|
Yet another local biker got himself killed fleeing the police tonight. It's been like an epidemic around here the last two years.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 08:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
Rhyno posted:Yet another local biker got himself killed fleeing the police tonight. It's been like an epidemic around here the last two years. Well, logically speaking, the problem is solving itself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Anyone else get really self conscious about showing anger in front of others? I managed to gently caress up and lost about 3 hours of CAD work earlier; I swore, slammed my laptop shut, and pounded my fist on the table so hard everyone in the room kinda gave me a look. I've redone the lost work and it didn't take that long, but I still feel like a jackass for... being upset? Idk, it's weird. lol this is like social suicide in the uk. it's a complete and utter failure of your sense of humour. no one would look at you the same again
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 10:37
|
|
|
nm posted:As a big guy myself: never get physically angry -- the pounding fists, slamming doors, etc. It just scare people/makes you look crazy. Really don't go beyond a "gently caress" and the like. What you find is that the capacity to be like that and have it actually have an effect removes much of the inclination to. Rhyno posted:Yet another local biker got himself killed fleeing the police tonight. It's been like an epidemic around here the last two years. Policy should be that they will chase them, and they're either going to stop or be stopped. End up dead under a skip lorry? Tough loving poo poo, you little thieving oval office.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 11:12
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Policy should be that they will chase them, and they're either going to stop or be stopped. End up dead under a skip lorry? Tough loving poo poo, you little thieving oval office. yeah cuz theres no possibility of collateral damage or somebody innocent getting caught up in some wild police chase 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
fridge corn posted:yeah cuz theres no possibility of collateral damage or somebody innocent getting caught up in some wild police chase
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:That's not why they don't chase them, and they're already riding around like wankers attacking people. so why would they endanger more people by creating a pursuit situation when they can just grab cctv footage and know where they've gone anyway? 🤔
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
If that were possible, they'd do it already. Stopping a pursuit because the risk to others gets too high is already a policy. That's fine. Not pursuing because it'll ruin your career if the person you're pursuing gets hurt is a completely unacceptable position for the police to be put in, but currently, that's how it is.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
so youd rather give the police powers to dispense street justice by running down muggers and motorbike thieves because mugging and stealing bikes is punishable by...death??? that's not how the law works, thankfully
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
This is quite a wide line between 'mad maxing shoplifters' and 'letting violent, repeat muggers escape because they ride at 31mph' Currently, we're doing the latter. EDIT https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahalothman/sadiq-khan-wants-the-law-to-protect-police-officers-who?utm_term=.lpw7l01g0#.wbNXnB65B quote:London mayor Sadiq Khan has joined growing calls for the government to ensure laws are in place to protect police who pursue criminals who are on mopeds. Metropolitan police officers have said that if they are to get a grip on soaring moped crime in London, they must be given assurances that they will not face disciplinary action after pursuing suspects. One senior police officer told BuzzFeed News that criminals on mopeds "take their crash helmets off and stick two fingers up to the police", knowing they will not be followed. spog fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Enourmo posted:Anyone else get really self conscious about showing anger in front of others? I managed to gently caress up and lost about 3 hours of CAD work earlier; I swore, slammed my laptop shut, and pounded my fist on the table so hard everyone in the room kinda gave me a look. I've redone the lost work and it didn't take that long, but I still feel like a jackass for... being upset? Idk, it's weird. Being a big guy, yeah, just - gotta keep it non-physical. A loud "gently caress", muttering about your "piece of poo poo laptop", etc. are okay - physical stuff takes it beyond social norms. Being upset is normal, slamming poo poo around isn't. However, a box of donuts to the class and a little "sorry, lost my cool, stupid stressful work" apology and people will likely forget it ever happened. edit - big guy comment is me to. I'm a large gentleman. Worked enough retail/service that if I get that mad, I take a 5 minute break and go cool off somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
fridge corn posted:so youd rather give the police powers to dispense street justice by running down muggers and motorbike thieves because mugging and stealing bikes is punishable by...death??? that's not how the law works, thankfully Yet Vote Dredd 2020
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:36
|
|
|
spog posted:This is quite a wide line between 'mad maxing shoplifters' and 'letting violent, repeat muggers escape because they ride at 31mph' it doesn't matter how wide the line is if you cross it the moment you begin pursuit?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
fridge corn posted:it doesn't matter how wide the line is if you cross it the moment you begin pursuit? Some piece of poo poo, after having squirted acid into someone's face to steal their necklace (as is currently happening right now), decides to escape by riding a moped at 40mph against oncoming traffic and through pedestrians (again, as is happening right now) does so because the police has a no-pursuit policy. If they end up under the wheels of an articulated lorry as a result of their own choices and actions, then the only sympathy I have is with the poor Polish car washer who has to jet wash the bits out of the mudguards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
spog posted:Some piece of poo poo, after having squirted acid into someone's face to steal their necklace (as is currently happening right now), decides to escape by riding a moped at 40mph against oncoming traffic and through pedestrians (again, as is happening right now) does so because the police doesn't have a shoot-to-kill policy. Agreed. spog posted:If they end up under the wheels of an articulated lorry as a result of their own choices and actions, then the only sympathy I have is with the poor Polish car washer who has to jet wash the bits out of the mudguards. Wtf did the poor lorry driver ever do to you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
fridge corn posted:so youd rather give the police powers to dispense street justice by running down muggers and motorbike thieves because mugging and stealing bikes is punishable by...death??? that's not how the law works, thankfully The police often do not pursue violent career criminals specifically on the basis that if said crim gets hurt or killed then they will get royally shafted. This should not be the case. Running from the police on a motorbike, in traffic, without a helmet, is dangerous. When someone chooses to do it, the consequences are on them. This is an activity which stands a high chance of getting you injured or killed. The police should not have to worry about the consequences the riders have chosen to expose themselves to through being violent career criminals. If anyone wants a more detailed look at the ridiculous current situation, these articles are good: https://bikerandbike.co.uk/the-motorcycle-crime-epidemic-the-full-story/ Something has to be done, because you're already getting people who've had enough of this poo poo deciding to do something about it themselves. Your choices are allow the police to actually do their jobs properly, allow scumbags to commit violent acts against the public, or allow vigilantes to find them and deal with them. I want option 1. spog posted:Some piece of poo poo, after having squirted acid into someone's face to steal their necklace (as is currently happening right now), decides to escape by riding a moped at 40mph against oncoming traffic and through pedestrians (again, as is happening right now) does so because the police has a no-pursuit policy. Nidhg00670000 posted:Wtf did the poor lorry driver ever do to you? But gently caress these people. Find a different hill to die on, Corn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
spog posted:Some piece of poo poo, after having squirted acid into someone's face to steal their necklace (as is currently happening right now), decides to escape by riding a moped at 40mph against oncoming traffic and through pedestrians (again, as is happening right now) does so because the police has a no-pursuit policy. the law is more nuanced than that and in the case of an acid attack there may be deemed an immediate threat of injury or death to civilians and a pursuit of the suspect more appropriate. officers have to take the entire situation into account when deciding whether or not to pursue a suspect and its not a simple case of go-no go if a rider removes their helmet. you could read it for yourself in the very article you posted. or don't. whatever. im not the one gleefully advocating extrajudicial killings here
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:The police should not have to worry about the consequences the riders have chosen to expose themselves to through being violent career criminals. Taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as police overreach?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
fridge corn posted:in the case of an acid attack there may be deemed an immediate threat of injury or death to civilians and a pursuit of the suspect more appropriate. Nidhg00670000 posted:Taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion, there is no such thing as police overreach? To take a really silly example, if you know that chasing someone who has committed a crime means they will run towards what they fully know is a minefield, you should still chase them. You don't want them to go into it, you want them to stop and be arrested. Edit: Also, the UK police are nothing like the US police in terms of how they deal with stuff, so bear that in mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
fridge corn posted:so youd rather give the police powers to dispense street justice by running down muggers and motorbike thieves because mugging and stealing bikes is punishable by...death??? that's not how the law works, thankfully So the alternative is that Bikers can have speed immunity from apprehension. Nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:The police often do not pursue violent career criminals specifically on the basis that if said crim gets hurt or killed then they will get royally shafted. No, they dont. The real reason why there is a no pursuit policy in many places is that there is a signifigant chance that innocent bystanders get injured or killed - and that is backed up againa and again by ma and pa Kettle with their kids minding their own business being wiped out by some numb nuts crim or the police vehicle itself -- a vehicle pursuit is just simply put fundamentally unsafe not just for police but to the public. It's not a good choice but I would rather see no pursuit than dead innocent under a police car. Besides, cant outrun a radio.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
Didn't some US city implement a no-pursuit policy recently and the result was a massive spike in crime?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:No, they dont. The real reason why there is a no pursuit policy in many places is that there is a signifigant chance that innocent bystanders get injured or killed Remember, we are discussing what is happening in the UK. It is not necessarily paralleled in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:No, really, they do. Read the articles I posted. This is, as I said, a separate issue from not pursuing due to the risk to third parties. No, they dont. The NSW regulations on pursuits in fact followed the UK ones and evidence about innocents getting wiped out being the core reasoning for stopping motorised pursuits is very strong, let alone when you have spectaclar events like some kid called Skye had her face buried into her mum's seat when a stolen car king hit the WRX mum was driving. Claiming it has anything to do with the police being liable if dem poor crims wipe themselves out is straight out wrong. It is all about the part where it's usually innocent bystanders that get wiped out, not the crims.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
If that were true, whether or not they had helmets wouldn't matter, and an incident involving no one else - indeed, to stop them getting to an area where the risk of that increases - would not be an issue. Read the articles I posted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 13:44
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:The police still have to act within the law, and should not be trying to kill them. What we're saying is they shouldn't be prevented from trying to apprehend someone because that person might come to harm due to how they have chosen to try and escape. That would be recklessness under many common law systems, and it's not tolerated for private citizens and neither should it be for the police. Even though I dont want people to get killed or maimed, I merely want to prevent crime, I'm still not allowed to set up claymore mines on my property to prevent burglary. There is a reasonable expectation that I should foresee I might blow up some people and I still proceed, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Nidhg00670000 posted:That would be recklessness under many common law systems, and it's not tolerated for private citizens and neither should it be for the police. Even though I dont want people to get killed or maimed, I merely want to prevent crime, I'm still not allowed to set up claymore mines on my property to prevent burglary. There is a reasonable expectation that I should foresee I might blow up some people and I still proceed, not caring whether those consequences actually occur or not. I don't think you've quite got the point he was making: substitute 'brick wall' for 'minefield'.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
Yes, you can't do that here either, and I'm not saying that. That would be setting man traps. Slightly different subject - friend came round last night, had a Corsa that had properly blasted oil out over the engine bay. Cleaned it down, started it up... and it was fine, nothing but the tiniest leak from the oil pressure sender. When I put my hand over the oil filler hole, it had a proper chuffing going on in terms of feeling combustion pressure, so I suspected perhaps a head gasket or rings not being very healthy, and over pressurising things. However, when he took it to be checked properly at a garage today, they said it was 100% ok. No reason to leak at all, and not doing it now. Any ideas? Possible it's as simple as he hadn't tightened the oil cap down enough? Why did I feel so much blow by from the filler hole?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
BigPaddy posted:Yet Nah, we're pretty much there now (at least in the US.) When you can't secure a conviction of an officer who was caught on camera literally shooting a man in the back while he was running away and then planting evidence on his corpse its hard to imagine a scenario in which an officer can be convicted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Glad I live in the united states. Here if you rob someone, squirt acid in their face, and flee on a moped your going to wind up under the bumper of a Ford Explorer. Or shot from a safe distance. Its rather sickening to see people saying that criminals have a right to commit crimes freely without fear of capture or punishment because they found a loophole in a policy. gently caress that. Seriously how could you defend someones right to squirt acid in the face of someone else. Guess what, bystanders have already been hurt and will continue to be hurt by this policy. Change it, capture a few, and the rest of them stop because its no longer free from risk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:Yes, you can't do that here either, and I'm not saying that. That would be setting man traps. Overfilled oil? Could put pressure in unexpected places and the problem gets resolved when the excess get puked out?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
rdb posted:Its rather sickening to see people saying that criminals have a right to commit crimes freely without fear of capture or punishment because they found a loophole in a policy. gently caress that. Seriously how could you defend someones right to squirt acid in the face of someone else. who said this?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:Yet another local biker got himself killed fleeing the police tonight. It's been like an epidemic around here the last two years.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...4dfa_story.html https://potomaclocal.com/2017/08/06/101938clint-gaskins-dies-following-police-pursuit-on-i-95/ GnarlyCharlie4u fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
rdb posted:
No one said that quote:Change it, capture a few, and the rest of them stop because its no longer free from risk. Wrong. Even when it is clear that causing a police chase will 99% land you in jail no matter what else you did (Skye's Law in NSW), 446 have been charged and sentanced for running from the police. Crims will still run from the police. Most of them run even harder when there is blue lights on their backside and increase the risks to bystanders What the problem here is that some now seem to have the expectation of reckless engagement in chases for *reasons*. This isnt a movie. Innocents die that way and as I said you cant outrun a radio. There is not this overwhelming need to go lights blazing in a hell for leather chase - there has to be accceptance that a chase has risks and drat big ones. And most usually when it does go wrong it aint the crim who winds up with a bumper in their skull.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:30
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:No one said that Black male, white t shirt is about the same as moped, no plates. It's camouflage for the radio. They don't have your description enough to catch you much less prosecute. And I would rate your law is successful if it put 446 runners in jail. And no, more often than not, on a motorcycle (which is completely different from a car) its the motorcyclist thats going to die. Especially a moped limited to 30mph.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
rdb posted:Black male, white t shirt is about the same as moped, no plates. It's camouflage for the radio. They don't have your description enough to catch you much less prosecute. Thats no excuse to go Dirty Harry or Baby Driver. quote:And I would rate your law is successful if it put 446 runners in jail. Oh for fucks sake how the hell did you read my post and miss the point entirely? The laws have not stopped people running from the police and they have not stopped collateral damage from runners wiping out bystanders
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
InitialDave posted:
(I generally agree with your point up to this point, but I feel like bot having guns is the only thing that keeps the met from killing everyone with a slightly dark tan).
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
nm posted:Tell that to Menezes. That was over 12 years ago. I think that's fairly good going given that the US seems to struggle to get 12 days between incidents nm posted:(I generally agree with your point up to this point, but I feel like bot having guns is the only thing that keeps the met from killing everyone with a slightly dark tan). It's the Met; they'd probably get lead poisoning from licking the bullets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Thats no excuse to go Dirty Harry or Baby Driver. But they have caught them, which is my point. You can't just rob someone on a stolen moped, take off your helmet and get away scot free because the police aren't allowed to pursue you. Look, I do think after a certain point chases need to be shut down. Or not pursued at all if your doing 130 mph. Or not pursued if your crime is doing wheelies in downtown Baltimore. Its too much of a risk at that point. But to say you can't pursue a robber on a moped because they aren't wearing a helmet is ridiculously stupid to me. That totally removed all chance of consequence from the crime and its why the problem is getting worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
spog posted:Overfilled oil? I'm going to go for the traditional engineerign approach of waiting and seeing if it does it again. CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:as I said you cant outrun a radio. They do though. The idea that you "can't outrun a radio" is true for a "normal" car chase, or some kind of epic Vanishing Point pursuit across country. An unidentifiable bike in London? Forget it, you lose eyes on them, they're basically gone. I'm not telling you what I think is happening, I'm telling you what absolutely is happening in London. THey are stealing scooters, they are using them to steal other bikes and mug people with violence, and they are getting away because the police can't chase them without risking their jobs if the scrote eats it. This is completely true and is happening right now. How people want it to happen, and what does or doesn't happen in other countries, has no impact whatsoever on this. rdb posted:Black male, white t shirt is about the same as moped, no plates. It's camouflage for the radio. They don't have your description enough to catch you much less prosecute. And I would rate your law is successful if it put 446 runners in jail. CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:Thats no excuse to go Dirty Harry or Baby Driver.  CAT INTERCEPTOR posted:The laws have not stopped people running from the police and they have not stopped collateral damage from runners wiping out bystanders I don't care about what ifs or slippery slopes. If, right this second, you can pursue someone for a crime, and the increased risk is to them, you should be allowed to do it. If the increased risk to others is beyond what is acceptable for a given need to apprehend them, you stop. In that window, you increase the chances of catching them or them coming off the bike anyway. nm posted:Tell that to Menezes. spog posted:That was over 12 years ago. nm posted:(I generally agree with your point up to this point, but I feel like bot having guns is the only thing that keeps the met from killing everyone with a slightly dark tan). spog posted:It's the Met; they'd probably get lead poisoning from licking the bullets. rdb posted:But to say you can't pursue a robber on a moped because they aren't wearing a helmet is ridiculously stupid to me. That totally removed all chance of consequence from the crime and its why the problem is getting worse. InitialDave fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Aug 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:35
|
|