Jump to content
Account Notice
  • To post a recruitment query in the "Recruitment Areas" or in the "Force Specific Areas" you will require a Recruitment Pass or a Membership Package. Click HERE to read more.
  • Your Account Is Currently Limited
IanJackson

Why do Police Officers endanger the public during pursuits?

Recommended Posts

IanJackson

Firstly I would just like to express that I fully respect Police Officers of this country for having the courage and the determination of putting their own lives on the line (I certainly wouldn't have the balls to do that) to attempt to prevent causalities and put a stop to the people who are causing harm to others.

The points and the keyword where I see it as a issue though is;

- Suspect (A suspect is a suspect, however that doesn't mean that person has definitely done something wrong) - So you could be potentially chasing a suspect that hasn't actually done anything wrong.

I'm going to explain a scenario to help people understand what I mean exactly.

The issue is if a Police Officer has witnessed someone speeding in this example I am going to use going 35mph in a 30mph zone according to his speed gun, the Police Officer operating that speed gun is likely going to take chase and stop the speeding vehicle and ask for ID and apply points onto his licence. (This isn't where the problem is just yet). Usually people will stop and accept the points etc, but there's a few individuals that don't listen and don't stop and there's those that don't want to lose their licence as maybe they already have a lot of points etc... So they see blue flashing lights and decide to get away (Here's the problem if a "Suspect" shows signs of getting away after blue flashing lights are behind them, the Police Officer has caused them to do that if it's through been scared or fear. In turn because the Police Officer has took chase and put his lights on a suspect is going to try and get away if he doesn't want to be caught. (They may use techniques such as Going on the opposite side of the road, Going through Red Lights, Speeding, Throwing objects in a attempt to distract the Police Officer it's a never ending list of what a suspect can do). Now here's the problem can the suspect really be held responsible for their actions when the suspect has clearly demonstrated that he doesn't want to stop and the Police Officer has took no notice of that and seen that he's driving recklessly and still chased causing the suspect to drive even more recklessly and maybe result in a person crossing the road's death. I see it completely as the Police Officers fault as the Police Officer caused the suspect to drive recklessly, if the suspect was driving perfectly normal at 35mph and only acted recklessly when the Police Officer made himself visible I.E through sirens,  flashing blue lights that's completely the Police Officers fault.

Then there's a completely different side of this as I said above a Suspect is a Suspect until proven guilty a speed gun isn't proof that someone was speeding it maybe in the eyes of the law, but I would certainly argue that a picture and a video should be required as it could be wrongly calibrated, pointed at the wrong vehicle etc.. I believe there's infinite reasons and scenarios where technology can fail, there's also a matter of what's right and what is wrong. As a example in England it's illegal to eat a Dog but in China it's legal, but who's right? Is china right and we're cruel to keep dogs for domestic purposes or are the Chinese right for ending the suffering of a dog in captivity - (Domestic)?

I'm not saying that you shouldn't pursuit the person, nor am I saying i'm Anti-Police. I'm more saying I strongly believe there's other "Safer" methods should be used such as; GPS Tracking (Darts - that penetrate the vehicle and stick into it) which would result in a better outcome statistically rather than causing causalities.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Billy Blue Tac

'Suspect' is a perfectly reasonable term. On a scale of 0 to 10 suspicion is about 2 or 3, meaning there is a chance the person is an offender but we need more information to believe so (about 8 on the scale).

As for the police making the driver commit further offences - who would be to blame if I told you to jump off a cliff, and you did so? There's a thing called freedom of choice and if the driver chooses to flee then it's his prerogative to roll the dice.

Finally, a GPS dart will only ever establish the vehicle's location etc, but it's the driver who we need to speak with.

 

(PS each sovereign state makes it own laws so both the UK's and China's laws are correct regarding the eating of dogs)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IanJackson
1 hour ago, Billy Blue Tac said:

'Suspect' is a perfectly reasonable term. On a scale of 0 to 10 suspicion is about 2 or 3, meaning there is a chance the person is an offender but we need more information to believe so (about 8 on the scale).

As for the police making the driver commit further offences - who would be to blame if I told you to jump off a cliff, and you did so? There's a thing called freedom of choice and if the driver chooses to flee then it's his prerogative to roll the dice.

Finally, a GPS dart will only ever establish the vehicle's location etc, but it's the driver who we need to speak with.

 

(PS each sovereign state makes it own laws so both the UK's and China's laws are correct regarding the eating of dogs)

 

I strongly believe unless you're 100% sure they shouldn't be Harassed/Chased or at least on your scale a 9/10. I believe it should be up to the Officer to get court orders (Search Warrants) etc.. to gather information first and proof first before perusing a suspect simply a number on a speed gun isn't proof in my eyes (It could be pointed at any car) it's literally your word against a officers (I'm not sure on the technicalities here but modern cars have computer systems and GPS so maybe that can be used in court as evidence to prove it was wrong - I would assume there's logs in them computer systems in cars) unless a Officer could potentially stop anyone based on a Race as a example and make up a claim to get out of trouble which turns into abuse of powers - I'm not stating all members of the Police force are corrupt but it's known that some members are and do abuse their powers for personal gains. The issue atm is people are scared what will happen to them so they have a Fear attitude and usually do whatever they say this is the problem and are corr-operative. As another example a Officer could stop a £1m spanking new car simply because he wanted to have a look at it and take a selfie with it and accuse the driver of speeding and i'm pretty sure this has happened before and some Officer out there has got away with it.

Jumping off a cliff is a little different to someone chasing you just because someone is in a Police Car with flashing lights and sirens it doesn't mean they work for a Police force this has been proven that people do this and do get caught I was once reading a man who had a ambulance car getting done for going over a toll bridge and not paying he didn't even work for the ambulance service but yet still had flashing lights and stuff, but what about the people who don't they can't catch everyone. If there's one person that can impersonate someone anyone can literally anyone, so you have to be careful or someone might be stopping you who isn't even a part of the force.

I believe they should go to a court for everything and get orders to investigate and spy and pursuit suspects i.e if a shop on the local street had CCTV cameras outside of their establishment and there was a accident outside the Police Officer investigating this may ask the shop keeper if they can view the CCTV camera system to have a look at what happened 9/10 a person will quite willingly help the officer. But I believe it should go through Courts first before this should be requested to protect the privacy of the public then people on the CCTV should be analysed through facial identification software and then everyone sign a consent form that their face in the video/image can be passed on if not it should be edited through software and that persons face should be removed. (I.E one person may not want their information passed onto another organisation) that chose to go into that shop on that specific day that captured a incident. Whilst I understand people are trying to help what you're also doing is showing other people who may not want to be seen going about their everyday life.

A GPS Dart would be great for capturing the cars location and not the suspects but the suspect can usually be identified via looking at routes that the suspect has taken and getting court orders for nearby businesses to review CCTV and analysing pictures even putting out public TV announcements I think that's a lot safer than making a suspect get away from you by any means possible imagine if he decided to go on the path and mow loads of people over my point is he wouldn't of done that if he wasn't been chased that's why I see it as the officers fault. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fedster

We are happy for this topic to continue providing you read and understand the below.

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

Our standard disclaimer: This forum is not intended as a legal advice drop-in centre. The forum disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability or availability of information or material on this site, including - but not limited to - any documents available for download.

Please note that comments and advice given here with the best of intentions by the host, moderators or other users of the forum may not be correct, and that any advice given, in particular advice on the law and its application, is no substitute for personal legal advice from a solicitor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


Billy Blue Tac

You have an interesting belief system. Are you familiar with the FreeMAN of the LAND movement?

I'm only asking as some of your suggested ways of dealing with a crime-in-action are not feasible, let alone possible. Despite what TV cops shows - real or otherwise - would lead you believe what we can do at the drop of a hat, I assure you they are mostly edited for dramatic effect and audience engagement/enjoyment.

Real life is very different, and harder.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Em88

Well a Constable can require any vehicle to stop. If the vehicle doesn’t stop they comit the offence of failing to stop. 

Given the fact the officer would have witnessed this I imagine there suspicion would be bumped up to a 9, which would actually be enough for you to believe rather than suspect this person is commiting that offence.

Now to pursue that vehicle you would go on a dedicated radio channel and have to inform  the controller of the situation and risk assess it and then it would be down to control if you are allowed to pursue the vehicle or not. Also not every police driver can pursue, it would be a trained officer. Also while pursuing the vehicle you continue to make risk assessments and keep control updated on your speed, conditions etc...so safety is taken very seriously.

unfortunately your ideas about GPS darts, facial recognition and tv announcements are quite unrealistic.

And also if someone is making off from police it’s likely they are commiting other offences or are wanted for some reason or other so they are potentially an immoderate risk to the public and themselves so you would want to get the person detained while you have the iooortunity rather than say we will deal with it after the fact.

and If you don’t chase the vehicles criminals will think they can get away with anything, look at the recent rise in moped crimes. I don’t think gps darts would be the answer in that case! 

 

 

Edited by Em88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


IanJackson

If that's the case a corrupt constable simply have a random reason/excuse for stopping a individual made up I.E I saw him using a mobile phone or what appeared to be try to stop him, him drive off and he's arrested someone for failing to stop when they did nothing wrong to begin with? (I call that borderline entrapment).

Not everyone will be willing to stop just because a flashing lights and sirens have come on some will say "I've done nothing wrong, do one mind your own business", this is the problem with suspicion rather than proof and hard evidence.

Detain someone simply because they don't stop? That's like banning knifes because anyone could stab someone rather than dealing with deaths and casualties at a later date.

Moped's can easily get away with it though they just take there helmets off and the officers have to back off as they could contribute to the drivers death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Em88

Well an officer doesn’t need to make up a reason to stop vehicles. Section 163 of the road traffic act gives the police the power to stop vehicles and states; 

A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

A person may not want to stop, however it’s the law and if they decide to say "I've done nothing wrong, do one mind your own business” and fail to stop they have committed an offence. The officer would have seen the offence happening with their own eyes, this goes beyond suspicion as the offence has clearly been committed. 

The point you make about entrapment seems a strange one. Yes, a dishonest police officer could make something up and lie but that could be the case with any offence.

Also for your information knifes are banned....

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


Billy Blue Tac
3 hours ago, IanJackson said:

If that's the case a corrupt constable simply have a random reason/excuse for stopping a individual made up I.E I saw him using a mobile phone or what appeared to be try to stop him, him drive off and he's arrested someone for failing to stop when they did nothing wrong to begin with? (I call that borderline entrapment).

Not everyone will be willing to stop just because a flashing lights and sirens have come on some will say "I've done nothing wrong, do one mind your own business", this is the problem with suspicion rather than proof and hard evidence.

Detain someone simply because they don't stop? That's like banning knifes because anyone could stab someone rather than dealing with deaths and casualties at a later date.

Moped's can easily get away with it though they just take there helmets off and the officers have to back off as they could contribute to the drivers death.

1) A corrupt officer is just that, and it's not entrapment; it's a criminal offence. Police are not above the law nor are we all corrupt. One rotten apple does not spoil the orchard, but will be dealt with according to the law.

2) Everyone is required to stop in the circumstance given earlier. Failure to do so is an offence because that's what our law says. If you disagree with the law then you need to petition your MP, but until it is changed you should obey it because it's the law to do so.

3) The law allows the police to detain people if the law provides for it (see above if you disagree with the law). Knives ARE banned in certain circumstances.

4) Speak to you local Police and Crime Commissioner if you want to discuss your Force's policy on dealing with moped-enabled crime.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IanJackson
On 29/06/2018 at 19:57, Em88 said:

Well an officer doesn’t need to make up a reason to stop vehicles. Section 163 of the road traffic act gives the police the power to stop vehicles and states; 

A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform.

A person may not want to stop, however it’s the law and if they decide to say "I've done nothing wrong, do one mind your own business” and fail to stop they have committed an offence. The officer would have seen the offence happening with their own eyes, this goes beyond suspicion as the offence has clearly been committed. 

The point you make about entrapment seems a strange one. Yes, a dishonest police officer could make something up and lie but that could be the case with any offence.

Also for your information knifes are banned....

Thank you for your reply.

It seems to be the case judging from your response it's whatever the officer say's as a person of a law his word seems to be enough. I.E officer says I saw you kill someone - The guy is charged with murder etc... If he says he was speeding and shows a speed gun of a speed which is greater than the speed limit that's enough evidence even though no photographic evidence etc.. It seems a little one side and opens a world for abuse. (Which i'm sure has already happened)

"A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform." - How do you determine and know it's not a member of the public who's impersonating a police officer and wants you to stop to steal your possessions to one that's genuine?

I would call for them to equip their vehicles with megaphones stating their badge number and reason for stopping upon a pursuit so extra checks can be performed prior to the pursuit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Em88
16 hours ago, IanJackson said:

Thank you for your reply.

It seems to be the case judging from your response it's whatever the officer say's as a person of a law his word seems to be enough. I.E officer says I saw you kill someone - The guy is charged with murder etc... If he says he was speeding and shows a speed gun of a speed which is greater than the speed limit that's enough evidence even though no photographic evidence etc.. It seems a little one side and opens a world for abuse. (Which i'm sure has already happened)

"A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform." - How do you determine and know it's not a member of the public who's impersonating a police officer and wants you to stop to steal your possessions to one that's genuine?

I would call for them to equip their vehicles with megaphones stating their badge number and reason for stopping upon a pursuit so extra checks can be performed prior to the pursuit.

If an officer witnesses an offence they would have to write a statement, provide any body worn video or CCTV of the offence and gataher any other evidence that may be available.

It is then up to an evidence review officer or the CPS to to decide if there is enough evidence to charge.

Being charged and being found guilty are two different things. The police do not decide who’s guilty, that’s down to the courts who are impartial,  so it is not one sided at all and the defendant will have their day in court.

I’m guessing your last two paragraphs are jokes so I won’t reply to them 👍

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Guest
17 hours ago, IanJackson said:

Thank you for your reply.

It seems to be the case judging from your response it's whatever the officer say's as a person of a law his word seems to be enough. I.E officer says I saw you kill someone - The guy is charged with murder etc... If he says he was speeding and shows a speed gun of a speed which is greater than the speed limit that's enough evidence even though no photographic evidence etc.. It seems a little one side and opens a world for abuse. (Which i'm sure has already happened)

"A person driving a motor vehicle on a road must stop the vehicle on being required to do so by a constable in uniform." - How do you determine and know it's not a member of the public who's impersonating a police officer and wants you to stop to steal your possessions to one that's genuine?

I would call for them to equip their vehicles with megaphones stating their badge number and reason for stopping upon a pursuit so extra checks can be performed prior to the pursuit.

I realise that this case is purely hypothetical but, You should have stopped. An officer is empowered to be able to stop any vehicle without reason merely to check that documentation for the vehicle is correct. A driver is obliged to stop. When a person takes their driving test to certify that they are conversant with the highway code and road traffic law and to abide by them. I would imagine that the prosecution will be successful and that your (oops sorry) the offenders licence is suspended. The actions which you described in the original post describe a driver who believes that he/she is above the law and the behaviour does not justify that person being allowed to drive any vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radman
On 29/06/2018 at 18:07, IanJackson said:

If that's the case a corrupt constable simply have a random reason/excuse for stopping a individual made up I.E I saw him using a mobile phone or what appeared to be try to stop him, him drive off and he's arrested someone for failing to stop when they did nothing wrong to begin with? (I call that borderline entrapment).

Not everyone will be willing to stop just because a flashing lights and sirens have come on some will say "I've done nothing wrong, do one mind your own business", this is the problem with suspicion rather than proof and hard evidence.

Detain someone simply because they don't stop? That's like banning knifes because anyone could stab someone rather than dealing with deaths and casualties at a later date.

Moped's can easily get away with it though they just take there helmets off and the officers have to back off as they could contribute to the drivers death.

A Constable doesn't require a reason to stop a vehicle on a public road...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

Growley

Your post is so long and wordy I gave up about half way through.

That being said, I take issue with the notion of a "suspect" potentially having done nothing wrong here. If he's failing to stop, I don't care why he's failing to stop, but I've witnessed him commit a crime. He's only a suspect now because he hasn't been charged yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements


Reasonable Man

Why are people responding to this? It was a single issue raised by the OP 7 months ago. S/he has never engaged in any other post.
The ridiculous suggestions are apparent to anyone who knows anything about policing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member Achievements

There are 2 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

About us

Police Community was originally founded in 2014 by two serving Police Officers.

In 2016 it was incorporated as a limited company called RAW Digital Media Limited and then purchased 3 other forums; Police Specials, UK Police Online and Police UK to form the largest policing discussion forum network in the UK.

Get in touch

  • 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU
  • contact@rawdigitalmedia.co.uk
  • 0844 357 0111
  • Forums In Our Group - Police.Community - UKPoliceOnline.CO.UK - PoliceSpecials.COM - PoliceUK.COM

Twitter

Facebook

    Meet The Team

  • Chief Bakes
    Chief Bakes Management
  • Chief Rat
    Chief Rat Management
  • Chief Cheetah
    Chief Cheetah Management
  • Rocket
    Rocket Global Moderators
  • David
    David Global Moderators
  • Fedster
    Fedster Global Moderators
  • Devil
    Devil Global Moderators
  • MindTheGap
    MindTheGap Global Moderators
  • blakey
    blakey Global Moderators
  • Techie1
    Techie1 Global Moderators
  • Sir Penguin
    Sir Penguin Global Moderators
  • PCW
    PCW Global Moderators
  • Hoofing
    Hoofing Global Moderators
  • XA84
    XA84 Global Moderators
  • Remmy
    Remmy Global Moderators
  • job_done
    job_done Global Moderators
  • Sapor62
    Sapor62 Global Moderators
×