Presumably their are guidelines in place for situations like this which the police officer did not follow.
Opening a bridge to catch thieves - right or wrong?
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well, I don't know.
The police are supposed to take reasonable care for the safety of others, so I presume that includes those who might be fleeing from a crime scene as well. The policeman could not have known that those two (even just one of them may have been completely innocent) were actually guilty until they'd been found such after due process, so their criminality or lack of it is irrelevant.
Here's another case of a policeman acting recklessly:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16709841
The police are supposed to take reasonable care for the safety of others, so I presume that includes those who might be fleeing from a crime scene as well. The policeman could not have known that those two (even just one of them may have been completely innocent) were actually guilty until they'd been found such after due process, so their criminality or lack of it is irrelevant.
Here's another case of a policeman acting recklessly:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-16709841
If the thieves made a conscious decision to try and jump the bridge as the OP says I really see no fault with the cop. I mean, the simple act of chasing the criminals will increase the likelihood that they will do something stupid that could end in their deaths. Should we not chase criminals?
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
I still think them getting away would have cost less. The action was too drastic for the crime. It's like putting up roadblocks for a dine-and-dasher.
I would certainly say we should avoid backing low-level criminals into a corner. People tend to do stupid things when they think they are trapped.
I don't know enough about this case to really come down on either side, but I would assume there were alternatives to this course of action. Could the police officers simply have let them go and then run the plates on the car?
I don't know enough about this case to really come down on either side, but I would assume there were alternatives to this course of action. Could the police officers simply have let them go and then run the plates on the car?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Ok, I looked up misconduct, and still got it wrong.
Minus one, back on 13.
I missed: "motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts."
Was it wrongful, yes, improper, sure, intentional or obstinate indifference, really doubt it very, very much. I can't reverse my vote, but consider guilty to have one less.
Minus one, back on 13.
I missed: "motivated by premeditated or intentional purpose or by obstinate indifference to the consequences of one's acts."
Was it wrongful, yes, improper, sure, intentional or obstinate indifference, really doubt it very, very much. I can't reverse my vote, but consider guilty to have one less.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Probably not when the crime is sufficiently petty and the risk of injury sufficiently high. It's a risk assessment. Or a cost-benefit analysis, if you like.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The severity of the incident crime is not an issue. Whether the policeman is chasing a gas thief or an axe murderer he does not have any legal authority to order anything done with the bridge. Therefore he is subject to the same penalty as any other gun wielding madman that takes control of the bridge and causes people to die.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm basing it on the fact he was convicted.
Loppan Torkel
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2004
- Messages
- 4,756
It's not reasonable to refer to company/organisational guidelines imo. Somewhere in some folder in their internal network, I'm sure there's a guideline for bridge openings. I'm also fairly sure the executives expect and want their employees to break the guidelines regularly to make things run smoothly. When something goes wrong though, they point at the guidelines.
If the policeman doesn't have the legal authority, it's really the bridge-guy who's responsible for opening the bridge.
What if the bridge was supposed to be open because a boat was passing under.. GUILTY!!
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I dunno if Swedish cops are like American cops, but "the cop had a gun and appeared willing to shoot, so fearing for my life I cooperated" is a defense that would work here for sure.
Cheetah
Deity
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?
If the probability of someone trying to jump the bridge is sufficiently low, then raising the bridge is such a routine event that it would easily be acceptable to stop a petty theft. Hindsight is the master of probabilities, but still.
Did anyone force anyone? What I got from the story - and from knowing Swedish society - the police probably requested help from the bridge operator, who, as a good citisen, was quite happy to perform a normally safe and routine operation on the bridge, in the name of justice. The boom was lowered so everyone would know not to cross.
But to put this a whole other way guys:
What would/should have been the reaction if the bridge was already opened because a boat was crossing, and the thieves tried to jump it?
Then I assume it would have only been a case of whether or not the police endangered the thieves by pursuing them and pressuring them to try and make it across the bridge. Would anyone here find the police guilty in such an event?
If he didn't have the authority to order the bridge drawn, then it is definitely misconduct. The matter is merely exacerbated by the fact that the thieves then broke the barrier and drove off.
It's like if an American football coach calls a fake punt on 4th and 10. If he makes the first down, it's brilliant. If he doesn't, it's a bad call. If the punter fumbles the football and the other team returns it for a touchdown, the coach is an idiot.
It's like if an American football coach calls a fake punt on 4th and 10. If he makes the first down, it's brilliant. If he doesn't, it's a bad call. If the punter fumbles the football and the other team returns it for a touchdown, the coach is an idiot.
This is what happens when your country is packed with Muslims trying to feminize video games.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
It's not trying to be a provocative statement to lure a response, but rather an absurd silly one for the sake of comical relief.
Don't know if that's "exactly" but I gave it my best shot.
Do we know the religious status of the victims? Do we know whether they were inspired by a sexist video game such as Grand Theft Auto?
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,308
Now I know why Sweden has those signs by the edge of waterways showing a car plunging into the water...
How obvious is it that this bridge was opened? I can see it being misconduct if the signage was not obvious and they were already being chased - in such case they could quite reasonably have been focused on trying to get away and not paying attention to the signage. Even if the signage was clear, it's a questionable tactic to stop petty theft with the potential results. Would you put a brick wall down on a busy thoroughfare to try to stop someone who'd stolen some 350 kroner speakers from an electronics store? Probably not, since they may not realize it's happened and might slam into it... and the bridge is a similar case.
Guilty, I'm not sure enough to vote, but it doesn't seem like the smartest move ever. How about hung jury?
How obvious is it that this bridge was opened? I can see it being misconduct if the signage was not obvious and they were already being chased - in such case they could quite reasonably have been focused on trying to get away and not paying attention to the signage. Even if the signage was clear, it's a questionable tactic to stop petty theft with the potential results. Would you put a brick wall down on a busy thoroughfare to try to stop someone who'd stolen some 350 kroner speakers from an electronics store? Probably not, since they may not realize it's happened and might slam into it... and the bridge is a similar case.
Guilty, I'm not sure enough to vote, but it doesn't seem like the smartest move ever. How about hung jury?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
As others have said - the fundamental question is, what authority did the cop have to take action, and what conditions were there on teh use of that authority?
It's a very unsafe society that would allow cops to do whatever they please so long as they do it to stop criminals. Cops must have clearly described powers, but use them responsibly and within prescribed limits, and must never go overboard with them.
If the cop didn't have the legal authority to order the bridge drawn or had the authority but only under certain circumstances (eg, a specific gravity of crimes) that were not met, , then he is guilty, no matter how obvious it was that the barriers were down, that the bridge was up, etc. He committed a wrongful act (misuse of his power) that materially contributed to the death of the people involved.
It's a very unsafe society that would allow cops to do whatever they please so long as they do it to stop criminals. Cops must have clearly described powers, but use them responsibly and within prescribed limits, and must never go overboard with them.
If the cop didn't have the legal authority to order the bridge drawn or had the authority but only under certain circumstances (eg, a specific gravity of crimes) that were not met, , then he is guilty, no matter how obvious it was that the barriers were down, that the bridge was up, etc. He committed a wrongful act (misuse of his power) that materially contributed to the death of the people involved.
