Pedestrian killed in collision with police car

[mediman 10]

But there's the rub..............it wasn't a "true emergency," it had a required response time of one hour. It was "just" plain old speeding, an offense that normal members of the public get fined and/or jailed for all of the time, even when they don't kill a pedestrian.

 

At last a reply worth reading.

Had the police car been driven within the speed limit the student, playing chicken or not, may have suvived the impact of the car.

[HeadingNorth 11]

At last a reply worth reading.

Had the police car been driven within the speed limit the student, playing chicken or not, may have suvived the impact of the car.

 

And had it been driven at 90mph it would have been past the student before he had time to run out. Neither of those facts means that the driver is responsible.

[mort 10]

Any more bickering and insults and i will be issuing suspensions.

[strikerPaul 10]

A frankly disgusting outcome and yet another case of the police force looking after their own.

 

If it were you or I do you think the outcome would have been the same?

 

Not on your Nellie.

 

wow im impressed it took until the 8th post !

[strikerPaul 10]

The lad played chicken with a police car, and sadly lost. Even if the cop had his blue lights on, it might not have made any difference. If someone decides to suddenly and intentionally run out in front of a car, having told his friends he was going to do so then they do it at their own risk.

 

The full details were presented to the jurors, who came to their own decision. A young man has lost his life, a family has lost their son, a member of the public serving his community has to carry a huge weight on his shoulders for the rest of his life. There is no poitive outcome, nor could there ever be.

 

Another way of looking at it would be for all police officers to drive within the speed limits regardless of whether they are travelling to an emergency or not. But then folk would complain the police took a long time to respond, why couldnt they get there sooner....

 

My thoughts are with both sets of families. They have all had their lives turned upside down.

 

I totally unbiased, thoughtful and responsible post. Very impressed.

 

Maybe all those posting and siding with either the police or the victim should take note.

 

This is not the thread to start airing the fact you don't like the police, start your own thread if thats how you get your sad kicks, dont use one that only has victims!

 

I suggest SF close this thread promto..

[strikerPaul 10]

Yet again it's one law for the police, and one law for the rest of us.

 

If that had have been a normal motorist driving at twice the speed limit, at night, who killed a pedestrian, they'd have been crucified.

 

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Aleksandr 10]

The equipment in question was what the Police refer to as the Method of Entry Kit.

 

Essentially it's the battering ram that you may have seen them use on tv to knock doors in.

 

As has been mentioned there were concerns about a person's safety and the Police were requested to gain entry to the premises. The officer had to go to the station to pick up the kit.

 

If your mother or granny was lying on the floor needing help, you'd want the officer to get there ASAP wouldn't you?

So you think for the sake of a few seconds it was worth killing an innocent young man! Incredible!

 

The officer should have had lights and sirens on, and there can be no rational debate about that! If the need was so great that he felt he had to risk driving at double the speed limit, then he should have had lights and sirens on, regardless of the time or location.

 

In my view, this is a travesty! I have much reduced my opinion of the Police and the British legal system, and judges. As for the jury - well!

 

I'm guessing that they chose Bradford for the trial, because Jamie Haslett had been drinking, and there is a high percentage of people in Bradford who consider drinking to be sinful on religious grounds, and therefore, one would presume, must consider Jamie Haslett to deserve his death.

[Aleksandr 10]

And had it been driven at 90mph it would have been past the student before he had time to run out. Neither of those facts means that the driver is responsible.

Really? What about driving without lights and siren? That fact alone proves responsibility IMO.

[Aleksandr 10]

It was late at night in a residential area. The driver judged that as there was no other traffic whatsoever and the pedestrians could see him, there was no need for him to put blues and twos on.

 

The issue for the jury was whether the lack of blue lights would have made any difference to the decision the lad who was killed made, to cross in front of the police car.

Everyone, especially the Police, knows that town is full of people under the influence of alcohol, and everyone, especially the Police, knows the effect that alcohol can have, and so no one, especially the Police, could reasonably proffer what you said as an excuse! No way!

[Aleksandr 10]

That's very simple to answer. The lad had seen the police car a long way off, and deliberately waited until it was almost directly upon him before running out in front of it.

 

 

I actually know the PC involved, but I've refrained from posting anything about it because - obviously - the case has been sub judice until the trial. What has mystified the people who knew about the case is not "how could he not be found guilty" but, rather, "how could anyone possibly think this should have gone to trial." There was never the slightest shadow of a doubt that he would be found innocent - no driver is expected to allow for people deliberately throwing themselves in front of his car.

But he was driving at twice the speed limit without lights or siren in an area where he knew there would be people under the influence of alcohol, and that could have been reasonably foreseen. Lights and siren would have really helped his case from my point of view, but then so would a reasonable speed!

 

Even if Jamie Haslett did as you claim, he could only be partly responsible. PC Rodney Craig Mills must share that responsibility in my view, because I think he was reckless to drive so fast without lights and siren, and I think he should be made to pay for it. The law must be fair and must be seen to be fair. I really don't think that is the case here.

[Aleksandr 10]

A police officer can be on a jury, there was one on a case I was on.

 

One thing that struck me in the article was an EMERGENCY that had to be responded to in an hour?

Perhaps he wanted to get a coffee break in first!

[Aleksandr 10]

No, but judgement of speed might have been. Flashing lights, indicating they were on a mission, might have been enough to make the chap think twice about beating it. Of course we'll never know.

 

Even if it hadn't have helped in this case, it would still seem the obvious thing to do. I just cannot see any good reason for not warning people that you are driving "outside the norm".

There isn't a good reason really, is there!