Cops not chasing motorcyclists/theives once they take their helmet off

rodders

rodders

rodders

Soldato
Joined
14 Dec 2004
Posts
3,792
Location
South
Was watching the Met Police programme on BBC 1 and the cops were chasing a thief on a moped. He chucked off his lid and they stopped the chase.

They are not allowed to chase them in case they come to harm.

One moped guy attacked a guy with a hammer to the head, now the cops didn't chase them, but if they did and he took his helmet off, they would have to stop.

So its ok for the victim to take a hammer to the head, but the thug is protected...?

Thoughts.......
 
Thoughts are if;
They chase someone without a helmet and they came off, people would complain.
They don't chase someone without a helmet, people complain.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
Knock the wrong person off and you have a week of riots again in London. They absolutely cannot win.

I did wonder if making statements like that would actually encourage crime of this type?
 
Hotwired said:
The police also stop chasing cars if they believe the chase isn't worth the risk to the public.
Click to expand...

Thats a bit different though, risk to the public should always be taken into account. Risk to a criminal really shouldn't be as they have made the decision to run the consequences are their responsibility imo
 
It's complete tosh. Chase them regardless. Hopefully they WILL fall off and Darwin will take care of the rest. The police do have tough decisions to make in these circumstances balancing the risk of pursuing criminals and the risk to the general public. Couldn't care less about the risk to the criminals.
 
Repta said:
Thats a bit different though, risk to the public should always be taken into account. Risk to a criminal really shouldn't be as they have made the decision to run the consequences are their responsibility imo
Click to expand...

Innocent until proven guilty. You're chasing a suspect, not necessarily a criminal, and for what may well be a relatively minor offence. It's not usually acceptable, here in the UK at least, to risk killing a suspect in such cases.
 
Hotwired said:
The police also stop chasing cars if they believe the chase isn't worth the risk to the public.
Click to expand...

I see this a number of times on the police chase programs on TV. If the guys driving like a complete loon in built up areas, they'll tend to stick back so he doesn't feel like he has to race too much. Even better if they've got a helicopter in the sky, they'll let them do all the chasing.
 
Surely when they take their helmets off is the best time to knock them off.

The potential injury to many surely outweighs the potential injury to one scum bag ?

MW
 
cheesyboy said:
Innocent until proven guilty. You're chasing a suspect, not necessarily a criminal, and for what may well be a relatively minor offence. It's not usually acceptable, here in the UK at least, to risk killing a suspect in such cases.
Click to expand...

But shouldn't they stop if innocent, they wont have anything to worry about.

Yes killing someone for taking a packet of sweets in a case, probably excessive. But they also made that choice to steal.

I guess its a though decision as people have said.
 
rodders said:
But shouldn't they stop if innocent, they wont have anything to worry about.

Yes killing someone for taking a packet of sweets in a case, probably excessive. But they also made that choice to steal.

I guess its a though decision as people have said.
Click to expand...

Innocence, or otherwise, is for a court of law to decide. Police are there to protect the public (including criminals) and to gather evidence for legal proceedings. They aren't there to mete out justice, either directly (such as shooting them in the face) or indirectly (by antagonising a situation such that a suspect is likely to cause themselves serious harm)
 
any possibility that after taking off his helmet and due to the pervasive nature of surveillance, especially in london that they then could just follow this chap all the way home and have a face to go on. obviously not ideal but im sure it will help
 
ikillbears said:
any possibility that after taking off his helmet and due to the pervasive nature of surveillance, especially in london that they then could just follow this chap all the way home and have a face to go on. obviously not ideal but im sure it will help
Click to expand...

They do it all the time from the helicopter. They'll call off the ground pursuit if it's too dangerous and leave the chopper in the air to follow from a safe distance and most of the time the crim heads straight for home at which point the chopper directs ground units back in.
 
Can't they just knock them off the bike? And run/reverse over them several times? That would reduce bike theft overnight
 
rodders said:
So its ok for the victim to take a hammer to the head, but the thug is protected...?

Thoughts.......
Click to expand...

No, it's clearly not ok and you're presenting a false equivalence there if you're attempting to say that by not pursuing a chase when the risk factors escalate beyond set boundaries that is the same as condoning the actions of the thug. The intention is always going to be to arrest the thug and charge them for the assault but sometimes it isn't possible for the police to do so within a reasonable degree of safety for those involved (and that includes innocent bystanders as well) so they've got to pursue different avenues to bring the perpetrator to justice than catching them "bang to rights" or "lying on the floor and knocked off their moped" if you prefer to look at it that way.
 
People are well aware of this and exploit this.

Many thefts are now done on mopeds / motorbikes.

Also you can not use stingers on two wheelers and even 3 wheelers I believe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom