News3 mins ago
Could only happen in the UK.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chas2008. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In the UK people are not prosecuted for what they might have done.
Correct - they are charged with what they have done - and the police officer in question admitted to careless driving.
He was in a position where he knew full well what he was doing was illegal and against his training, but he still did it.
He was charged, pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly.
Obviously I am missing something, unless you are condoning his actions and using the argument of "the ends justify the means".
You seem to indicate that he committed a minor crime in the pursuit of someone he suspected of committing a more serious crime.
Would you say to these victims that 'careless driving' is a minor crime: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east /8067898.stm
Correct - they are charged with what they have done - and the police officer in question admitted to careless driving.
He was in a position where he knew full well what he was doing was illegal and against his training, but he still did it.
He was charged, pleaded guilty and was sentenced accordingly.
Obviously I am missing something, unless you are condoning his actions and using the argument of "the ends justify the means".
You seem to indicate that he committed a minor crime in the pursuit of someone he suspected of committing a more serious crime.
Would you say to these victims that 'careless driving' is a minor crime: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east /8067898.stm
But he did not kill anybody, nobody was seriously injured and to make comparisons with such incidents is specious.
Careless driving is a minor crime (at least when the maximum sentence for it is considered against other crimes). It is charged when driving falls �below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver�. The results of such momentary lapses can be tragic, as you have illustrated, but the intention to kill is not present and the tragedy still results from a momentary lapse.
Unfortunately police officers often have to break the law in order to apprehend offenders and this sometimes leads to tragedy. As I said at the outset, PC Holland pleaded guilty because he clearly broke the law. But in the circumstances as I saw them I believe he should never have been charged.
I still agree with chas�s original contention that criminal charges in such circumstances are unlikely to have been brought in any country other than the UK. Remember, Mr Ali was not mown down, not shot, not maimed, not seriously injured, not crippled and not left any more traumatised than most of his burglary and robbery victims probably were. He was simply apprehended whilst trying to avoid arrest and as a result sustained minor injuries.
And you have still not shown me any examples of similar charges being brought against officers elsewhere.
Enough from me I think.
Careless driving is a minor crime (at least when the maximum sentence for it is considered against other crimes). It is charged when driving falls �below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver�. The results of such momentary lapses can be tragic, as you have illustrated, but the intention to kill is not present and the tragedy still results from a momentary lapse.
Unfortunately police officers often have to break the law in order to apprehend offenders and this sometimes leads to tragedy. As I said at the outset, PC Holland pleaded guilty because he clearly broke the law. But in the circumstances as I saw them I believe he should never have been charged.
I still agree with chas�s original contention that criminal charges in such circumstances are unlikely to have been brought in any country other than the UK. Remember, Mr Ali was not mown down, not shot, not maimed, not seriously injured, not crippled and not left any more traumatised than most of his burglary and robbery victims probably were. He was simply apprehended whilst trying to avoid arrest and as a result sustained minor injuries.
And you have still not shown me any examples of similar charges being brought against officers elsewhere.
Enough from me I think.
New Judge
from my earlier post
Officers admitted causing 3,357 crashes last year - an average of more than 64 a week. At least 2,492 of the victims were driving another vehicle - 56 were motorcyclists or cyclists and at least 22 pedestrians - with 126 needing hospital treatment.
So New Judge, you are saying to these people 'hard luck, the police were just trying to arrest somebody'.
from my earlier post
Officers admitted causing 3,357 crashes last year - an average of more than 64 a week. At least 2,492 of the victims were driving another vehicle - 56 were motorcyclists or cyclists and at least 22 pedestrians - with 126 needing hospital treatment.
So New Judge, you are saying to these people 'hard luck, the police were just trying to arrest somebody'.
Unfortunately police officers often have to break the law in order to apprehend offenders and this sometimes leads to tragedy. As I said at the outset, PC Holland pleaded guilty because he clearly broke the law. But in the circumstances as I saw them I believe he should never have been charged.
There are certain laws that they are allowed to break, and ones that they aren't. A policeman is not allowed to kill a person with their vehicle in order to try and stop them. PC Holland was very aware of the laws he broke - he was being retrained on them at the time. He as not trained in what he attempted to do - and it could have ended in tragedy. We have laws in place to prevent this type of thing. If I was to drive under the influence of alcohol, I would be in trouble regardless of the effects that I did or did not cause.
And you have still not shown me any examples of similar charges being brought against officers elsewhere.
This sort of article will not get on to the front page of any tabloid or be in the national news - and so the chances of anyone else in the world knowing about it it very slim. On the basis that I live and work in the UK, the likelihood of me knowing a similar story abroad is equally pretty low.
Does this mean it doesn't exist or does it mean that I haven't got hours to go trawling thought the internet trying to please you? You can decide that - but remember that the US have a far more litigious society that we do, so a similar story to the above will in all likelihood include the burglar suing the police man.
There are certain laws that they are allowed to break, and ones that they aren't. A policeman is not allowed to kill a person with their vehicle in order to try and stop them. PC Holland was very aware of the laws he broke - he was being retrained on them at the time. He as not trained in what he attempted to do - and it could have ended in tragedy. We have laws in place to prevent this type of thing. If I was to drive under the influence of alcohol, I would be in trouble regardless of the effects that I did or did not cause.
And you have still not shown me any examples of similar charges being brought against officers elsewhere.
This sort of article will not get on to the front page of any tabloid or be in the national news - and so the chances of anyone else in the world knowing about it it very slim. On the basis that I live and work in the UK, the likelihood of me knowing a similar story abroad is equally pretty low.
Does this mean it doesn't exist or does it mean that I haven't got hours to go trawling thought the internet trying to please you? You can decide that - but remember that the US have a far more litigious society that we do, so a similar story to the above will in all likelihood include the burglar suing the police man.
I can't believe how certain contributors to this post have gone to great lengths to point out and villify PC Holland's actions whilst making next to no reference to the string of heinous offences attributed to the burglar, the real villain of the piece.
It sums up the kind of psyche prevalent amongst the holier-than-thou brigade who would have us believe that they neither hear, see nor speak any proverbial evil themselves but whose self righteous indignation, intolerance and total lack of understanding knows no bounds when a public servant is shown to be just as human and fallible as they are.
They would rather stick the knife into the PC for helping apprehend a prolific criminal and bring him to justice, simply because his actions caused the scumbag some minor injury.
Would their ire be so vociferous had any of one of them been a victim of Ali's crimes? Or would they have preferred that he could have escaped unscathed, without having to be brought to book for his numerous misdemeanours against many innocent members of society?
There are some perverse do-gooders on this thread for sure!
It sums up the kind of psyche prevalent amongst the holier-than-thou brigade who would have us believe that they neither hear, see nor speak any proverbial evil themselves but whose self righteous indignation, intolerance and total lack of understanding knows no bounds when a public servant is shown to be just as human and fallible as they are.
They would rather stick the knife into the PC for helping apprehend a prolific criminal and bring him to justice, simply because his actions caused the scumbag some minor injury.
Would their ire be so vociferous had any of one of them been a victim of Ali's crimes? Or would they have preferred that he could have escaped unscathed, without having to be brought to book for his numerous misdemeanours against many innocent members of society?
There are some perverse do-gooders on this thread for sure!
Parafin No one is condoning what Imran Ali has done. Is that difficult for you to understand? This is not a George Bush moment of 'you are with us or against us'.
We are not discussing what Ali did. We are discussing the actions of how he was caught and whether the ends justify the means.
If you can't understand the difference, why not try Chatterbank.
We are not discussing what Ali did. We are discussing the actions of how he was caught and whether the ends justify the means.
If you can't understand the difference, why not try Chatterbank.
Precisely. It's a clear case of the ends not justifying the means.
No one likes theft or burglary. It's a cowardly crime. That it's wrong is not up for debate.
But are we so materialistic that we're happy to risk seriously injuring or killing someone because he menaces society by... nabbing our precious things.
No one's suggesting we let these people off scot-free but what kind of rage-filled state have we got into where we drive cars into thieves. What next? Machine-gunning people who park on double yellows?
No one likes theft or burglary. It's a cowardly crime. That it's wrong is not up for debate.
But are we so materialistic that we're happy to risk seriously injuring or killing someone because he menaces society by... nabbing our precious things.
No one's suggesting we let these people off scot-free but what kind of rage-filled state have we got into where we drive cars into thieves. What next? Machine-gunning people who park on double yellows?
