Met police officer denies dangerous driving charge relating to patrol car crash with burglary suspect fleeing on bike

Tom_77 wrote:

Criminals have rights, the alternative is a dystopian nightmare.

True, but don't forget:

hawkinspeter wrote:

There's something very wrong with assuming that if someone has committed a crime then they get what they deserve if the police decide to enact a bit of 'justice'.

....

Quite, it allows any member of the public to become a police target of violence. The risk of becoming a target of course then is skewed massively by factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic background (AKA class)

Which is why tories are so keen on it - they are less likely to be at the receiving end....

Captain Badger wrote:

I would have thought it as fairly obvious. The police cannot be allowed the job of unaccountable judge, jury and executioner,

It's not about retribution or summary judgement though but apprehending the suspect. If the suspect had been on foot they could have been chased down, they would likely have been tackled to the the ground potentially causing injury.

If the suspect has been fleeing in a car it would be routine to bring a car to a stop usng the police car.

Obviously it would not be proprtionate to shoot a fleeing suspect, although in America this may well happen. Knocking the suspect down with a car falls somewhere between tackling/tripping a running suspect and shooting them. The jury will decide whether the force used was proportionate or acceptable.

It is a grey area, and I am a little uncomfortable with the message sent that criminals fleeing on bikes or mopeds become untouchable. As much as I am with the concept of cars being used as weapons by police.

I would not be surprised if the defence were able to convice 3 of 12 jurors that it was proportionate/required.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

I would have thought it as fairly obvious. The police cannot be allowed the job of unaccountable judge, jury and executioner,

It's not about retribution or summary judgement though but apprehending the suspect.

I'm glad to hear it....

wycombewheeler wrote:

If the suspect had been on foot they could have been chased down, they would likely have been tackled to the the ground potentially causing injury.

That is not what happened......

wycombewheeler wrote:

If the suspect has been fleeing in a car it would be routine to bring a car to a stop usng the police car.

Again, that is not what happened.....

wycombewheeler wrote:

Obviously it would not be proportionate to shoot a fleeing suspect, although in America this may well happen. Knocking the suspect down with a car falls somewhere between tackling/tripping a running suspect and shooting them.

Knocking the suspect down with a car and running over them.... This is heavily towards the shooting end of the spectrum

wycombewheeler wrote:

The jury will decide whether the force used was proportionate or acceptable.

Too late. It is scant comfort to the victim to find that their life-changing injuries were actually unlawfully inflicted.

wycombewheeler wrote:

It is a grey area, and I am a little uncomfortable with the message sent that criminals fleeing on bikes or mopeds become untouchable. As much as I am with the concept of cars being used as weapons by police.

Untouchable? no, just that proportionate force is the limit of what is available to the police. Running someone over with a tonne and half of steel at speed is not a proportionate response.

A fleeing suspect of a property crime is not showing any risk the public - the officer driving in this manner however most definitely was. 

Furthermore if this is policy, it is clear that of all people run over, sorry, apprehended in this manner a significant proportion would not be demonstrably guilty of any offence. As a member of the public, allowing the police to behave in this way as they see fit does me no favours at all.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I would not be surprised if the defence were able to convice 3 of 12 jurors that it was proportionate/required.

That the defence might be unable to convince 3/4 of a jury that the response was proportionate is not a good benchmark for sound policy. Again the Police are supposed to obey the law, not test it (at the cost of health and well being of suspects) to see what they can get away with.

"The fact that the suspect was fleeing from police is a decent indicator that he is not a saint."

Plenty of people in this country fear the police because they don't believe they'll be treated fairly. And that may make their reactions different to yours or mine with their amygdala getting control over the rest of the brain.

If you are white and middle class in the UK you are less likely to be stopped by the police and more likely to be treated properly. Outside that demographic, you have a higher chance of being cuffed, searched, spending a night in a cell, etc.

I was stopped for speeding in France in the 90s. In the back of the police car I realised that the officer had a gun and almost had a bowel movement. Rational risk to me? Near zero. Unconscious response? A bit different.

So please do not assume that those who panic and make off are automatically guilty and deserve birching.

Titanus wrote:

....

  The fact that the suspect was fleeing from police is a decent indicator that he is not a saint.

That is most definitely the case. To my knowledge, the victim has yet to be beatified. Same for my good self, but shouldn't be long now.....

So cos the copper "knows" the victim to be a wrong'un (cos he run, innit), the copper is permitted to mete a bit of street justice by way of running him over, in spite of the victim not appearing to be putting anyone at risk?

I'll save you the effort of trying to justify this silly assertion. It is not permitted. It is against the law. The copper is not denying deliberately running the victim over, but trying to make out he had legal justification.  The copper is therefore no saint. Maybe he should be, I dunno, run over ??

In the words of Alan Partridge, 'he must be guilty otherwise they wouldn't have arrested him'.

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Brain damaged snowflakes probably.

Maybe move to America and then you can support Police who shoot unarmed people because they look shifty, then get cleared because they mention they felt there life was in danger. Or back to the 70's where the serious crime squad lived up to their moniker and committed serious crimes forcing confessions
...

It makes me laugh that the folk who throw up comments like this are those least likely  to be able (or willing) to apply principles consistently, nor show any willingness to understand cause and effect.....

Edit - Added AlsoSomniloquism's full post, to be clear that they did not say snowflakes, rather were quoting someone else

Captain Badger wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

Brain damaged snowflakes probably.

...

It makes me laugh that the folk who throw up comments like this are those least likely (or willing) to be able to apply principles consistently, nor show any willingness to understand cause and effect.....

In general, resorting to broad, non-specific labels is just a way to avoid thinking. It's a lazy political stance to demonise some opponents/disliked group but the main problem is how ill-defined these terms are. What exactly is a snowflake? (or gammon?)

OnYerBike wrote:

There was a good long read article about this sort of issue last year: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2019/jul/02/deaths-uk-police-pursuits-c...

Key points:

• The police aren't above the law
• There is the potential for entirely innocent parties to be injured/killed
• Policing/use of force should be proportionate

Really fantastic article, thanks

One of the things that screams out to me is that when management allows staff to undertake dangerous activities with inadequate risk assessment or process they are letting those staff down despicably - especially considering that lessons learned is stymied, therefore staff are exposed to that repeated risk unwittingly in the future. The decisions that these officers are required to make time and time again (and clearly unqualified to make) in the heat of the moment are decisions that should be made in the process meetings, in training, and so on. As one of the officers stated, where there is no direct risk to the public, they can always pick the suspect up later. 

Looking at me in a funny way
Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area after the hours of darkness
Having an offensive wife

Obv all good reasons.

Constable Savage IIRC.