The panel's views?
I'm sort of leaning to finding it acceptable, because vehicle pursuits are exceptionally dangerous, particularly up the wrong way of a motorway and through heavily populated areas.
Trouble is, it's so alien to what we do here.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34306361
|
|
Better the perp shuffled orf than innocents.
|
>> Trouble is, it's so alien to what we do here
Trouble? I'd infinetly rather it stayed that way. While I recognise there are rare occasions where police need firearms and even have to shoot to kill burglary followed by reckless driving is not even in sighting distance of the threshold for armed response.
|
>> burglary followed by reckless
>> driving is not even in sighting distance of the threshold for armed response.
Lethal force to prevent lethal accident? Car driven by criminal moron who cares nothing for innocents?
Methinks you are a bit hasty.. or you care more for the crook than the innocent.
|
I'm finding it real hard to have any sympathy......
Wait......no.....sorry.
|
|
There is little difference between driving a car at someone and pointing a gun, both can make you very dead.
|
After the suspect exited the vehicle it went on to collide with a passenger car and injure three others.
I suspect if the suspect was still in the car, there may be dangerous driving and potential injuries but usually a suspect has an imperative to stay alive so will not deliberately try to crash the car.
Also shooting from a helicopter cannot be the safest of options - it is not a stable platform after all!
No sympathies for the suspect though, just should have been a better way
|
|
Based on the numerous films of US police doing the PIT manoeuvre on crowded roads, they don't seem too bothered by collateral damage and certainly not prepared to do a risk assessment before they start loosing off with the canon.
|
>> I suspect if the suspect was still in the car, there may be dangerous driving
>> and potential injuries but usually a suspect has an imperative to stay alive so will
>> not deliberately try to crash the car.
>>
Normally you'd say yes human behaviour is self preservation, the problem with a three strikes system is you do not know if that person is on strike one or strike three.
If they know they are out then it might be a case of escape or die trying.
|
>>No sympathies for the suspect though, just should have been a better way
Spot on. No sympathy for the idiot, but still wouldn't want the police behaving like that.
|
>>... but still wouldn't want the police behaving like that.
>>
No, but when you watch those various Police TV programmes, they're generally incredibly half-hearted when they try and force vehicles to stop - how often do we see the pursued car wriggle free? I wish they'd be more positive - some to the driving is terrifying.
|
>> No, but when you watch those various Police TV programmes, they're generally incredibly half-hearted when
>> they try and force vehicles to stop - how often do we see the pursued
>> car wriggle free? I wish they'd be more positive
So do I. They are not allowed to.
It's always puzzled me. You weren't allowed to tip somebody off the road at say a large roundabout... but you would allow them to then career through a built up area at warp factor 9 paying no regard to anyone or anything.
The official policy is/was to follow them until they have an accident/ run out of fuel/ or their vehicle breaks down. Not nice though when they wipe out the innocent.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 20 Sep 15 at 17:47
|
|
That picture seems to show a RHD, unless some editor's reversed the image. I can't enhance it to see if the characters on the coppers uniform are also reversed.
|
That picture seems to show a RHD...
That's not the steering wheel, it's the dashboard grab rail that SUVs tend to have on the passenger side, presumably to emphasize their sportiness and/or usefulness.
|
>> That picture seems to show a RHD...
>> That's not the steering wheel, it's the dashboard grab rail that SUVs tend to have
>> on the passenger side, presumably to emphasize their sportiness and/or usefulness.
Still looks like a steering wheel to me, what's the forums opinion?
|
I assure you that it is a grab handle.
If you look carefully you will see that the dash comes further into the cabin from the windscreen and then the steering wheel is even further still.
|
Is that a lady, or a gentleman police person?
Because the buttons on the garment seem to be done up the boy's way!
|
So they are. She's wearing a cheap embroidered polo shirt that, like most of its kind, wasn't offered with a choice of fastening options.
And she's standing next to a left-hand drive car that has a grab bar on the passenger side of the dashboard. Here's a picture of another one, this time with someone grabbing it.
i.ytimg.com/vi/FonM2JnIfRU/maxresdefault.jpg
|
>> So do I. They are not allowed to.
>>
>> It's always puzzled me.
IIRC it had something to do with innocent people being killed or maimed by poliçe pursuit vehicles.Only if the scroats are killing by a massively larger margin AND pursuit properly deals with that will the sort of approach you advocate work.
And when you want the US approach over here do you mean all pursuits, wrong way omM way? Only a fair number seem to involve confused older drivers for drunk housewives. Are you suggesting plugging them too or is that fate saved for those Coppers decide are scroats?
|
>> Are you suggesting plugging them too or is that fate saved for those Coppers decide are scroats?
To give them their due, the fuzz must sometimes be faced with a lightning decision between sprauncy teenager and dangerous knife wielding bad guy. Our police aren't armed although those appropriately trained may sometimes be issued with firearms.
When there's a really serious incident, the army may be called in. If it's the SAS and you don't lie face down with open hands immediately they may well just shoot you out of hand. It's their job.
Best stay calm and restrict yourself to blowing discreet raspberries at the Keystone Kops from behind lamp posts. You don't want to be shot.
|
>> IIRC it had something to do with innocent people being killed or maimed by poliçe
>> pursuit vehicles.
This only highlights your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.
What I was advocating was tipping someone off a large roundabout.... or blocking them in with your vehicle when you get an opportunity, etc.... so in other words choosing your safest option.
What you are advocating is the problem... leaving them to drive at whatever speed they like and that means the police car(s) then have to drive at speed to follow... or give up and let them go.
>> And when you want the US approach over here do you mean all pursuits, wrong
>> way omM way? Only a fair number seem to involve confused older drivers for drunk
>> housewives. Are you suggesting plugging them too or is that fate saved for those Coppers
>> decide are scroats?
Ah, the 'choose the extreme but inaccurate end of the argument' approach. Never been that helpful IMO.
|
|
I wonder which approach gives the lowest car crime rate? I know not all chases are because of car theft but still i wonder what the broad brush strokes figures say?
|
>> I wonder which approach gives the lowest car crime rate? I know not all chases
>> are because of car theft but still i wonder what the broad brush strokes figures
>> say?
Well it hasn't cured auto theft in the USA, or done much for gun crime come to think of it.
|
|
No approach is going to eliminate it, but I just wonder which one is the most effective.
|
>> No approach is going to eliminate it, but I just wonder which one is the
>> most effective.
>>
What isn't effective is backing of and letting them get on with it.
A minority of the criminal underclass work to a system whereby they know the rules of engagement and exploit them ruthlessly..hence the driving up the wrong way of a motorway or taking off and throwing away a motorcycle crash helmet.
I think we as a country need to wise up a bit as we don't have the balance quite right... because we are in effect saying to a crook in a fast moving vehicle 'here you go mate, you crack on'.
There have to be checks and a balance to the system...I'm saying review it and adjust it to the benefit of the cops not the crook.
|
|
Part of me agrees, you're giving them an out that they know about. Drive crazy for a bit and the cops will back off. However i wonder if that is the best approach?
|
>> Part of me agrees, you're giving them an out that they know about. Drive crazy
>> for a bit and the cops will back off. However i wonder if that is
>> the best approach?
>>
I got lucky, I went on my advanced police driving course when I was 23 years old with near enough 5 years service.
That allowed me to drive faster police cars (Rover SD1, MG Maestro, MG Montego, Ford Sierra 2.0i, Vx Cavalier 2.0SRi, Vx Vectra 2.5 SRi, Vx Omega 3.0 V6, BMW 325d)... and I was authorised to pursue... and had many in the following 26 years before I retired.
Now for the whole of my time I was not allowed to deliberately have contact with a pursued vehicle.... despite legislation allowing you to use 'reasonable force'... it was an internal police diktat that it was verboten.
I think that is foolish, because there were plenty of times I could have tipped somebody off at a suitable spot.. or gently rammed them into a place they couldn't manoeuvre out of... yet my instructions very firmly given to me was to chase it until it crashed or stopped of its own accord.
I've never thought that right.
|
Insofar as blocking, stopping or crashing cars that you're pursuing, there's not much point in arguing with Westpig - he's been there.
For me, the statement that there are times when you could safely bang into another car and block it or incapacitate it seems pretty obviously true.
It certainly seems illogical to deny people that opportunity.
|
>> For me, the statement that there are times when you could safely bang into another
>> car and block it or incapacitate it seems pretty obviously true.
>>
>> It certainly seems illogical to deny people that opportunity.
In principle I agree with both of the statements.
There are however reasons why police bosses have banned or seriously constrained chases and actions to run illegally driven cars off the road. If the reason for that had nothing to do with accidents and 'collateral damage' the I wonder what other reasons they had.
|
>>I wonder what other reasons they had.
>>
PC policies putting the criminals rights above all others, or knowing that if sued by a criminal they would be taken to the cleaners by the legal system.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 21 Sep 15 at 09:33
|
>> There are however reasons why police bosses have banned or seriously constrained chases and actions
>> to run illegally driven cars off the road. If the reason for that had nothing
>> to do with accidents and 'collateral damage' the I wonder what other reasons they had.
- the fear of poor publicity;
- the fear of it all going wrong;
- lack of 'c ojones';
- not wanting the repair bill and to save money;
- the need to micro manage everything instead of leaving people to get on with things
- Standard Operating Procedures for the civilian control room staff (despite the fact that very little of what you do is ever 'standard').
- lack of understanding of what the advanced driving course can provide i.e. most senior managers will have been nowhere near one
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 21 Sep 15 at 17:47
|
In the interests of accuracy...
.... there is a thing called T-PAC (Tactical Pursuit and Containment), whereby suitably qualified police officers use a number of police cars (usually 4) to contain 1 car and bring it slowly to a stop.
It has a number of flaws:
- staff and vehicle intensive, you obviously need 4 and they all have to get to the point the speeding miscreant is
- training is expensive
- damage to 4 police vehicles is expensive
- limited places you can realistically do it, normally dual carriageways or m/way
Then you have other problems i.e. it is normally reserved for traffic officers only and they are becoming like red squirrels... and for example the Met Police never introduced it.
When you last went on the dodgems... and you span your mate around by colliding with his rear corner, you did what the Yanks call the PIT Manoeuvre (Precision Intervention Technique). That's what the UK police should be doing... choose your moment and they're off the road.
There are some limited police units that are authorised to use vehicular force e.g. Flying Squad.
|
By the way, I'm entirely in favour of the fuzz nudging people into the greenery when necessary. It seems reasonable to point out that if the BiB have made a mistake, and a sprauncy youth has been killed or injured, it's the sprauncy youth's own fault for driving like that, like a genuine villain. Hot pursuit in a governent-financed vehicle must be the most tremendous fun, enviable unless it goes very wrong. Then it must be a bit of a nightmare.
Quite a responsibility nevertheless, sorting out wheat from chaff with the blues, twos and radio all babbling and hitting 100 in a 30 limit... yee hah!
Don't disabuse me chaps, I beg. Leave me with my romantic illusions.
|
|
Have stingers made much difference ?
|
They are good... but you have to be in front of the car you want to stop..and.. in a place where the driver can't get around it.
So the officer with the stinger has to get a move on, guess where the pursuit is going to go and make sure it's a suitable place... and make sure they are safe, you have to stand at the side of the road when some goon is coming through at warp factor 9.
It's a decent tool in the armoury, but ought to be one of many.
|
|
No doubt a directional remote ECU fryer would be handy. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 21 Sep 15 at 19:17
|
A drone would be better ... unless you happened to have one of these in the boot:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBk5ykg9Ms
|
Sawn-off shotguns with big buckshot. Heard it in the grove and half an hour later saw the black-windowed Range Rover under the motorway with its tyres and back end shot to smithereens.
'Nothing to see here sir, move along.'
Cheeky sods.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 21 Sep 15 at 19:20
|
Barrett 'Light' .50 slug through the engine block.
If you miss there is the slight problem that the bullet will travel another mile or so, of course....
|
|
Just reading in the Telegraph that Kenneth Noye has been refused parole but has been recommended for open prison.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 21 Sep 15 at 20:11
|
>> Just reading in the Telegraph that Kenneth Noye has been refused parole but has been
>> recommended for open prison.
He'll be out the gate before you can say "Rollcall"
|
>>He'll be out the gate before you can say "Rollcall"
Why would he do that when the next stage could lead to his release.
|
|
Because the next stage could be a some time away and he is a scroat.
|
|
A scrote with brains. He's done 15 years of his 16 year minimum term - put yourself in his moccasins.
|
>> A scrote with brains. He's done 15 years of his 16 year minimum term -
>> put yourself in his moccasins.
Whatever, clearly he is some kind of role model for you.
|
>>Whatever, clearly he is some kind of role model for you.
Absolutely, but on a more serious note, I reckon he wont be moved to an open prison, due to his 'history'.
|
>> A scrote with brains.
He can't be that brainy.
He's 68 years old and has spent 24 of those years locked up in clink. More than a third of his life..........(1 year in Borstal for thieving, 8 years for the Brinks Mat fencing and currently 15 years and counting, for murdering Stephen Cameron).
|
>> >> A scrote with brains.
>>
>> He can't be that brainy.
Rather depends on how much he's stashed from the enterprises they couldn't pin on him? Jeffrey Archer reckoned prison was no great issue if you'd survived at a public school.
|
>> Rather depends on how much he's stashed from the enterprises they couldn't pin on him?
>> Jeffrey Archer reckoned prison was no great issue if you'd survived at a public school.
No amount of money would be worth 24 years of my life in prison.
|
Don't forget that Noye stabbed Detective Constable John Fordham to death but got off as self defence.
I hope the powers to be never let him out, our police officers do their duty mostly unarmed and have tackled armed criminals with only a truncheon as defence in the past.
He is the type that will always be a threat to innocent people.
|
>> No amount of money would be worth 24 years of my life in prison.
Me neither, but we're not habitual criminals who regard imprisonment as an occupational hazard.
|
>> habitual criminals who regard imprisonment as an occupational hazard.
You been talking to Norman Stanley Fletcher?
|
>You been talking to Norman Stanley Fletcher?
Mr Mackay... Sir!
I think he knew Fletch's social worker.
|
>>He can't be that brainy.
You're possibly correct in that assumption Wp, especially as he was a Police informer at one time.
But then he also became a member of the 'Hammersmith Lodge' after being proposed for admission by two Police officers, and rose to become master of the lodge, the membership of which the Police made up a sizeable proportion.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Noye
|
|
Which, for completeness, went on to say that "Noye was expelled from the Freemasons in 1989"
|
|
Did the BBC report yesterday not say that Noye has been told that he will never leave prison, but that he may be transferred to open facilities? If that's the case, then yes, he'll be off like the warm brown stuff off that shiny garden earth-inverting implement. Surely if he's been told he'll never be released, he has to stay in max security?
|
>> Which, for completeness, went on to say that "Noye was expelled from the Freemasons in
>> 1989"
Only 3 years after he started a 14 year sentence for handling the Brinks Mat gold. Surprised they haven't let him back in. Maybe they will when he's out and he can go to the lodge.
|
Yes, he should have gone in July 1986.
The delay is more likely to be inefficiency and/or embarrassment than it is conspiracy. A deliberate conspiracy is not impossible, but it is most unlikely.
>>Maybe they will when he's out and he can go to the lodge
That should not be possible and would require significant and undetected lying.
|
Are you giving something away Mark?
8o)
|
|
Nothing unknown Neil, nothing unknown.
|
>> Nothing unknown Neil, nothing unknown.
>>
I know, just pulling your leg (!)
My late father was a Mason for most of his adult life, and enjoyed it a lot.
I could have joined, but would have had to profess a belief I don't have.
He would have been delighted.
|
|
A Freemason is not required to conceal the fact that he is a Mason.
|
>> Just reading in the Telegraph that Kenneth Noye has been refused parole but has been
>> recommended for open prison.
Recommendation turned down by Justice Secretary Gove.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-34612823
|
>> Justice Secretary Gove.
That man is on a one-man mission to shaft my town, but credit where it's due, Noye should never see the light of day.
|
>> That man is on a one-man mission to shaft my town,
In what way - genuine curiosity I'm not looking for 'points'.
|
His pet free school policy has wrought utter havoc in my immediate neighbourhood, if you want to know more search 'Heights Free School'. Now as justice secretary he's refusing to use or sell off Reading gaol for redevelopment, leaving a massive rotting carbuncle right in the town centre with a historic listed building going to ruin, which could be such a valuable asset in a town not exactly blessed with attractive history.
I'm sure it's not deliberate, but we're sick of the sight and sound of him here.
|
>> His pet free school policy has wrought utter havoc in my immediate neighbourhood, if you
>> want to know more search 'Heights Free School'.
Could you expand on that, I had a look on yahoo and could find nothing controversial?
|
|
It's even been the subject of an article in Private Eye. Try searching 'Heights Primary School Caversham' if you're interested. It's one of the most controversial and intractible problems in the free school farce in the whole country.
|
|
Well I searched that and the main issue seems to be around a permanent location. Without shed loads of reading I can't really see what the issue is. Can you provide a link to a specific page?
|
>> Well I searched that and the main issue seems to be around a permanent location.
>> Without shed loads of reading I can't really see what the issue is. Can you
>> provide a link to a specific page?
I suspect there are two issues.
The first is about location and planning. While there maybe 'Nimby' elements present in such debates this one seems to go further inn that it proposed building on land gifted/covenanted for other purposes.
The second is about the principle of Free Schools. These allow the state to fund schools which operate outside most of the constraints that otherwise apply - such as National Curriculum. A significant number have religious or educational axes to grind. Permission to establish them is not related to overall demand for places in the locations where they are established.
In a time of plenty that might be a purely ideological debate about diverse provision and the centralisation of power in the Education Ministry.
The effect in a time of austerity is Govt funding schools in areas of over provision while other places, desperate for new schools, are back to teaching in classes of 30+ and/or placing kids in schools miles from their homes.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 24 Oct 15 at 13:33
|
That is the issue, smokie, the school was allowed to open without a permanent location. All locations proposed are unsuitable as the micro-neighbourhood in question is fully developed and the only bits of land are public parks, which nobody wants to lose in a massively developed area. A small private bungalow built on a steep incline which is too small for a school in single track dead end avenue has been purchased at enormous cost to the tax payer, and they can't build it there for planning reasons, so they are now aiming for our park.
They can foxtrot oscar.
|
>> His pet free school policy has wrought utter havoc in my immediate neighbourhood, if you
>> want to know more search 'Heights Free School'. Now as justice secretary he's refusing to
>> use or sell off Reading gaol for redevelopment, leaving a massive rotting carbuncle right in
>> the town centre with a historic listed building going to ruin, which could be such
>> a valuable asset in a town not exactly blessed with attractive history.
Academies and Free Schools are, for all the rhetoric, about centralisation not localism. for all there faults LEAs were at least local.
|
>> They are good... but you have to be in front of the car you want
>> to stop..and.. in a place where the driver can't get around it.
>>
>> So the officer with the stinger has to get a move on, guess where the
>> pursuit is going to go and make sure it's a suitable place... and make sure
>> they are safe, you have to stand at the side of the road when some
>> goon is coming through at warp factor 9.
...and I forgot to add "you have to stand at the side of the road when some
goon is coming through at warp factor 9....whilst they are trying to avoid your stinger"
news.sky.com/story/1563947/murder-probe-after-police-officer-hit-by-car
In this case he was using a thing called 'Stop/Stick', similar in principle to Stinger, cheaper to manufacture, lighter and easier to use.
Trouble is the bad guys see you bung it across the road and try to swerve around it.
I fought (unsuccessfully) in the 90's to prevent it being issued to all local police cars on my Borough, because the local drivers had not been 'fast road trained'. In the end, over a shortish period of time, I just removed them from the boots of the cars and stored them in the basement. They are probably still there.
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 5 Oct 15 at 08:55
|
Looks like they didn't torch the Mitsu after the crash - hopefully a life sentence or two will be the result.
I assume training advises against being in an exposed reservation when deploying stinger/stop-stick, but no-one 'accidentally' swerves into a pedestrian - you'd go the other way every time unless there was intent.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 5 Oct 15 at 09:56
|
>> I assume training advises against being in an exposed reservation when deploying stinger/stop-stick
The officers were, according to the news report, local beat officers, so not police traffic officers.
Traffic officers get fast road training and obviously have more experience of dealing with fast roads and their dangers.
Normal beat officers and similar are usually required to stay clear of incidents on fast roads, in that they wouldn't usually be deployed to them (different if you fall over something or circumstances state you have to step in).
In my example above from the 90's, the senior management team on my Borough agreed to introduce 'stop sticks' to general patrolling officers... so you'd have half a day's training on the sticks themselves and the dangers would be covered within that. I didn't think that wise.
I have no idea what happened in this case, possibly a similar scenario.
|
Warped universe, the good guy dies and the scrote gets away.
Glad they are treating it as murder but would expect by the time it gets to court it would be reduced to manslaughter or death by reckless driving!
Sympathies to the officers family.
|
>> Sympathies to the officers family.
>>
I note he has two children, aged 7 and 3... the same age as my children... which is a sobering thought.
|
Hangings too good, then otoh there are devoutly religious people who can forgive such people.
I couldn't
|
>> Glad they are treating it as murder but would expect by the time it gets
>> to court it would be reduced to manslaughter or death by reckless driving!
I was about to post same thing and realised Zippy had got there first. Cannot see murder standing up unless there's evidence of premeditation somewhere.
Manslaughter maybe but if they get a guilty plea for Death by Dangerous/Reckless then.........
|
>> Manslaughter maybe but if they get a guilty plea for Death by Dangerous/Reckless then.........
>>
I see he is already wriggling under legal advice, it must be sinking in how much doodoo he is in no matter how thick he may be.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 10 Oct 15 at 11:34
|
>>it must be sinking in how
>> much doodoo he is in no matter how thick he may be.
>>
Not enough to stop him grinning proudly and showing off his handcuffs through the glass of the wagon taking him from court.
|
|
I am sure that bravado won't last long. A few painful accidents might help.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 10 Oct 15 at 12:23
|
>> Not enough to stop him grinning proudly and showing off his handcuffs through the glass
>> of the wagon taking him from court.
>>
Yes, I saw that. Says it all really. Seems to be a different species.
|
>> Yes, I saw that. Says it all really. Seems to be a different species.
chances are, so have any potential Jury. Probably why plea bargains are in the pipeline.
|
>> chances are, so have any potential Jury. Probably why plea bargains are in the pipeline.
>>
Guilty plea to manslaughter...8 years...is my guess.
So he'll be out in 4.
|
>> Guilty plea to manslaughter...8 years...is my guess.
>>
>> So he'll be out in 4.
It's worth pointing out again the similarity between the words manslaughter and man's laughter.
Road safety campaigners though may see this case as a precedent to charge manslaughter rather than death by dangerous and in turn death by dangerous rather than death by careless.
Too many people who kill with motor vehicles get away far too lightly.
|
>>Seems to be a different species.
Just wanted to clarify...
If I had the dreadful misfortune to badly injure or kill someone in a motoring accident, I know that I would be devastated at having hurt someone and brought misery to their family and would not be smiling and holding my handcuffs up for all the world to see, but then I would never drive my vehicle at someone else.
His actions will have condemned him in the eyes of many.
|
>>Cannot see murder standing up unless there's evidence of premeditation somewhere.
No need for that for a murder charge.
If copper no. 2 (+ any other witnesses) are certain he was aiming at them and was aware they were there then murder may well stick.
|
>> No need for that for a murder charge.
>>
>> If copper no. 2 (+ any other witnesses) are certain he was aiming at them
>> and was aware they were there then murder may well stick.
In theory, maybe... however there are two major hurdles:
1, CPS
2, Jury (there only has to be a 'reasonable doubt' in three of them and that's that, it wouldn't matter if the best legal minds in the country thought it so, it isn't happening).
Murder
Subject to three exceptions (see Voluntary Manslaughter below) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
any reasonable creature (human being);
in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs - Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority (1991) 1 All ER 801 and AG Ref No 3 of 1994 (1997) 3 All ER 936;
under the Queen's Peace;
with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 10 Oct 15 at 18:36
|
>> Manslaughter maybe but if they get a guilty plea for Death by Dangerous/Reckless then.........
Acquitted of murder, guilty of manslaughter. Jury verdict after Crown pressed on with the more serious charge.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/21/teenager-clayton-williams-ran-over-pc-dave-phillips-found-guilty-of-manslaughter
Sentencing 'shortly'.
|
20 yrs
Ok, so he didn't see the officer - allegedly.
Dolus Eventualis on this one?
|
>> Dolus Eventualis on this one?
>>
You have to get that past enough of a majority of jurors.
|
He was also banned from driving for life.
Is that the usual sentence and will it eventually be reduced ?
|
Unusual but not, I think, unprecedented. He's got previous for driving offences too.
If, at the end of his sentence and several more years as well down the line, he's a reformed character then I would expect, nay hope, there was some way of getting that sentence reviewed.
Judges comments not yet published but the case is high profile so they almost certainly will be around in next couple of days.
|
>> Unusual but not, I think, unprecedented. He's got previous for driving offences too.
Missed edit. To be clear this responds to the point about lifetime driving ban.
|
|
The problem with a lifetime driving ban is it can produce a driver with nothing to lose.
|
Silly question on driving bans...
Often i see some bloke sentenced to X years in jail and Y years of driving ban/Z points for motoring-related offences.
Obviously the chap can't drive whilst in the scrubs, so when does the ban/points part of the sentence start applying? From when he emerges again?
|
>If, at the end of his sentence and several more years as well down the line, he's a reformed character..
19 years old with 33 previous convictions? That's the number of crimes he's been convicted of, not the number he's actually committed of course.
I sincerely hope you are right but I'll make a prediction now.
When he does get out he will go back to making the life of everyone he comes into contact with an absolute misery.
|
US police shoot fleeing driver from helicopter - Dog
