On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 16:03:08 +0100, MM wrote:
>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:31:28 +0100, unit743 wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:04:49 +0100, MM wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:30:03 +0100, unit743 wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:56:38 +0100, MM wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 09:38:34 GMT, shaun.jameson.spam@ntlwolrd.com
>>>>>(Shaun) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>But if the recklessness only starts AFTER the police start chasing the
>>>>>>>scrote, who is the reckless party?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Someone who claims that they have no free will and are forced to drive
>>>>>>in a dangerous manner when they see a police officer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Were they driving in a dangerous manner BEFORE the pursuit started?
>>>>>Maybe in some cases, sure. But in other cases, no. In these latter
>>>>>cases it is the fact of the pursuit that initiates the dangerous
>>>>>driving.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, it's the refusal to obey a legitimate instruction from a police
>>>>officer that initiates the pursuit that then initiates the danger to
>>>>the public.
>>>>
>>>>It seems that you are of the opinion that the poor pursued victims
>>>>have no responsibility for the results of their actions in fleeing?
>>>
>>>Cause and effect. You appear not to recognise the cause, but only the
>>>method that leads to the effect. In those cases where dangerous
>>>driving was not happening prior to the chase, but the chase then
>>>triggered it and resulted in the death of an innocent bystander as a
>>>result, it surely isn't rocket science to pinpoint the cause?
>>>
>>
>>Well that's a strange way to look at crime.
>>The cause of the crime was not the actions of the criminal but an
>>effect of law enforcement.
>
>It's not strange, it's very simple. Police drive fast = scrote drives
>fast = police drive faster = scrote drives faster. When a cause as I
>have outlined leads to an effect, it's rock solid. You could write a
>computer program, sort of:
>
>Scrote's normal driving: not dangerous, therefore risk to public the
>same as for any other driver*
>
>Scrote's driving while being chased: highly dangerous, therefore risk
>to public very high indeed
>
>>If a copper stops a yob carrying a knife and the yob stabs him and a
>>passer by whose in the way, it's the cops fault.
>
>I wouldn't say it's the cop's *fault*, but again the cause and effect
>is plain to see. Without the cop "in the way" the passer-by would not
>have got stabbed. You have to continually weigh up the pros and cons
>of any action and subsequent reaction.
>
>>After all, there was no knifing before the cop initiated the stop.
>
>Exactly.
>
>* Note that you could have Saddam or Adolf driving down to the shops
>to pick up a pint of milk and the threat to the public in terms of
>road safety would be exactly the same as if Uncle Jim or Aunt Betty
>was behind the wheel. It's not the intrinsic villainy of the scrote
>that matters, but the danger associated with his behaviour.
>
As I posted in a later post than the one to which you are replying, We
both have vastly different views on acceptable risk.
The question seems to be, are we safer in a society that allows
criminals to proceed with a crime if there is a risk that interference
by law enforcement may, repeat, may, in some circumstances end in
tragedy.
I say we are safe rin the long run if we accept that risk and pursue
criminals whenever possible.
You draw the line much closer to a risk averse situation.
Fair enough? |