94Mph Police office jailed after road death
Discussion
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Speeding-...
More than a tad excessive IMO. And without lights or a siren....
More than a tad excessive IMO. And without lights or a siren....
Edited by Skipppy on Friday 1st May 14:00
3 years seems a little leniant to me.
Report said:
Dougal, a qualified advanced driver, was travelling so fast he had effectively become a passenger in his own car and had surrendered "to physics", according to a police driving instructor who gave evidence during the trial.
Can you imagine how you'd feel if he'd done this to your daughter...? She couldnt have stood a chance.A young life taken, just for the sake of a copper wanting to raise revenues to justify his existence. Most of these people are far to full of their own self importance. Is there any traffic violation that is worth another persons life. 3 year sentence means he will be out in about a year. FILTH.
Agree with previous posters that a 3 year sentence is totally inadequate. I hope the CPS appeal and try to get it increased. The law cannot be seen to be above the law and had a member of the public killed a pedestrian whilst doing 90 at night in a 30 zone the police would have been pressing for the maximum.
Bing o said:
s3fella said:
A very sad case, and I am sure irrelevant, but in all the photos I have seen of this guy, he "looks" like a right yobo.
Yes, and the girl is painted out to be a beautiful angel, even though she was out late at night, under-age drinking, the night before a GCSE exam....What possible bearing does that have on her being killed by an officer driving recklessly and well beyond his capability?
Are you suggesting that she in some way deserved to die for being out late?
Plenty of emotive nonsense in the press. 
We need to ask ourselves how much risk we are prepared to accept in order for the law to be enforced.
I'd hate to see the police become even more hamstrung by health and safety culture. How will you feel when help arrives too late because officers are carrying out a risk assessment?
I feel dreadfully sorry for this officer. He's been punished for an error of judgement, when others get away with intentionally despicable and violent crime.
We need to ask ourselves how much risk we are prepared to accept in order for the law to be enforced.
I'd hate to see the police become even more hamstrung by health and safety culture. How will you feel when help arrives too late because officers are carrying out a risk assessment?
I feel dreadfully sorry for this officer. He's been punished for an error of judgement, when others get away with intentionally despicable and violent crime.
supersingle said:
Plenty of emotive nonsense in the press.
We need to ask ourselves how much risk we are prepared to accept in order for the law to be enforced.
I'd hate to see the police become even more hamstrung by health and safety culture. How will you feel when help arrives too late because officers are carrying out a risk assessment?
I feel dreadfully sorry for this officer. He's been punished for an error of judgement, when others get away with intentionally despicable and violent crime.
Some traffic incident, a moving vehicle violation.......you really think it warrants 94mph at pub chucking out time in a 30 with no blues and twos? An error of judgement is not even close, reckless stupidity is too soft. We need to ask ourselves how much risk we are prepared to accept in order for the law to be enforced.
I'd hate to see the police become even more hamstrung by health and safety culture. How will you feel when help arrives too late because officers are carrying out a risk assessment?
I feel dreadfully sorry for this officer. He's been punished for an error of judgement, when others get away with intentionally despicable and violent crime.
Totally unacceptable bit of driving form anyone, if anything, a trained police driver should know better.
If it were some chav in a spaxo, would you say you feel sorry for him, it was an error of judgment when chav was just having a bit of fun?
COurse not. We the public and the Police Service dont need officers with such disregard for others in the Force. We are all better off without him IMO.
supersingle said:
We need to ask ourselves how much risk we are prepared to accept in order for the law to be enforced.
AIUI the officer was trying to catch up with a car flagged by his ANPR.Note, "catch up", some of the press have used the word "chase" or "pursuit" when the whole point is that the reason he didn't have his lights on was because he didn't want to alert the (lawful) driver of the car that he was behind it.
That seems a totally unacceptable level of risk for most potential outcomes IMO.
If that was his typical standard of driving then there is obviously something wrong with the management processes within the force. Are they no performance reviews or ongoing training?
If the officer made a one off error of judgement or succumbed to red mist then he has certainly been punished harshly. Remember that dangerous driving is a strict liability offence and the court does not have to show that the officer intended to drive dangerously, merely that he did.
I'm not saying that this officer should go unpunished. But I'm not sure it is useful to load all the blame onto him. This sort of judgement may have some negative unintended consequences. Who could blame an officer who simply refused to take any risks in the line of duty. Imagine what sort of a police force that would lead to.
If the officer made a one off error of judgement or succumbed to red mist then he has certainly been punished harshly. Remember that dangerous driving is a strict liability offence and the court does not have to show that the officer intended to drive dangerously, merely that he did.
I'm not saying that this officer should go unpunished. But I'm not sure it is useful to load all the blame onto him. This sort of judgement may have some negative unintended consequences. Who could blame an officer who simply refused to take any risks in the line of duty. Imagine what sort of a police force that would lead to.
supersingle said:
If the officer made a one off error of judgement or succumbed to red mist then he has certainly been punished harshly.
I have to agree that when I heard the radio piece state "The officer has been sentenced to..." I didn't expect the next words to be "3 years".What I've not really formed an opinion on is whether 3 years is reasonable or if we're just so used to reading stories about feral scum causing DBDD and getting a year or something silly "Because the judges hands were tied".
Duke of Rothesay said:
JagLover said:
Tony*T3 said:
3 years seems a little leniant to me.
In what way?. This wasn't some drunk/on Drugs driver. But a Policeman trying to do his job, who drove recklessly.The police are not above the law.
Duke of Rothesay said:
JagLover said:
Tony*T3 said:
3 years seems a little leniant to me.
In what way?. This wasn't some drunk/on Drugs driver. But a Policeman trying to do his job, who drove recklessly.The police are not above the law.
Duke of Rothesay said:
JagLover said:
Tony*T3 said:
3 years seems a little leniant to me.
In what way?. This wasn't some drunk/on Drugs driver. But a Policeman trying to do his job, who drove recklessly.The police are not above the law.
Battenburg Bob said:
Duke of Rothesay said:
JagLover said:
Tony*T3 said:
3 years seems a little leniant to me.
In what way?. This wasn't some drunk/on Drugs driver. But a Policeman trying to do his job, who drove recklessly.The police are not above the law.
He took a life because he thought he was above the law.
And all he gets is one year.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff