- Magma Golem
- Posts: 5065
- Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:39 am
- Alignment: 'Xevious'
- Location: Surrey
6 months ago media reported that Police could be protected from prosecution for doing that, but that was 6 months ago.
do they need to be protected from prosecution? well The Times went to well know Traffic lawyer "Mr Loophole" Freeman who stated that a police car driving into a moped rider was an assault, depending on the level of injury caused to the moped rider viz, ABH, GBH etc.
but the MET have already racked up 50 incidents of mopeds brought to a halt by MET POLICE with no complaints brought so what was all the fuss about?
Freeman acknowledges that Police can use force to apprehend offenders but he argues they cannot cause injury, in such cases that would be an assault (for which the Police driver could be put on trial at Crown Court) where do you stand on this?
What does he think of police shootings? They don't all end in trial.
Sometimes a legitimate use of force results in injury, whether it's a handcuff, baton, firearm or vehicle used.
The biggest difference I can see is that compared to other methods, using a vehicle as a method of using force leaves you open to prosecution under the Road Traffic Act, regardless of whether or not the use of force was justifiable.