Do you think the law should change to tackle thieves and idiots?

every little helps... and posts on this thread should help a lot. https://tinyurl.com/rfw3xje

When you give the police the power to knock people off of motorcycles, you are essentially removing those consequences from the officer and placing them on the state, effectively altering the officers' judgment in the moment.

When you know you are less likely to be held responsible for the consequences of your actions, you are far more likely to be wreckless in your decisions.

I absolutely assure you old chum that no copper wants to knock anyone off their bike unless it's absolutely necessary.

Have you any idea how much paperwork you have to do if you slide a police car sideways between two massive embankments either side of a farmers field, with it being in so tight a tow truck has to come along and lift it out?

I do and I thought it would never end despite there not being a mark on it. I don't even want to think about how much would be needed if an officer knocked off and killed some scrote!

I'm sorry but as the saying goes prevention is better than the cure!

 

I disagree with that statement when used in such a blanket manner. Ramming bikes off of the road won't prevent anything. And it can easily be used to support absurdly wild statements such as "We should castrate all mentally ill people to stop them from reproducing".

Besides, No that's not what I'm saying at all.

People should be stopped. And if they refuse to stop, forcibly stopping them safely if necessary should absolutely be an option if they pose a significant risk to others around them.

Otherwise, let them go. It's not like they will not have to deal with the consequences later. And the increased risk to others is by chasing them in an attempt to find an opportunity to force them off the road is often not worth it. It's the police' job to continually assess these factors and decide whether or not to continue the chase, attempt a forced stop, or call off the chase and catch them another way.

However, there is no way to safely forcibly stop a motorcycle. So let them, go and catch them later, and let them deal with the consequences when they are caught safely. You can easily outrun a police car, you can't easily outrun the law.

Which is exactly what happens now (mostly). Less risk to the public, less risk to the officers, less risk to the rider, less risk to the bike, lower insurance for all.

Ramming bikes off the road will only result in good guys getting punished, bad guys adjusting their tactics and traffic police having power over life and death. None of those are good results.

 

if you got woken up suddenly in the night by a noise downstairs, and found someone walking towards your front door with your tv and his mate was in the kitchen taking a dump in your cornflake box.... what would your reaction be... im guessing it would be to make them a cup of tea and perhaps open a packet of biscuits and try and have a friendly chat to tell them the error of their ways

I disagree with that statement when used in such a blanket manner. Ramming bikes off of the road won't prevent anything. And it can easily be used to support absurdly wild statements such as "We should castrate all mentally ill people to stop them from reproducing".

Besides, No that's not what I'm saying at all.

People should be stopped. And if they refuse to stop, forcibly stopping them safely if necessary should absolutely be an option if they pose a significant risk to others around them.

Otherwise, let them go. It's not like they will not have to deal with the consequences later. And the increased risk to others is by chasing them in an attempt to find an opportunity to force them off the road is often not worth it. It's the police' job to continually assess these factors and decide whether or not to continue the chase, attempt a forced stop, or call off the chase and catch them another way.

However, there is no way to safely forcibly stop a motorcycle. So let them, go and catch them later, and let them deal with the consequences when they are caught safely. You can easily outrun a police car, you can't easily outrun the law.

Which is exactly what happens now (mostly). Less risk to the public, less risk to the officers, less risk to the rider, less risk to the bike, lower insurance for all.

Ramming bikes off the road will only result in good guys getting punished, bad guys adjusting their tactics and traffic police having power over life and death. None of those are good results.

 

if you got woken up suddenly in the night by a noise downstairs, and found someone walking towards your front door with your tv and his mate was in the kitchen taking a dump in your cornflake box.... what would your reaction be... im guessing it would be to make them a cup of tea and perhaps open a packet of biscuits and try and have a friendly chat to tell them the error of their ways

you wouldn't load up the knee high shrapnel throwers then

I'd definitely get them loaded with sharp objects and let fly at the little twats, think they can come and take something iv worked hard to have I'd kill

When you give the police the power to knock people off of motorcycles, you are essentially removing those consequences from the officer and placing them on the state, effectively altering the officers' judgment in the moment.

When you know you are less likely to be held responsible for the consequences of your actions, you are far more likely to be wreckless in your decisions.

 

I absolutely assure you old chum that no copper wants to knock anyone off their bike unless it's absolutely necessary.

Have you any idea how much paperwork you have to do if you slide a police car sideways between two massive embankments either side of a farmers field, with it being in so tight a tow truck has to come along and lift it out?

I do and I thought it would never end despite there not being a mark on it. I don't even want to think about how much would be needed if an officer knocked off and killed some scrote!

Except when they were given the power to do so, they started doing it left right and center. And then actually released their own video compilation

https://www.visordown.com/news/general/watch-met-police-ram-moped-thugs-bikes

It's never absolutely necessary, otherwise, the law would have been implemented years and years ago.

I'm sorry but as the saying goes prevention is better than the cure!

 

I disagree with that statement when used in such a blanket manner. Ramming bikes off of the road won't prevent anything. And it can easily be used to support absurdly wild statements such as "We should castrate all mentally ill people to stop them from reproducing".

Besides, No that's not what I'm saying at all.

People should be stopped. And if they refuse to stop, forcibly stopping them safely if necessary should absolutely be an option if they pose a significant risk to others around them.

Otherwise, let them go. It's not like they will not have to deal with the consequences later. And the increased risk to others is by chasing them in an attempt to find an opportunity to force them off the road is often not worth it. It's the police' job to continually assess these factors and decide whether or not to continue the chase, attempt a forced stop, or call off the chase and catch them another way.

However, there is no way to safely forcibly stop a motorcycle. So let them, go and catch them later, and let them deal with the consequences when they are caught safely. You can easily outrun a police car, you can't easily outrun the law.

Which is exactly what happens now (mostly). Less risk to the public, less risk to the officers, less risk to the rider, less risk to the bike, lower insurance for all.

Ramming bikes off the road will only result in good guys getting punished, bad guys adjusting their tactics and traffic police having power over life and death. None of those are good results.

 

if you got woken up suddenly in the night by a noise downstairs, and found someone walking towards your front door with your tv and his mate was in the kitchen taking a dump in your cornflake box.... what would your reaction be... im guessing it would be to make them a cup of tea and perhaps open a packet of biscuits and try and have a friendly chat to tell them the error of their ways

You seem to be confusing my thoughts on police powers and human rights.

I'd get the steel bat I have discreeted for just such occasions. And I'd take the consequences of my actions.

Giving the police power to do something, is taking those consequences and putting them on the state rather than the officers who committed the actions.

The police can ram a bike even if they aren't given the power to do so. But the consequences will be on them, not the state. No different from me and my bat.

A better question would be, do I think I should have the right to run them down with my car? No, I don't. Defend my family and my home. Absolutely, but run them down with my car, no.

I disagree with that statement when used in such a blanket manner. Ramming bikes off of the road won't prevent anything. And it can easily be used to support absurdly wild statements such as "We should castrate all mentally ill people to stop them from reproducing".

Besides, No that's not what I'm saying at all.

People should be stopped. And if they refuse to stop, forcibly stopping them safely if necessary should absolutely be an option if they pose a significant risk to others around them.

Otherwise, let them go. It's not like they will not have to deal with the consequences later. And the increased risk to others is by chasing them in an attempt to find an opportunity to force them off the road is often not worth it. It's the police' job to continually assess these factors and decide whether or not to continue the chase, attempt a forced stop, or call off the chase and catch them another way.

However, there is no way to safely forcibly stop a motorcycle. So let them, go and catch them later, and let them deal with the consequences when they are caught safely. You can easily outrun a police car, you can't easily outrun the law.

Which is exactly what happens now (mostly). Less risk to the public, less risk to the officers, less risk to the rider, less risk to the bike, lower insurance for all.

Ramming bikes off the road will only result in good guys getting punished, bad guys adjusting their tactics and traffic police having power over life and death. None of those are good results.

 

if you got woken up suddenly in the night by a noise downstairs, and found someone walking towards your front door with your tv and his mate was in the kitchen taking a dump in your cornflake box.... what would your reaction be... im guessing it would be to make them a cup of tea and perhaps open a packet of biscuits and try and have a friendly chat to tell them the error of their ways

 

You seem to be confusing my thoughts on police powers and human rights.

I'd get the steel bat I have discreeted for just such occasions. And I'd take the consequences of my actions.

Giving the police power to do something, is taking those consequences and putting them on the state rather than the officers who committed the actions.

The police can ram a bike even if they aren't given the power to do so. But the consequences will be on them, not the state. No different from me and my bat.

A better question would be, do I think I should have the right to run them down with my car? No, I don't. Defend my family and my home. Absolutely, but run them down with my car, no.

so its ok to beat em round the head with a steel bat but not knock em off their scooter

It's only OK to bash them with a bat so long as they are not wearing a crash helmet

if you got woken up suddenly in the night by a noise downstairs, and found someone walking towards your front door with your tv and his mate was in the kitchen taking a dump in your cornflake box.... what would your reaction be... im guessing it would be to make them a cup of tea and perhaps open a packet of biscuits and try and have a friendly chat to tell them the error of their ways

 

You seem to be confusing my thoughts on police powers and human rights.

I'd get the steel bat I have discreeted for just such occasions. And I'd take the consequences of my actions.

Giving the police power to do something, is taking those consequences and putting them on the state rather than the officers who committed the actions.

The police can ram a bike even if they aren't given the power to do so. But the consequences will be on them, not the state. No different from me and my bat.

A better question would be, do I think I should have the right to run them down with my car? No, I don't. Defend my family and my home. Absolutely, but run them down with my car, no.

 

so its ok to beat em round the head with a steel bat but not knock em off their scooter

The difference is the powers given. I don't have the state-granted power to bash them around the head, the consequences of my actions rest with me.

This also applies to the police... until you grant them that power. Then the consequences rest on the state.

It's only OK to bash them with a bat so long as they are not wearing a crash helmet

Yeah, in that situation better to go for the knees! Besides, lids are expensive let's not go around ruining perfectly good ones!

Well no, if police abuse the powers granted to them then they are held responsible. The defence of following orders is not accepted. Even when the police shoot someone with cause there is still an enquiry afterwards. They do not have carte blanche to run around shooting at will. Unlike what seems to be the case in some countries.

You seem to be confusing my thoughts on police powers and human rights.

I'd get the steel bat I have discreeted for just such occasions. And I'd take the consequences of my actions.

Giving the police power to do something, is taking those consequences and putting them on the state rather than the officers who committed the actions.

The police can ram a bike even if they aren't given the power to do so. But the consequences will be on them, not the state. No different from me and my bat.

A better question would be, do I think I should have the right to run them down with my car? No, I don't. Defend my family and my home. Absolutely, but run them down with my car, no.

 

so its ok to beat em round the head with a steel bat but not knock em off their scooter

 

The difference is the powers given. I don't have the state-granted power to bash them around the head, the consequences of my actions rest with me.

This also applies to the police... until you grant them that power. Then the consequences rest on the state.

yeh so ... when are you resigning Jeremy.

Well no, if police abuse the powers granted to them then they are held responsible. The defence of following orders is not accepted. Even when the police shoot someone with cause there is still an enquiry afterwards. They do not have carte blanche to run around shooting at will. Unlike what seems to be the case in some countries.

This is very true, but in any case that is slightly ambiguous (almost all of them), the courts generally side with the police. Even when the police are found guilty of abuse of powers the consequences are generally far laxer.

When consequences are reduced decision making is affected.

People seem to think I'm on the side of thieves and I don't want them to get hurt. Not true, I wish them all the pain in the world.

But: No good comes from ramming bikes. Danger to others isn't reduced, because the danger to others is far more present when there is a chase. The power to ram bikes will increase chases, not decrease them. It won't reduce the amount of bike thieves, just make them change their tactics. It won't get people their bikes back (in a usable state).

All that will happen is it will reduce the value of the bikes the insurance company would have sold on, so higher insurance premiums for us. It will increase the number of court cases against the police, thus taking from our taxes and there will be more chases, so more civilian casualties. And give traffic cops the power of manslaughter. None of these is good.

I'm all for harsher sentences, and any other preventative measures you can think of. I'm not for police mowing down motorcycles on our public roads.

I think I've said everything I have to say on this subject at this point, several times in some cases. I'm not going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, and I realise I'm also unlikely to have my own mind changed. So it's probably best I chime back out at this point xD

Well no, if police abuse the powers granted to them then they are held responsible. The defence of following orders is not accepted. Even when the police shoot someone with cause there is still an enquiry afterwards. They do not have carte blanche to run around shooting at will. Unlike what seems to be the case in some countries.

 

This is very true, but in any case that is slightly ambiguous (almost all of them), the courts generally side with the police. Even when the police are found guilty of abuse of powers the consequences are generally far laxer.

When consequences are reduced decision making is affected.

People seem to think I'm on the side of thieves and I don't want them to get hurt. Not true, I wish them all the pain in the world.

But: No good comes from ramming bikes. Danger to others isn't reduced, because the danger to others is far more present when there is a chase. The power to ram bikes will increase chases, not decrease them. It won't reduce the amount of bike thieves, just make them change their tactics. It won't get people their bikes back (in a usable state).

All that will happen is it will reduce the value of the bikes the insurance company would have sold on, so higher insurance premiums for us. It will increase the number of court cases against the police, thus taking from our taxes and there will be more chases, so more civilian casualties. And give traffic cops the power of manslaughter. None of these is good.

I'm all for harsher sentences, and any other preventative measures you can think of. I'm not for police mowing down motorcycles on our public roads.

I think I've said everything I have to say on this subject at this point, several times in some cases. I'm not going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, and I realise I'm also unlikely to have my own mind changed. So it's probably best I chime back out at this point xD

what scooter you got then.... if your out on it today, get me an iphone

Well no, if police abuse the powers granted to them then they are held responsible. The defence of following orders is not accepted. Even when the police shoot someone with cause there is still an enquiry afterwards. They do not have carte blanche to run around shooting at will. Unlike what seems to be the case in some countries.

 

This is very true, but in any case that is slightly ambiguous (almost all of them), the courts generally side with the police. Even when the police are found guilty of abuse of powers the consequences are generally far laxer.

When consequences are reduced decision making is affected.

People seem to think I'm on the side of thieves and I don't want them to get hurt. Not true, I wish them all the pain in the world.

But: No good comes from ramming bikes. Danger to others isn't reduced, because the danger to others is far more present when there is a chase. The power to ram bikes will increase chases, not decrease them. It won't reduce the amount of bike thieves, just make them change their tactics. It won't get people their bikes back (in a usable state).

All that will happen is it will reduce the value of the bikes the insurance company would have sold on, so higher insurance premiums for us. It will increase the number of court cases against the police, thus taking from our taxes and there will be more chases, so more civilian casualties. And give traffic cops the power of manslaughter. None of these is good.

I'm all for harsher sentences, and any other preventative measures you can think of. I'm not for police mowing down motorcycles on our public roads.

I think I've said everything I have to say on this subject at this point, several times in some cases. I'm not going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, and I realise I'm also unlikely to have my own mind changed. So it's probably best I chime back out at this point xD

 

what scooter you got then.... if your out on it today, get me an iphone

Well, it changes from day to day due to my occupation. I try and get the fastest turnover possible you see Funny you should mention it, I have an offer on locked iPhones right now buy 2 get 1 free! xD

This is very true, but in any case that is slightly ambiguous (almost all of them), the courts generally side with the police. Even when the police are found guilty of abuse of powers the consequences are generally far laxer.

When consequences are reduced decision making is affected.

People seem to think I'm on the side of thieves and I don't want them to get hurt. Not true, I wish them all the pain in the world.

But: No good comes from ramming bikes. Danger to others isn't reduced, because the danger to others is far more present when there is a chase. The power to ram bikes will increase chases, not decrease them. It won't reduce the amount of bike thieves, just make them change their tactics. It won't get people their bikes back (in a usable state).

All that will happen is it will reduce the value of the bikes the insurance company would have sold on, so higher insurance premiums for us. It will increase the number of court cases against the police, thus taking from our taxes and there will be more chases, so more civilian casualties. And give traffic cops the power of manslaughter. None of these is good.

I'm all for harsher sentences, and any other preventative measures you can think of. I'm not for police mowing down motorcycles on our public roads.

I think I've said everything I have to say on this subject at this point, several times in some cases. I'm not going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced, and I realise I'm also unlikely to have my own mind changed. So it's probably best I chime back out at this point xD

 

what scooter you got then.... if your out on it today, get me an iphone

 

Well, it changes from day to day due to my occupation. I try and get the fastest turnover possible you see Funny you should mention it, I have an offer on locked iPhones right now buy 2 get 1 free! xD

sweet... just dont get rammed off when delivering to me

1. Not all officers are allowed to ram bike thief. (So no, police officers cannot abuse their power or run thieves down whenever they like)

2. Only officers that have been specially trained in tactical ramming can.

3. The officers must radio to headquarters first and gain permission to go ahead with ramming.

4. There is always an inquest of sorts after whenever a ramming has occured.

And as for releasing a video of the rammings so far that is known as scare tactics. It lets future bike thieves know what can become of them and maybe, just maybe, put them off (which means less ramming required in the future)

Many of the thieves use acid/grinders/knives and other various weapons to gain the bike/phone from victims. There is more to bike thieves than you seem to think.

Hope that is clear enough for you.

It's not the law that needs changing. That's only messing about with the symptoms of the problem. We need to look at the root causes of why people behave like this.

And that's a much bigger question.

So, in your opinion what are the fundamental causes? From what I can see some (but not all) choose to be scroats deliberately. Some are multi-generational as well and on this I can speak from personal experience.

Your perception about it being multi generational is surely the key point. Where people, especially young men, grow up in areas where they have no incentive to behave decently, where job opportunities are none existent for generations deep, they have nothing to aspire to and nothing to lose.

It's a huge and complex issue, too much to write a thesis on here, but if we want to change things we have to address the root causes rather than just legislating for the outcomes.

Hi all,

I just made an account, mainly to reply to this thread but also as I’m sure the forum will come in useful...

I’m turning 17 and have already had my problems with thieves. Last month my lil’ scooter got nicked from outside the house. Was recovered two days later an absolute wreck, the pikeys couldn’t start it so they trashed it.

So I’ve been without transport for about a month now and it’s horrible. On the upside, currently negotiating on a 1981 Honda CB100N so fingers crossed...Being delivered tonight so hoping it is all pucker and above board.

Anyway, to the point in hand. Although I’ve had problems with the absolute scum bags that we have to share the world with, I still don’t believe that ramming them off of their (stolen) bikes is a great idea; for all the previously mentioned reasons.

Instead, I think that Police should be able to use sting strips on bikes, which will cause tires to burst and the rider to most likely come off of the bike, however, it is probably going to be in better condition than if the bike was mowed down by some Skoda estate going like the clangers...

Hi all,

I just made an account, mainly to reply to this thread but also as I’m sure the forum will come in useful...

I’m turning 17 and have already had my problems with thieves. Last month my lil’ scooter got nicked from outside the house. Was recovered two days later an absolute wreck, the pikeys couldn’t start it so they trashed it.

So I’ve been without transport for about a month now and it’s horrible. On the upside, currently negotiating on a 1981 Honda CB100N so fingers crossed...Being delivered tonight so hoping it is all pucker and above board.

Anyway, to the point in hand. Although I’ve had problems with the absolute scum bags that we have to share the world with, I still don’t believe that ramming them off of their (stolen) bikes is a great idea; for all the previously mentioned reasons.

Instead, I think that Police should be able to use sting strips on bikes, which will cause tires to burst and the rider to most likely come off of the bike, however, it is probably going to be in better condition than if the bike was mowed down by some Skoda estate going like the clangers...

You have my greatest sympathy and I applaud you for sticking with it !

May I ask whereabouts in the country you are?

In my experience in most cities the deployment of stingers is usually impractical for cars let alone for small 2 wheelers because there are so many different routes and not that many police !

Cheers

Ian

I'll go along with root causes needing to be addressed but I also know a family who have been 'scallywags' since the late 1930's. Had a perfectly respectable transport firm, got into the black market in WW2 and never looked back. The current head of the family has form for GBH, assault etc etc. In this case it is purely for the hell of it. Personally I think some folks just like devilry for the rush. I'm not talking about kids getting caught up in gangs and all the shite that goes with that. That is more societal.