Opening a bridge to catch thieves - right or wrong?

[Loppan Torkel]

A policeman was deemed guilty in a trial in Sweden for ordering a bridge to be opened to stop two gas thieves from escaping. The two thieves forced the barriers before the bridge with the car, drove into the water and both of them died. The gas theft was worth around $40.

How would you judge the policeman - guilty of misconduct or not?

 

[Borachio]

Well, I don't know the details of the case. Presumably the court considered the evidence and found him guilty justifiably.

I think the policeman's actions have to be both proportional and reasonable. A proper risk assessment, which he should have carried out before having the bridge opened, might have revealed that the cost of the goods stolen was not worth the potential loss of two human lives. Especially given that the worth of the goods could have been recovered, at a later time, more effectively from thieves who were still living.

 

[Antilogic]

When you say the bridge was opened, you mean the bridge was drawn up to prevent travel or do you mean the bridge was cleared of obstructions for passage?

 

[Borachio]

I imagined it was a bridge over a river which was "opened" to prevent the thieves escaping by road.

"Opened" in this sense for any river traffic.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

It was drawn up/cleared for boattraffic and the usual barriers was pulled down.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Yes. It won't be an insignificant cost to cleanup the aftermath of that. Not to mention losing two people who could have been rehabilitated (it's $40 of gasoline, keep the demonization somewhere else).

 

[Borachio]

Driving into the water caused more damage to the vehicle than I'd have expected.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'd imagine that was from hitting the bottom of the river.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

To be sure I looked up misconduct

In law, misconduct is wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct

2 out of 3. In an or statement.

 

[warpus]

Seems like something is missing here. It was their own stupid fault for driving through the barricade and into the water. What's being left out? Did the cop do this while they were in the process of trying to cross the bridge? If so, I side with Judge Judy.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Yes. It won't be an insignificant cost to cleanup the aftermath of that. Not to mention losing two people who could have been rehabilitated (it's $40 of gasoline, keep the demonization somewhere else).

Why would the policeman expect the thieves to suicide? They could have stopped.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Why would the policeman expect the thieves to suicide? They could have stopped.

The same reason people and organizations prepare for the worst. Because it will happen, as it did in this situation. Some people don't think rationally at times.

 

[Antilogic]

Seems like something is missing here. It was their own stupid fault for driving through the barricade and into the water. What's being left out? Did the cop do this while they were in the process of trying to cross the bridge? If so, I side with Judge Judy.

Had this question too. Based on the OP, it seems like the safety barriers were down and the bridge started opening before the thugs mischief made it on to the bridge.

Maybe they saw one too many episodes of the Dukes of Hazzard.

 

[warpus]

I imagine they crossed that barricade holding hands, looking into eachothers eyes. But yeah, more information is needed here for sure.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Seems like something is missing here. It was their own stupid fault for driving through the barricade and into the water. What's being left out? Did the cop do this while they were in the process of trying to cross the bridge? If so, I side with Judge Judy.

Nothing is missing. It was dark, but the barriers were down and they drove right through them without stopping. They were young, around 20, but that was probably not known at the time. They were chased by police cars. The policeman was found guilty because the crime wasn't severe enough to warrant a bridge opening, in which something this potentially could happen.

 

[warpus]

What exactly was he guilty of? I'm not sure how I feel about this. I can sort of see both sides.

I will sit on the fence until somebody pulls me down.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Professional misconduct? He ordered the opening of the bridge. Something they had done several times in the past. This time two people died, their crime wasn't severe and they were probably pretty desperate and not thinking all that good. It's unfortunate, but it's pretty harsh to hold the policeman responsible for two people driving off a bridge, imo.

 

[bhsup]

Did he remotely force the thieves over? No? Did nothing wrong. Maybe they should not have been thieves trying to evade justice. They chose not to pull over.

 

[Antilogic]

I'm trying to think of an analog police chase scenario. Say a pit maneuver results in a car flipping into a ravine, killing the runner. However, it doesn't quite line up because the runner's control of the vehicle was inhibited as the result of the police action, whereas here he wasn't paying attention to a road hazard but otherwise was free to control the vehicle.

 

[Cheetah]

The same reason people and organizations prepare for the worst. Because it will happen, as it did in this situation. Some people don't think rationally at times.

Yeah, but still... I could technically extend that reasoning to many other cases, and thus remove any possible course of action by the police for stopping criminals.

While the theft was minuscule, sealing of an escape route by opening/closing a bridge doesn't seem like a terribly bad idea to me. It of course depends a bit on how much time the thieves had to react, but from the sound of it, they actively chose to try to jump the bridge.

If the raised bridge meant that they were on a dead end road, they police could surely have slowed down to give them more time to think, if that would have been applicable.

A clearly marked dead end isn't something that would normally jump out at a driver, is it? I assume that the bridge was illuminated even though it was dark, so it can't have been a surprise that the bridge was raised.

The theft was in no way big enough for the perpetrators to take such a risk, and the punishment would probably have been pretty mild as well. It could have justifiably been assumed by the police that the thieves wouldn't risk their lives on a raised bridge.

I really don't know. Unless this particular policeman has a history of haphazardly putting people in unnecessary risk, I would probably put this down to simply bad luck.