Another young cyclist injured

[Chris Slade]

David P wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:37:03 +0000, Mark Thompson wrote:
>
>> David P wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> It would be more sensible if the ordinary citizen had more latitude when
>>> it came to dealing with criminals directly themselves. By that I mean
>>> self defence of body and property.
>>
>> Um, we've already got that.
>
> so you might think.

Do you think otherwise?
--
Chris

 

[Will Cove]

David P <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>> Or perhaps they should train all police officers and members of other
>> emergency services who are required to exceed the normal civilian
>> envelope (i.e. are authorised to exceed the speed limit, go through
>> red lights, etc.) so that they can do their jobs without endangering
>> the public.
>
> You spout total rubbish. How is a speeding cop driving through the red
> haze of emergency duty going to help a youngster crossing the road
> when he is recklessly speeding on it at the child who doesn't know
> whether to freeze or get quickly out of the way. Hell I've even had
> the tossers drive at me at such a high speed that you can see the
> front of their vehicle oscillate up and down as it momentarily tries
> to leave the ground due to the speed of the vehicle and the slightly
> uneven road surface.

If an officer suffers from red haze, he or she shouldn't be behind the
wheel and perhaps shouldn't even be a police officer. If the speeding
cop hasn't seen the child then his risk management has failed. Proper
training, including regular check rides, would go a long way to weed out
the prats who shouldn't be behind the wheel of anything, let alone a
police car, and at keep up or improve the skills of the others.

IOW, if proper training were provided the likelihood of the scenarios you
describe would be very much reduced.

 

[Tony Raven]

Will Cove wrote on 08/12/2006 07:32 +0100:
>
> If an officer suffers from red haze, he or she shouldn't be behind the
> wheel and perhaps shouldn't even be a police officer. If the speeding
> cop hasn't seen the child then his risk management has failed. Proper
> training, including regular check rides, would go a long way to weed out
> the prats who shouldn't be behind the wheel of anything, let alone a
> police car, and at keep up or improve the skills of the others.
>
> IOW, if proper training were provided the likelihood of the scenarios you
> describe would be very much reduced.

Arrghhhhh. Not proper police training please.

"PC Gerard Sharratt was involved in a 100mph training exercise, with
three students in his car, acting as a ‘bandit’, being chased by another
car driven by a police student. He rounded a left hand bend and ‘did a
double-take’ when he saw cars queuing in front of him, braked, skidded
and hit the stationary car owned by Miss Judith Wood, 27, at 56 mph.
Sharratt had been driving at between 100 and 116mph when he had braked."

Miss Wood, a nurse on her way to work, was killed instantly. Curiously
an incident that has dropped off the internet and is kept alive by one
blogger. It happened just down the road from me in IIRC 1996, so no
reason the news reports shouldn't be there on the web.

Incidentally the subsequent 1998 Lund report recommended that all police
involved in pursuits be given special training. When that was
implemented, the number of deaths in police chases rose substantially.

So please no police training - it makes them think they are Rambo behind
the wheel.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[David P]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:25:40 +0000, Chris Slade wrote:

> David P wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:37:03 +0000, Mark Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> David P wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> It would be more sensible if the ordinary citizen had more latitude
>>>> when it came to dealing with criminals directly themselves. By that I
>>>> mean self defence of body and property.
>>>
>>> Um, we've already got that.
>>
>> so you might think.
>
> Do you think otherwise?

<<
It would be more sensible if the ordinary citizen had more latitude when
it came to dealing with criminals directly themselves. By that I mean self
defence of body and property.
>>

 

[David Hansen]

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 14:29:23 +0000 someone who may be Paul Boyd
<usenet.dont.work@plusnet> wrote this:-

>> Would it be too much trouble to insert a line or two of information,
>> so that people could decide whether to look at the article?
>
>Well, sorry to put you to so much trouble, but modern computers have a
>field called "Subject". That pretty much says it all.

Yawn. The answer to my question appears to be, no it would be too
much trouble.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[David Hansen]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:20:08 +0000 someone who may be David P
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>It would be more sensible if the ordinary citizen had more latitude when
>it came to dealing with criminals directly themselves. By that I mean
>self defence of body and property.

The "ordinary citizen" has the right to use all sorts of force in
defending themselves, others and property. However, it has to be
reasonable.

Shooting someone in the back with an illegally held gun and then
leaving them to die slowly in the grounds of one's house while one
goes to a neighbour to discuss what to do is not reasonable. Had Mr
Martin contacted the police immediately his victim might have been
found and lived. Some may say that the world is better off without
the victim, but that is a dangerous road to travel down.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>
David Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 14:20:08 +0000 someone who may be David P
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
> >It would be more sensible if the ordinary citizen had more latitude when
> >it came to dealing with criminals directly themselves. By that I mean
> >self defence of body and property.
>
> The "ordinary citizen" has the right to use all sorts of force in
> defending themselves, others and property. However, it has to be
> reasonable.
>
> Shooting someone in the back with an illegally held gun and then
> leaving them to die slowly in the grounds of one's house while one
> goes to a neighbour to discuss what to do is not reasonable. Had Mr
> Martin contacted the police immediately his victim might have been
> found and lived. Some may say that the world is better off without
> the victim, but that is a dangerous road to travel down.
>
>
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that people don't see the difference
between being a good citizen and being a vigilante - they're probably
the same people who don't see why a compulsory national ID system and
accompanying database is a bad idea.

 

[Will Cove]

Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote in news:4tsl9iF15gmi2U1
@mid.individual.net:

> So please no police training - it makes them think they are Rambo behind
> the wheel.

I wrote "proper police training" - which precludes the sort of prat you
wrote about and also the prat that played the bandit on the A38 in
Derbyshire in one of the "Police Camera Action" type "fly-on-the-walls" a
few years ago. The training needs to be appropriate and conducted with due
regard to public safety. In both incidents, that didn't happen.

Unfortunately, the level of police driver skill and competence has been so
badly eroded since the widespread introduction of speed cameras that the
police have some way to go before even the instructors are safe.

> Incidentally the subsequent 1998 Lund report recommended that all
> police involved in pursuits be given special training. When that was
> implemented, the number of deaths in police chases rose
> substantially.

AFAICT, that was never properly implemented. Trafpols have always received
special training but their numbers grow fewer as reliance on speed cameras
has grown. Some constabularies have disbanded their traffic divisions
entirely and absorbed the traffic role into general policing. This means
that many pursuits are now undertaken by non-specialist officers who've had
basic driver training only. It's hardly surprising that inadequate and
inappropriate training has led to a rise in police accident rate.

 

[Tony Raven]

Will Cove wrote on 08/12/2006 13:16 +0100:
>
> AFAICT, that was never properly implemented. Trafpols have always received
> special training but their numbers grow fewer as reliance on speed cameras
> has grown. Some constabularies have disbanded their traffic divisions
> entirely and absorbed the traffic role into general policing. This means
> that many pursuits are now undertaken by non-specialist officers who've had
> basic driver training only. It's hardly surprising that inadequate and
> inappropriate training has led to a rise in police accident rate.

Nothing to do then with showing off to the camera crew alongside them in
the car then?

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[Al C-F]

David Hansen wrote:

>
> Shooting someone in the back with an illegally held gun and then
> leaving them to die slowly in the grounds of one's house while one
> goes to a neighbour to discuss what to do is not reasonable. Had Mr
> Martin contacted the police immediately his victim might have been
> found and lived. Some may say that the world is better off without
> the victim, but that is a dangerous road to travel down.
>
>

As is the road to his 'Bleak House', if you're up to no good.

 

[spindrift]

Al C-F wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
>
> >
> > Shooting someone in the back with an illegally held gun and then
> > leaving them to die slowly in the grounds of one's house while one
> > goes to a neighbour to discuss what to do is not reasonable. Had Mr
> > Martin contacted the police immediately his victim might have been
> > found and lived. Some may say that the world is better off without
> > the victim, but that is a dangerous road to travel down.
> >
> >
>
> As is the road to his 'Bleak House', if you're up to no good.

Martin actually disposed of his illegally-held weapon (he had a history
of gun violence) and then went for a pint. The ambulance was called
after he boasted to horrified bar staff what he had done. By that Time
Fred Barras had bled to death. Tony Martin's a rum kind of poster boy
for law and order types.