They are not executing them, you have just made that up to suit your argument.
Moped crime - tough response endorsed yet now a Met officer is under criminal investigation?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
They are not executing them, you have just made that up to suit your argument.
I would say moped pursuit including on pavements has a far higher risk than a slow speed manoeuvre to knock a bike over. And I personally know three people who have been a victim of moped thieves (one is also a member here). Are you saying they should just let these people go? It's attitudes like that which led to the rise of this kind of dangerous crime.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,223
Follow the thread..... he was responding to the suggestion that police should then "reverse over them and finish the job"
Intentionally knocking a moped driver off in pursuit when they are not wearing a helmet is extremely risky and could result in death. That is execution of a suspect without trial.
That is why these investigations will always have to take place and such tactical maneuvers should very rarely be used except in extreme circumstances by those with correct training, and only when there is a clear and present danger to the public
So, in his post before he says they shouldn't be allowed to knock them off. He is saying someone committing a crime on a moped is above the law, as he believes the police should not stop them through fear of causing them injury.
How about the government increasing the budget for the police force to employ/ train more individuals to ride hybrid motorcycles and follow the criminals until the criminals stop? obviously they will eventually run out of fuel, having said that though it's clear to see that no government plan can stop all the crime, crime prevention plans obviously don't work in all cases, the real problem is how does anyone stop the criminal mind?. The world is a living nightmare, no real lasting peace for mankind that's for sure.
Who said they should be let go?
the opposite of not potentially killing someone is not letting them go. I fully support extremely rigorous methods to bring justice.
Comprehension is not your strong point is it?
The onyl people I have said are not above the law are police purposely risking taking someone's life . The police should feel the full front of the law just like everyone else.
I guess you dont get it, they are using mopeds because they know they can get away. Your argument is, a criminal might get injured therefor let them escape, I completely disagree with it.
This. The headlines are a little eager and make out like the officer is facing imminent legal action, when in my mind, this is just routine investigation to ensure that the officer's actions were suitable in their enforcement of the new policy, before proceeding with legal action.
I am all for this more robust method of policing, but it should absolutely be scrutinised by the IOPC. Regardless of how you feel about the suspects involved, we are still asking the police to pursue a policy which could result in serious injury or death, so strict guidelines are essential. Assuming the officer followed those guidelines set out by the Met, then I am sure that they will be exonerated of wrongdoing.
In other words, this is all good to me.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,223
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,253
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Something needed to be done to stop this cycle of crime committed on mopeds and the riders illusion of invincibility, now the little ******* know they could get knocked off they will think twice.
I'm more than happy with this approach to policing the problem.
I'm more than happy with this approach to policing the problem.
Seconded, wholeheartedly.
I think that should perhaps ignore Lee’s post, I did, he surely must be trolling.
I don’t think anyone is sanctioning the police to be judge, jury, and executioner, just to do the “controlled contact”, and let the judiciary take it from there.
No matter how much training they get, the actual contact in real time must be exceedingly difficult to get exactly right, and if the toerag has removed his helmet, and sustains a fatal injury, I’d mark it down as suicide.
Police taking shots at speeding cars? You’re wasted on here, with an imagination like that you could give J.K. Rowling or Hans Christian Andersen a run for their money.
Which article? And what is he referring to? It seems to have been the quote attributed to him in a few.
Indeed, it is no good them making a big song and dance about this policy if it actually ends up putting the front line officers in increased danger of prosecution and they're not going to be better protected by the law.
No one is arguing that and that isn't what has happened. FYI lots of these mopeds thieves are involved in robbery/snatching of mobile phones and it isn't uncommon for them to be armed with knives or corrosive liquids. The tactic is used when there is a danger to other members of the public not simply because they've stolen something.
Well you've sort of answered your thoughts yourself there - that is the whole point of this, they can do this if there is a danger to the public. Seemingly there was a belief among moped robbers that they could simply remove their helmets and carry on speeding recklessly through the streets and the police would stop pursuing them, the recent publicity about this has made it clear that the police are still prepared to pursue and knock off in that case, if anything, if that becomes widely known then perhaps that ought to at least make it less common for the thieves to remove their helmets. Regardless you can't have things balanced so far towards the criminal - the amount of people these guys can target in a short period is ridiculous, including pulling knives on people or throwing acid on them and recklessly riding at speed along the pavement in order to snatch phones and/or get away - they're putting the lives of others in danger and it doesn't seem logical that they could just discard their helmet and then it is game over, police can't pursue etc...
While the story is recent you'll note when this new tactic became a story there were various incidents noted or already filmed that were released to the press and claims of it having been used in a few dozen instances. It seems to indicate that this had been a tactic for a while before the press made it a big story, also it seems it is used rather sparingly given that there are plenty of these moped incidents and only a few dozen seemingly where the police have used this tactic ergo - they're doing it when the moped robbers are being particularly reckless/putting others in danger.
Re: "new rules" - it is more new policy, AFAIK they're just doing this and hoping to be covered under "reasonable force" there is no change in the law, this is where I think it is a bit farcical, they've no doubt got clear guidelines for using this tactic but to remove some uncertainty give some clarity they ought to be protected by specific legislation IMHO. Their senior officers aren't the law and it does seem that there is a risk of being prosecuted for doing what they've been told to do in these situations simply because in their incident it ended badly. It is abundantly clear that some suspects will inevitably end up being injured or possibly killed by this, that is something we need to be happy with happening if the police are to do this. IF those suspects are themselves putting members of the public at risk of being seriously injured or killed either through driving or through acid attacks, robbery with knives etc.. then that seems reasonable, the suspects have the option of stopping the innocent pedestrian has no choice.
I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be, I'm not saying officers should have legal immunity for anything and everything that could go wrong including knocking off and killing someone who had simply run a red light etc.. But the point here is that IMO if you agree that this tactic can be used in some circumstances then it seems that rather than hope the officer is covered by "reasonable force" there should be some legislation authorising it and giving some level of protection assuming certain criteria have been met. That would remove some of the uncertainty and means an officer isn't potentially facing months of stress for simply doing his/her job simply because in his/her case they were unlucky enough to end up with a seriously injured suspect... the condition the suspect ends up in is a bit of a lottery and there is a risk the likes of the IOPC, CPS could take a results oriented approach. I suspect that the officers involved would probably still have a good defence assuming guidelines were followed etc.. (and I doubt and jury is going to side with the criminal in the event of a criminal trial unless the situations was particularly reckless) but it would be better to provide some clarity for those we expect to carry this out on behalf of the rest of us and put themselves and their careers at risk to protect us from some fairly nasty individuals.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,223
Ok
Well the Sun Story claims it's been criticised by David Lammy, but doesn't cite a source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7874607/moped-gangs-broken-bones-rammed-police-new-tactic/
'The Standard' conflates two different issues in the google search: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...-met-chief-cressida-dick-admits-a4005516.html
I literally can't find a quote from David Lammy anywhere criticising the Police ramming mopeds, only a different criticism of them using armed police in areas of gang violence.