the rights of the citizen versus society

[Seeker]

You have probably read about the "take down" of the (alleged?) moped thief by the police; they have taken to knocking the rider off the bike.

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2018/december/support-for-police-against-scooter-crime/

I am unsure how I feel about this but I'm leaning towards supporting the police. I would sum it up my mind that the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the one (apologies to Star Trek). Moped crime is (was) increasing and the police had to do something and society shouldn't be hostage to singular criminal citizens.

When trying to catch an errant rider in a city there are few choices; let them go, corner them with multiple units (not usually practical), chase them with a helicopter (again, not always practical) or ram them. What happens if the rider is killed? Would that be unnecessary force?

I understand the officer may be prosecuted which I think is wrong. Difficult problem to solve, though.

[shiftin_gear98]

I think this is a great idea, I have to admit it made me laugh when I saw the clips.
It should be a great deterrent - although most of these muppets on the scooters are clueless ****wits so I doubt they will weigh up the risks.
Maybe the police could even go one step further and then reverse over the little ****s too. Just an idea.

[SV650rules]

The facts speak for themselves, a drop of nearly 50% in this crime, and the best bit is it does not cost much. Helicopters are horrendously expensive to run and more effective in the rural . suburban areas than in crowded cities. It is high time that if people are involved in criminal activity they lose some of their rights.

A case is point is the two remaining 'beatles' that have fought for IS in various countries, they wanted a trial in UK because they knew they would get 6 months suspended and if they were lucky could sue UK for compensation, but they have rightly had their UK citizenship removed and been shipped to USA for a trial ( after all they did torture and behead a few Americans).

Dianne Abbot was predictable in as much as she condemned the fascist police for knocking the poor defenceless crims off their scooters , but she is a liability anyway but probably the least of Labours problems at the moment.

[littleoldman2]

I'm very torn. On the one hand I'd like to see the police get a grip on crime and protection for the officers concerned. On the other as a northern boy from the coalfields I remember the unidentified southern PCs barracked at army depots doing whatever they wanted back in 84 and hence believe we need to keep them on a short leash.

There are still whole towns who don't trust the police and will not help them.

[Bibio]

i say beat the muthers with big sticks as well. they are making ordinary citizens life's a nightmare. they steal the mopeds then steal stuff using the mopeds then endanger other people by going on a rampage. what happens when they start knocking people over then killing them including kids.

knock them over and give them a good kicking. if they die then good riddance. one less scum to pollute the gene pool.

[SV650rules]

i say beat the muthers with big sticks as well. they are making ordinary citizens life's a nightmare. they steal the mopeds then steal stuff using the mopeds then endanger other people by going on a rampage. what happens when they start knocking people over then killing them including kids.

knock them over and give them a good kicking. if they die then good riddance. one less scum to pollute the gene pool.

+1

time for zero tolerance +++ to be unleashed.

[Adam Ef]

Bristol has been really bad for bike and moped theft the last few years. Mainly due to gangs of kids who like to show off on social media. The Police seemed to do nothing for about 2 years. Understandably a lot of local people wanted to go vigilante seeing the Police do nothing and seeing the kids start account after account on Instagram and Facebook showing bikes being stolen, raced and then burnt while they posed around them.

[Talking Heads]

What amuses me is the popular support among bikers for police knocking lawbreakers off scooters but the outrage at police using a stinger to stop lawbreakers on proper motorbikes.

Double standards...?

[keith_d]

Hmm, tricky one.

Knocking someone off their moped seems a little excessive, but I can't think of another reasonable way to stop a determined moped rider.

Maybe sometimes a stinger can be deployed to deflate their tyres, but unlike cars they can just take to the pavement to bypass the stinger. It might also be possible for a PC on a motorcycle to get all over their rear wheel with a chuffing loud siren and harry them until they make a mistake. But I don't think either of these are reliable options.

So, ignoring all the rhetoric about "scumbags deserved it", I don't see that the police have any other way to stop dangerous criminals on mopeds. I wouldn't see it as appropriate for a teenager who rode off without paying for petrol, but for violent criminals who pose a danger to the general public this is probably the best option for stopping them.

Regarding the 35% decrease in moped crime, that probably reflects the fact that the gang targeted by the police was responsible for a large proportion of moped crime in that area. I don't think hard stop tactics are a significant factor in discouraging moped crime.

Just my thoughts,

Keith.

[SV650rules]

I think the thought of being knocked off your scooter / moped may be a big deterrent - some scooter riders were taking their helmet off while riding in the hope that 'it would be too dangerous to knock them off - the police said it would not deter a police driver from knocking them off - good call

[Adam Ef]

There's a huge difference between riding off from a petrol station not paying and riding around throwing acid in people's faces to steal phones.


There's an area of Bristol with a one way outside a Police station that the kids ride / drive the wrong way up just to get the Police to give chase.. for the gang kudos maybe, I'm not sure.


I'm not giving any answers but I know there's lots of problems that are proving very difficult for the Police to have any solution to.

[ophic]

I agree, not a lot else the police can do. They didn't deploy this tactic until all the more orthodox methods had been proven to be ineffective. Some would argue that's far too much restraint.

It's a pyramid of crime. The mopeds are stolen, often with the threat or actual use of physical violence. The riders aren't licenced or insured - minor point here. Then it's daylight robbery backed up by more violence. Some proper nasty reports of hammers being used when people resist.

No blame attributed to the victims here but let's just say it doesn't really help that so many city dwellers wander around with their phone out and headphones on. I'll defend their right to do so in safety but the moped thieves would have a harder time if the phone was in a pocket and the potential victim was alert and aware of their surroundings.

[SV650rules]

I agree, not a lot else the police can do. They didn't deploy this tactic until all the more orthodox methods had been proven to be ineffective. Some would argue that's far too much restraint.

It's a pyramid of crime. The mopeds are stolen, often with the threat or actual use of physical violence. The riders aren't licenced or insured - minor point here. Then it's daylight robbery backed up by more violence. Some proper nasty reports of hammers being used when people resist.

No blame attributed to the victims here but let's just say it doesn't really help that so many city dwellers wander around with their phone out and headphones on. I'll defend their right to do so in safety but the moped thieves would have a harder time if the phone was in a pocket and the potential victim was alert and aware of their surroundings.

I would argue that walking around with expensive phones on show while wearing earphones would be described by police or insurance companies as partly creating the problem by not taking due care and attention. Women joggers who run around with earphones in are pretty much unaware of their surrounding as well, blocking off one of their most useful senses. People have duty to look after themselves, they cannot rely on police to save their sorry a5535 because they are listening to iTunes at full volume... and worst of all they think it is their right...

And when people have their eyes / attention on the phone screen and their ears blocked up, words fail me.

[ophic]

Yeah but you can't go as far as to say it's their fault. In an ideal world, they should be able to do so without fear. I go out without wearing a bulletproof vest but I wouldn't consider it my fault if I get shot.

Having said that, they really annoy me!

[SV650rules]

Yeah but you can't go as far as to say it's their fault. In an ideal world, they should be able to do so without fear. I go out without wearing a bulletproof vest but I wouldn't consider it my fault if I get shot.

Having said that, they really annoy me!

Really annoy me too .. I have had a couple of phone users walk straight off kerb into path of car I was driving, after I screeched to a halt one raised their hand in thanks, the other ( about 14 or so I would guess ) raised their middle finger - wow, could have been in shock I guess. In an ideal world we would all be able to leave our cars and houses unlocked and the doors open, but try explaining that to insurance after you have been robbed..

Although 99% of people are law abiding and respect others rights and understand the whole property thing, there are still more than enough bad folks around to catch out the unwary or simply stupid people.

[ophic]

True. But as a modern society we should discourage people from being stupid and unwary but at the same time protect them. Fine line to walk.

Insurance is a completely different matter as it's simply a commercial contract, based on profit. If they start saying no headphones, I would not have a problem with that.

[Bibio]

string the really bad ones up on lampposts for all to see... lets see how long the others continue.

the problem is the law and doiedoogooddies. if there were more consequences to the actions then there would be less crime. i have always maintained that if you go to jail then you are there because you have committed a crime on society so your paying society back for your crime... not the other way round like giving crims games boxes and tv and all the other luxury's that they get. being in prison should not just be about incarceration it should be about punishment as well. i also feel that they should have to "work their time" so be less of a burden to society. make prison a place that nobody wants to go and people will be less likely to go there.

[ophic]

Deterrents are really complicated things. Severe ones often have unintended consequences. You'd think the death penalty would be a great deterrent but plenty of evidence shows it's not to the case.

[Bibio]

morels stop people from killing not the consequences. does not mean that there should not be tougher consequences.

[Biker Biggles]

Deterrents are really complicated things. Severe ones often have unintended consequences. You'd think the death penalty would be a great deterrent but plenty of evidence shows it's not to the case.
You are right. We used to execute people for stealing goods worth more than a few quid or transport them for life for nicking a loaf of bread. It didnt prevent crime then and it wouldnt now. What does seem to work is knowing that you will get caught but even then there seems to be an element in society that doesnt think about it rationally and misbehaves accordingly.

[SV650rules]

You are right. We used to execute people for stealing goods worth more than a few quid or transport them for life for nicking a loaf of bread. It didnt prevent crime then and it wouldnt now. What does seem to work is knowing that you will get caught but even then there seems to be an element in society that doesnt think about it rationally and misbehaves accordingly.

you are talking about a time the loaf of bread was the difference between life and death ( starving people stealing food, and no dole / welfare system) so if the choice is between dying of starvation and being alive to be punished that is not much of a choice - so no wonder it was not a deterrent. These days majority of people have enough to eat and somewhere to live, what we are talking about is that some people just want more, even if some of the 'more' belongs to someone else.

Likewise death penalty probably did not prevent murder ( but how does anyone know) because murder is normally a last resort and probably not many thought about the consequences at the time.

[littleoldman2]

being in prison should not just be about incarceration it should be about punishment as well.

It should be but's not unfortunately

[Craig380]

Likewise death penalty probably did not prevent murder ( but how does anyone know) because murder is normally a last resort and probably not many thought about the consequences at the time.

A book I'd recommend to anyone is Albert Pierrepoint's autobiography, 'Executioner: Pierrepoint' (he was the UK's main executioner for several decades up to the early 60s, before quitting the role over a dispute about expenses).

As well as being a utterly fascinating (and grimly sobering) read, in the book's epilogue he writes that, in his opinion, the death sentence is ineffective as a deterrent: every person he hanged for the crime of murder was fully aware of the consequences they faced if they were caught.

I'm a woolly-minded-liberal-with-a-small-'l' Guardian reader, but in terms of scooter thieves, I have no problem with the police knocking them off the scooter if they won't stop when pursued. If someone decides to try and flee arrest after committing a crime, then the police should use all means necessary to stop them.

[Talking Heads]

if there were more consequences to the actions then there would be less crime


morels stop people from killing not the consequences.


Make your mind up.


Looking at reoffending stats from other countries and comparing them with the prison / law enforcement policies in those countries would give you a far better idea of what actually works than reading the Daily (hate) Mail etc.


https://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12?r=UK&IR=T

[shiftin_gear98]

Deterrents are really complicated things. Severe ones often have unintended consequences. You'd think the death penalty would be a great deterrent but plenty of evidence shows it's not to the case.


Prisons should use this, if the death penalty isn't enough.

Solitary confinement with Barry Manilow on constant loop.


I'd kill myself after a few days.


Problem solved.

[timwilky]

I have friends (and family) that were teenage scroats and rode the system. But in that time the system had an end. Borstal. None went back.

[Bibio]

yup i had a mate when i was younger that went to the jaggy jumper hame. he was a different person when he got out.

[keith_d]

I'm not sure we want to turn this thread into another 'Crime and Punishment', but I can't resist the prison question. In our society prison has many functions, some contradictory.

1) Punishment - a penalty for breaking the law
2) Deterrence - the need to deter people from committing crime
3) Detention - keep the scrotes off the streets so they can't commit crimes
4) Rehabilitation - turn them into functional members of society
5) Retribution - for the victims or for society??

Take your pick of which is most important !!

[littleoldman2]

Deterrence. Because if deter them, say using aversion therapy then you have less need of the other four. Or am I being taking a to simplistic view.

[maviczap]

Deterrence. Because if deter them, say using aversion therapy then you have less need of the other four. Or am I being taking a to simplistic view.

It's probably the cheaper of the 4

[littleoldman2]

That depends on which form the aversion therapy takes.

[Bibio]

i think its finland that has the lowest reoffender crime. they do this by rehabilitation but its done properly or is it a case of the people are actually nicer to start with.....

you have to remember that in this country the yobs would let their mates fuk their granny and video it..... what hope is there when people have that kind of mentality... how do you deal with it?????????

[Bibio]

BTW this is the kind of people i have to deal with on a daily basis https://www.fifetoday.co.uk/news/man-broke-into-woman-s-home-and-stole-underwear-1-4787991

ROFL....

[littleoldman2]

One of the problems we have is that the worlds systems are very different. In many countries prison is used extensively whilst in others corporal punishment and prison, in those countries this will distort the return to prison figures. The other BIG problem is that virtually all of the studies and reports are politically biased one way or the other. It is very difficult to find for example the murder rate per capita vs the execution rate per capita. There is also a lack of accurate data (do you believe the Mexico rate here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate ) and local issues like Iran's hatred of the drug trade and the fact that it's now the preferred route for opium from Afghanistan to Europe. All in all a minefield unless you've a great deal more time than me.

Getting back to moped thugs. Personally I like the idea of flogging folk. Not because it is shown to be any more effective than prison (seems to work for the human traffickers & slavers mind, not that I'm advocating those levels of violence) not as a punishment or revenge, but just because it's quick, easy and cheap. Please lets not think about fines. They only work on the people with something to loose or an income the authorities know about. In the case of the moped thieves they are signing on whilst saying they're living with their mum when in fact have a partner whose name is on the rent book so effectively no tele or playstation for the bailiffs to take so no incentive to pay a fine.

[maviczap]

This has been going round on FB, whether its true or not, its a good read

This is brilliant. Received yesterday.......

Hi all.

I just sent this email to Diane Abbott in response to her latest social media output. Please use with permission but maybe take my name out.

Dear Ms Abbott,

I hope you are able to read this email yourself as I think it’s something that may assist you, and more importantly the Labour Party.

I wish to discuss your social media comment which has been quoted as “Knocking people off bikes is potentially very dangerous. It shouldn’t be legal for anyone. Police are not above the law”

I wish to address your unconsidered remarks.

1. Agreed. Knocking people off of bikes is potentially very dangerous. That risk is balanced off of the strength and evidence of what these thugs have done.
Having worked in a busy London Borough as a Response Officer I feel more knowledgable than you in regards to my job. These people, usually gang members steal these mopeds and motor bikes. They then go on to perform many awful and serious crimes on these stolen bikes. The vehicles will not be insured, the riders will not have the correct licence to ride them and also have NO regard for the safety of those whom they terrorise on a daily basis. If stopping them leads to potential danger, then I believe this is a worthwhile pursuit. Stop for Police when requested to do so and you won’t be nudged off by the Police. It’s really that simple.

2. “It shouldn’t be legal for anyone”
I would like to bring to your attention To Common Law Powers which include Section 3 of the Criminal Law act 1967. This enables ANY person to use such force as is ncececcery in arresting or assisting the arrest of a criminal. Despite your best wishes it is legal for EVERYONE.

3. “Police are not above the law”
Erm... well this is awkward seeing as you’re the current Shadow Home Secretary. Police Officers actually ARE above some laws. We have exemptions to do things which non warranted members of the public are unable to do. This includes driving at over the speed limit, using blue lights on a vehicle, using a hand held mobile device while driving, not wearing a seat belt, driving through red lights, arresting people, using Section 117 PACE to use powers which are all above what’s known as ‘Law’ to other people. We have powers that mean we can look into and down load mobile phones. We can enter someone’s house without permission and not be breaking the law. Police ARE above the law. Not all of them but we do have powers above non warranted civilians. Oh and let’s not forget we can park on yellow lines. In fact... we can block and close a whole motorway if we deem it necessary.

Your anti Police rhetoric has gone on for decades. I recently emailed Mr Corbyn stating that your current role as Shadow Home Secretary is putting a lot of Police Officers at odds of voting for labour in the upcoming election. I received a reply which must have been for someone else as in true politicians style it’s appeared to answer someone else’s question and not the one I posed.

You appear to be ignorant to the role of Police Officer and don’t seem to have any wish, professionally or personally to seek out advice from Police Officers before fixing your colours to the mast.

Us Police Officers have worked VERY hard over this last decade with a pay cut in real terms. Our numbers have been slashed and we now carry a heavier burden than ever before. We are proud people. We save lives. We also change lives. We shape our communities by locking up dangerous criminals. We do this because we care. A criminal on a moped? Oh we will love taking them off of the streets and locking them up. The public are safer and much better off if we are allowed to do our jobs.

If you don’t like the Police (and I have so much evidence that you are anti Police) then become the change you would like to see. Become a special Constable or a PCSO and see how the other half live.

Just stop with the hatred. We don’t need to be battered by the current Home Secretary AND the Shadow Home Secretary.

Yours,

PC 'name removed'

[SV650rules]

Just shows what a stupid c0w abbot is, a liability to any party, but because she is Labour that is fine with me, another nail in their electoral c0ff1n......

[shiftin_gear98]

That's a good post.
I still think they should reverse back over the little ****ers though.