Should police care if a pursuee is injured?
Apparently, cops have to "weigh up the risk of the suspect getting injured" when chasing a criminal. The Home Office claim somewhat contradictorily, that this is a myth, but also want to introduce new laws to protect cops. Weird as that may be, to what extent do you think, if any, cops should consider the wellbeing of the suspect when chasing them?
Clearly if you're chasing someone in a large vehicle and in their desperation they're driving so quickly on the pavement they'll have difficulty avoiding pedestrians, you might consider letting them go, but this is not out of consideration for the suspect. Ideally you'd like the criminal to make a mistake and drive into a wall, preventing them from continuing to drive dangerously, depriving them of a fast vehicle, and potentially incapacitating them as well.
Similarly, if they are on a moped, we can apply the same logic. We do want the criminals to stop, and if they're stupid enough to be risking their lives to escape then that's on them, not the cops. I don't think the cops should be trying to kill the criminals, but nor should they back off just because the criminal puts their own life at risk.
Clearly if you're chasing someone in a large vehicle and in their desperation they're driving so quickly on the pavement they'll have difficulty avoiding pedestrians, you might consider letting them go, but this is not out of consideration for the suspect. Ideally you'd like the criminal to make a mistake and drive into a wall, preventing them from continuing to drive dangerously, depriving them of a fast vehicle, and potentially incapacitating them as well.
Similarly, if they are on a moped, we can apply the same logic. We do want the criminals to stop, and if they're stupid enough to be risking their lives to escape then that's on them, not the cops. I don't think the cops should be trying to kill the criminals, but nor should they back off just because the criminal puts their own life at risk.
Scroll to see replies
If somebody throws acid at an old lady to nick her purse, then I couldn’t care less if said person has his face rearranged by a lamppost.
Original post by the bear
the scooter gangs know that all they have to do is remove their helmets and the Old Bill will stop chasing them. 
I would be okay with the cops if they continued to chase and the idiots crashed. Imagine if the cops weren't allowed to chase you if you weren't wearing a seatbelt.
Riding a motorcycle or moped without a helmet is haram.
I wouldn't be opposed to police performing put PIT manoeuvres to catch moped theives. If they aren't wearing helmets then on their heads be it.
Original post by Guru Jason
If they aren't wearing helmets then on their heads be it.
You are a poster who is full of contradictions, aren't you?
Original post by Good bloke
You are a poster who is full of contradictions, aren't you?
Absolutely. Puns aside I'm also aware you can't pit a moped. I just think the police should ram them lol
Original post by Trinculo
Thing is, when you crash, you crash into something, and that something might be another person.
How is that relevant to whether the criminal is wearing a helmet. Not wearing a helmet does not make you more likely to crash, per se. It merely increase the likelihood of significant injury to yourself.
Original post by Good bloke
How is that relevant to whether the criminal is wearing a helmet. Not wearing a helmet does not make you more likely to crash, per se. It merely increase the likelihood of significant injury to yourself.
Not relevant to the helmet at all - more to the question of whether or not vehicular pursuits are justified generally.
Original post by Trinculo
Thing is, when you crash, you crash into something, and that something might be another person.
The point here is about the safety of the pursuee as a distinct part of the risk assessment, separate from the safety of the general public.
Original post by Trinculo
Not relevant to the helmet at all - more to the question of whether or not vehicular pursuits are justified generally.
If you were to tell the general public that the police may never attempt to apprehend a criminal if there is any risk to the public they would be, quite rightly, up in arms. Some literally.
Original post by Good bloke
If you were to tell the general public that the police may never attempt to apprehend a criminal if there is any risk to the public they would be, quite rightly, up in arms. Some literally.
The "public" is incredibly stupid and gets the police service it deserves.
Original post by Trinculo
The "public" is incredibly stupid
That is often true. On this occasion I agree with the general public. Anyone who commits a crime should be unable to sue the police, or anyone, for injuries incurred in an accident that befalls them in the course of committing the crime or in absconding from it, or in reasonable attempts to prevent the crime or to apprehend them.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by Good bloke
That is often true. On this occasion I agree with the general public. Anyone who commits a crime should be unable to sue the police, or anyone, for injuries incurred in an accident that befalls them in the course of committing the crime or in absconding from it, or in reasonable attempts to prevent the crime or to apprehend them.
Is there any recorded example of a criminal succeeding in such a claim?
This seems to be something that is entirely between police management and their insurers with no court cases to support it.
That said, the main limitation on police pursuit remains the risk to innocent bystanders.
Original post by nulli tertius
Is there any recorded example of a criminal succeeding in such a claim?
This seems to be something that is entirely between police management and their insurers with no court cases to support it.
That said, the main limitation on police pursuit remains the risk to innocent bystanders.
This seems to be something that is entirely between police management and their insurers with no court cases to support it.
That said, the main limitation on police pursuit remains the risk to innocent bystanders.
Yes, it's the old chestnut of gold-plating advice of taking care into a solid ban - like schools' conker bans. And this: http://www.irishnews.com/news/2016/09/29/news/co-tyrone-primary-school-bans-conkers-over-nut-allergy-fears-713505/
Well if they don't want to find themselves in front of an employment tribunal or worse still a court they should care..
Like it or not if some yobo who stole a phone [or whatever] ends up getting killed when legging it the family are going to kick up a stink and the plod will get it in the neck.
Like it or not if some yobo who stole a phone [or whatever] ends up getting killed when legging it the family are going to kick up a stink and the plod will get it in the neck.
Original post by Napp
the family are going to kick up a stink
And the rest of us should ignore them, providing the police didn't actually attack them, and maybe even prosecute them for wasting police time.
Original post by Good bloke
And the rest of us should ignore them, providing the police didn't actually attack them, and maybe even prosecute them for wasting police time.
There is a gulf between people ‘should’ do something and what they actually do though. Especially as it costs them money and time. Not to mention it reflects rather poorly if the plods get away with wanton violence.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I accidentally ran a red light
- insurance
- Will I get into trouble
- i need help with my law module problem based question !!!
- Valdo Calocane gets hospital order- Families of the victims are angry about it
- Jumped red traffic light..please help
- Why do people leave their front door unlocked???????
- Train ticket fines?
- Scared of where I am living
- What kind of jobs can I do with a ba in law
- Enhanced dbs checks
- why is life so unfair? why do privileged people think of themselves higher?
- Relationships as a police officer
- Should I leave my bf?
- What do I speak to my counsellor about?
- Interaction
- UK Police
- If a guy turns around to get a better look at you?
- Advice on pictures being exposed that I didn't consent too
- Student wrongly accused can he ask police for help?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
