Opening a bridge to catch thieves - right or wrong?

[Thorgalaeg]

I understand excesive force is to cause a harm or limite personal rights of a person or persons (may it be the delinquent or others) beyond that is reasonable. The policeman simply blocked the street i dont see any particular harm for anybody or any serious rights limitations in that.

The only particular thing here is he used the bridge instead of a police car. Do police have authority to raise a bridge, obviously not in normal circunstances, the same way police cant block a street without a reason, but this were not normal circunstances. Maybe $40 seem ridiculous but there was a crime (or a misdemeanor depending on country law). Should any crime not be prosecuted if the cost of prosecuting it is higher than the cost of the crime itself? Wouldnt such policy leads to chaos and impunity? Also it is dangerous for pedestrians to have a car speeding around streets. So it was a need to stop it ASAP.

THIS may be excesive force on the other hand:

Link to video.

 

[Cheetah]

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.

Didn't it come up earlier in this thread that raising the bridge was an act which had been done in several previous cases? Those apparently went alright...

Again, what if the bridge had been completely closed for repairs instead, and half the bridge was actually missing. If the thieves tried to cross it then, the police could not have been responsible for raising the bridge, but might instead be responsible for initiating a car chase.

I think my point is this:

1. Assuming that the thieves had time to stop, the decision to raise the bridge seems like a very reasonable thing to do. It's a simple, non-violent means of limiting the options of the fleeing thieves.

2. However, I think the decision to initiate and maintain a car chase should perhaps have been looked through more thoroughly. Limited car chases can't be banned however, as criminals often try to flee for a while before coming to their senses, and this would remove a useful tool for the police.

All in all, and conceding that I don't have all the facts, if the question concerns the raising of the bridge, I don't think the police officer acted negligent - or whatever he was actually sentenced with.

 

[luiz]

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.

Impeding traffic by using a mechanism that is already routinely used on normal days seems like a pretty reasonable way to catch petty criminals to me. I doubt we're talking about a metropolis and colossal traffic jams resulting from lifting that bridge. I honestly think it was a sensible thing to do. It's not like they were shooting at the tires or trying any cowboy nonsense that would put others at risk. In fact just blocking traffic for a little while to catch them is the opposite of cowboy nonsense, it's almost a stereotypical Scandinavian way to catch a thief.

The cop here is very much being judged by the deaths. If the two idiots had stopped, as any human being would, there's no way in hell he would be disciplined for lifting the bridge and catching them. And the fact remains that if the thieves saw a signal saying "STOP: LIFTED BRIDGE", saw a damn lifted bridge, and still decided to try their luck, then nobody can be blamed but them.

 

[Cheetah]

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.

It was dark wasn't it? Most likely the traffic was so minuscule that raising the bridge for a few minutes could be done without disturbing too many drivers.

 

[classical_hero]

The thread title was very confusing for me since opening a bridge as I understand how the terminology is used here, would have meant the thieves escaped because the bridge was opened for traffic. Obviously there is a translation from Swedish or different usage of words. So now i know a open bridge is a raised bridge.

 

[Evie]

"Most likely" is another way of saying "I don't know but I'm guessing". In any event, it really doesn't take many inconvenienced drivers for the cost of the bridge-raising to exceed the value of the theft when dealing with a 40$ theft.

A raised bridge would be a perfectly reasonable way to catch a criminal in lots of situation when dealing with crime of reasonable gravity, or crime by people who pose a threat to their fellow men (eg, *armed* robbery in any form, or any kind of violent crime whatsoever). As would most other forms of street blockage.

But over 40$?

No, it's not reasonable.

(And on the flip side to "He could not have known they would drive past the warning sign" argument - he couldn,t have known the signs would not be faulty. These things have been known to happen, a warning sign fail to turn on, someone think they,re safe while they're not, and accident. A minimal risk, but enough of a risk that the opening-the-bridge approach should be used only for crimes of sufficient gravity).

 

[Akka]

If someone kills himself trying to flee legitimate enforcement, I really don't see how it's the responsability of the people pursuing him (unless they used grossly disproportionate force, of course).

If the policeman opened the bridge under the thieves, then he's guilty (that's using disproportionate force, obviously). If he opened the bridge, barricaded it and the two thieves were reckless enough to run through the barricade and plunge in the water, then their death is due to their own idiocy, and the policeman is fully innocent.

 

[Evie]

Akka, the policeman was not charged with murder, or with causing their death.

He was charged with unprofessional conduct, and fined 2000$, while allowed to retain his job.

 

[Akka]

Akka, the policeman was not charged with murder, or with causing their death.

He was charged with unprofessional conduct, and fined 2000$, while allowed to retain his job.

I don't see what's unprofessionnal about blocking the escape of two people acting dangerously (I actually see the theft as the minor crime here, what I see as serious is how they endangered people by driving recklessly ; call their death poetic justice).

 

[classical_hero]

I bet that had he allowed them through and they caused death of a bystander, he would be charged with murder for not raising the bridge.

 

[Cheetah]

"Most likely" is another way of saying "I don't know but I'm guessing". In any event, it really doesn't take many inconvenienced drivers for the cost of the bridge-raising to exceed the value of the theft when dealing with a 40$ theft.

A raised bridge would be a perfectly reasonable way to catch a criminal in lots of situation when dealing with crime of reasonable gravity, or crime by people who pose a threat to their fellow men (eg, *armed* robbery in any form, or any kind of violent crime whatsoever). As would most other forms of street blockage.

But over 40$?

No, it's not reasonable.

(And on the flip side to "He could not have known they would drive past the warning sign" argument - he couldn,t have known the signs would not be faulty. These things have been known to happen, a warning sign fail to turn on, someone think they,re safe while they're not, and accident. A minimal risk, but enough of a risk that the opening-the-bridge approach should be used only for crimes of sufficient gravity).

Sure, it's a guess. But it's a reasonable guess. I'm not just making up random statements.

I still hold that raising the bridge is a completely non-violent means of limiting the thieves options, and thus a perfectly fine thing to do to apprehend them. And while just one driver late for an important enough appointment would have been enough to exceed these particular $40, there's something to be said for deterring crime as well.

In fact, I would say that raising a bridge is far more preferable than other types of road blocks, spike strips, and car chases. It's actually one of the best methods I can think of for forcefully stop a car which is trying to get away. It's unfortunate that it didn't work this time, but I think the idea itself is really good!

Furthermore, had there been any other drivers waiting for the bridge to be lowered again, I'm sure their cars would have already blocked the way for the thieves. Thus I'm assuming that nobody else were inconvenienced by the raising of the bridge. That is, until the thieves tried to cross it, of course.

And finally, if the stop sign and barriers do not function when the bridge is raised, it's rather important that they are tested. It would have been far worse if they didn't work while the bridge was operating during rush hour. A test every time the bridge is to be raised seems terribly silly, so I think that this particular point is quite invalid for this discussion.

 

[luiz]

"Most likely" is another way of saying "I don't know but I'm guessing". In any event, it really doesn't take many inconvenienced drivers for the cost of the bridge-raising to exceed the value of the theft when dealing with a 40$ theft.

A raised bridge would be a perfectly reasonable way to catch a criminal in lots of situation when dealing with crime of reasonable gravity, or crime by people who pose a threat to their fellow men (eg, *armed* robbery in any form, or any kind of violent crime whatsoever). As would most other forms of street blockage.

But over 40$?

No, it's not reasonable.

(And on the flip side to "He could not have known they would drive past the warning sign" argument - he couldn,t have known the signs would not be faulty. These things have been known to happen, a warning sign fail to turn on, someone think they,re safe while they're not, and accident. A minimal risk, but enough of a risk that the opening-the-bridge approach should be used only for crimes of sufficient gravity).

The cost of the operation to catch the criminals frequently exceeds the "value of the crime". When you factor in the cost of prosecution, trial, and eventually incarceration, we're talking of a factor of several times the "value of the crime". I don't see what that has to do with anything.

If we only pursued criminals when the cost of pursuit is lower than the value of the crime we would essentially give up pursuing most criminals.

 

[Borachio]

If we only pursued criminals when the cost of pursuit is lower than the value of the crime we would essentially give up pursuing most criminals.

Indeed. And it's a school of thought that some are taking seriously in practice.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't you see? Who pays for the cost of raising the bridge? Everyone. So the financial burden of the few are transported to the many. Spreading the cost around.

This cop is guilty of the heinous crime of being a socialist.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't see what's unprofessionnal about blocking the escape of two people acting dangerously (I actually see the theft as the minor crime here, what I see as serious is how they endangered people by driving recklessly ; call their death poetic justice).

It's not the 'blocking the escape', it's the ordering the bridge raised...which he had no authority to do. It would be the same if he told a passing motorist to block the road. It may work for catching the thieves. The motorist may not even mind. But the cop has no authority to give that order.

Of course, cops give out orders with no legitimate authority behind them all the time, but this guy gave an order that turned out to have notable consequences, so he got caught. Fine him and forget him.

 

[bhsup]

But over 40$?

No, it's not reasonable.

So justice is all about money in your eyes? There are more important things than economics.

 

[Antilogic]

So justice is all about money in your eyes? There are more important things than economics.

I don't know, that's a pretty American way of viewing it.

 

[Evie]

So justice is all about money in your eyes? There are more important things than economics.

No; the crime of theft is (chiefly) about money in my eyes.

There are certainly crimes out there that endanger public health and well-being, threaten the innocent and so forth. There are even forms of theft which go beyond economic value ; the theft of unique and irreplaceable goods.

But a non-violent gas theft? Yeah, the whole reason that's a crime is purely about the economic aspect.

Tat said, I'm not proposign letting teh criminals go simply. Look for them if and when you can. Arrest them if you find them. But high-speed chases and raised drawbridge over that? Bad priorities.

 

[Yeekim]

It's not the 'blocking the escape', it's the ordering the bridge raised...which he had no authority to do.

I'm pretty sure he had every authority to do that. It was just deemed to be disproportional by the court - a decision I disagree with, but that's irrelevant here.

 

[Evie]

It's not impossible (actually it's fairly likely) that his authority to open the brige is limited to being used in certain circumstances.

It would be foolish not to put limits on where and when police can use their powers.