A new way of dealing with scooter thieves.

[alchemist 35]

On 11/23/2018 at 8:36 PM, Lockdoctor said:

I support the police using those tactics. However, I question the logic in making their tactic public knowledge.  I fear it won't be long before one of the scooter muggers tries to sue the police for being knocked off their bikes. The country is that daft and the taxpayer might end up funding big compensation claims.

I can see the reasoning behind making it public, it sends a message to the scroats that being on a moped/scooter will not mean that you will get away now.  Which is a good thing.  It should be rolled out nationwide

On 11/23/2018 at 10:20 PM, tinfoilhat said:

Combine the above with reduced police numbers, unless you want these kids to act with impunity, we're left with coppers knocking young people - with or without helmets judging by the video I've seen - off mopeds with police cars. 

 

Bear in mind in the states, hardly a place we need to emulate when it comes to law and order admittedly, the PIT manoeuvre seems  to be the default setting for ending car chases.

TBH I wouldnt have a problem with the police using the PIT tactic over here as well.

 

Talking of America, im surprised that their police choppers dont come armed with sidewinders   That would be a satisfying way to end a chase

Edited December 3, 2018 by alchemist

[geared 303]

3 hours ago, alchemist said:

TBH I wouldnt have a problem with the police using the PIT tactic over here as well.

'Tactical contact' is allowed, but it's a tough one to get right because so often the police are chasing a criminal though a built up area where you just can't shove a car off the road as it could well end up hitting an innocent bystander.

 

I've got no problem with the police shunting them off the road into a hedge or ditch though, I'd rather the criminal take the risk of injury from their actions than it be some member of the public just on their way to work.  The quicker a pursuit ends the less danger to innocent people in the surrounding area, if the criminal gets hurt in the process thats their problem.

[qwerty2 0]

I'm all for it. It's just a shame that the courts are so lenient. Build more prisons and give them all prison time.

[apelike 10]

Though I had already replied to this before stating it may be against the rule of "reasonable force", seems like I may have been right!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46440172

[alchemist 35]

59 minutes ago, apelike said:

Though I had already replied to this before stating it may be against the rule of "reasonable force", seems like I may have been right!

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-46440172

So, protecting the criminals again.  Seems to me that the only ones with rights now are the criminals, so much for a "civilised" society

[neeeeeeeeeek 10]

 'The boy, who was not wearing a helmet, was admitted to hospital with serious head injuries but later discharged.'

 

Can't have been that serious!

 

 

 

[gomgeg 10]

4 minutes ago, neeeeeeeeeek said:

 'The boy, who was not wearing a helmet, was admitted to hospital with serious head injuries but later discharged.'

 

Can't have been that serious!

 

 

 

They probably did a brain scan and couldn't find one.

1 hour ago, alchemist said:

So, protecting the criminals again.  Seems to me that the only ones with rights now are the criminals, so much for a "civilised" society

That's been the case since the left wing losers started having their way. Always finding some excuse for them.

[melthebell 862]

42 minutes ago, gomgeg said:

They probably did a brain scan and couldn't find one.

That's been the case since the left wing losers started having their way. Always finding some excuse for them.

Who's in charge? Right wingers

[apelike 10]

2 hours ago, alchemist said:

So, protecting the criminals again.  Seems to me that the only ones with rights now are the criminals, so much for a "civilised" society

It not just for protecting the criminal, or in these cases the alleged criminal,  but also protecting everyone. We have laws for a reason and all no matter what profession they are in need to abide by them or face the consequences. I still think my idea of using a paint gun filled with fluorescent or smart paint would work, cheap effective and at the same time fun. 

[neeeeeeeeeek 10]

2 hours ago, apelike said:

It not just for protecting the criminal, or in these cases the alleged criminal,  but also protecting everyone. We have laws for a reason and all no matter what profession they are in need to abide by them or face the consequences. I still think my idea of using a paint gun filled with fluorescent or smart paint would work, cheap effective and at the same time fun. 

They are using something similar, a bit like smart water, they spray the bikers / thieves as they get away then if they arrest them later they are linked to the crime. Google DNA spray.

[Resident 1,185]

I fully support the use of Tactical Contact and believe it should be rolled out and expanded throughout the UK. 

 

My view is that if a police officer tells you to stop and you run you are making a declaration that you accept any and all consequences upto and including your death caused attempts to apprehend you. 

 

Criminals who run do not care about their or anyone else's safety when fleeing. You only need to look back a few weeks to realise that. 

[Obelix 11]

Do you know how many deaf people there are?

 

How about those that just dont hear...

 

Or those of unsound mind...

 

Or people who dont speak English?

 

Shoot them all to arrest shall we?

 

In the case of these moped stops, it seems reasonable that after other attempts have been made, the police can and should push them off the mopeds. That doesnt mean that the police can just charge in, flatten them and then reverse and make sure... But a gentle push over to stop them is fine.