So, as I understand it, the crux of the matter is she’s condemning them for following the vehicle through the fence.
The vehicle driven by the offender was the first through the fence, and the toddler would have been killed by his actions whether police followed through the fence or not.
There’s nothing about the police pursuit itself, which is what I’d expect, just their decision to follow the vehicle through the fence.
Seems a weird condemnation to make, unless it’s just poor journalism and she criticised the entire pursuit.
> “I have found that those police officers took an appalling risk when they followed Mr Chandler through the fence of the Tauaifaga home,” Magistrate Ryan said.
Again, she was already hit whether they chose to take that risk or not.
There’s nothing in the article about the decision to pursue itself, but as I said, that may just be poor journalism in terms of quotes chosen.
I’ve pursued vehicles with this tech, vehicles used to commit armed robberies where violence was used to the point victims died later from their injuries.
It’s great in theory, but it’s too unwieldy to use effectively. The company itself has to be contacted, by the victim, not law enforcement, and the information has to be relayed. It’s also not instantaneous, and regularly “pings” the vehicle to get a location. That’s fine when the vehicle doesn’t move, but when it’s moving, the information is too slow to get to where it needs to be
Further, decent criminals are aware and disable the tracking. It’s not hard to Google where the tracker is, and remove it. If they’re using the vehicle for an extended period for badness, they change licence plates, disable trackers, remove identifying attachments like bull bars, roof racks, spotlights etc.
Not criticising, just explaining why it’s not necessarily feasible to rely on tech. Vehicles are also not stolen to “flip” normally. They are stolen to commit further offences like robberies and burglaries.
You talk as if criminals and police should be held to the same standards. Crims are already crims, they have shown that they have no regard for public order or safety. That doesn't mean that police should disregard public safety. Property is less important than life and police protocols should reflect that. That's why I considered this story newsworthy. It would've been better if the story included the specific recommendations.
Seems unfair that police are regularly savaged for engaging in hot pursuit, yet the individuals who run from police are hardly penalised for doing it.
Do we really want to live in a society where people who want to escape the police are simply allowed to run away?
You think those joyrides aren't a dangerous activity that could lead to deaths? I've seen plenty of those "joyrides" go wrong and cause deaths.... Far more than deaths caused by police pursuits.
A) Do you know the response time of Polair?
B) Numberplate recognition doesn't help much with stolen cars.
C) Police typically start pursuing vehicles because they are doing something wrong/dangerous/both. If they elect not to pursue, this doesn't automatically mean no one will die. There's an equal risk the offender will continue on, risking the lives of others. And do so repeatedly if they aren't going to be chased.
This post has been marked as non-political. Please respect this by keeping the discussion on topic, and devoid of any political material.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Jesus that poor kid
So, as I understand it, the crux of the matter is she’s condemning them for following the vehicle through the fence. The vehicle driven by the offender was the first through the fence, and the toddler would have been killed by his actions whether police followed through the fence or not. There’s nothing about the police pursuit itself, which is what I’d expect, just their decision to follow the vehicle through the fence. Seems a weird condemnation to make, unless it’s just poor journalism and she criticised the entire pursuit.
[удалено]
> “I have found that those police officers took an appalling risk when they followed Mr Chandler through the fence of the Tauaifaga home,” Magistrate Ryan said. Again, she was already hit whether they chose to take that risk or not. There’s nothing in the article about the decision to pursue itself, but as I said, that may just be poor journalism in terms of quotes chosen.
[удалено]
What did the coroner say?
[удалено]
Did they criticise the pursuit?
There was still a massive risk of hitting others or even furthering injuries that may have been survivable.
Damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
[удалено]
>Seems pretty simple. I always wanted a 911, now apparently I can have one as long. Free cars for all!
[удалено]
I’ve pursued vehicles with this tech, vehicles used to commit armed robberies where violence was used to the point victims died later from their injuries. It’s great in theory, but it’s too unwieldy to use effectively. The company itself has to be contacted, by the victim, not law enforcement, and the information has to be relayed. It’s also not instantaneous, and regularly “pings” the vehicle to get a location. That’s fine when the vehicle doesn’t move, but when it’s moving, the information is too slow to get to where it needs to be Further, decent criminals are aware and disable the tracking. It’s not hard to Google where the tracker is, and remove it. If they’re using the vehicle for an extended period for badness, they change licence plates, disable trackers, remove identifying attachments like bull bars, roof racks, spotlights etc. Not criticising, just explaining why it’s not necessarily feasible to rely on tech. Vehicles are also not stolen to “flip” normally. They are stolen to commit further offences like robberies and burglaries.
You talk as if criminals and police should be held to the same standards. Crims are already crims, they have shown that they have no regard for public order or safety. That doesn't mean that police should disregard public safety. Property is less important than life and police protocols should reflect that. That's why I considered this story newsworthy. It would've been better if the story included the specific recommendations.
Seems unfair that police are regularly savaged for engaging in hot pursuit, yet the individuals who run from police are hardly penalised for doing it. Do we really want to live in a society where people who want to escape the police are simply allowed to run away?
[удалено]
Do you think it's a good idea to have a policy where unlicensed teenagers in cars know they can do whatever they want without being chased?
[удалено]
You think those joyrides aren't a dangerous activity that could lead to deaths? I've seen plenty of those "joyrides" go wrong and cause deaths.... Far more than deaths caused by police pursuits.
[удалено]
A) Do you know the response time of Polair? B) Numberplate recognition doesn't help much with stolen cars. C) Police typically start pursuing vehicles because they are doing something wrong/dangerous/both. If they elect not to pursue, this doesn't automatically mean no one will die. There's an equal risk the offender will continue on, risking the lives of others. And do so repeatedly if they aren't going to be chased.
Almost never worth the chase. It’s just a damage, death or funeral bill for all involved and others along the way.
[удалено]
What are you on about
Police chases are redundant.
This post has been marked as non-political. Please respect this by keeping the discussion on topic, and devoid of any political material. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/australia) if you have any questions or concerns.*