Police officer faces sack after ramming moped thief Watch

Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#81
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#81
(Original post by TheStupidMoon)
These are scooters they're riding around on. Mopeds can only go just under 30mph.


What happens if it's bear grylls and he's rushing to his next campsite?
What’s their top speed. Which you need to provide some evidence for? Got to do with it?
0
reply
scorpion95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#82
Report 1 month ago
#82
He and any others should be immune from any investigation against them for it and things like this. He was doing his duty and shouldn't have been put through this.
0
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#83
Report 1 month ago
#83
(Original post by artful_lounger)
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.
The collision was at a very low speed, the thief's head didn't hit anything, it didn't even swing around for the pendulum was so low. Letting your children outside causes a greater risk of serious injury than this crash.

How are you even going to prove he was trying to ram this guy, he could have as well been trying to block the way and misjudged the distance and speed of that scooter. What are you going to do next, fire everyone because they may make a mistake during their work?

(Original post by Decahedron)
Would you prefer it if the police were free to do what ever they like to whom they like without fear of repercussions?

Have you ever heard of reasonable force?
Not whoever they like, but for primitive people like thieves and vandals 'falling off the stairs' at the police station can be a good lesson, and the only they might be capable of understanding.
Last edited by PTMalewski; 1 month ago
0
reply
TheStupidMoon
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#84
Report 1 month ago
#84
(Original post by Andrew97)
What’s their top speed. Which you need to provide some evidence for? Got to do with it?
I've consulted with the moonbase intelligence team and they say it's obviously scooters and the dailymail journalists are tools that want an easy catchphrase at the expense of accuracy.
0
reply
jameswhughes
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#85
Report 1 month ago
#85
(Original post by TheStupidMoon)
I've consulted with the moonbase intelligence team and they say it's obviously scooters and the dailymail journalists are tools that want an easy catchphrase at the expense of accuracy.
Does it matter? There are very few actual mopeds in use in the UK, and most people know what it means in this context.
0
reply
tenacity
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#86
Report 1 month ago
#86
(Original post by iodo345)
I wouldn't exactly care if they ended up getting severly injured for being rammed off their moped tbh just one less yob off the streets. They wouldn't care to injure anyone else so who cares about them?
0
reply
username4454836
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#87
Report 1 month ago
#87
(Original post by scorpion95)
He and any others should be immune from any investigation against them for it and things like this. He was doing his duty and shouldn't have been put through this.
Are you suggesting that police should not be held to account for their actions if they are considered to be against procedure or even unlawful?
0
reply
scorpion95
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#88
Report 1 month ago
#88
It depends on the situation, for ramming criminals on scooters etc they should be immune from any investigation regardless of what happens to the criminal(s) but for example falsifying evidence then yes they should be investigated and punished accordingly e.g. the one that happened a few years ago about the 'gate' incident (can't remember what it was called) down in London with the mp cycling or something supposedly made a comment to the officer on the gate.
(Original post by Decahedron)
Are you suggesting that police should not be held to account for their actions if they are considered to be against procedure or even unlawful?
1
reply
username4454836
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#89
Report 1 month ago
#89
(Original post by scorpion95)
It depends on the situation, for ramming criminals on scooters etc they should be immune from any investigation regardless of what happens to the criminal(s) but for example falsifying evidence then yes they should be investigated and punished accordingly e.g. the one that happened a few years ago about the 'gate' incident (can't remember what it was called) down in London with the mp cycling or something supposedly made a comment to the officer on the gate.
So in this situation the "criminal" as you call them was not arrested or charged with any crime so as far as the police are concerned he is innocent.

Nobody should be immune from investigation because you cannot assume that no crime or failure to comply with procedure has occurred without investigation.
1
reply
PTMalewski
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#90
Report 1 month ago
#90
(Original post by username4454836)
Are you suggesting that police should not be held to account for their actions if they are considered to be against procedure or even unlawful?
I think the police be too soft. The problem with many criminals is that they get arrogant as they think they get away with anything as either they can accuse the police of something or because the police is not allowed to act efficiently.

My family spent 50 years living under a communist regime and all my grandparents and relatives who remember that period, say that it was all perfectly fine as long as you did not mess with politics or didn't break the law.

I even know people, who were beaten up by the police for vandalism and they keep saying it was a good lesson for them.

Speaking of this specific situation- for obvious reasons, it is difficult to chase a scooter by a car in the city, the policeman took maybe his only chance to stop that thief, and the crash was such a low speed it could not have been dangerous.

Also I believe that once you break the social contract, you should be excluded from the rights it gives you.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#91
Report 1 month ago
#91
(Original post by scorpion95)
It depends on the situation, for ramming criminals on scooters etc they should be immune from any investigation regardless of what happens to the criminal(s) but for example falsifying evidence then yes they should be investigated and punished accordingly e.g. the one that happened a few years ago about the 'gate' incident (can't remember what it was called) down in London with the mp cycling or something supposedly made a comment to the officer on the gate.
It was called Plebgate. Although some officers were dismissed for rather foolishly making stuff up to support their colleague who raised the initial complaint against the Tory MP, nothing has come forward to suggest that the original officer was lying and pretty much everyone thinks Andrew Mitchell regularly swore at the police, a sort of posh yob.
0
reply
paul514
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#92
Report 1 month ago
#92
(Original post by Andrew97)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art....html#comments


He should get a pat on the back, not the sack.
He should get a cash bonus not a reprimand
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
thex-men
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#93
Report 1 month ago
#93
he was cleared
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ed-reasonably/
1
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

How did your AQA A-level Chemistry Paper 3 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (297)
32%
The paper was reasonable (439)
47.31%
Not feeling great about that exam... (114)
12.28%
It was TERRIBLE (78)
8.41%

Watched Threads

View All