Should police care if a pursuee is injured? Watch

ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
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.
2
reply
the bear
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
the scooter gangs know that all they have to do is remove their helmets and the Old Bill will stop chasing them. :mad:
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
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.
3
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#4
(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. :mad:
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.
1
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
Riding a motorcycle or moped without a helmet is haram.
0
reply
Guru Jason
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(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?

:toofunny:
2
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
Thing is, when you crash, you crash into something, and that something might be another person.
0
reply
Guru Jason
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Good bloke)
You are a poster who is full of contradictions, aren't you?

:toofunny:
Absolutely. Puns aside I'm also aware you can't pit a moped. I just think the police should ram them lol
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(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.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(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.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
(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.
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
(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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(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.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(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.
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/2016/0...-fears-713505/
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
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.
0
reply
Good bloke
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
(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.
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(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.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Who do you think will be the next PM?

Boris Johnson (224)
72.73%
Jeremy Hunt (84)
27.27%

Watched Threads

View All