Police in Greater Manchester let three thieves drive away on stolen motorbikes.......

[GodlessAstronomer]

So, at the time they decided not to chase the criminals, they knew this? Why didn't you just say they were psychic cops and they didn't give chase knowing they would get arrested anyways.

Wrap up the thread here folks. We just gotta deploy more crystal balls to our police.

How do you even manage to tie your shoes in the morning without strangling yourself?

 

[darkxshade]

Police in Greater Manchester let three thieves drive away on stolen motorbikes - over fears for the safety of the riders who were not wearing helmets.

So really, did they let them go out of fear of the thieves getting hurt because they weren't wearing a helmet or were they cautious about bystanders who weren't wearing them?<--- bit of sarcasm there based on the discussion here

Because I say fuck the thieves and pursue, if they die, that's their fault for A. stealing and B. not wearing a helmet. Bystanders did not seem to be the reason they let them go unless it's normal for everyone to be wearing helmets and some just happen not to that day.

Now if they said they let them go out of fears of pedestrian safety, then that would be another story but it seems like they were afraid the thieves would get themselves killed if they chased.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Can we just change the topic and talk about Buck Rogers?

 

[Keeper]

WOW... Good to see the UK is as screwed up as your former colony......
Here in the states it is both lawyers and pablum sucking liberals who have screwed this up...
There was a youth... Awhile ago.... Pistol whipping an ELDERLY man on a subway station... A TA officer came upon the scene... Drew his weapon and told him to halt...
The FINE upstanding youth stopped beating the elderly man... And ran... Officer squeezed off a round or two...... Severed the fine upstanding citizens spinal cord...
He is now in a wheelchair and will be for life.

6 of my peers awarded him multi millions.... Becuase he had STOPPED beating the man and was trying to flee the scene.... So the lawyers convinced them that this was excessive force...

SCREW the fact he was running away with a gun... Lets NOT even get int the case of loaded... Toy... Etc....

I nver followed the case on the many appeals... Just that 6 people could say... YEAH... Ya know......

Mind numbing......


Linky to case...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000

 

[JulesMaximus]

WOW... Good to see the UK is as screwed up as your former colony......
Here in the states it is both lawyers and pablum sucking liberals who have screwed this up...
There was a youth... Awhile ago.... Pistol whipping an ELDERLY man on a subway station... A TA officer came upon the scene... Drew his weapon and told him to halt...
The FINE upstanding youth stopped beating the elderly man... And ran... Officer squeezed off a round or two...... Severed the fine upstanding citizens spinal cord...
He is now in a wheelchair and will be for life.

6 of my peers awarded him multi millions.... Becuase he had STOPPED beating the man and was trying to flee the scene.... So the lawyers convinced them that this was excessive force...

SCREW the fact he was running away with a gun... Lets NOT even get int the case of loaded... Toy... Etc....

I nver followed the case on the many appeals... Just that 6 people could say... YEAH... Ya know......

Mind numbing......


Linky to case...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000

Well, as despicable as that is we have rules for police officers and the use of deadly force and I'm pretty sure that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is a big no no.

As for lawyers I'm sure that even your idol, Rush Limbaugh, has hired plenty of them over the years.

 

[theflyingpig]

'm pretty sure that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is a big no no.

It shouldn't be. You run from the cops, you get shot. That should make things really simple. People will make the decision for themselves.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Wait, so what does their lack of helmets have to do with bystander safety? That's the worst argument I've ever heard.

It's one thing for a police force to have a policy of not engaging in high-speed pursuits for fear of hurting an innocent bystander. If that was the reason they didn't pursue the thieves, it would make sense. But that wasn't the reason. They specifically didn't chase them because the thieves weren't wearing helmets.

So if they had been wearing helmets, they would have pursued? Does that make ONE IOTA of difference to any bystanders? No, it doesn't. Hell, it might actually make it more dangerous to others.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Wait, so what does their lack of helmets have to do with bystander safety? That's the worst argument I've ever heard.

It's one thing for a police force to have a policy of not engaging in high-speed pursuits for fear of hurting an innocent bystander. If that was the reason they didn't pursue the thieves, it would make sense. But that wasn't the reason. They specifically didn't chase them because the thieves weren't wearing helmets.

So if they had been wearing helmets, they would have pursued? Does that make ONE IOTA of difference to any bystanders? No, it doesn't. Hell, it might actually make it more dangerous to others.

Which was my point in this thread. I don't care at all about the thieves.

 

[Zenmervolt]

You don't allow it; you just persue it in ways that don't put innocent people and to a lesser degree even guilty in undue risk. They still caught the people in this case... they just didn't kill them/others in the process.

Agreed. You can't argue with the law and order hammerheads here though. Everything is black and white and justice should be served up quick and as harshly as possible.

The chances of them injuring a bystander are incredibly small; there's a reason that liability-only coverage is dirt cheap even for supersports while PIP and collision/comprehensive are ridiculously expensive.

I understand the rationale for not chasing at high speeds on a freeway, but a blanket order not to pursue at all is ridiculous, and even moreso when the articulated reason is concern for the thieves' safety. There are probably hundreds of good reasons to call off a pursuit (speeds are too high, risk to officers, risk to public, risk to property, unsafe weather conditions, etc) but concern for the safety of the guilty party is most emphatically not one of those reasons.

ZV

 

[jlee]

Well, as despicable as that is we have rules for police officers and the use of deadly force and I'm pretty sure that shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is a big no no.

As for lawyers I'm sure that even your idol, Rush Limbaugh, has hired plenty of them over the years.

Negative, ghostrider.

627:5 Physical Force in Law Enforcement. –
I. A law enforcement officer is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest or detention or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested or detained person, unless he knows that the arrest or detention is illegal, or to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of non-deadly force encountered while attempting to effect such an arrest or detention or while seeking to prevent such an escape.
II. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:
(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force; or
(b) To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes:
(1) Has committed or is committing a felony involving the use of force or violence, is using a deadly weapon in attempting to escape, or otherwise indicates that he is likely to seriously endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and
(2) He had made reasonable efforts to advise the person that he is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest and has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of these facts.
(c) Nothing in this paragraph constitutes justification for conduct by a law enforcement officer amounting to an offense against innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

 

[Zenmervolt]

WOW... Good to see the UK is as screwed up as your former colony......
Here in the states it is both lawyers and pablum sucking liberals who have screwed this up...
There was a youth... Awhile ago.... Pistol whipping an ELDERLY man on a subway station... A TA officer came upon the scene... Drew his weapon and told him to halt...
The FINE upstanding youth stopped beating the elderly man... And ran... Officer squeezed off a round or two...... Severed the fine upstanding citizens spinal cord...
He is now in a wheelchair and will be for life.

6 of my peers awarded him multi millions.... Becuase he had STOPPED beating the man and was trying to flee the scene.... So the lawyers convinced them that this was excessive force...

SCREW the fact he was running away with a gun... Lets NOT even get int the case of loaded... Toy... Etc....

I nver followed the case on the many appeals... Just that 6 people could say... YEAH... Ya know......

Mind numbing......


Linky to case...

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...:scholar.google.com/&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000

I just read the case. Absolutely agree with the verdict.

The use of deadly force is only legitimate when there is a reasonable belief of the immanent risk of death or severe bodily harm to the shooter or to another person. Caselaw (and, in some cases, legislation) is clear that a fleeing suspect does not present any immanent threat. The shooting was absolutely unjustified and the defendant had no legal grounds for his actions.

Also, as an aside, the excessive use of ellipses in your post makes you appear slightly unhinged. While I took the time to actually read through your post and look at the case you cited, you should be aware that your writing style will cause the majority of people to simply write you off without further investigation. If you wish more people to take you seriously, you would do well to consider using a more conventional writing style.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Negative, ghostrider.

II. A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly force only when he reasonably believes such force is necessary:
(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes is the imminent use of deadly force; or
(b) To effect an arrest or prevent the escape from custody of a person whom he reasonably believes:
(1) Has committed or is committing a felony involving the use of force or violence, is using a deadly weapon in attempting to escape, or otherwise indicates that he is likely to seriously endanger human life or inflict serious bodily injury unless apprehended without delay; and
(2) He had made reasonable efforts to advise the person that he is a law enforcement officer attempting to effect an arrest and has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is aware of these facts.

That's still very tightly written though. Note that both condition (1) AND condition (2) must be fulfilled and that condition (1) limits such action only to cases where the suspect has given cause for a reasonable belief that he presents a serious risk to life or of causing serious bodily injury.

ZV

 

[jlee]

That's still very tightly written though. Note that both condition (1) AND condition (2) must be fulfilled and that condition (1) limits such action only to cases where the suspect has given cause for a reasonable belief that he presents a serious risk to life or of causing serious bodily injury.

ZV

I am quite aware...I spent all day reviewing use of force law/policy and shooting stuff. I was responding to the blanket statement that you cannot shoot someone who is fleeing.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I am quite aware...I spent all day reviewing use of force law/policy and shooting stuff. I was responding to the blanket statement that you cannot shoot someone who is fleeing.

Not even if the guy who made the statement gave you a free motorcycle helmet?

 

[jlee]

Not even if the guy who made the statement gave you a free motorcycle helmet?

lol

I do love that helmet...far far above the Scorpion I had before. <3

 

[DominionSeraph]

You think a 450lb motorcycle at 60mph is low risk to bystanders?

You forgot the "1" in front of "60" for the pictures you posted.

And when a car gets T-boned by a bike, it's usually because the car pulled out in front of the bike. If someone dies because they failed to yield the right of way, that's their fault.

 

[Zenmervolt]

I am quite aware...I spent all day reviewing use of force law/policy and shooting stuff. I was responding to the blanket statement that you cannot shoot someone who is fleeing.

Point. Sorry.

ZV

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Once these scumbags decided to take these bikes they should have to face whatever consequence that happens

Yeah, because they deserve to die for stealing a bike...

Dumbass.

 

[grrl]

>>Supt Steve Nibloe, of GMP, said: "The officers were asked not to pursue the suspects, as they were not wearing the correct safety equipment and were not wearing helmets, so it is clear to me the correct decision was taken.

"Greater Manchester Police follows a nationwide policy which gives clear guidance that motorbikes should not be pursued because of the higher risk of injury to the rider. <<


I understand arguments the about protecting bystanders, but the above logic eludes me. Do cops first check if people fleeing in cars are wearing their safety belt?

 

[JTsyo]

When committing a crime, you are going to take a risk with your health. Police shouldn't be handicapped with concern for your safety. I'm not taking about silly things like locking a suspect in a car with the windows rolled up during a hot day but things like this case.
What's to stop a criminal from wearing a suicide vest and doing whatever he wants under the threat of killing himself if police interfere? It would seem as long as he's not harming others, he can steal/destroy what he wants. It's just property after all, right?