in the process of being violent to the police or others? No.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I assume you are against the police shooting them to stop them? But fine with ramming them? So at what point in between these two methods would you draw the line?

If someone broke their arm because of this, should they be allowed to sue the police?

The section 117 power is much narrower and probably would not be available in these circumstances.

Under the section 3 power both the amount of force and circumstances for its use have to be reasonable. Under the section 117 power, it has to be "necessary" to use the degree of force used.

Accordingly, if it is reasonable but not necessary to knock someone off their scooter, section 3 but not section 117 is available.

The section 117 power is more constrained because it relates to many more police powers (particularly powers exercisable against people in custody) than the powers of arrest and prevention of crime covered by section 3.

In civil actions against the police for battery, the police always plead section 3 as their primary defence with section 117 as a fallback position.

Seems quite dangerous and could lead to lawsuits or riots if one of them dies

There was a death in 2014 in Islington of Mr Hicks a drug dealer who had 7 bags of skunk on his person who was chase by the police.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/15/henry-hicks-crash-police-chase-drug-dealer-inquest-hears

It needs to happen but it is a shame it's got this bad in London.

The vast majority of these people are men under the age of 21 as well.
There is a lot of young people who had no educational background and feel they have no support or options open to them so they resort to stuff like this.
Ye there are some scum that enjoy it but I think there is a 'lost generation' brewing that just got abandoned by the system.

Only because I'm against the police being routinely armed.

Nope. They chose to lead the police in pursuit. The result of which is their fault.

They are riding dangerously. Putting innocent members of the public at risk, using force to stop them is legimate.

Try telling the person who has been robbed at knifepoint that the police ramming the thieves is unprovoked. Committing the crime is the provocation.

why are you make excuses for the people behavour there are 1000000 of people who grow up poor with little education who never dream of broken the law.

I grow up on a housing estate in West London raised by a single disabled father on benefits had a very bad education and bullied throughout my time at school.

I never broke the law because I have morals and respect for other people. I never meet anyone who broken the law the people who did were low life with no morals. the type of people who love the Krays.