T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Could only happen in the UK.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chas2008. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What so you think his driving wasn't careless or dangerous because he ran over a suspected burglar?
Had it been an 11 year old schoolgirl would that have been careless or dangerous?
The driving would have been the same
You seem to be judging his actions by the outcome.
Or are you suggesting that he *should* have been attempting to run over a suspected burglar?
Perhaps we should have it written into the law that the Police are allowed to run over anyone they suspect of a crime?
Not sure exactly if that's what you're after - or is this just another lame excuse for a "PC gone mad" post?
(Excuse the pun)
Had it been an 11 year old schoolgirl would that have been careless or dangerous?
The driving would have been the same
You seem to be judging his actions by the outcome.
Or are you suggesting that he *should* have been attempting to run over a suspected burglar?
Perhaps we should have it written into the law that the Police are allowed to run over anyone they suspect of a crime?
Not sure exactly if that's what you're after - or is this just another lame excuse for a "PC gone mad" post?
(Excuse the pun)
Police drivers are supposed to be highly trained and he acted incorrectly. Also, if the burglar was known to the officer anyway, as the article suggests, then there was no need for persuit, they could have just nipped round to his house and waited for hgim to return on his bike. Tut, not very good at thinking ahead is he that officer?
The Police are not exempt from the laws of the land, they are supposed to uphold them and maybe set a good example. The regulations about Police standards of driving have been drawn up after many fatalities of innocent pedestrians by reckless Police drivers. This office broke those guidelines, so deserves every he gets.
Police are responsible for more than nine road smashes every day.
And shockingly many of these accidents are caused by basic driving errors.
More than 150 people have died in police-related car accidents since 2004, including 79 during chases.
Officers admitted causing 3,357 crashes last year - an average of more than 64 a week. At least 2,492 of the victims were driving another vehicle - 56 were motorcyclists or cyclists and at least 22 pedestrians - with 126 needing hospital treatment. And the figures could be much worse.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/ 05/04/9-crashes-a-day-caused-by-cops-115875-21 330633/
Could only happen in the UK.
And why do you have to run down this country while you are at it?
Police are responsible for more than nine road smashes every day.
And shockingly many of these accidents are caused by basic driving errors.
More than 150 people have died in police-related car accidents since 2004, including 79 during chases.
Officers admitted causing 3,357 crashes last year - an average of more than 64 a week. At least 2,492 of the victims were driving another vehicle - 56 were motorcyclists or cyclists and at least 22 pedestrians - with 126 needing hospital treatment. And the figures could be much worse.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/ 05/04/9-crashes-a-day-caused-by-cops-115875-21 330633/
Could only happen in the UK.
And why do you have to run down this country while you are at it?
PC Hollands pleaded guilty to careless driving and that�s that.
You are quite right, jake, careless driving should not be judged by the outcome. It is the standard of driving that is scrutinised, not the results. The results, though, may well aggravate the offence.
Elsewhere it is accepted that catching criminals generates an element of risk to the police, the miscreant and the public. Officers have to decide upon their actions quickly and not six months later in a courtroom after pondering over the papers for many hours.
Yes, the officer made an error of judgement in circumstances that few of us would find ourselves. I think what chas is trying to say is that in no other country would a police officer find himself facing criminal charges (with the associated possibility of the loss of his job) in circumstances such as these.
And I�m inclined to agree.
You are quite right, jake, careless driving should not be judged by the outcome. It is the standard of driving that is scrutinised, not the results. The results, though, may well aggravate the offence.
Elsewhere it is accepted that catching criminals generates an element of risk to the police, the miscreant and the public. Officers have to decide upon their actions quickly and not six months later in a courtroom after pondering over the papers for many hours.
Yes, the officer made an error of judgement in circumstances that few of us would find ourselves. I think what chas is trying to say is that in no other country would a police officer find himself facing criminal charges (with the associated possibility of the loss of his job) in circumstances such as these.
And I�m inclined to agree.
I think what chas is trying to say is that in no other country would a police officer find himself facing criminal charges (with the associated possibility of the loss of his job) in circumstances such as these.
SO you think that every other country in the world would let a police officer break the law, go beyond what his training tells him to do and use disproportionate force in order to secure a conviction.
Thank God I live here then.
SO you think that every other country in the world would let a police officer break the law, go beyond what his training tells him to do and use disproportionate force in order to secure a conviction.
Thank God I live here then.
dot:
"Anyway, if the burglar was known to the officer, as the article suggests"
The article "suggests" nothing of the sort. I'd guess that his identity was only made known because PC Hollands did what he did, otherwise he'd have gotten clean away.
Yes, the Officer overstepped the mark, he should not have gone about it the way he did, although some might argue that what he did amounted to nothing more than good old fashioned practical policing?
I noticed that there was no mention of what "punishment" was eventually meted out to the burglar. An ASBO? A suspended sentence? A conditional discharge?
Meanwhile, PC Hollands still remains suspended almost 18 months after the incident, wondering and worrying whether or not his "dreadful misdemeanour" will signal the end of an otherwise examplary Police career. I would suggest that he has more than been punished already. Can the same be said of the real offender, the burglar?
"Anyway, if the burglar was known to the officer, as the article suggests"
The article "suggests" nothing of the sort. I'd guess that his identity was only made known because PC Hollands did what he did, otherwise he'd have gotten clean away.
Yes, the Officer overstepped the mark, he should not have gone about it the way he did, although some might argue that what he did amounted to nothing more than good old fashioned practical policing?
I noticed that there was no mention of what "punishment" was eventually meted out to the burglar. An ASBO? A suspended sentence? A conditional discharge?
Meanwhile, PC Hollands still remains suspended almost 18 months after the incident, wondering and worrying whether or not his "dreadful misdemeanour" will signal the end of an otherwise examplary Police career. I would suggest that he has more than been punished already. Can the same be said of the real offender, the burglar?
Can the same be said of the real offender, the burglar?
Not a nice piece of work but I presume for this burglary:
Sentenced to 21 months' detention at a young offenders' institution for the attempted robbery of a pizza delivery driver in December last year, he was also given a three-year anti-social behaviour order banning him from Victoria Park, the car park of Aldi supermarket in St James and from drinking or being drunk in public.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/661/Aldi-cre w-ringleader-jailed.4305566.jp
But this didn't seem to sort him out so he is now in jail At Northampton Crown Court yesterday, the 19-year-old was sentenced to 21 months' detention for the robbery, with 18 months consecutive for a house break-in and 34 other similar offences.
Article dated July 2008
Not a nice piece of work but I presume for this burglary:
Sentenced to 21 months' detention at a young offenders' institution for the attempted robbery of a pizza delivery driver in December last year, he was also given a three-year anti-social behaviour order banning him from Victoria Park, the car park of Aldi supermarket in St James and from drinking or being drunk in public.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/661/Aldi-cre w-ringleader-jailed.4305566.jp
But this didn't seem to sort him out so he is now in jail At Northampton Crown Court yesterday, the 19-year-old was sentenced to 21 months' detention for the robbery, with 18 months consecutive for a house break-in and 34 other similar offences.
Article dated July 2008
Just another slight spin on the story:
"It had appeared that there may have been a deliberate pinning of the cycle against a wall."
The court heard that Hollands did not have the necessary training to carry out such a manoeuvre.
Miss Warburton added: "This officer was only qualified as a standard response driver. In effect, he was not entitled to engage in the pursuit of other vehicles.
"He was only qualified and entitled to follow at a safe distance and report on any vehicle he was pursuing, so other qualified officers could continue with the pursuit.
"He had already been re-trained for two non-fault collisions, therefore he would have known he was not allowed to follow this burglar in this way.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Careles s-driving-PC-faces-loss.5265132.jp
"It had appeared that there may have been a deliberate pinning of the cycle against a wall."
The court heard that Hollands did not have the necessary training to carry out such a manoeuvre.
Miss Warburton added: "This officer was only qualified as a standard response driver. In effect, he was not entitled to engage in the pursuit of other vehicles.
"He was only qualified and entitled to follow at a safe distance and report on any vehicle he was pursuing, so other qualified officers could continue with the pursuit.
"He had already been re-trained for two non-fault collisions, therefore he would have known he was not allowed to follow this burglar in this way.
http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/Careles s-driving-PC-faces-loss.5265132.jp
I think it's disgusting that a police officer stands in jeopardy of losing his job because he chased and injured a criminal . No wonder the mob i.e. the criminals rule . I think the police should go on strike and leave you all to contend with the criminal elements yourselves .
To me anyone who breaks the law is a criminal ,that's my view and I will not change it for any "bleeding heart
To me anyone who breaks the law is a criminal ,that's my view and I will not change it for any "bleeding heart
Reminds me of one of my favourite movie jokes of all time.
Naged gun 2 1/2
Frank Drebin is at an award ceremony for
'killing his 100th Drug dealer'
and as he is announced he stands up and everyone is clapping him
he says
"oh please please stop. The last one I accidentally killed whilst reverse parking my car. He just turned out to be a drug dealer"
fugging genius!!!!!!!!!
Naged gun 2 1/2
Frank Drebin is at an award ceremony for
'killing his 100th Drug dealer'
and as he is announced he stands up and everyone is clapping him
he says
"oh please please stop. The last one I accidentally killed whilst reverse parking my car. He just turned out to be a drug dealer"
fugging genius!!!!!!!!!
Of course we have all broken the law at some point - driven at 35 in a 30 zone for eg.
Where is the inferenece in my post , to the contrary ?
I drew Dolly 1308 to the contradiction in his/her post that if he/she is going to point out that anyone that breaks the law is a criminal ; ( in support of the officer ) ; then by definition the police officer must be one ,as well
Where is the inferenece in my post , to the contrary ?
I drew Dolly 1308 to the contradiction in his/her post that if he/she is going to point out that anyone that breaks the law is a criminal ; ( in support of the officer ) ; then by definition the police officer must be one ,as well
I think the only person in any danger was the offender, it seems clear to me that the officer targeted him in the style akin to an Exocet missile, fair play to him.
I feel if there had been others on the pavement he would not have acted as he did.
I'm a stern critic of the police when I feel they're wrong, perhaps it'd be better/safer for all of us if the police just shouted "hey you! Stop!" and hope for the best.
This crashes business also, perhaps the police should'nt chase criminals who try to escape in cars?
Some of the examples given are basic lapses, when you consider how many cars, how many miles the police cover daily the amount is quite small, still too high, but small.
How many crashes on average per day involving buses?
I feel if there had been others on the pavement he would not have acted as he did.
I'm a stern critic of the police when I feel they're wrong, perhaps it'd be better/safer for all of us if the police just shouted "hey you! Stop!" and hope for the best.
This crashes business also, perhaps the police should'nt chase criminals who try to escape in cars?
Some of the examples given are basic lapses, when you consider how many cars, how many miles the police cover daily the amount is quite small, still too high, but small.
How many crashes on average per day involving buses?
To return to the original point, vic, the emergency services, and police in particular, often have to break the law in order to carry out their duties effectively. They have to use their judgement (immediately, not after hours of consultation) to decide what is necessary, what risks are involved and what the probable outcome might be. We don�t know the full circumstances of this incident, but it seems that nobody else was injured so it�s a fair assumption to make that nobody else was placed at risk by PC Holland�s action.
It�s fine for senior officers and lawyers to paw over the reports of the incident at leisure in an agreeable office over tea and biscuits, then for them to pontificate on what should and should not have happened. PC Holland did not have that luxury. He was trying to apprehend a serial offender and for dot to suggest that the PC simply called round to wait for him is laughable. If he did return immediately (which is most unlikely) any evidence he may have had with him will have been swiftly disposed of, and a convenient alibi to cover his misdemeanours readily arranged. Crooks need to be caught when spotted, not interviewed by appointment some days later.
Your contention that Mr Ali�s present incarceration is somehow equivocal to PC Holland�s punishment bears examination. Ali received 39 months (of which he will serve less than 18) for 35 offences of robbery and burglary (about two weeks for each). Now that really is disproportionate.
Yes, PC Holland�s action may have warranted some internal disciplinary action taken against him, or some further training to remind him of his responsibilities. But I repeat, I know of nowhere else where he would have been arraigned on criminal charges. If you can find any reports from other countries where police officers have been prosecuted for minor traffic offences whilst trying to apprehend serious criminals please share them with us.
It�s fine for senior officers and lawyers to paw over the reports of the incident at leisure in an agreeable office over tea and biscuits, then for them to pontificate on what should and should not have happened. PC Holland did not have that luxury. He was trying to apprehend a serial offender and for dot to suggest that the PC simply called round to wait for him is laughable. If he did return immediately (which is most unlikely) any evidence he may have had with him will have been swiftly disposed of, and a convenient alibi to cover his misdemeanours readily arranged. Crooks need to be caught when spotted, not interviewed by appointment some days later.
Your contention that Mr Ali�s present incarceration is somehow equivocal to PC Holland�s punishment bears examination. Ali received 39 months (of which he will serve less than 18) for 35 offences of robbery and burglary (about two weeks for each). Now that really is disproportionate.
Yes, PC Holland�s action may have warranted some internal disciplinary action taken against him, or some further training to remind him of his responsibilities. But I repeat, I know of nowhere else where he would have been arraigned on criminal charges. If you can find any reports from other countries where police officers have been prosecuted for minor traffic offences whilst trying to apprehend serious criminals please share them with us.
Newjudge - may I ask that you subscribe to this newsletter - http://www.thisistrue.com/. It is free (basic membership) and comes out once a week.
You will find that this story is not in the least unusual.
Can I also ask why you think that driving on to a path and hitting someone on a bike (albeit a criminal) is a 'minor traffic offence' .
You also seem to overlook the fact that he was being retrained on driving - so knew exactly what he was legally allowed to do and what he wasn't.
If you know that you are not allowed to pursue someone but still carry on and do it, do you think that the ends justify the means and he shouldn't be charged?
What about if he killed him? Should we just have the attitude of 'well it was a criminal, it doesn't matter'?
You will find that this story is not in the least unusual.
Can I also ask why you think that driving on to a path and hitting someone on a bike (albeit a criminal) is a 'minor traffic offence' .
You also seem to overlook the fact that he was being retrained on driving - so knew exactly what he was legally allowed to do and what he wasn't.
If you know that you are not allowed to pursue someone but still carry on and do it, do you think that the ends justify the means and he shouldn't be charged?
What about if he killed him? Should we just have the attitude of 'well it was a criminal, it doesn't matter'?
I cannot be bothered to subscribe to American newsletters, Vic. Perhaps you could just point me to some examples of similar action being taken against foreign police officers.
The offence of Careless Driving is a minor traffic offence. It carries a maximum sentence of a fine and up to nine penalty points or a discretionary disqualification. Compare that with speeding (which many on this site condone) which carries a maximum of six, No Insurance (maximum of eight) and failing to stop and/or report an accident (ten points and up to six months in custody).
In the UK people are not prosecuted for what they might have done. PC Holland did not kill the burglar � apparently he suffered minor injuries as he might have done if he�d been brought to the ground whilst being chased on foot.
As am about as concerned for Mr Ali�s welfare as he has been for his victims� wellbeing and I do think the end justified the means. Criminals face the risk of being injured during their apprehension if they are fleeing the police and it's no use them crying "foul" when they are.
Burglary and robbery are serious crimes (far more serious than careless driving) and the effect they have on their victims is profound. I�m much more concerned that I might be burgled than that I might be injured by a police officer pursuing a burglar.
I�m not suggesting we have �Dirty Harry� type police officers dispensing justice at the end of a .44 Magnum. But a few more like PC Holland who are prepared to let criminals know that they will not escape by running fast and we may all sleep a little easier in our beds.
Meantime, it seems we'll have to agree to differ.
The offence of Careless Driving is a minor traffic offence. It carries a maximum sentence of a fine and up to nine penalty points or a discretionary disqualification. Compare that with speeding (which many on this site condone) which carries a maximum of six, No Insurance (maximum of eight) and failing to stop and/or report an accident (ten points and up to six months in custody).
In the UK people are not prosecuted for what they might have done. PC Holland did not kill the burglar � apparently he suffered minor injuries as he might have done if he�d been brought to the ground whilst being chased on foot.
As am about as concerned for Mr Ali�s welfare as he has been for his victims� wellbeing and I do think the end justified the means. Criminals face the risk of being injured during their apprehension if they are fleeing the police and it's no use them crying "foul" when they are.
Burglary and robbery are serious crimes (far more serious than careless driving) and the effect they have on their victims is profound. I�m much more concerned that I might be burgled than that I might be injured by a police officer pursuing a burglar.
I�m not suggesting we have �Dirty Harry� type police officers dispensing justice at the end of a .44 Magnum. But a few more like PC Holland who are prepared to let criminals know that they will not escape by running fast and we may all sleep a little easier in our beds.
Meantime, it seems we'll have to agree to differ.
Latest Posts
Crosswords4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News15 mins ago
Crosswords21 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
