Moped crime - tough response endorsed yet now a Met officer is under criminal investigation?

[dowie]

So moped crime is something the general public seem to be universally annoyed with, it has had a bit of media attention recently and there was a perception that it was getting out of control (apparently it has actually been reduced recently, at least in London thanks to a tough response).

More recently there was an announcement that police were getting even tougher and have been knocking riders off their mopeds in a few cases even if they take their helmet off:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...-say-tough-tactics-have-reduced-violent-moped

“I took my helmet off as I thought you would stop chasing me.” That person, who was later jailed, rode on to the pavement. Officers deemed him a danger to the public and used “tactical contact” to knock him off his scooter.

Now while the usual suspects like Dianne Abbot and David Lammy went for their usual "won't anyone think of the poor criminals" response it seems as though this approach by the police has political backing too:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/01/theresa-may-defends-police-tactics-thieves-on-mopeds

The prime minister, speaking to reporters at the G20 summit in Argentina, said the problem of moped gangs was growing and the police had her backing. “These people on these mopeds, they are acting unlawfully. They are committing crimes,” she said. “I think it’s right that we see a robust police response.”

That was only a few days ago... then fast forward to today and I see a police officer is facing criminal investigation for using this tactic, presumably due to the injuries sustained by the suspect.

https://news.sky.com/story/met-poli...igation-for-knocking-down-moped-teen-11571434

A Metropolitan Police officer who used his car to knock a teenager off his moped in a "tactical contact" has been put under criminal investigation.

The unnamed officer struck the scooter to deliberately stop the 17-year-old youth riding dangerously in Erith, southeast London, in November last year.

The teenager, who was not wearing a helmet at the time, was taken to hospital with serious head injuries and fractures but was later discharged.

He later pleaded guilty to five offences at a youth court, including theft, dangerous driving, and driving without a licence.

Should that really be normal? Is that not sending a bit of a mixed message, on one hand we've got senior police officers and the PM happily advertising to the press that the police are going to use this new tactic (including highlighting that they will use this tactic when riders are not wearing helmets), so now the expectation is there and yet a front line officer who has actually used this tactic and unfortunately ended up in the position where the guy riding without a helmet has ended up with injuries (a rather obvious risk that can't be completely controlled for when doing this, especially re: people not wearing helmets) and he now faces possible criminal charges, possibly losing his job etc...

This seems really off - if politicians and senior officers are going to encourage the use of this tactic then the police officers making use of it ought to be better protected legally? If they're going to be left with some investigation hanging over them/potential job loss etc.. and a whole load of stress that goes with it then it doesn't seem so feasible - surely that sort of thing is self defeating and likely to make officers less likely to want to risk doing what the police and politicians claim they're happy for them to now do.

 

[The_Abyss]

IOPC investigates conduct for all sorts of police activity, and normally only after that would the CPS subsequently consider whether it was in the public interest to consider a charge.

I'm all for the the current tactic of punting thieves off mopeds and scooters. But presumably there was some training or agreement on set procedures to do so with a reasonable tolerance for safety, and the IOPC would be reviewing in some cases to ensure that the right process was followed.

 

[dowie]

Well the injured criminal pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and theft so it seems at least that this officer was attempting to tackle what the politicians/senior officers are claiming they're going to tackle here - a thief on a moped posing a danger to the public.

FWIW I saw this story on my Facebook news feed via a post shared by a serving police officer friend from a page "UK Cop Humour", there are comments basically saying that this tactic shouldn't be used because of the risk of being thrown under the bus for doing it.

some comments:

"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."

It seems like appropriate legal cover ought to be given if this tactic is to be encouraged, if you're knocking people off mopeds with no helmet on then injuries are inevitable in some % of cases and if that means months of stress for the officer who drew the short straw and ended up with an injured suspect after following policy the senior officers and politicians are advertising to the public that they were now endorsing then that seems very off and clearly seems to be sending mixed messages to other police officers.

 

[VincentHanna]

Now while the usual suspects like Dianne Abbot and David Lammy went for their usual "won't anyone think of the poor criminals" response it seems as though this approach by the police has political backing too:

Source? I know about Diane Abbott, but couldn't find anything from David Lammy criticising this....

He's criticised the idea of armed officers patrolling the streets where gangs are, which isn't the same thing.

 

[Em3bbs]

Source? I know about Diane Abbott, but couldn't find anything from David Lammy criticising this....

He's criticised the idea of armed officers patrolling the streets where gangs are, which isn't the same thing.

Why do you always insist trying to take threads off topic over side details like this? Have you no opinion of the actual topic?

But anyway, a 2 second Google produces lots of results with this quote:

"Tottenham MP David Lammy described the idea as “an attempt to put out fire with fire” that risks turning streets “into armed battlegrounds”."

 

[VincentHanna]

Why do you always insist trying to take threads off topic over side details like this? Have you no opinion of the actual topic?

But anyway, a 2 second Google produces lots of results with this quote:

"Tottenham MP David Lammy described the idea as “an attempt to put out fire with fire” that risks turning streets “into armed battlegrounds”."

Because I don't like fake news

Yes they do produce that quote, and then when you read the article he isn't even talking about the police ramming mopeds....

If you don't fight it you end up with 3 months of people parroting crap that isn't even accurate.

My view is that knocking criminals off mopeds is fine, but I'm also glad we have the IPCC to investigate complaints of police brutality if/when they ever do go OTT...as usual we don't know the full circumstances so let them do their job.

They also have to investigate anytime the police shoot someone, but that doesn't stop armed police shooting criminals/terrorists. You've just got to have checks and balances in place.

 

[Caracus2k]

The are multiple levels of qualification for police driving. The are broadly consistent between forces and go something like this.....

'basic' driving - covers use of liveried (or non) police cars in a non 'response' role. So the car can be driven normally as per any other road user but no pursuit driving or putting on the lights and sirens and racing to calls. Sometime the driver is allowed to use any fitted lights to indicate to another car to stop (but can't pursue if they drive off) or for use if the car is stationary (like blocking a road where there is a crime scene).

'standard' response - covers the use of police cars in a 'response' role I. E allows the driver to exceed marked speed limits and treat things like red lights as give ways in order to get to calls faster in appropriate scenarios. Often doesn't allow the driver to engage in vehicle pursuit.

Advanced driving covers the use of higher powered vehicles with drivers being trained to a higher standard.

In addition to the above there are also additional qualifications (which often require the driver to already hold advanced driver qualification) which included TPAC (tactical pursuit and containment). Its these sort of additional qualifications that allow the poloce drivers to consider 'tactical contact' as a option in a pursuit.

The vast majority of police drivers, in liveried police cars, are not advanced drivers with TPAC qualifications and so they are not permitted by their forces to consider tactical contact as an option.

I suspect this is the case in the article linked.

It should be noted that being an advanced driver with TPAC doesn't magically grant the driver of the police car any legal exemptions from the actual law around things like dangerous driving (which doesn't make any reference to varying levels of police driver training).

This is a point of contention as police officers are always at risk of being prosecuted even if they appear to have been doing their job in a manner consistent with their training and as such there is a push being made for the law to be clarified in this regard.

 

[Hyburnate]

The law needs changing to provide legal support for what police officers are being trained to carry out.

Absolutely stupid that they’d be asked to do something that they risk prosecution for.

It’s not as if it’s not well known, if you fail to stop on a moped, they will ensure you stop.

Is there a petition to change the law?

 

[LeeUK]

Good. You can't just go putting lives at risk because some scum bag on a moped did a little shop lifting.

 

[peterwalkley]

Economist did a balanced write-up on this: https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/12/01/britains-cautious-coppers-unveil-a-tough-new-tactic

Police are in their usual crappy position of being stuck between scummers with no regard for anyone else and the world of what should be. Personally I'm happy with the robust approach: if you don't stop for a copper with blues going then you deserve what you get.

My suspicion is this problem will go away within a year or two as the regulars doing the crimes get caught and people become more street aware of it. I'm reminded of "steaming" which was gangs running through tube trains in the 80's snatching everything they could and legging it. A combination of cameras, robust policing and society adjusting means that just doesn't happen any more.

 

[Caracus2k]

Here's some further reading detailing how exposed police drivers currently are to prosecution ......


A case were there was no crash, no public complaint but yet there was still a prosecution launched not only of the driver of a police car pursuing a suspected burglar but also the passenger in the car for 'permitting' the pursuit to continue!

 

[Screeeech]

Good. You can't just go putting lives at risk because some scum bag on a moped did a little shop lifting.

Play the worlds smallest violin.

If you ride around swinging a hammer (like they did to me) to get someone’s phone, or whatever else (acid) then take them down, their well-being, health and safety is of no concern to me whatsoever.

 

[200sols]

Good. You can't just go putting lives at risk because some scum bag on a moped did a little shop lifting.

So what your saying is, they can do what they want and get away with it in case they get hurt.

 

[Uther]

The police should knock them off then reverse over them to finish the job.Zero sympathy for those moped criminal scum at all.
Apparently moped crime has dropped significantly since the police cracked down.

 

[VincentHanna]

The police should knock them off then reverse over them to finish the job.

No they shouldn't...this isn't North Korea.

 

[adolf hamster]

ooh isn't this a sticky situation, on the one hand i'm all for the freedom for the police to be able to employ tactics up to and including deadly force when the situation requires it, but on the flip side i can also see the benefits to ensuring that officers are kept in check with the threat of investigation and/or legal action when an investigation shows them to have acted recklessly.

i think the problem in a lot of investigations is that officers have to act "in the moment" and they don't get the chance to spend months post-analysing an incident in minute detail from multiple information sources.

 

[XeNoN89]

Good. You can't just go putting lives at risk because some scum bag on a moped did a little shop lifting.

Except they are attacking people with weapons and acid, not just a little shoplifting. How would you like your mum getting attacked by a moped rider and the police letting them get away just in case they injured the poor violent criminal?

 

[chris4652009]

The police should knock them off then reverse over them to finish the job.Zero sympathy for those moped criminal scum at all.
Apparently moped crime has dropped significantly since the police cracked down.

100% with you

 

[D.P.]

I don;t get why the police would ever be allowed to intentionally knock someone off a moving moped unless the moped driver was an immediate danger to the public. The driver might easily be killed. Do we really think he police should should be the judge, jury and executioner? Where does it go next, replacing speed camera with police armed with rifles taking shots at speeding cars?


In these cases it is critical that there is substantial evidence that the scummy moped driver was a real and current threat to the public before taking such drastic actions, otherwise UK policing has just descended to the barbaric dark ages

 

[D.P.]

Except they are attacking people with weapons and acid, not just a little shoplifting. How would you like your mum getting attacked by a moped rider and the police letting them get away just in case they injured the poor violent criminal?

Some are just shoplifters, some standard street thugs, some drug dealers, and a small minority are the abhorrent scum wielding weapons and throwing acid. Moreover, in many cases the police wont have defective evidence of what crimes were committed, so in no sane country should the police have the right to execute a fleeing suspect.