Opening a bridge to catch thieves - right or wrong?

[CavLancer]

Not guilty, commendation. Darwin Awards for the guys that drove off the bridge.

 

[Yeekim]

Not guilty, commendation. Darwin Awards for the guys that drove off the bridge.

This.

EDIT: Actually, not necessarily.
There's one question that matters and one question only: would a reasonable person, driving under similar conditions, have had time to stop?

If yes, my above position stands.
If no, the policeman is indeed guilty.

 

[Evie]

Even if the policeman exceded his authority and comitted an act he wasn't legally allowed to?

 

[Borachio]

Should the thieves be posthumously prosecuted for criminal damage to the bridge, contravening traffic regulations, and driving in a reckless manner likely to cause death and injury?

Should the state seek to recover damages from the relatives?

 

[bhsup]

Would this have happened had they not stolen the gas? Would this have happened had they not tried to flee when being pursued because they had stolen gas? Would this have happened had they ceased trying to flee when they saw a barricade instead of barreling through it? No, no, and... oh that's right, no.

When adults responsible for their own actions engage in activities that lead to their own deaths, others should not be held responsible.

 

[Borachio]

Don't we have a duty of care towards others, though? No matter what actions they take, don't we have a duty not to place them in unnecessary peril?

If I'm holding a sharp pointy object and I see some reckless individual running towards me, don't I have a duty to move the pointy object so it's no longer possible for them to impale themselves on it?

 

[bhsup]

Well I would say that is most definitely situational. Is the person running at you brandishing a morning star or something?

 

[Borachio]

I don't see what difference the newspaper they're carrying has. (!)

No, I was thinking of someone just running recklessly. Maybe someone who's escaping from a petrol station after stealing some petrol.

 

[Evie]

Would this have happened had they not stolen the gas? Would this have happened had they not tried to flee when being pursued because they had stolen gas? Would this have happened had they ceased trying to flee when they saw a barricade instead of barreling through it? No, no, and... oh that's right, no.

When adults responsible for their own actions engage in activities that lead to their own deaths, others should not be held responsible.

None of which should excuse a policeman misusing his powers, especially in a way that result in death.

I know some countries enjoy the notion of the cowboy police chasing bad guys by any method necessary, but I kind of prefer the notion of police whose powers and methods are very tightly controlled, given that they're allowed to use force on us.

 

[bhsup]

I think it is unreasonable to expect any person to assume some idiot won't stop over a tank of gas, but would rather barrel through a barricade and Thelma and Louise themselves over a bridge.

 

[Borachio]

I think it's fairly unreasonable to expect someone who thinks stealing petrol and speeding off is a good idea, to behave reasonably.

There's a few clues about the sort of people you're dealing with here.

 

[Evie]

I think it's equally unreasonable to consider raising the bridge an appropriate application of police authority and force over 40$ of gas.

You might have an argument if this was a murder trial, but it wasn't. it was a professional misconduct trial. The aim was not to determine who was responsible for the death (a question that would have limited relevance to the matter at hand), but whether the policeman used a reasonable method or used excessive force in dealing with the case at hand.

(The sentence was a fine and no suspension from duties).

http://www.thelocal.se/20140409/cop-convicted-after-high-speed-bridge-deaths

in short, whether or not th death can be blamed on the policeman simply shouldn't enter in the picture here.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

If the bridge was open while the thieves were crossing it then i would call it excesive force or even murder. If it was open before and it was cleary visible for the thieves (as it seems the case here) then i dont see any issue. It is the same as placing a police car as barrier at the road, you can see it, stopping or crashing into it is up to you.

I think it's fairly unreasonable to expect someone who thinks stealing petrol and speeding off is a good idea, to behave reasonably.

 

[Yeekim]

If the bridge was open while the thieves were crossing it then i would call it excesive force or even murder. If it was open before and it was cleary visible for the thieves (as it seems the case here) then i dont see any issue. It is the same as placing a police car as barrier at the road, you can see it, stopping or crashing into it is up to you.

Exactly.

Might've been the visibility was so bad due to nighttime and their speed so high that police couldn't reasonably expect that they'll have time to slow down.

But given that this was a 520-m drawbridge, it seems unlikely.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

It's a probability calculation I suppose. What were the chances that the thieves would ignore the closed bridge and try to drive across it, versus stopping their car or turning around?

Right, might be a low chance, but if it costs enough...that's the reason insurance exists. Governments can also go far more aggressively against the single-digit percentages of welfare fraud cases, at the cost of decreasing money that could have been used to give welfare to the majority who need it. You are correct about probability calculations, they have to be done such that the maximum benefit occurs. And if that means some troublemakers get away, so be it.

And as Truronian said, there are alternatives, despite luiz's attempts at insisting the alternative is not to chase them at all.

 

[Evie]

Repeating, AGAIN,

it was not a murder trial

The policeman was charged with unprofessional conduct.

Talking about whether or not he was responsible for the deaths doesn't have much bearing on his guilt or innocence here.

I mean, yeah, I could list a whole BOATLOAD of crimes for which he should be found not guilty (hey guys, the policeman definitely for sure wasn't guilty, because he couldn't reasonably expect to offend the Queen, therefore didn't commit lèse-majesté!). That's why he wasn't charged with them and didn't go to trial over them!

if you want to talk about guilt or innocence of an accused man, discuss the crime he,s charged with, not some other charge he isn't charged with in the first place!

 

[Thorgalaeg]

What is the problem here then? Impeding traffic? Raising the bridge costed more than $40?

 

[Evie]

It would seem to be whether or not he properly used his powers, ie whether or not he used reasonable force in dealing with the situation at hand.

 

[luiz]

It would seem to be whether or not he properly used his powers, ie whether or not he used reasonable force in dealing with the situation at hand.

And lifting a bridge, with proper signaling, is hardly even "the use of force".

 

[Evie]

By that same standard, a 40$ theft is hardly even petty crime. It's the kind of situation that at most should have resulted in writing down the name in a police report and waiting until the car showed up again.

Impeding traffic was not a reasonable response to the situation.