PDA

View Full Version : This Policeman did kill


yakker
8th Apr 2009, 16:39
BBC NEWS | England | Tyne | Pc guilty of girl's crash death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7990188.stm)

Unlike the Tomlinson thread, where the argument is about whether the assault caused the death, no doubt here. 94mph in a 30 limit. A prison sentence will be given but how long for? Will it be a fair sentence, considering those that have been jailed for speeding without anyone getting hurt, he should be getting a few years.

Roger Sofarover
8th Apr 2009, 16:41
BBC NEWS | England | Tyne | Pc guilty of girl's crash death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7990188.stm)

I bet he gets 6 mths to a year.

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 16:45
No excuse for this fellow, off for a 10 stretch if it was up to me.

aviate1138
8th Apr 2009, 16:49
Remove the first http://

Schumi - Red Baron
8th Apr 2009, 17:06
It will be 12 months, if it was me to decide...


He accelerated to catch up with the Renault Megane and struck Hayley when she stepped into the road.

But the number plate recognition data was later found to be out of date - the Megane was being lawfully driven by a Czech national.


That's another fault...:ugh:
And who is to blame for that...

BabyBear
8th Apr 2009, 17:21
I would only give him 10 years due to cutting him some slack for being a police officer performing his duties. I can't think of any crime that could justify doing 94mph in a 30mph limit to catch a car that, as far as I know, was not fleeing the scene. Totally unacceptable.

G-CPTN
8th Apr 2009, 17:37
SASKATOON9999 he was originally driving in the opposite direction to the Megane, and was alerted by his ANPR camera system that the Megane was 'wanted'. He turned around and accelerated to catch up with the Megane. I'll find the Google StreetView of the road in question.
Denton Road, Newcastle:-
Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&utm_campaign=en_GB&utm_medium=ha&utm_source=en_GB-ha-emea-gb-sk-dd&utm_term=directions)
and:-
Google Maps (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=d&utm_campaign=en_GB&utm_medium=ha&utm_source=en_GB-ha-emea-gb-sk-dd&utm_term=directions)

I don't know which direction he was travelling (either originally, or in pursuit) or where the young lady was crossing . . .
(Ignore the diversion through side streets, even he didn't do that.)

He was working nightshift (having worked dayshift as an electrician).

I realise that fully-trained pursuit drivers are 'qualified' to drive at such speeds, but, within a built-up area (in the dark) he 'should have been operating blues and twos'.

The unfortunate victim would not have been expecting an approaching vehicle travelling at three time the speed limit.

And, as reported, it was a 'false alarm' - that became a matter of life or death for the young lady . . .

frostbite
8th Apr 2009, 17:42
I suspect he will get max. 3yrs (=18months) although I think he deserves four times that.

radeng
8th Apr 2009, 17:48
Working the day shift in another job is a worrying dimension. In some ways, it could be considered as an aggravating factor.

You can get your bottom dollar that whatever sentence is handed down, there will be some people who disagree with it.

G-CPTN
8th Apr 2009, 17:51
I suspect that he realised that the game was up, because when he was asked in court whether he would repeat his actions, his reply was that he would if in a Police vehicle, but he doubted that he would be able to . . .

See:- BBC NEWS | UK | England | Tyne | Death crash Pc driving 'safely' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/7987832.stm)

skiingman
8th Apr 2009, 20:07
when he was asked in court whether he would repeat his actions, his reply was that he would if in a Police vehicle

So he's either a liar or a dumbass incapable of learning from his mistakes. Hope he rots.

In the US, no way he would serve prison time. He'd probably still be on the job. One county sheriff I lived under the authority of had $10 million plus in civil judgments against his behavior paid for by the taxpayers as well as a couple lives lost. Guy was elected after all this...

G-CPTN
11th Apr 2009, 16:44
BBC NEWS | England | CCTV of death crash Pc's journey (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7990879.stm)

B Sousa
11th Apr 2009, 18:14
I can't think of any crime that could justify doing 94mph in a 30mph limit to catch a car that, as far as I know, was not fleeing the scene.
Lets continue that to say fleeing the scene after raping your wife and killing your children, would you at least give him 45 mph??


As sad as it is there are certainly no winners in this mess. Its happened before and will again. A long chain of events which lead up to the inevitable accident.
Cop is alerted to possible crime. Car is not powerful enough to catch the bad guy so to get there before the bad guy is tipped he does not use Lights and Siren. BTDT. Someone going to jail for not providing equipment that is at least as good as the bad guys.? Doubt it.
Cop made a decision to drive fast without his lights and sirens so as to catch the bad guy, a the youngster didnt see the approaching car when she was checking the roadway prior to crossing. Did she check?? We will never know.
Data is not current so its not a bad guy after all. Someone going to jail for that as its what made the cop suspicious.?? Doubt it.

What we have is a lost life, a ruined career and all the misinformation that was there before is still out there. But now we have the holier than thou who would wish to hang the guy from the yardarm.
Suggestion. Next time cops see a possible suspect based on electronic information, they send him a postcard to verify he is in fact a bad guy and tell him he shouldnt violate the law.
The sheeple who yell the loudest also do it when they are victims. This story is certainly good reading for cops while they exercise their right to have an extra doughnut and let the shift continue without having an accident.
Nobody wins, never will........

Overdrive
11th Apr 2009, 19:04
The police and other emergency services need the capacity to drive quickly and pursue in certain circumstances. I personally would never argue against this in context and when properly used. Two things about this case:-

An illegal/uninsured driver is most often probably a total of that. By no means always drunk or drugged, or driving dangerously. Not to condone this, but when considering the almost infinitessimal likelihood that the car will be involved in a fatal collision in the moments following being "made" by the police, does it warrant the immediate cavalry charge?

There are stretches of road where 150 mph is not highly dangerous in certain circumstances. Earlier in that clip, there was enough visibilty to be travelling at 60-70 mph as he was. However, negotiating that curving crest with no forward view at that speed in an area of housing was crazy.

That girl's death was caused by complete red mist driving that the driver would never have been shown in any of his training. A life lost for two seconds saved, off what was already very adequate progress.

Blues&twos
11th Apr 2009, 19:45
negotiating that curving crest with no forward view at that speed in an area of housing was crazy.

I entirely agree, basic common sense should tell any driver that. The unfortunate girl can be seen stepping into the road just as the police car reaches the crest. Even a full "Green Cross Code" approach, a lollipop lady (and probably even if he had been using blues & twos) would not have prevented this collision owing to the ridiculously high approach speed given the almost non-existent forward view. What was he thinking?

BarbiesBoyfriend
11th Apr 2009, 20:00
****. ie see you next tuesday.:ugh::ugh:

G-CPTN
1st May 2009, 18:18
He was jailed for three years on Friday:-
BBC NEWS | UK | England | Tyne | Pc jailed over girl's crash death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/8028666.stm)

G-CPTN
26th Oct 2009, 18:59
A former Metropolitan police officer who killed a woman pedestrian while on a personal errand in a patrol car has been jailed for six-and-a-half years.
Malcolm Searles, 24, admitted causing the death by dangerous driving of Sandra Simpson, 61, as he went to deliver a birthday card last August.
The court heard how Searles, from North View, Swanley, Kent, had been on a "hair raising joy-ride", during which he was clocked doing 104mph in a 40mph zone.
After a "prolonged course of dangerous driving" covering a total of 22 miles and lasting over an hour, he hit Mrs Simpson.
"Had he been driving at the legal limit he would have been able to stop," Michael Mulkerris, prosecuting, told the court.
PCC investigators found Searles had gone on the personal errand, while on duty, to his sister's house in Swanley, Kent.
Later, he tried to lie his way out of trouble, claiming he had been following speeding car he believed had been stolen, Southwark Crown Court heard.
From (and more at):- BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Death crash police officer jailed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8326133.stm)

Capot
26th Oct 2009, 19:59
Later, he tried to lie his way out of trouble,I'm astonished he even bothered. Whenever (OK, 3 occasions in the last 5 years) I have protested to their Police Station that policemen were driving dangerously fast, without warning blue lights or sirens, for little or no apparent purpose (eg on one occasion they were seen to be speeding to buy some sandwiches), I have been advised that the law says that policemen are allowed to exceed the speed limit whenever they like and do not have to explain why.

This appears to be a commonly held view in the canteen, and indeed one sees it in action all the time.

The other myth so beloved of the Police is that they are all superbly trained supermen at the wheel of a car. Releasing all their videos to TV (why?) has only served to demonstrate what we knew before, that most of them are not so wonderful after all.

StaceyF
26th Oct 2009, 20:11
I thought he was lucky not to get done for PCJ too, given that:



"Later, he tried to lie his way out of trouble, claiming he had been following a speeding car he believed had been stolen, Southwark Crown Court heard."
I'd say the sentence is a bit on the light side.

Still, one less bent copper on the streets.

green granite
26th Oct 2009, 20:28
An acquaintance of mine who is an policeman followed a driver home from the pub one night (in the countryside not town) at speeds of up to 90MPH, wanted to do him for dangerous driving. He was asked by a senior officer whether he had his lights and siren on when he said "no" was told to "piss off before I do you for dangerous driving."

G-CPTN
26th Oct 2009, 20:46
An IPCC spokesman said: "Initial analysis of the police vehicle's data recording system shows that the vehicle was travelling with its blue lights and sirens on at the time of the collision.
From:- BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Fatal police crash victim named (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7581626.stm)
Pc Malcolm Searles, 23, has been charged with death by dangerous driving, three counts of dangerous driving and three counts of speeding.
From:- BBC NEWS | UK | England | London | Officer charged over fatal crash (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7905963.stm)

BlooMoo
26th Oct 2009, 20:50
There are stretches of road where 150 mph is not highly dangerous in certain circumstances. Earlier in that clip, there was enough visibilty to be travelling at 60-70 mph as he was. However, negotiating that curving crest with no forward view at that speed in an area of housing was crazy.

That girl's death was caused by complete red mist driving that the driver would never have been shown in any of his training. A life lost for two seconds saved, off what was already very adequate progress.

This is in relation to the original Tyneside incident of this thread.

Overdrive puts it perfectly. The point of the flashy lights and sirens on police vehicles is not primarilly to alert suspects of their presence, it is to alert the public they principally serve to the fact that they are 'in pursuit' and therefore that the public take notice and either get out the way or at least act with caution and awareness so as not to endanger or obstruct, etc etc.

On a deserted part of the M40 in the early hours then no siren/lights would seem plausible in the context, but, in a built-up/30mph suburban area at any time day or night? that equals utter madness in my book.

If the lights and noises were on, I personally feel 99% sure that that poor girl would not have stepped out on the road. Protection of the law abiding public is the primary point of having a poilice force. If that protection becomes secondary to some other factor on the mere basis of a dodgy numberplate (eg hypothetical pressure to meet targets) then the police no longer serve the public.

StaceyF
26th Oct 2009, 20:58
Protection of the law abiding public is the primary point of having a poilice force

Will you tell the family of Jean Charles de Menezes or shall I?

HINT: wear some body armour if you decide to try it yourself because I'm not entirely convinced they'll be persuaded by your argument.

Blues&twos
26th Oct 2009, 21:30
If the lights and noises were on, I personally feel 99% sure that that poor girl would not have stepped out on the road.

I disagree, although I do think it was incredible the blues & twos weren't being used. The car was travelling at an exceptionally high speed. It will have been entirely hidden from the pedestrian's view (as was the pedestrian, and indeed the entire road. from the driver) until it crested the hill after taking a bend. From the video, you can see that the girl was already stepping into the road as this happened. We've all experienced those few moments of confusion when you can hear a siren but can't see any emergency vehicles. Given that it wasn't actually in sight for some distance in either direction, stepping into the road would be entirely understandable even with the light and sound show activated.

BlooMoo
26th Oct 2009, 21:32
StaceyF

If you presume that I regard the JCdM incident as analogous to this in principle then you presume too far. Both cases are in my view an example of individual officers acting on the basis of what they saw as their priorities at the time.

Even if the officer who killed the girl in question thought that the car he turned round and pursued mad-max-style contained suicide bombers and they were potentially headed for a target as plausible as say, err, Tyneside airport, then I still don't see any reason whatsoever why the officer in pursuit shouldn't have been making a hell of a noise about it with his lights/sirens in the area/circumstance he did - so as to protect the public he served.

JCdM incident was in London, days after 50+ people were murdered and many hundreds more injured due to terrorist actions on the very same transport network.

Both Police actions were exceptionally flawed, in my view, but due to completely different circumstances and pressures. To try and link the two like you just did strikes me as a tad naive and simplistic.

BlooMoo
26th Oct 2009, 21:48
Blues&twos,
I think we may agree to disagree. In general the sirens are audible for a long distance - way beyond visibilty. The natural reaction, of myself at least, is that when you hear sirens you consider your situation and think 'is that significant to me?'.

If I were walking up Oxford Street and heard police sirens, I probably would register that for about 0.1s and then dismiss it as background noise until the next siren about 1.5s later. However, in a quiet (apparently from the vid) suburban street at night then I would think more carefully. I still think in the circumstance shown, the girl would have heard the sirens early enough (although neither party had visibilty of the other), and realised that they might well be heading at speed down the road she was about to cross and at least hesitated, or thought to look very carefully before crossing.

Blues&twos
26th Oct 2009, 22:20
I know what you're saying BlooMoo. I always "go on alert" if I hear sirens...unfortunately many people don't for whatever reason, including a large percentage of motorists, who really should be paying attention. It still astonishes me that some poeple are apparently oblivious even with an emergency vehicle immediately behind them. Worryingly, this seems to affect pedestrians too.

You're right though, they should have been on - it would have at least given the poor girl some sort of a chance.

ArthurR
27th Oct 2009, 00:51
Following the conviction, Judge David Hodson said a prison sentence was inevitable.


Northumbria Police said Dougal was suspended from his job and an employment hearing would be held in the future.

He was remanded in cusody, and they still go for an employment hearing, why?

One law for them, many for us.....

ChrisVJ
27th Oct 2009, 04:30
Without making any excuses for inexcusable behaviour, something stinks about the reporting here:

"A prolonged course of dangerous driving covering 22 miles and lasting over an hour . ,. . . " So he was averaging 22 miles an hour? If he was doing 90 miles an hour over 22 miles it would have taken approx 15 min. A little exageration in the reporting here, or was he stopped at a red light for 10 mins?

Octopussy2
27th Oct 2009, 12:53
Stories like this make my blood run cold. We live just off a very busy main road in south west London, down which, judging by the number of "blues and twos" every London crim seeks to make his escape, with a police car or three in hot pursuit. The road is essentially the high street of our local community and has businesses and houses on each side. We have brainwashed our 5 year old to just stand still on the pavement as soon as she can hear sirens and not to move until she can't hear them anymore - overkill maybe, but better than carrying on scooting/cycling/runnning down the pavement and losing control. Our 22-month old will get the same when he's a bit older.

I struggle to believe that the objective of most of these pursuits is worth the risk to local residents. If the police want to race criminals down the A3, fine (to a point). It's just doesn't seem appropriate in crowded, busy residential areas.

jayteeto
27th Oct 2009, 14:21
I usually stick up for the police when unfairly slagged off. Not unfair today, this was an unacceptable course of action that deserves prison. Our cars have a 'black box' that records speed and blue light settings, he would not be able to lie his way out of it here.

G-CPTN
22nd Dec 2009, 18:22
The mother of a teenager killed by a police car has said she is "disgusted" that the officer jailed over her death is to be allowed home over Christmas.
From (and more at):- BBC News - Death Pc's release a 'disgrace' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8425419.stm)

Lon More
22nd Dec 2009, 18:50
A large number of Dutch Police vehicles are being fitted with speed limiters following complaints about bad driving by a number of officers

DX Wombat
22nd Dec 2009, 22:22
He was remanded in cusody, and they still go for an employment hearing, why?

One law for them, many for us.....Not so Arthur, a hearing has to be held so that in the future there can be no comeback along the lines of "You dismissed me without giving me the opportunity to put my side of the case to you." which could result in the Police having to reinstate him, something I'm sure nobody here would be happy to see happen.

G-CPTN
29th Dec 2009, 23:44
BBC News - Death crash police officer to stay in prison (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8434003.stm)

airpolice
30th Dec 2009, 15:51
I suspect that there are worse hten him being allowed home for xmas.

I am not defending his terrible decision making and driving and I think the sentence was fair....however. It may clarify the situation for all of us if the toxicology report on the deceased were as widely available as details of the Police investogation intohis driving. Even without sirens, how could she not hear a T5 doing 90 MPH.

I know, from personal experience, that the noise inside a Police T5 at that speed is sufficient to let you know you are moving quickly, so outside the car it is no less of a warning. In the absence of any other traffic to drown it out, as shown on the onboard video, she should have heard the car coming.

I would stress again, the car should never have neen travelling at that speed over that crest in the road.

My view is that Police officiers should not disengage because a target is driving in a dangerous manner. That would be a dangerous precedent, and an invitation to all criminals to simply become a high risk in order to get the pursuing cops off their tail.