Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,355
gotta love the phrase fight fire with fire, do people not realise that it's an entirely legitimate and effective way of dealing with large forest fires?
Moped crime - tough response endorsed yet now a Met officer is under criminal investigation?
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Which is seems to me is exactly what is happening here.
The Met have laid out a policy which has been tested by officers on the ground. This particular officer and his/her actions are now warranting closer legal inspection, the result of which will hopefully be that their level of enforcement of the policy was deemed suitable.
This then allows the Met to carry on with this type of enforcement tactic in the future, with a legal precedent already set.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 May 2005
- Posts
- 6,896
I've seen afew videos of these crimes on YouTube over the years and they give the impression they are prolific and well known.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,222
Google search - info dump
The source of this phrase was actual fire-fighting that was taken on by US settlers in the 19th century. They attempted to guard against grass or forest fires by deliberately raising small controllable fires, which they called 'back-fires', to remove any flammable material in advance of a larger fire and so deprive it of fuel. This literal 'fighting fire with fire' was often successful, although the settlers' lack of effective fire control equipment meant that their own fires occasionally got out of control and made matters worse rather than better. One such failure was recorded in Caroline Kirkland's novel, based on her experiences of frontier Michigan in the 1840s, A New Home - Who'll Follow? Or, Glimpses of Western Life (written under the pseudonym of Mrs. Mary Clavers):
The more experienced of the neighbours declared there was nothing now but to make a "back-fire!" So home-ward all ran, and set about kindling an opposing serpent which should "swallow up the rest;" but it proved too late. The flames only reached our stable and haystacks the sooner,
If they knock them off then they're not going to be chasing people up pavements for very long. The whole point is that the "scum bags" are putting pedestrian's lives at risk already by speeding along pavements, throwing acid, pulling knives on people etc... briefly mounting a pavement to nudge them off seems reasonable, I doubt the highly trained pursuit driver is going to attempt it when a load of pedestrians are around if that is your concern.
Nope, that isn't what is happening, there is no new legislation AFAIK, if you believe otherwise then I'm happy to be corrected.
It is all well and good you sitting behind your keyboard and being fine with a policy being given but a load of legal uncertainty to be present and the officers carrying it out currently taking a gamble with their careers (and possibly freedom). And then potentially finding out that actually some of the policy won't work under "reasonable force" anyway or can fall into a very grey area with a high risk of prosecution and we'd need some legislation to protect them if using this policy after all. Instead of potentially throwing police under the bus for doing their job why not legislate in the first place instead of gambling with the careers/livelihoods of the people being asked to do it.
The message is clear, if you want to commit crime then either do not use a moped for it, which is now used heavily due to agility/size and the difficulty police have in catching them, or keep your helmet on and prepare to be knocked off your bike.
There seems to be a strong politically correct element within the police force who want to make the police totally ineffectual in everything they do, stopping them from doing highly effective things due to claims of discrimination and bogging them down with things like non-crime hate incidents and other emotional policing online.
There seems to be a strong politically correct element within the police force who want to make the police totally ineffectual in everything they do, stopping them from doing highly effective things due to claims of discrimination and bogging them down with things like non-crime hate incidents and other emotional policing online.
Yes because that's clearly going to work... i don't think i've ever seen a criminal in a getaway not reverting to dangerous driving. So whilst they're riding on pavements knocking people over and across parks where kids are probably playing, the police should just keep following them until they run out of fuel! The whole point of this tactic is to end a pursuit before it becomes dangerous, i'm pretty certain the police's training will be to only perform this tactic when it's clear there are no innocent people in the way.
You don't half post some ****!
What sort of legislation (or changes to the existing) would you propose?
Please don't make out that I am being dismissive of the legal tightrope that our police must walk. I don't disagree at all with the concept of giving our police the best possible protection whilst enacting official policy, but I'm not sure it's necessary. I did a quick search for what sort of legislation the police are subject to and couldn't find much, but I did find this, which lays out guidelines and practices for police pursuits, tactics, etc: https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/road-policing-2/police-pursuits/
This seems to make it quite clear what the officer's remit is. It lays out authorisation, pursuit considerations, tactical options etc., in some detail. There's even a section specifically applicable to quads and motorcycles. As far as I can tell, all the IOPC are doing are checking that the officer in question abided by those criteria. Only if they didn't would they then decide that a case might need to be answered. I guess what I'm asking is, what about those practices in the link above do you not find sufficient to protect the individual officer?
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,362
Seems a bit dangerous to me and like something they do in the USA. I think it would be better to reverse the cuts to benefits and police etc rather than resorting to these methods.
There was less Knife crime, acid attacks and moped crime before Austerity happened.
There was less Knife crime, acid attacks and moped crime before Austerity happened.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,222
Lefty liberal SJW!
Didn't you know that some in this forum has already concluded that it's the colour of their skin which makes them more likely to commit knife and acid attacks?!
/s
Legislation allowing the use of these tactics in specific circumstances ergo giving a bit more clarity to the front line officers rather than seemingly just operating under the basis that this can constitute reasonable force.
I think you're conflating police policy/guidelines etc.... with the law. You were previously arguing for this policy, which seemingly currently does have an unclear legal position for the front line officers to just be tested retrospectively in court - that is IMO taking a rather blasé attitude - why should we expect officers to do this and then potentially throw them under the bus until we've had a bunch of court cases and have established whether the policy they're following is OK re: "reasonable force". Why not specifically allow for it via legislation?
Not that it has anything to do with this thread of course, just bringing up your agenda again
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,222
His point does have something to do with the thread. There is a clear correlation between austerity cuts to youth services and rising youth crime.
Which is why I quoted you and not him, you lefties do love to mention race all the time. Your obsessed with it.
As a common law system England & Wales doesn't necessarily need new legislation. If a court of record makes a decision that the actions are lawful (or not) then that is the case until overridden by a superior court or new legislation is passed by parliament.
Yup, but until then that means currently operating under uncertainty and potentially throwing police officers under the bus after they've done what politicians and senior officers ostensibly want them to do. It might not take a single case either, there might be a few areas of uncertainty that need to be clarified. Why not legislate and provide a bit more clarity now for those people who are there to protect us?
I do support the policy. I'm not conflating guidelines and law, I'm just saying that the combination of the two looks to be adequate (to me) to enact correct proceedings in this scenario.
My main point was that the headline seemed a bit sensationalist, implying that the officer was going to be prosecuted as a result of the IOPC investigation, when this really only seems likely in the event that they were blatantly acting well outside their remit.
The expectation of officers here doesn't seem any different to other scenarios where their tactics may cause injury or death - as long as they have abided by their training and conduct guidelines, they should not be at risk of prosecution - the IOPC is just determining that.
If you still think I'm being blasé about the role our officers play and their feelings towards their protection while doing their jobs, then perhaps it would be best if we ask them...we have some serving officers on this board don't we?
Absolutely, new legislation is fundamentally the best (and most sensible) way to deal with an issue that has newly appeared, particularly something like this. But the original post you wrote your response to was stating that taking this officer through the legal process would lead to a precedent (and depending where/how far it went) would create certainty as to whether the actions were legal or not. Both methods are valid ways to create a future legal basis in England & Wales, although ultimately I agree with you that new legislation is best.
I don't think it is reasonable or adequate for the officers we expect to carry out this procedure there is currently plenty of uncertainty. Just carry on guys, there is some legal uncertainty now but we'll no doubt get to test it in court later and potentially one or two of you may lose your jobs/get prosecuted if it doesn't go our way. And of course before that happens several of you will have some additional stress of a criminal investigation that perhaps wouldn't have been needed if there was greater clarity already.
Yup we do, I've also provided some quotes from serving officers in response to the story from a UK cop page on facebook - I'll post them again:
"I don't think many will be volunteering for Scorpion training now.
The Job runs on good will, this will lose it"
"The law hasn't changed though. Every officer executing those maneuvers faces months or years of being under investigation. Not worth it anymore"
"I said it...this is why we shouldn’t use the tactic...because the job will leave you to ****ing dry!"
"As a former Divional Commander, I previously said that the Government and Parliament must support the police by passing appropriate legislation that enables them to use this tactic. I believe it is in the public interest to use this tactic, but unfortunately without such legislation officers will remain open to prosecution. I hope the legislature take appropriate action quickly."
Thanks. That's kind of what I was getting at, when I said it seems to be whats happening, but you've put it more eruditely.