Jump to content

  •  

Photo
- - - - -

NEWS:Officer Injured During Emergency Response


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
11 replies to this topic

#1 Dragonfly

Dragonfly

    UKPO Staff

  • Admin
  • 604 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:39 PM

Marked police car collided with vehicle with two women inside.An officer was hospitalised after a marked police car which was responding to an emergency call collided with a vehicle.

The 32-year-old female officer from Essex Police was taken to hospital with minor injuries after the marked Ford Focus estate police car collided with a blue Toyota Rav4.

The police car, which also had a 41-year-old male PC inside, was responding to an incident involving emergency equipment when the crash happened.

Two women inside the Toyota, aged 45 and 18, were also taken to hospital by paramedics with severe bruising.

A section of the A120 was closed for four-and-a-half hours while officers carried out investigative work on November 11.

The force has launched an internal investigation but a spokeswoman confirmed the incident has not been referred to the IPCC.

Click here to view the article

#2 Sectioned Detection

Sectioned Detection

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,627 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:44 PM

Dangerous Driving charge on route!

#3 scousejon

scousejon

    UKPOLICEONLINE Regular

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 11:05 PM

yep :(

#4 jacko6686

jacko6686

    UKPOLICEONLINE Trooper

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 05:16 PM

Like I have said on another thread, as advanced drivers it's on our heads if we have a collison with the blues on. Regardless of circumstance.

#5 Sectioned Detection

Sectioned Detection

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,627 posts

Posted 13 November 2012 - 11:41 PM

True. But it's also a dangerous driving WITHOUT a collision.

#6 MOP1

MOP1

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 186 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 11:24 AM

IIRC the dangerous driving charge was thrown out in that other case, so it wasn't dangerous driving.

The issue is of course that someone who was supposed to be backing the driver, instead decided to try to get him convicted (for doing his job correctly).

#7 Sectioned Detection

Sectioned Detection

    UKPOLICEONLINE Master

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,627 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 05:57 PM

It wasn't thrown out he was found not guilty of CAUSING a vehicle to drive dangerously as far as I know.

It was a seperate case where the judge said a persons skill level ie police driver training could not be taken into consideration.

#8 jacko6686

jacko6686

    UKPOLICEONLINE Trooper

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:16 PM

Since the Hampshire police officers court case I have becaome very wary of rushing anywhere in my green and yella bus. Even if, I am sad to say, there is someone seriously needing our help.

#9 MOP1

MOP1

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 186 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 11:48 AM

It wasn't thrown out he was found not guilty of CAUSING a vehicle to drive dangerously as far as I know.

It was a seperate case where the judge said a persons skill level ie police driver training could not be taken into consideration.

I think this is what we are both referring to?

From what i understand of the case it was std practice a review of pursuits in the force in question and this was done by a special group who did so. The officer, PC Holden was found to have driven dangerously and indeed so was his crew partner.

This information was fed to the CPS and the driver went to court for dangerous driving and the prosecution of the passenger dropped.

I believe part of the charge was in relation to not only the police officers driving but that of he suspect vehicle. The reasoning for this being that the police officer pursuing the suspect was causing the dangerous driving of the suspect vehicle and therefore was culpable in this fact as well.
Likewise if the vehicle crashed it would be the responsibility of the police driver, not the driver who crashed. Again likewise of someone was killed (even the criminal driver) it would be the officers fault.

The deck is stacked against the police officer, being asked to do what he is doing by the people who are also going to prosecute him and try and get him in prison for doing what they are asking.

The most unpleasant thing is that having watched the footage a number i times i cant see anything wrong in the manner of driving. It was as i was trained. That is the problem. In driving as taught and as required the officer, doing the right thing in the right way is still breaking the law and guilty by his own honest admission that he did his duty.
He was found not guilty in 1hour and ten minutes. After waiting 12 months to get there.
Not to pt too fine a point on it, sod pursuit driving and knock 20mph off any response run.

http://www.portsmout...mouth-1-3474870 - This is the footage of the driving

"Thrown out" obviously means something different to you than it does to me. He was found not guilty - he is not guilty, he did nothing wrong - which is what I meant by "thrown out". Obviously the problem is that 'someone' decided to try to get him convicted for doing his job correctly and that is wrong. He was (according to the verdict) doing his job correctly - that should have been recognised by whoever reported him to CPS and this should not have needed to go to court (but the court, by finding him not guilty came IMO to the correct verdict). Holding anyone responsible for the actions of a third party (with whom they have not conspired) defies reason. As for saying a persons skill level ie police driver training could not be taken into consideration, this just shows how disconnected from reality some judges are! Of course a higher driving skill can and should be taken into consideration, along with what our society expects Police officers to do (deter and catch criminals).
I am here, vehemently agreeing that the prosecution of PC Holden and the (separate) comments by a judge re. police driver training have made it harder for Police to do their job, but the court decision was as far as I am aware, in PC Holden's favour (for what relief that gives us).

#10 mcdonnell761

mcdonnell761

    UKPOLICEONLINE Member

  • Resident Members
  • PipPip
  • 100 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:25 PM

Surely if the blues and 2's where on then blame must lay partly with the other party? It isn't like you can miss them. Yes i'm only assuming as I haven't seen footage from the in car camera but does the blame usually just go straight to the Police?

#11 SimonT

SimonT

    -

  • Account Closed
  • 7,290 posts
  • Interests:police, climbing

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:49 PM

Yep. It's the police causing the disruption on the roads or making the suspect flee so its their fault when anything goes wrong.
We are held accountable like no other group in the whole country.

#12 jacko6686

jacko6686

    UKPOLICEONLINE Trooper

  • Senior Resident Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts

Posted 15 November 2012 - 12:52 PM

Surely if the blues and 2's where on then blame must lay partly with the other party? It isn't like you can miss them. Yes i'm only assuming as I haven't seen footage from the in car camera but does the blame usually just go straight to the Police?


Blame is instantly placed on emergency vehicles because firstly they advanced drivers. Secondly, they have to justify every exemption that they have claimed on that blue light run.

This debate reminds me of a time last year where our service was incredibly busy. So much so that our comms tried to get every crew to blue light every patient into A+E regardless of condition. Naturally because we wouldn't, we refused because if ee did have a crash, saying that "comms said we had to blue light them in" wouldn't quite stand up as a good reason to claim our exemptions.




0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users