Maybe you are unaware that Australia doesn’t have a “kill first ask questions later” policy.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Melbourne Police Use Apple's Find My App to Track Thieves During Fatal Car Chase
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Do I have to reply to all of you that repeat the same stupid thing?
at least 1 home invasion
2 or 3 stolen cars
at least 2 additional attempted carjackings
dangerous high-speed driving
At the time of the fatal crash, the police were not in active pursuit: "The vehicle kept going and started to engage in serious erratic and high-risk driving so we sought to formulate a plan to safely intercept the vehicle. At that stage we weren't actively pursuing, we were still monitoring from the air wing."
The deceased and they alone chose how it would end.
Who killed them wise guy?
Do you even read the posts you reply to? The original post that multiple people have replied to was:
As soon as someone starts to run stop signs and red lights - you're witnessing attempted murder in real time. The second the chase starts to endanger lives of innocent public - imo, immediate lethal force must be applied.
For example - we've seen may times when the fleeing car is already crashed into someone, but the suspect tries to leave again. At that point - overwhelming lethal force is exactly I want from law enforcement, because it is 100% clear that the criminal will endanger more people if the chase continues.
The Police didn’t kill them. They killed themselves by breaking the law and not complying with the Police request to stop and running a red light on top of that.
Do you people really not read the context of what you're replying to?
Multiple people have now suggested that police should use lethal force (i.e. shoot to kill) people that run a red light, or stop sign.
For the vast majority of us who aren't gun toting, (and to quote Kevin Kline from Wild Wild West) shoot first, shoot later, shoot some more, and then when everybody's dead try to ask a question or two Americans, this idea is ****ing ******* insane.
I know this is a very sensitive subject, but the chase by a helicopter could be the cause of the crash. Hopefully no one else was hurt. I won’t argue against the police’s professional decision to pursuit with the chase but it raises important questions.
Because they would have required a warrant to enter the house which takes valuable time.
It’s the same in the US, if your phone get stolen and can be tracked, the cops can go after the crooks and arrest them as long as they are in their car or outside, but are not allowed to get inside a house without a warrant.
Warrants should be pretty decently quick to issue. I know that some PDs in the US have gone as far as warrants issued by the court via email, within an hour, sometimes within minutes. There should be a system for this for situations such as this one. No need to worry about getting a warrant to go inside a house, when its going to put the public at risk during a 100mph+ chase.
And anyone else in the car? Like the girlfriend screaming at the driver to stop?
The article quite clearly says 100km/h. A little over 60mph.
Nobody suggested lethal force for a traffic violation. What I did read that was suggested is the use of lethal force for an actor who is in a crime spree without regard or safety to the general public who will harm the innocent to get away from the cops.
However, The original post is two stories.
1. Find my being effective and,
2. Some ne’er do wells who stole an iPad (Via home invasion)who were being tracked and putting the public at large in danger and killed themselves in an attempt to flee police.
Edit: Home invasions should be treated as serious crimes.
Last edited:
I stand corrected. On an old iPhone running 12.4.5 I can set the location from another device from that device.
Also in Melbourne there is a recent case where a peep enjoyed a half day car chase about town where the cops did back off. This scum then proceeded into town where he mowed down multiple pedestrians.
Truth is the cops are never right in these circumstances, always condemned by the armchair experts regardless. Meanwhile, no one has expressed concerns for the poor truck driver or the cops, fireys or ambos who had to clean up the mess left by these scum.
Truth is the cops are never right in these circumstances, always condemned by the armchair experts regardless. Meanwhile, no one has expressed concerns for the poor truck driver or the cops, fireys or ambos who had to clean up the mess left by these scum.
nobody except the guy who (a) says police should be authorised to stop any “criminal” who is chased via lethal force (ignoring that one must be charged and found guilty before being deemed a criminal) and (b) equates running a light or stop sign with attempted murder, essentially proposing police hit squads to kill anyone breaking these laws.
If you’re going to argue “no one said x” in response to specific posts, at least try reading the posts that are quoted by those you believe are wrong. It’s not that hard, is it?
Nobody except the guy who said police “have to Be authorized”. Checks and balances.
This case was a home invasion.
No one said Willy-nilly chase and kill.
Oh yeah, cause that can’t ever be abused. They already have enough power to do that. And does theft and (very) dangerous driving warrant the death penalty (which doesn’t exist in Australia) without a trial?
Not defending them but this is such a stupid, entitled comment.
I think the criminals had no authorisation to go past a red traffic light at 100 km/h (62 mph).
[automerge]1583399190[/automerge]
There is "running a red light" and there is "running a red light at over 60 mph". The first can be done without risk if the driver is very careful. The second is attempted murder. In this case it was suicide, because the car collided with a much bigger car. But there could have been pedestrians, there could have been smaller cars, I'd call it attempted murder if nobody is killed, and murder if someone dies. BTW. In the same situation in the USA, if only one of them had died, the other would be convicted for murder.
[automerge]1583399307[/automerge]
You don't need a warrant when a crime is in progress. You can follow a robber into their home without warrant.
Last edited:
I'd imagine that in most places, it would be either dangerous driving or reckless driving if no one was injured, and more likely manslaughter in situations where someone is killed. Murder is specifically a deliberate action. Unless there is evidence to show that the accused specifically wanted to hit a person/vehicle/etc I doubt a prosecutor would go to court with a murder charge, much less would a reasonable jury find them guilty of that charge.
If it happened in the USA there's pretty much equal odds that they could have either been themselves shot and killed in a random mass shooting at a school/bar/concert/shopping mall and/or that they were armed with semi-automatic weapons and shot a dozen people when trying to acquire a new car.
[automerge]1583410541[/automerge]
And the entire point @lazyrighteye, myself and others have tried to point out, is that the penalty for doing so without authorisation, is not a police shooting squad, as hard as it is for some of you to believe.
Last edited:
I get your point after reading the context.
Deciding who's a criminal should be done in court during a trial, based on evidence and witnesses, not during a high speed chase.
Just imagine, that would be turning cops into judges with the right to execute right on the spot!
He said:
The context and meaning there is not referring to 'checks and balances', whereby some 'authorisation' is required before any arbitrary shooting of alleged criminals is allowed. That sentence is claiming that police should be given that hypothetical 'authorisation' without question for any kind of 'criminal' involved in a vehicle chase. Because when you want to 'minimise danger to the public', your first thought should always be "hey let's shoot at this speeding vehicle and try to kill the driver, because the only thing safer than someone trying to escape the police at 100kph, is a vehicle travelling at 100kph with a dead man at the wheel, at least the momentum it had before he was shot, and possibly even more speed if his foot doesn't immediately slip off the pedal once he's a corpse passenger".
But why should we let logic into the debate. Of course the American solution is to ****ing shoot everything.
The English is sufficiently vague it can be taken in two ways. Pick the way that suits your agenda/point of view, which you’ve already made clear by your last paragraph.