OK he's been very seriously injured. Unfortunately that is a risk that those who choose to serve in the police have to acknowledge when they sign up, just as those who serve in the armed forces must acknowledge there are serious risks. There should be a proper welfare provision for anyone who does suffer injury in the line of duty, but equally both the police officer and the public they have chose to server has to be prepared to accept they may have to put themselves in harm's way to protect the public they serve. Whilst the risks should be assessed in any incident, one has to also acknowledge they were dealing with a maniac that was intent on killing and the police's function was to attempt to trace the gunman to prevent further loss of life. In that respect PC Rathband was simply serving his office and shouldn't be entitled to anything from the police other than the normal (and that should be reasonably generous and comfortable) welfare provisions.
Originally Posted by Chroniclelive
It is understood PC Rathband’s case is based on claims officers were given a lack of warning in the moments immediately after Raoul Moat contacted police, threatening to target uniformed police.
This suggests that the grounds of suing wil be on the basis of damages for negligence on the part of the senior officers trying to control, what on all accounts was a fastly evolving fluid incident. Even if the information was passed on one has to ask whether it would have had any effect on the need for many PC's including PC Rathband, to potentially put themselves in harm's way whilst they were trying to locate Moat. By all accounts the Police as a whole had no idea where Moat was. Officers had reasonably to be tasked to locate him, despite the dangers.