19 replies to this topic

[ramjet]

Have just finished watching a segment on 60 Minutes on the TV and the story was about the deaths of two people from a police pursuit.

The police had pulled over a driver for speeding. The driver of the vehicle was known to police and had personalised plates on his V8 Commodore. The report did not say whether the police had confirmed whether the driver was the person they thought it to be. This was, of course, confirmed after the crash.
As the police approached his car, he did a runner. The police hopped back in their vehicle and chased him. They called in the chase as per their regulations. At one stage the offender has gone the wrong way down a freeway off ramp and the wrong way on the highway. The police have called in their speed of 150km/h and the actions of the driver and have been ordered to abort the chase.

One minute later further down the road from where they have aborted, the speeding car has driven head on into a young couple who were having an early morning drive. The estimated impact speed was reported as 250km/h (We won't get into the argument of combined speed versus non-combined here)

Both drivers died at the scene. The young mother lived, but is still confined to a wheelchair currently. Her baby son was not in the car, but travelled behind the father so more than likely would have been a victim as well had he been in the car.

The young mother blames the other driver and the police for pursuing him.
The sister of the offender blames the police entirely. Her reasons:
1) For pursuing him in the first place when they knew him.
2) For giving him the adrenalin to panic him so that he would run.

She also states that the police should be held entirely accountable for both deaths.
She adamantly believes that her brother did everything he did due to being pursued. He was not at fault for his actions.

The case is now the subject of a coronial enquiry.

I do understand that the families have been adversely affected, but what should the police do?

As I see it, they are damned if they do (by the families involved) and damned if they don't (by the rest of the public).

Should police pursue or not?

(Something I did not know. In Australia 25% of people killed as a result of police pursuits have been innocent bystanders)

[andydclements]

Pursue, else it's a case of "It was stolen and I have only just discovered that to be the case". The argument of do not pursue is ridiculous in my opinion (and so that of the sister of the family), you can apply the same to any and all other police situations, so a person known to police is walking through the streets with a gun taking aim at members of the public, so what the police should just sit it out in their cars/ stations and go to the person's home a few days later to arrest the person?

If the person they pulled over in the Commodore was speeding (not guilty until proven) then surely his actions were putting people's lives at risk whether pursued or not. Yes, during the pursuit it increases the risk of him having a collision for that period but the idea is one of increased risk during Vs decreasing the overall risk by reducing (very dramatically) the period at which he is at a dangerous speed. Overall it should make the situation less likely to cause loss of life. Unfortunately it's one of statistics. The longer a person (who must be rather deranged and over-estimating his own driving abilities) is at risk of causing death by driving at a dangerous speed (you do not run if the police are going to give you a £60 fine or equivalent for doing slightly over the limit) the greater the chance of loss of life (somebody else's).

[Bibs]

Speeding and dangerous driving are very different. If speeding was so dangerous, the fuzz wouldn't leave it up to a camera and a letter delayed 2 weeks to enforce.

If it was just, only, and nothing but speeding they wanted to give him a verbal NIP for, then they could have popped to his house later on.

[73JPS]

The position of the sister of the offender is a perfect example of what is rotting the values of modern society.

[mayesprit]

Agree with all of above posts. If you see a blue flashing light behind, combine with headlight flashing, a indicator, and a copper waving you to pull in, most would take that as possible clue that they would like a word, wether that be for a speeding offence, jumping lights, a brake light out or whatever. If Police ask you to stop (and I was led to believe it is an offence if you dont stop if required to do so) it rarely means f**k off at a dangerous speed as quickly as you can, with or without the hind site of a potentially fatel crash. I have an incredible amount of sympathy for the innocent people caught up in the carnage of such accidents, but I just can't see how the Police can be expected to just wave them off with a cheery catch up with you later maybe attitude (that's obviously after offloading stolen goods, drugs or other passengers wanted for similar) Scroats are scroats and will forever be scroats. Police don't always get it right, like anybody in any job, but firmly believe they are getting their hands tied tighter and tighter whilst the law sides with a justice system that protects the criminal instead of the victim (digressing massively I know)

Tough one.

As I see it, they are damned if they do (by the families involved) and damned if they don't (by the rest of the public).

(Something I did not know. In Australia 25% of people killed as a result of police pursuits have been innocent bystanders)

I actually thought it would have been even higher than that. Dangerous driving at any speed in a populated area will have a very high percentage of innocent casualties.

Good subject Michael but interested to hear your take as well.

[mr.oogieboogie]

Having been ploughed into by plod going through a red light. Im not on their side too many people get hurt by their driving

[Sparky]

The driver of the vehicle was known to police - nuff said. I'm guessing it wasn't for his outstanding charity work. If the bastards were punished properly the first time they did anything like this, then life would be a lot better for everyone.

[Kimbers]

Having been ploughed into by plod going through a red light. Im not on their side too many people get hurt by their driving

Sorry Peter.

So we let people breaking the law go?

Have you been smashed into by an ambulance racing to save someones life? Is that justified? Because whats the difference? they both have blues and two's on and are doing the job we, the public, have asked them to do.

If somoene stole your Lotus by smashing you over the face with an iron bar and then drove it off would you want them to be caught? Because if they get away the odds state a conviction is 70% less likely.

Lets say you stop the pursuit and they get away and the next time they kill a family while driving away. The Police would again get blamed for letting them get away in the first place!

If you had an armed burglar in your house and you dialled 999 for help, wouldn't you expect that as soon as possible? Would you rather the polce drive within the speed limit and then, when you have been stabbed or shot who would you blame?

Sorry but this annoys the crap outta me. Everyone should be allowed to sleep safe knowing they are protected, themselves and their property, by the full force of the law. You start limiting that and you limit the protection they can offer.

The plain and simple fact, no matter how hard you try and justify anything else, is that the Police chase people because they have broken the law. And not for just dropping litter.

[Tony K]

The speeding/reckless offending driver is 100% at fault and no one else, period. Nobody made him drive like that. It was his choice to run from the police (a world of wrong in and of itself right there), and his choice and no one else' to continue driving recklessly after the police backed off. You can't blame your own actions on the actions of others. End of story.

[ramjet]

If it was just, only, and nothing but speeding they wanted to give him a verbal NIP for, then they could have popped to his house later on.

That's just it mate, they can't. They have to prove he is the driver at the time of the offence. They could drop around to his house later and all he has to do is park the car a couple of blocks away and act all innocent and say "I've been asleep. It must have been stolen."

Good subject Michael but interested to hear your take as well.

My take Ian? If you're going to drive a vehicle on the road, you are entirely responsible for your actions behind the wheel. You speed? It was you. You fail to indicate and run someone off the road? It was you. You rear end someone in bad weather? It was you. (I rode home today on the bike and it's raining cats and dogs. In the lane beside mine, there was no fewer than three cars going at 100km/h in the gap I had to the car in front of me.)
You fail to stop and deal with the police for what is essentially a misdemeanour? It was you.
He had stopped. He took off once the police were out of their car and walking to his. Conscious decision.

You don't want that responsibility? Hand your license back in and take the bus or a train or walk.
Half the time, if these people have their license taken off them they still drive anyway.

The crying shame is the other driver who had done nothing wrong. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for the runner.

[mayesprit]

That's what I'd thought you would say Michael and to my mind, spot on as well.

This chaps sister is trying to say that if you left you phone on the seat of an unlocked car, the temptation is put there for it to be stolen or if you go out leaving your house unlocked, feel free to come on in and help yourself to a free TV. If a woman goes out in a short skirt, she's asking to be attacked.

Temptation? What a load of rubbish.

Right and Wrong - surely even thick people know the difference.

[MPx]

I'm firmly in the chase 'em down camp, but such views do seem to be heavily influenced by personal experiences rather than by "right and wrong". My influences are being the victim of crime (mostly burgulary and a hit and run) - the police response was (literally) non-existent, just the issuance of a crime number and offer of leaflets on councilling and victim support. No attempt at detection and capture of the scroats at all. Result - I want all scroats chased down and dealt with.

Its interesting that the only people arguing for more restraint by the police are those who have been caused collatoral damage by them. At first consideration that seems a reasonable position to me too. After all its how laws are made to start with. People get ploughed down by something - the rest of us make a law that you're not allowed to plough people down. But I think the crucial difference is intent (and that applies to the scroats as well as the police). If you drive very fast the chances of you ploughing someone down increases but without intent it is still an "accident". If we accept that then we get into the much more murkey waters of my old hobby horse - risk assessment and identifying an acceptable level of carnage. To the one on the receiving end, any level of carnage is too much. To us victims of crime, its an unfortunate consequence of detering and dealing with crime.... until it happens to us!

[andydclements]

I have to say that If I were in the USA I'd probably be of a slightly different opinion to the "chase'em down" approach, I'd go with "shoot the car's tyres out" and if that fails "shoot the f***ers".

The UK have a boxing in method whilst the USA seem to go (looking at the various police pursuit shows) for a PITA (knock them off the road) approach. I don't think the PIT approach would work here very well, I'd have thought the roads need to be quite deserted to and/or have lots of lanes for other vehicles nearby to avoid any spinning car. Either way, seems to work if you have enough vehicles in the area.
However, if you have an armed police office who is free to shoot at the vehicle (to hit a tyre on a moving target from a moving vehicle would be quite a shot), surely that's enough to discourage the fleeing person that perhaps stopping and surrendering might be a better approach.

[ramjet]

Heard that they are now looking at trialling the ability for the police to broadcast over all radio bands that a pursuit is taking place, where it is and to please move off the road.
All well and good except for the guy or girl that are driving along listening to their CD player or other medium 'cos the radio is full of repetitive rubbish generally.

Here's a thought. It smacks of Big Brother, but don't screw up and you should have nothing to worry about. Manufacturers have telemetry to a car that the police can call the manufacturer when after someone and ask for the car to be forced into Limp mode. 3 things would have to be met though.

Rego, car model and make and location. Maybe with the right gear, it could be just make and model and location info. i.e. speed and direction.

Could you imagine if this was done on just rego number and someone had stolen your plates? There you are driving along minding your own business having left home in the dark and unaware that your car has no plates and then all of a sudden crossing a train line, your car for no apparent reason goes into limp mode.

[fmxa]

We seem to have at least one or two of these a week courtesy of live news helicopters. One recent chase ended with the driver, a 19 year old kid running from his car and getting shot dead live on TV after the cops thought he was pointing a gun at them. There are some pretty strict guidelines on when the police have to break off a pursuit and it centers around when the chase is designated as getting too dangerous vs the alleged crime they committed.

http://www.liveleak....1387&comments=1

[Winter]

I wish perpetrators gave as much thought to the consequences of their actions that the police give during chases and also, that said perpetrators had the same training as police pursuit drivers.

Of course it is a huge tragedy that innocent people are affected, sometimes catastrophically. However, our current criminal justice system is based on evidence. Perpeptrators of crimes do their utmost to destroy or remove evidence to evade conviction. There is ample evidence from filmed police chases of offenders deliberately throwing stolen property from vehicles while being pursued.

In the end, to allow offenders to escape and destroy or conceal evidence adversely affects all of us.

So, while I have (huge) sympathy for the innocent victims of police chases it should not be the police who are maligned: the culprits should have their penalties increased.

The rights and entitlements that all of us have are designed to protect the innocent. Unfortunately, these entitlements are exploited by those who know full well that they are guilty so as to avoid conviction and punishment.

[Tony K]

All of the great police chases in the States happen in California!

[nigeninja]

I have to say that If I were in the USA I'd probably be of a slightly different opinion to the "chase'em down" approach, I'd go with "shoot the car's tyres out" and if that fails "shoot the f***ers".

"Shoot the tyres out" nice one Andy but I think you been watching to many US cop shows,but I like your style and really tyres and shoot the F****ers should apply in all countries

[ramjet]

Well the follow-up to this TV story was on tonight. The follow-up is simply viewer emails etc to the show. The reporter gave a synopsis of the story, mentioned the sister saying it is not her dead brothers fault (the one who ran) and then said,
"But you all did." Only a few emails were shown, but it appears to be overwhelmingly against the runner.

No real surprise there.

[Simon350S]

That was a very funny car chase tony. Almost smokey& the bandit esque