Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Roses on November 24, 2018, 09:00:46 AM
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-london-46323418/suspected-moped-thieves-knocked-off-bikes-by-met-police
I think this is a terrible idea, as it could endanger others as well as the intended target. Besides which, what if the moped rider is innocent? :o
-
Seems reasonable to me. They'd presumably only do it if the scooter rider was known to have stolen it ("suspected" is journalese for somewone who's as guilty as hell, but hasn't yet been convicted), and after they'd refused a request to stop, and if there was no danger to other road-users, who would be put in greater danger by an extended chase.
-
I like it.
-
I don't like it at all! >:(
-
I think I may have misunderstood it :o. Saw on the news last night and I thought it was about targeting thieves on mopeds, i.e. a thief spots someone with handbag at an atm, jumps off bike, mugs her, gets back on bike and speeds off. I didn't think it was about nicking bikes. Could be both?
I don't like it even tho' they are trained how to do, they could so easily cause injury.
-
I think I may have misunderstood it :o. Saw on the news last night and I thought it was about targeting thieves on mopeds, i.e. a thief spots someone with handbag at an atm, jumps off bike, mugs her, gets back on bike and speeds off. I didn't think it was about nicking bikes. Could be both?
I don't like it even tho' they are trained how to do, they could so easily cause injury.
Apparently injuries have been caused, albeit not as yet serious ones, however sooner or later someone could get killed.
-
I don't like it at all! >:(
These are the thieving little nonces who use the stolen scooters to grab handbags from little old ladies and drag them along the street as they desperately cling on to what little money they have.
Once they realise the potential consequence of their scumbag actions, maybe they will be less inclined to thievery.
-
These are the thieving little nonces who use the stolen scooters to grab handbags from little old ladies and drag them along the street as they desperately cling on to what little money they have.
Once they realise the potential consequence of their scumbag actions, maybe they will be less inclined to thievery.
Quite. I'm surprised that LR is worried for the poor dears, since she's usually more of a "hang 'em and flog 'em" type, and anyway the police are trained to do it.
-
Apparently injuries have been caused, albeit not as yet serious ones, however sooner or later someone could get killed.
You are thinking exactly the way the thieves want people to think.
This is why, when chased by police cars they usually rip off their helmets and expect the cars to stop chasing them in case they are injured in the process and can then sue for damages even if the police car doesn't actually touch them..
The ruling on 'Skorpion' police drivers has advised that all injuries to suspects will be referred to the independant regulatory body that investigates such claims to ensure that any action taken in chasing and/or 'tipping' any suspect on a moped was not excessive - i.e. hit at five miles an hour and not fifty and any claims for injuries received when an accident due to dangerous driving by the suspect in an attempt to escape arrest causes the injuries.
-
Quite. I'm surprised that LR is worried for the poor dears, since she's usually more of a "hang 'em and flog 'em" type, and anyway the police are trained to do it.
You have never met me, so have no idea what I am really like. ::)
Of course moped thieves need catching, and being brought to justice, however deliberately knocking them off the bikes seems an unwise way of going about it.
-
You have never met me, so have no idea what I am really like. ::)
Of course moped thieves need catching, and being brought to justice, however deliberately knocking them off the bikes seems an unwise way of going about it.
....a wise way would be what?
-
You have never met me, so have no idea what I am really like. ::)
I was going by your expressed opinions in the past.
Of course moped thieves need catching, and being brought to justice, however deliberately knocking them off the bikes seems an unwise way of going about it.
They would presumably only do it after trying to flag the thief down in the usual way, and in order to avoid an extended police chase, which would be far more dangerous.
-
I'm still not entirely sure if moped thieves are thieves on mopeds or stealers of mopeds.
-
I'm still not entirely sure if moped thieves are thieves on mopeds or stealers of mopeds.
Both. See reply No. 6 from septic toe.
-
I'm still not entirely sure if moped thieves are thieves on mopeds or stealers of mopeds.
I felt exactly the same, think it's both/either.
-
I was going by your expressed opinions in the past.They would presumably only do it after trying to flag the thief down in the usual way, and in order to avoid an extended police chase, which would be far more dangerous.
I am against capital punishment and physical punishment of offenders, however much they deserve it.
-
These are the thieving little nonces who use the stolen scooters to grab handbags from little old ladies and drag them along the street as they desperately cling on to what little money they have.
Once they realise the potential consequence of their scumbag actions, maybe they will be less inclined to thievery.
The problem is that somebody could easily be killed or seriously injured by this policy andI don’t think the State should be in the business of doing either of those things even after the accused have been tried and found guilty in a court of law, much less in the judgement of a police driver who may not have the full facts.
-
I'm still not entirely sure if moped thieves are thieves on mopeds or stealers of mopeds.
In tyhe context of the 'Skorpion' drivers - BOTH!
-
I am against capital punishment and physical punishment of offenders, however much they deserve it.
And it is that attitude that has resulted in a generation that knows that they can get away with absolutely anything 'cos there have been people like you who have got that attitude accepted and now others have to sort out the resulltant mess!
-
The problem is that somebody could easily be killed or seriously injured by this policy andI don’t think the State should be in the business of doing either of those things even after the accused have been tried and found guilty in a court of law, much less in the judgement of a police driver who may not have the full facts.
I broadly agree with this which is why I think we need to be clear about the nature of the crimes being committed. In London there has been a trend for very violent street robberies that are carried out by kids on mopeds. Arguably taking out one of these criminals by immobilising the moped is worth the risk of injury to the perpetrator because some of these robberies have resulted in serious or fatal injuries to their victims. Arguably. If however they are just kids nicking scooters then this is a bit wtf?
-
I broadly agree with this which is why I think we need to be clear about the nature of the crimes being committed. In London there has been a trend for very violent street robberies that are carried out by kids on mopeds. Arguably taking out one of these criminals by immobilising the moped is worth the risk of injury to the perpetrator because some of these robberies have resulted in serious or fatal injuries to their victims. Arguably. If however they are just kids nicking scooters then this is a bit wtf?
Agreed, Cresida Dick also agrees, which is why amy and all injuries as a result of 'Skorpion' contact arrests will be referred to the independant investigation board.
-
If you get caught you should never ever be allowed to drive anything ever again.
-
If you get caught you should never ever be allowed to drive anything ever again.
I think any serious driving offence should have a lifetime driving ban applied.
-
I think any serious driving offence should have a lifetime driving ban applied.
Thankfully, you're not the Home Secretary.
-
Thankfully, you're not the Home Secretary.
Do you think people who have caused a death by drunk driving, for instance, should be permitted to drive again?
-
Do you think people who have caused a death by drunk driving, for instance, should be permitted to drive again?
Depends on all sorts of factors. They would be imprisoned, and very likely lose their licence for good, but you can't make universal rules which take no account of individual mitigating factors.
-
Depends on all sorts of factors. They would be imprisoned, and very likely lose their licence for good, but you can't make universal rules which take no account of individual mitigating factors.
There are no mitigating circumstances for killing someone when over the drink driving limit, imo.
-
There are no mitigating circumstances for killing someone when over the drink driving limit, imo.
Ok. What if you're pissed out your skull, you know an ambulance can't get there in time so you decide to drive someone to the hospital in order to save them (otherwise they'll most likely die). On the way yoy tragically kill someone. Of course, purely hypothetical, but would that not be a mitigating circumstance?
-
Ok. What if you're pissed out your skull, you know an ambulance can't get there in time so you decide to drive someone to the hospital in order to save them (otherwise they'll most likely die). On the way yoy tragically kill someone. Of course, purely hypothetical, but would that not be a mitigating circumstance?
Definitely not.
-
Ok. What if you're pissed out your skull, you know an ambulance can't get there in time so you decide to drive someone to the hospital in order to save them (otherwise they'll most likely die). On the way yoy tragically kill someone. Of course, purely hypothetical, but would that not be a mitigating circumstance?
I would suggest that in those circumstances you attempt to foind a sober driver for the trip.
But, ther again, your scenario is too limited to make a valid assessment.
Where are you?
How do you know the ambulance cannot arrive in time?
What has happened to the person who needs the ambulance that dictates the time limit?
etc etc etc!
-
I would suggest that in those circumstances you attempt to foind a sober driver for the trip.
But, ther again, your scenario is too limited to make a valid assessment.
Where are you?
How do you know the ambulance cannot arrive in time?
What has happened to the person who needs the ambulance that dictates the time limit?
etc etc etc!
It was only hypothetical and far from perfect, of course. It was merely designed to show that one can envisage mitigating circumstances. Neither does it mean that the said action is necessarily the right thing to do, only that it could be mitigating.
-
I would suggest that in those circumstances you attempt to foind a sober driver for the trip.
But, ther again, your scenario is too limited to make a valid assessment.
Where are you?
How do you know the ambulance cannot arrive in time?
What has happened to the person who needs the ambulance that dictates the time limit?
etc etc etc!
You are at a camping party in the middle of nowhere. No mobile phones. Your child has inadvertently eaten some nuts to which he is severely alergic. The normal shots have not worked. You are certain that you only have a very short time to get medical attention before death ensues.
All of the drivers there are over the limit.
You have a car.
What would you do?
-
And it is that attitude that has resulted in a generation that knows that they can get away with absolutely anything 'cos there have been people like you who have got that attitude accepted and now others have to sort out the resulltant mess!
Absolutely. Because when we used to hang people, nobody ever committed crimes.
No, actually, what you say is bollocks. People have always committed crimes. Crime, generally, is on a downward curve even though punishments are far less severe than they were in days of yore.
-
Definitely not.
Why not?
-
I would suggest that in those circumstances you attempt to foind a sober driver for the trip.
But, ther again, your scenario is too limited to make a valid assessment.
Where are you?
How do you know the ambulance cannot arrive in time?
What has happened to the person who needs the ambulance that dictates the time limit?
etc etc etc!
Let's say you are not "pissed out of your skull" but definitely over the limit. You're at a pub out in the sticks. It's at least 10 minutes for an ambulance to get to you and your partner has collapsed and will die if they don't get to the hospital within 15 minutes. You drive them to the hospital and just before you get there, somebody dressed all in black steps out into the road in front of you. Had you been sober, you would have reacted in time not to hit them, but you aren't sober, so you kill them.
These are, in my opinion, mitigating circumstances. It doesn't mean you are not guilty and it doesn't mean you should not be punished in some way, but when you chose to drive drunk, it was either that or watch your partner die in front of your eyes. Don't you think some leniency should be applied in those circumstances? Would you risk the possibility of accidentally killing a stranger and losing your licence against the certainty of your partner's death? Would you blame somebody else who chose to try to save their partner?
-
You are at a camping party in the middle of nowhere. No mobile phones. Your child has inadvertently eaten some nuts to which he is severely alergic. The normal shots have not worked. You are certain that you only have a very short time to get medical attention before death ensues.
All of the drivers there are over the limit.
You have a car.
What would you do?
Drive drunk to the nearest hospital and, if possible, get as a replacement driver, the first sober person you see who can drive to replace you if you can't pray to whichever deity in which you believe, that you don't get nicked on the way!
Or, if you do, get nicked I mean, get the cops to take over the driving and nick you at the hospital, having got you there on blues and-twos!
-
Ok. What if you're pissed out your skull, you know an ambulance can't get there in time so you decide to drive someone to the hospital in order to save them (otherwise they'll most likely die). On the way yoy tragically kill someone. Of course, purely hypothetical, but would that not be a mitigating circumstance?
As in an episode of 'Casualty' a year or two ago, except I don't think anyone was killed.
-
I think I may have misunderstood it :o. Saw on the news last night and I thought it was about targeting thieves on mopeds, i.e. a thief spots someone with handbag at an atm, jumps off bike, mugs her, gets back on bike and speeds off. I didn't think it was about nicking bikes. Could be both?
I don't like it even tho' they are trained how to do, they could so easily cause injury.
The thief could have medical conditions where such actions could kill them. It is unlawful to hit someone with a vehicle deliberately. Vehicular manslaughter a crime since horse drawn carriages were in action. We cannot make something lawful for the police which is unlawful for other drivers if it harms anyone.
-
The thief could have medical conditions where such actions could kill them. It is unlawful to hit someone with a vehicle deliberately. Vehicular manslaughter a crime since horse drawn carriages were in action. We cannot make something lawful for the police which is unlawful for other drivers if it harms anyone.
..like driving way over the speed limit?
Or, not related to driving - posessing and firing guns?
-
The thief could have medical conditions where such actions could kill them. It is unlawful to hit someone with a vehicle deliberately. Vehicular manslaughter a crime since horse drawn carriages were in action. We cannot make something lawful for the police which is unlawful for other drivers if it harms anyone.
Then that is bad luck for the thief!