From: Ophelia on


"Mike Ross" <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote in message
news:8q6o5611tl7ejd8lesudp8gdhqbu8l6u57(a)4ax.com...
> I'm having a lot of trouble swallowing that frog myself. There's more to
> this
> than meets the eye I think; if you have police car with lights & sirens
> behind
> you, you bloody well PULL OVER. They may want you to stop, they may just
> want to
> get past in a hurry, but you PULL OVER. I can't swallow the 'escort' story
> and I
> frankly don't know what the guy was thinking.
>
> Having said that, the guy DID stop immediately when an officer in front of
> him
> indicated he should stop, and at no time was he speeding or driving in a
> dangerous manner; this was in no sense a pursuit of a fugitive or a
> serious
> attempt to escape.
>
> And, they KNEW they were dealing with a very elderly chap. Now there are
> some
> elderly chaps who are complete bastards, can be very aggressive, sure.
> Some were
> serious hard cases in their younger days, no doubt. But still, he was 70,
> they
> knew this, and I haven't heard anything to suggest he was aggresive.
>
> With this in mind I'd say the actions of the arresting officers were OTT.
> Was it
> REALLY vital to public safety to stop the vehicle so permanently and
> aggressively, right there and then? I'd especially question the 'jump on
> the
> bonnet and kick the windscreen' tactic; that seems to me to be just
> begging to
> end in an officer seriously injured or killed. I wonder if they would dare
> do
> that with a REAL hardcore TWOCer, who is liable to ram a police car or
> knock
> over an officer without compunction? Their response is liable to be 'Filth
> on my
> bonnet? Let's try to knock it off...'. In this case it looked more like
> wanton
> vandalism - criminal damage. I wouldn't be surprised to see that get
> charged.

I wouldn't bet money on it but they damned well ought to be!
--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

From: GT on
"Mike Ross" <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote in message
news:8q6o5611tl7ejd8lesudp8gdhqbu8l6u57(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:31:29 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote:
>
>>"Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng08(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:YdadnYh8R_bwkMbRnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d(a)bt.com...
>>>I can't remember the last time I saw such an over the top reaction. It's
>>>a
>>>wonderful example of how some public servants think they're the masters
>>>and
>>>we are to do their bidding.
>>>
>>> There is a video on the website.
>>>
>>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300608/Policemen-suspended-smash-grab-raid-disabled-mans-Range-Rover.html
>>
>>Aww bless - even though he ran over 1 policeman, they still gave him a 17
>>mile blues-n-twos escort home. That is service for you.
>
> I'm having a lot of trouble swallowing that frog myself. There's more to
> this
> than meets the eye I think; if you have police car with lights & sirens
> behind
> you, you bloody well PULL OVER. They may want you to stop, they may just
> want to
> get past in a hurry, but you PULL OVER. I can't swallow the 'escort' story
> and I
> frankly don't know what the guy was thinking.
>
> Having said that, the guy DID stop immediately when an officer in front of
> him
> indicated he should stop, and at no time was he speeding or driving in a
> dangerous manner; this was in no sense a pursuit of a fugitive or a
> serious
> attempt to escape.

The video certainly looks more like an escort than a police pursuit - the
police car is nowhere near the back of the range rover at any point and the
commentry is calm and natural - not hurried and serious sounding as you
might expect during a pursuit!

> And, they KNEW they were dealing with a very elderly chap. Now there are
> some
> elderly chaps who are complete bastards, can be very aggressive, sure.
> Some were
> serious hard cases in their younger days, no doubt. But still, he was 70,
> they
> knew this, and I haven't heard anything to suggest he was aggresive.

From the police's point of view, knocking down a policeman with your car,
then driving away and not stopping for 17 miles is pretty aggressive!

> With this in mind I'd say the actions of the arresting officers were OTT.
> Was it
> REALLY vital to public safety to stop the vehicle so permanently and
> aggressively, right there and then? I'd especially question the 'jump on
> the
> bonnet and kick the windscreen' tactic; that seems to me to be just
> begging to
> end in an officer seriously injured or killed. I wonder if they would dare
> do
> that with a REAL hardcore TWOCer, who is liable to ram a police car or
> knock
> over an officer without compunction? Their response is liable to be 'Filth
> on my
> bonnet? Let's try to knock it off...'. In this case it looked more like
> wanton
> vandalism - criminal damage. I wouldn't be surprised to see that get
> charged.
>
> Mike
> --
> http://www.corestore.org
> 'As I walk along these shores
> I am the history within'


From: GT on
"Ophelia" <Ophelia(a)Elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message
news:8c2lv1FcgfU2(a)mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1hi2k76lym7cv$.toxrw7wki0lj$.dlg(a)40tude.net...
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:38:46 +0100, GT wrote:
>>
>>>>> But, in the UK, most people don't normally manually lock their doors
>>>>> when driving.
>>>>
>>>> Land Rovers lock automatically at about 5mph.
>>>
>>> But don't they also unlock when you stop again (like in Rovers)
>>
>> only if an impact is detected. My last two BMWs were the same. The doors
>> unlock if you open the drivers door from inside or press the unlock
>> button.
>> This is because car jackings, kinappings and theft of valuables happen
>> when
>> the car is stationary.
>> The last two cars also only unlocked the drivers door unless you press
>> twice, although in the case of the BMW you told the dealer how you wanted
>> the keys set. Both doors or just one.
>
> We just drive plain ole Mitsubishies but always lock the doors as we set
> off:)
> I suppose some old folk need the auto lock <g>

....and some people with kids in the back - not everyone has the child locks
turned on.


From: Ophelia on


"Francis Burton" <fburton(a)nyx.net> wrote in message
news:1281106655.124359(a)irys.nyx.net...
> In article <8c1n8mFktbU1(a)mid.individual.net>, smurf <smurf(a)smurf.com>
> wrote:
>>he didnt exceed the 40mph speed limit on a road obviously designed for
>>60mph.
>
> Point taken, but...
>
> I wouldn't have driven at 60mph along that road, even if the
> speed limit was that high - country road, all those bends and
> openings. Would you? I reckon 40mph is a sensible upper limit
> for normal driving in this case.

... especially with cops giving twos and blues right behind you.

--
--
https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

From: Mike Ross on
On 6 Aug 2010 14:58:06 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying:
>
>> And, they KNEW they were dealing with a very elderly chap. Now there are
>> some elderly chaps who are complete bastards, can be very aggressive,
>> sure. Some were serious hard cases in their younger days, no doubt. But
>> still, he was 70, they knew this, and I haven't heard anything to
>> suggest he was aggresive.
>
>Apart from the fact that 70 is a long way from "very elderly", do you
>think that the acceptable standard of driving for the "very elderly"
>should be somehow lowered far enough to include such massive lapses of
>observation and judgement?

No. And don't put words in my mouth; I never suggested such a thing. In fact I
said I didn't know what the guy was thinking when he didn't stop. 70 is getting
on, and my comments were about how the police dealt with him when he DID stop!

Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Prev: Road Casualties Q1 2010
Next: Nexen tyres