Cops ram moped criminals, crime drops 36% Watch

yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report 1 month ago
#41
(Original post by Drewski)
Diddums
(Original post by Andrew97)
Good. If somebody nicked some of my stuff I could not care less if the police hurt their precious little backsides in stopping them.
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?
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 1 month ago
#42
(Original post by yudothis)
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?
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.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#43
Report 1 month ago
#43
(Original post by yudothis)
Not that these people don't deserve it, but some of these looked rather dangerous...
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.
0
reply
akbar0123
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#44
Report 1 month ago
#44
Seems quite dangerous and could lead to lawsuits or riots if one of them dies
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 1 month ago
#45
(Original post by Andrew97)
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.
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.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#46
Report 1 month ago
#46
(Original post by looloo2134)
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.
I am not sure what you mean.
0
reply
Spanx
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#47
Report 1 month ago
#47
(Original post by akbar0123)
Seems quite dangerous and could lead to lawsuits or riots if one of them dies
Yet it's not dangerous when they wield claw hammers and break someone's leg and carry on chasing them on the pavement for their phones....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvHxKPD0PoQ
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#48
Report 1 month ago
#48
(Original post by yudothis)
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?
0
reply
Trinculo
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#49
Report 1 month ago
#49
Riots v unlikely as there is very little political capital to be gained and you only tend to get riots when there are "community" agitators at work.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 1 month ago
#50
(Original post by Andrew97)
It’s not unprovoked is it?
Yes it is. Are the thieves in the process of being violent to the police or others? No.
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#51
Report 1 month ago
#51
(Original post by yudothis)
Yes it is. Are the thieves in the process of being violent to the police or others? No.
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.
Last edited by Andrew97; 1 month ago
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#52
Report 1 month ago
#52
(Original post by yudothis)
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?
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.
0
reply
CheeseManX
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#53
Report 1 month ago
#53
(Original post by nulli tertius)
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.

Correct and a good explanation (from a PC).

There's also the common law right of self defence which is used by both the public and the police (although not applicable in these circumstances)
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#54
Report 1 month ago
#54
(Original post by akbar0123)
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/...-inquest-hears
0
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#55
Report 1 month ago
#55
(Original post by looloo2134)
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/...-inquest-hears
I remember that, seen clips of his family on YouTube. They don’t seem the nicest bunch
0
reply
adam277
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#56
Report 1 month ago
#56
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.
0
reply
looloo2134
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#57
Report 1 month ago
#57
(Original post by adam277)
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.
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.
0
reply
adam277
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#58
Report 1 month ago
#58
Then maybe your lucky or just smarter then most.
i'm not absolving these guys of guilt just stating what I see on a daily basis.
I'm sure you saw it as well. These kids not going to school and the local council having almost zero interest in them and schools not really wanting them either. Let's not forget that these moped gangs are usually led by adults who specifically target young people not in school and they give them a sense of purpose.


I'm just trying to humanise them as the long term answer is not to get more police cars to ram more people off the road it's to stop these people from doing it in the first place which requires us to understand why they need to do it.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#59
Report 1 month ago
#59
(Original post by Drewski)
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.
That makes you an autocrat, supporting state violence perpetrated by the police.

Not much to say to that.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#60
Report 1 month ago
#60
(Original post by Andrew97)
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.
No, it's not. We do not have vigilante justice.

On a purely moral level I agree with you, **** them up however you want. However, we do should not let the police do whatever they want, to use excessive force on someone who is not in the act of being violent.
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

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1619)
79.13%
Leave (427)
20.87%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed