District Judge Peter Wallis said the 38-year-old West Mercia Police officer had "suffered enough" with two-and-a-half years of court proceedings.
2006-08-25 05:21:32 · 21 answers · asked by Rob S 3 in Cars & Transportation ➔ Safety
bad driving by cops but they all do it no wonder cops smash so many cars maybe they should learn to drive like the rest of us mortals and the judge is just as guilty as the cop sack them both as they cant do the jobs properly
2006-08-25 06:35:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
25th July - Five Live Radio 16.-- - 17.00 hours.
Radio presenters have brought this up again tognight, re "he has suffered enough" etc., Rubbish to that Judge's statement. Someone official was live interviewed & was saying that 149mph was just as safe as going 100 mph that night. As I drive, approx 180miles return journey, every 6-7 weeks, on motorways late-latish at night (much quieter this way) - to me - there was no reason why traffic could have been stopped over a specific length of motorway - then the policeman could have practised his high speeds, etc. There would not have been a great holdup at the speed the policeman was doing over a specified distance. I once saw a car, 07.00 hours, not a lot of traffic on a sunny spring morning, no-one going excessively fast. I was in the 1st lane, a car in the second lane (big car = solid body, etc) a little way ahead. All at once the car (not excessively speeding) evidently skidded on something. Hisi car spun completely round, facing the oncoming traffic & stopped. Luckily, there was not a lot of traffic to result in accidents. This situation could have occured that night of the offence, even a lorry having a tyre blowout. The Police Officer did not envisage, it could be the other cars which could have caused him problems, then resulting in a terrible accident. He had also driven at that speed without notifying anyone he was going to do it. I think the fact that he was taken to court, must have been a police decision - making a statement that they didn't agree with his decision to trial speed that car.
2006-08-25 06:36:58 · answer #2 · answered by Student 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The officer's excuse for going so fast was that he was test driving the Vauxhall Vectra, getting to know it's characteristics, including it's handling capability at high speed.
This is allowed under the provisions of The Road Traffic Act 1988, with regard training and familiarisation on emergency service vehicles.
Where the officer showed a lack of judgment, was in the area that he carried out this driving. Had the higher speed registered been on a motorway, there would not have been a problem. Officers regularly travel at such speeds.
Although the driving was done in the dead of night, there is no doubt that to the uninitiated, the speeds reached seem very excessive, for the class of roads being used. However, not knowing the roads,or even the area in which this was done, I for one could not say if this was dangerous or not.
I think he has been made a scape goat for the benefit of the public. Having been found not guilty at the first trial, a re-trial was a heavy handed approach, for what, after all, was an officer doing his job.
It is very easy to criticize from the comfort of your armchair, that this was a leneant verdict, however, if you ever need the police in a hurry, would you not be glad that there are such people, willing to do this type of response driving, in order to get to you quickly, to assist you in your time of need.
I for one am happy he keeps his licence. We need all the police on the streets we can get!!
2006-08-25 05:53:56 · answer #3 · answered by steve b 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First time around, he was found not guilty. The CPS didn't like the verdict and the appeal court decided he was guilty. The judge in the lower court didn't like the idea that you can be convicted on appeal after you've been acquitted and discharged him.
This isn't about the police or about speeding, it's about how many bites of the cherry the prosecuting authorities can have. Before you protest too much, remember you could be next.
2006-08-25 05:29:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I know, it doesn't seem fair, does it?
I believe that in mitigation it was claimed that he was an advanced driver. He also, in the course of his duties would have to drive at very high speeds to apprehend potential criminals. For that reason he would have to 'practise' on real roads in real situations. I think something like 'Driving around in circles on a disused airfield won't help the training.' I can understand that, too.
I think that they gave him an absolute discharge, which apparently means that he will still have a criminal conviction - not quite sure about that one!
What I would like to know is - how much should the fine be?????
2006-08-25 05:29:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Character- Some hate the police..some appreciate the police. You have not provided enough of the circumstances to warrant an educated answer.
2006-08-25 05:28:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Easy, hes a public employee, the judge is a public employee, for hundreds of years they have looked after their own. Sadly, this
will never change.
2006-08-25 05:27:53 · answer #7 · answered by A True Gentleman 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who caught him? The Blue Angels?
2006-08-25 06:25:53 · answer #8 · answered by yes_its_me 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a Vauxhall Vectra!!
Full story - link below
2006-08-25 05:30:28 · answer #9 · answered by jayktee96 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2½ years of court proceedings and you want us to resolve this situation after reading a couple of short sentences? Get real.
2006-08-25 06:39:01 · answer #10 · answered by My Evil Twin 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋