London news this morning.
They didn't get the watch but left him with a broken leg.
Reminds me of a similar but much more serious incident in Bangkok.
Moped riders cut an English newly wed girl's hand off because they couldn't remove her rings.
Sent from my SM-G900F using TZ-UK mobile app
Not new or unusual unfortunately, handbags, phones, jewellery, if it's got value and can be snatched they'll try. They'll even ride up on the pavement regardless of pedestrians / children etc. Pays to always be aware of your surroundings (he says walking through central London wearing noise cancelling 🎧 😳😵)
It's rather depressing to watch the video and see pedestrians approaching the man, watch him get run down by the moped, and just cross the road so as not to get involved.
And police cant even chase these guys right? Just shows how EASY it is to steal someones belonging these days...just steal a moped, wear a helmet, just no way to get caught....
SCOOTER.
Huge amounts of that stuff going on recently near me in north London. Saw them yesterday actually, tearing about on a Vespa with no plates. As Kaiserphoenix says, it's a real issue as police can't chase them, you can't put stingers out etc. Aside from just having the police standing around as a visible deterrent, I can't imagine how they can stop it.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Police and the law of this country protects the offender even more haha. You break your leg, you get your stuff stolen, etc no compensation.
You ride a moped, you steal the stuff, if you are chased, you remove your helmet, the police stops chasing and you are free with the loot. If you fall and get injured, you are treated at the tax payers expense and they can even take police to court for causing harm wtf man
I work in Clerkenwell just down the road from a police station and regularly see moped gangs buzzing police cars - racing up along side them at traffic lights and banging on the windows before riding off again. They know the likelihood of getting caught is slim, and even if they are caught the the worst they'll get will be a caution, so not much to lose really.
Totally crazy. Where are these guys when needed.
Get a couple of these guys to patrol London and all sorted hahahaOriginally Posted by -Ally-
Totally crazy. Where are these guys when needed.
My friend recently had a pavement mounted scooter rider try and steal his phone. When the police came round to get his statement they confirmed that these types of crime are increasing in frequency.
I'm thinking a baseball bat might work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHx-0wpx8fE
I wonder what he was wearing at that time?
Ouch ouch ouch... fair enough though! :)
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Having riden scooters and motorbikes as a commuter in London for a number of years, I have to say that scooters in particular are not all that stable at slow speeds. A decent kick or shove should see them taking a tumble, although I'm not suggesting it's a great idea if they're carrying hammers etc. They're also not great up and down kerbs. Surely the police need to keep the general public safe though, with the London terrorist incidents recently I think it's about time a bit of lethal force was employed. Although that's probably a bit non pc in 2017 - they're probably worried one of the perpetrators might be gender fluid so not sure what prison they can send them to or something pathetic!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jesus haha looks bloody painful.
If not for the landing this could have been a gold medal flip.
Crazy, some sort of 'bait victim' and a undercover operation might deter them if a few go down.
I don't think there would be many volunteers to play the victim, I certainly wouldn't fancy being clubbed with a hammer.
Idiot.
I try and be aware of my surroundings whenever I am visiting cities in UK, Europe and beyond.
Basics like using a mobile (calls or photography) away from the roadside inside the footway, walking in the centre of the footway, being aware of folk around you, being alert when crossing the road and using your eyes, ears and nose all the time.
Remove yourself from the potential of harm
Yes, I thought it was a little bit of an over reaction. I'm not quite sure how my views reflect those held widely in Iran but hey, if a couple of tourists are run over or hammered to death on the streets of London I guess it's fine. How dare I suggest the police man up a bit and restore law and order (??)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Erm, what on earth are you on about?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
During the night? Racing round Canary Wharf estates, including through the shopping centres as anti-terror training exercises!Totally crazy. Where are these guys when needed.
Apparently they do this in all big shopping centres etc, after all, it's quicker than on foot.
Rob
I work in central London and a guy was mugged a knife point for his watch last week in broad daylight outside a Wasabi shop at lunch time, they don't even care anymore!
So your views are just to let them carry on then?
WTF omg....where was this please so i avoid that wasabi....
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
High Holborn, although I doubt it will make much difference, if its your time its your time
With tough economic climate, sadly I expect this type of thing to increase. More people getting involved in crime and less money to police them. Very sorry situation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yeah just seems with now brexit looming, things will only get worse.
Indeed, duty of care to criminals can be (and is) taken way too far.
Notably this is not an issue of punishment; it is an issue of pursuing and catching criminals (and hopefully dissuading others). If force is used during the crime (and a moped robbery is undoubtedly a violent act) then force in capturing the perpetrators is justified and duty of care to the perpetrator must logically and morally come second.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th May 2017 at 12:06.
Whether it's watches, phones (my old boss had his stolen right out of his hand while outside the building making a call) or other bikes, London police seem to be very lax on moped-based crimes in my experience :/
Good to see the omnipresent CCTV is an effective deterrent then.
haha yeah exactly the CCTV only serves to issue driving tickets.
Yup a revenue stream, offenders who overwhelmingly won't give plod any back chat, and solved crimes for the stats, what's not to like, right.
Whoops almost forgot mass surveillance, bonus.
A girl I know was robbed in this way and dragged along the pavement as her bag was over her shoulder. The police didn't even bother investigating.
I believe police drivers are told not to chase scooters, as they don't stand much chance of catching them in traffic, and would only endanger everyone else on the road trying. But that's lead to an unfortunate situation that needs to be challenged somehow. And if the criminals get a few bruises in the course of being apprehended, it would be hard to summon up much sympathy.
Which reminds me of this, which is probably a good test of how humanely you feel criminals should be treated:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLBvXnGo8fw
(To be honest, that could have ended very badly)
And that is a good reason not to pursue, to the extent that it is true in any particular situation. But if concern over duty of care to the pursuee (is there really such a concern?) prevents pursuit then ir surely cannot be allowed to stand.
Indeed.
Very good. And perfectly fair and reasonable: No one who got hurt had not put themselves at risk due. It was not entrapment (as some will claim) since no one was tricked into doing something against their will.
By all means, someone is innocent until proven guilty. However, circumstances may well mean that there is enough information available to know when to use reasonable force. For example, in the case of a moped attempting to escape the police, this is and of itself is good enough information (especially after a moped robbery has been reported) to use reasonable force.
The key thing is that "reasonable" in this circumstance must surely be measured more by the need to apprehend a suspect than the duty of care to that suspect just because they allegedly chose to commit a crime on a moped. This protects the rights of all innocent citizens, including law-abiding moped drivers, whilst focussing on moped drivers acting illegally.
I totally agree. Nothing I have said contravenes this in any way. As I pointed out, there can be little doubt that a moped actively trying to evade the police is a target for the use of reasonable force.
I am all in favour of procedure. But the procedure does need to be sensible and to not be overly constrained by political correctness, as does appear to be the issue in the context under discussion.
You say you were threatened with violence? Did the police actually use violence against you? Note also that being in your own home is not similar to the context of this particular discussion, which is moped crime and fleeing mopeds and their drivers.
It is good to hear a level headed voice.
I too would have been outraged if I was threatened in my own home after committing no crime but it is nevertheless worth noting that real thugs don't just threaten. If the police 'only' threatened you (outrageous and shocking though this is) then they were still at least one step up from actual thugs.
In comparison, moped robbers definitely are thugs and so using force to stop moped-riding suspects escaping does seem entirely reasonable.
Exactly. That is precisely my view too. It seems to me that in the specific context under discussion (i.e. pursuit of suspected moped robbers), the use of more force than is apparently commonly the case is both reasonable and necessary, where feasible (feasibility depending on bystanders, not on the wellbeing of the alleged robber).
Rational, reasonable, effective and necessary force does not mean less force and neither does it mean more force: It just means the right amount depending on the circumstances.
A fleeing moped after a moped robbery has been reported is a situation where use of force to stop the fleeing moped seems reasonable (subject to the risk to bystanders). In comparison, holding back pursuit because it might cause injury to the fleeing moped is unreasonable; This would not in my view be a legitimate or ethical reason to hold back from the use of necessary force in pursuit.
I agree. Nothing I have said would allow or support that.
It depends on how you define "vigilantism".
Do you define the bait bike video as vigilantism? I do not. It is simply allowing criminals to act on their own impulses. There is no element of vigilantism in this.
Furthermore, I think it right and proper that the people are part of the law and not merely the recipients of it.
I totally agree. And this is why I favour the appropriate use of force. Allowing criminals to unnecessarily get away with crime is tantamount to directly supporting crime and that robs all law abiding people of a portion of their humanity. Humanity is about peaceful co-existence as far as possible, not the tolerance of crime just because the suspect (who, in the moped scenario, is committing further a crime by fleeing) might get hurt.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th May 2017 at 14:52.
See also my reply above for a level-headed voice.
In brief, a criminal who gets away with a crime against me has stolen my humanity. My humanity is in part restored when he or she is caught and due legal process is followed. The appropriate level of force in apprehending the suspect is part and parcel of maintaining the humanity of all law abiding people in the face of those who do not respect the law and cause harm to others.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th May 2017 at 14:34.
False dichotomy much? ;)
Perhaps you would like to expand on that?
My thoughts exactly
I think there is a problem with the phrase "lethal force". It tends to engender ideas of intention to cause death. Rather the term "potentially lethal force" seems more appropriate, where the force used to capture someone if they do not surrender voluntarily may cause injury or death but where injury or death are not the intention. As such, I think potentially lethal force is an entirely proportionate, reasonable, and necessary level of force to use in the moped robbery context under discussion. Anything less is not trying hard enough.
The key thing is that the pranksters (as I said, nothing they do fits the definition of vigilante) have harmed no one. The harm to the thieves is caused solely the criminal actions of the thief. Sure, the pranksters set up a situation where a criminally inclined person might harm themselves but it still relies 100% on a willingly chosen criminal action for the harm to actually occur.
Exactly, and well done to you for doing what you felt was right. If we should not tolerate crime then everything I have said (i.e. the appropriate, effective and reasonable use of force) seems to me to follow logically from it.
In brief (in the specific context under discussion) I am only in favour of the reasonable use of force to apprehend suspected criminals who are fleeing, i.e. force that does not concern itself with any duty of care to the willingly fleeing suspect. Such duty of care to the willingly fleeing suspect must ethically and logically come second to apprehending the suspect.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th May 2017 at 16:14. Reason: Improved text
It's different in Devon. We had someone wearing a watch try to steal money from a pub.
Fortunately, no watch related revenge taking place..
Quite so. And none of this causes any harm to bystanders. The only person who can be harmed is someone who has willingly chosen to commit a crime.
So what? As I pointed out, only a person who has committed a crime can be harmed in this specific scenario. I.e. The person who commits the crime is morally and practicably 100% responsible for any harm that befalls them in this scenario. The pranksters have done nothing to cause that harm to any specific individual (i.e. they are not hitting anyone over the head or anything like that); the pranksters have only allowed the criminal to harm themselves due to their own criminal decisions (and carelessness, for that matter!).
Quite possibly but (a) I do not conflate the present law in any jurisdiction with ideas of 'right' or 'wrong' and (b) that would be, to my mind, a weakness in this jurisdiction's present laws.
When you do not cause active harm to anyone and set up a situation whereby only a criminal can harm themselves then it seems to me that you cannot morally or rationally be guilty of any crime (at least not of any crime that morally should be a crime).
I agree but that is clearly not the intention.
No, there is no intention that I can see to tempt (or entrap) people to do anything against their will. Only a criminal would see temptation and give in to it.
As such, there is no vigilantism whatsoever.
Exactly so. And thus (in addition to my comments above) I see nothing to be concerned about. It all seems fair, reasonable, and just to me.
Last edited by markrlondon; 9th May 2017 at 15:29.
Thieves should be shot.
In the back. Whilst running away.
In jest, in jest! I don't really think this. Now then, how many people will take me seriously?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
