Police officer faces sack after ramming moped thief

A one off when someone was running around with an improvised suicide vest, they did the right thing given the circumstances.

This was always the inevitable outcome of this new tactic by the Met, and they should've had enough sense to realise without first obtaining the necessary legal protections for using such a tactic, it would be a bad idea to do so.

In any case, it's use is inevitably a drastic escalation of any incident and excessive force in at least a non legal sense, given the crime it's purportedly stopping. Putting property over the value of lives and livelihoods is a slippery slope, especially since there is limited opportunity to actually confirm the person being rammed did indeed commit the crime. At the end of the day, it's just material possessions; it's not worth risking killing or maiming someone over, even if they did commit a crime. The UK stopped executing criminals for a reason.

Hopefully this will highlight these and other issues with it and the Met will stop trying to aspire to the oppressive police state levels of US policing, at least as far as this tactic is concerned.

Do you remember that Brazilian plumber on the tube? They painted the walls with him.

"'Using a police car to stop other vehicles on highways is a high risk activity and officers are only authorised to carry out the manoeuvre when they are given direction. The officer is to identify with the control room what steps need to be taken and obtain authorisation for the tactic to stop a moped and none of that was done." - Charles Apthrop, representing the Met Police in this case.

So basically the police officer didn't follow protocol and ended up severely injuring someone. Say what you will about moped thiefs, the police must (and should) use reasonable force if they have to engage in physical contact (either through their own body, a tool or a vehicle) with another person.

This was always the inevitable outcome of this new tactic by the Met, and they should've had enough sense to realise without first obtaining the necessary legal protections for using such a tactic, it would be a bad idea to do so.

In any case, it's use is inevitably a drastic escalation of any incident and excessive force in at least a non legal sense, given the crime it's purportedly stopping. Putting property over the value of lives and livelihoods is a slippery slope, especially since there is limited opportunity to actually confirm the person being rammed did indeed commit the crime. At the end of the day, it's just material possessions; it's not worth risking killing or maiming someone over, even if they did commit a crime. The UK stopped executing criminals for a reason.

Hopefully this will highlight these and other issues with it and the Met will stop trying to aspire to the oppressive police state levels of US policing, at least as far as this tactic is concerned.

If I remember correctly that was a case of mistaken identity was it not? Mistakes happen with any police force and a snap choice was made. In a high pressure situation these things happen.

This was always the inevitable outcome of this new tactic by the Met, and they should've had enough sense to realise without first obtaining the necessary legal protections for using such a tactic, it would be a bad idea to do so.

In any case, it's use is inevitably a drastic escalation of any incident and excessive force in at least a non legal sense, given the crime it's purportedly stopping. Putting property over the value of lives and livelihoods is a slippery slope, especially since there is limited opportunity to actually confirm the person being rammed did indeed commit the crime. At the end of the day, it's just material possessions; it's not worth risking killing or maiming someone over, even if they did commit a crime. The UK stopped executing criminals for a reason.

Hopefully this will highlight these and other issues with it and the Met will stop trying to aspire to the oppressive police state levels of US policing, at least as far as this tactic is concerned.

Do you remember that Brazilian plumber on the tube? They painted the walls with him.

As unfortunate as that was with getting the wrong person, they didn't miss their target.

"'Using a police car to stop other vehicles on highways is a high risk activity and officers are only authorised to carry out the manoeuvre when they are given direction. The officer is to identify with the control room what steps need to be taken and obtain authorisation for the tactic to stop a moped and none of that was done." - Charles Apthrop, representing the Met Police in this case.

So basically the police officer didn't follow protocol and ended up severely injuring someone. Say what you will about moped thiefs, the police must (and should) use reasonable force if they have to engage in physical contact (either through their own body, a tool or a vehicle) with another person.

No they just tried to cover it up and lie at every opportunity.

You'll have to forgive but I have very little trust in the police and their ability.

As a police officer it makes me a bit sad to hear this. Because I would hope people have a bit more faith in the police to look after them.

At the end of the day the way I see it, if you got stabbed or someone in your family got attacked, you would still come to us.

Last time I called the police because someone attacked my security guards with a hammer they told me it wasn't a crime and they wouldn't be coming.

I would be far more likely to call someone that would actually do something.

Last time I called the police because someone attacked my security guards with a hammer they told me it wasn't a crime and they wouldn't be coming.

I would be far more likely to call someone that would actually do something.

If the mopeds have nothing to hide then why run away? They surely must have or were preparing to commit a crime, if they fail to stop when police chase them with blue lights I think ramming them over is justifiable. And the tactic has proved very successful, I am more concerned about the victims rather than the criminals because actions have consequences.
The case of Henry Hicks (His name I think) died whilst being chased by police, it's not always the police's fault if criminals get hurt, the police car did not make contact with Henry's moped.

Last time I called the police because someone attacked my security guards with a hammer they told me it wasn't a crime and they wouldn't be coming.

I would be far more likely to call someone that would actually do something.

You have your own security guards?