to think that Labour's stance on moped ramming is stupid

[longfingernails]

The Metropolitan Police have been knocking over moped muggers with their cars, and releasing the footage as a deterrent. It's a fantastic idea which has cut moped crime dramatically.

Predictably, the Shadow Home Secretary has said 'it shouldn't be legal for anyone'.

Why is Labour's instinct always to side with the scumbag criminals over the victims, the police and the decent people?

I'd run them over and then reverse

Bishop

I think it was actually me rather than Barbarianmum.

Just to be clear, I am not advocating lawless policing or unfettered police discretion.

But I strongly believe that knocking moped-riding violent suspects off their bikes - which is not “running them over” - while they’re fleeing after being told to stop is a reasonable use of force in the circumstances. They are exceptionally difficult to catch if simply followed. (I’m not sure more money for the police would help very much against moped violent robbery either, although it would obviously help with other crime.)

Police use of batons, pepper spray and tasers bothers me more TBH.

This does smack of reflexive objection.

Whether the conditions in prison are humane is another story...

Don’t just knock them off their mopeds, run over them as well when their on the floor, don’t like the punishment don’t do the crime.
All these snowflakes that say we shouldn’t harm them, you are part of the problem, why don’t you give them a weekly wage out of your own pockets so they don’t have to rob and injure innocent people, ( they could always try working for a living )

They"ve always got the option to stop. I think once the offence is comitted they are fair game. However, same as in a car, the police have to show restraint if public are around or other vehicles. Too many innocent bystanders have been injured or killed in police chases over the years.

@Hesta54 absolutely!

ElizabethG81 So it’s ok to commit a crime if your a classed as a child is it ?

FFS, people are horrible. Run back over them? ‘Don’t like the punishment, don’t do the crime’. We have a judicial system and laws for a reason. Our laws do not include random physical punishment, because the state should be better than criminals.

I’m quite happy to ‘give people a wage out of my pay packet’. That’s what the tax and benefits system should be for.

MG just catching up on this

Really genuinely taken aback at how many yay hit the bastards with a car people there are

The police here are not supposed to be judge jury and possibly executioner

Poeple are almost baying for blood and the dehumanising language - jesus

The Met get things wrong ALL THE TIME remember Jean Charles Menezes who they shot and killed and then they LIED to justify their mistake they lied and lied and lied until there was absolute proof they were lying and then they said oh yeah that >> but still no-one was held to account

It worries me the blind faith that people put in teh police

I wonder if all the people who love this idea live in London...

And all this "oh imagine you've just been mugged" I don't need to imagine it and I think seeing the man hit with a car on my account would traumatise me even more TBH.

The roads in London are dangerous enough without the police deliberately running people over FFS
PLus what of the psychology>>> This is what terrorists have done here more than once, use a car as a weapon. This is now comfirmed> the police say cars can be used as weaponns as well? NONONO a car is a form of transport we do NOT want to get into the general psyche into a densely populated area that using it as a weapon is a "thing" and a fairly normal "thing" at that after all the police do it.

So much no.

No, that's not what I said at all. My point here is that it's not OK for the police to knock children off mopeds. It's simplistic and wilful misinterpretation to say that means I think it's OK for children to commit crime.

So a child ceases to be a child when they commit an offence? Interesting definition.

Who said that?

The criminal law recognises children and young persons. And treats them differently from adults in how they’re tried and sentenced.

If you’re saying that most of those riding mopeds and waving zombie killer knives or bottles of acid around are children under, say, 14, I don’t believe you.

I never said anything about 14 year olds, I said a child is a human being under 18. FFS, this is tedious.

"Next thing you know the police will start shooting innocent (black) people and not getting prosecuted, like they do in my country (USA)."

The Met are already very good at killing black men they arrest >>

Not up to the standard of the USA police as sadly they are not routinely armed.

Maybe they can start running them over now.

Group of black men acting "suspiciously" (eg talking on teh street after 10pm) - run the fuckers over! Well they looked like they were up to no good...

FWIW AFAIK no-one has ever really been held to account for any of the deaths in custody. Or the other stuff they get up to.

So a child ceases to be a child when they commit an offence?

I suppose if they stop they can be id'd if they don't then they're considered a suspect

ElizabethG81 It’s not ok for people under 18 or any age to commit crime against anybody or anything and the police should deal with it, with as much force as necessary, what should the do ? Just a little telling off, don’t do it again there’s a good person

Group of black men acting "suspiciously" (eg talking on teh street after 10pm) - run the fuckers over! Well they looked like they were up to no good...

Holy fucking fuck. Where is there a policy of just running over black men? Where is that happening?

We are talking about an approved tactic in stopping suspects of violent crimes THAT HAVE FAILED TO STOP WHEN LEGALLY ASKED TO DO SO

Our laws do not include random physical punishment, because the state should be better than criminals.

It's a good job that is being proposed then is it.

Isn't this a specialist unit? Only deployed against known criminals in the immediate act and trained to minimise the likelihood of harm?

Anyway, I've been knocked off a moped multiple times, mostly by people who aren't trained and certainly weren't minimising the likelihood of harm (admittedly they weren't doing it on purpose). I've not even broken a bone, it's eminently survivable.

If they had guns perhaps they could shoot there tyres out, after all they could always stop, I don’t know many black people shot by police in U.K.,

What if the police decide that "as much force as necessary" means shooting them? How far are we willing to let the police go?

not being proposed FFS

Although some on here are so hard of reading that they think that is whats happening

I never said anything about 14 year olds, I said a child is a human being under 18. FFS, this is tedious.

Yes it is tedious. You plainly don’t consider what you say.

Being under 18 is not the definition of a child.

There is no reason to believe that children, properly defined, are carrying out these appalling violent crimes. ‘Young persons’ might be, but then I think they’re old enough to be arrested in this way if necessary.

Your point is null.

What if the police decide that "as much force as necessary" means shooting them?

Hold straw man slippery slope batman, we are reaching so far now.

ElizabethG81 what’s wrong with using as much force as necessary, if failing to stop when requested, They could always stop