A LEttrr to KB

[wari]

Good day

I came across some people writing about a dearly loved friend of mine Mark Tan-Wanklyn who was killed by a car on Sydmonds St and K Rd Intersection back in 9th Feb.

I just thought I'd let you know so you can tell your readers, a young Asian girl (19) ran the red light - she was 50m away from the lights when the light turned red. So it has to be deliberate. She hit a Ford Falcon, which in turn hit my mate of his bike. She did not stop there, she continued to drive, and ran over my mates head - giving him injuries which were not survivable.

The Police, or shall we say The Ignorant Police, have charged this lady with Reckless Driving, no other charges are planning on being laid as they say she is a Young Inexperienced Driver on a Restricted License with no previous convictions...

So if your a good boy or girl before you kill someone then that's ok?

I just thought I'd let you know, to make matters worse she (the lady who killed him) is denying responsibility.

She next appears in Auckland District Court 22 April.

I would love to see Justice done - but I am reminded we live in NZ.

To my friend Mark Tan-Wanklyn who loved his Motorbike - R.I.P
To your members - drive and be aware and be safe.

My friend leaves behind many close friends and a loving wife who only wishes justice but is resigned to see this girl walk out with a hit over the palm with a wet blanket thanks to the Police.

[T.I.E]

sorry to hear.
and that must be so hard when someone is not being made accountable for their actions. as how much is a life worth.


what can you do?
how can we stop this kinda stupid driving from happening.
its discusting.
what can i do?

[bugjuice]

nice of him to write to us.
That is fukin unreal about the charges tho. A man is dead, and she's not being done for it. How fukin outragous is that? No justice

[MSTRS]

I feel for you. That is so typical. At least the court got it right with that farmer in Northland.

[ManDownUnder]

WOW

I just hope justice is done.

My thoughts and condolences to family and friends...
MDU

[Sniper]

Dammit, Im sorry Wari.

[ManDownUnder]

Of course the court is a public place, if you wanted to sit in and hear all the submissions we're quite able to do that.
MDU

[wari]

I BEtttr clearr dis up ...

DA lettrr I posted was sent to KB admin from a friend ofda de-ceased ..

NOtt re-lated di-rectly to me ...

SOrry about da con-fusion ..

[Waylander]

yea how can anyone mistake the letter for anything you wrote anyway? The letter made sense.


Sorry to hear about this one, May be time for some lynch mob justice, biker style. I got a rope we can use now me need a bike with high torque to tie it to...

[N4CR]

Sorta wish I did'nt read that now. That REALLY pissed me off :angry2:
'Yay im not responsible for killing someone, really...' :angry2:
ARGH!

'stomps off in an angry rage'

Deepest condolences wari and I HOPE maximum charges are given :ar15: .

Peace.

[750Y]

that is terrible news. seems so unjust. a credit to his wife who is only hoping for justice... I hope like hell justice is served for her sake & the sake of us all who are out there trying to stay alive. poor judgement is the REAL killer out on the roads. i hope the powers that be will wake up to this fact & put in place some measures to increase driver awareness & responsibility.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

I feel for you. That is so typical. At least the court got it right with that farmer in Northland.
So true. The guns are out here and we will use them when life and limb are at risk. The only time I see law enforcement is when I get up ti 111kmp.

[Zapf]

Good day

I came across some people writing about a dearly loved friend of mine Mark Tan-Wanklyn who was killed by a car on Sydmonds St and K Rd Intersection back in 9th Feb.

I just thought I'd let you know so you can tell your readers, a young Asian girl (19) ran the red light - she was 50m away from the lights when the light turned red. So it has to be deliberate. She hit a Ford Falcon, which in turn hit my mate of his bike. She did not stop there, she continued to drive, and ran over my mates head - giving him injuries which were not survivable.

The Police, or shall we say The Ignorant Police, have charged this lady with Reckless Driving, no other charges are planning on being laid as they say she is a Young Inexperienced Driver on a Restricted License with no previous convictions...

So if your a good boy or girl before you kill someone then that's ok?

I just thought I'd let you know, to make matters worse she (the lady who killed him) is denying responsibility.

She next appears in Auckland District Court 22 April.

I would love to see Justice done - but I am reminded we live in NZ.

To my friend Mark Tan-Wanklyn who loved his Motorbike - R.I.P
To your members - drive and be aware and be safe.

My friend leaves behind many close friends and a loving wife who only wishes justice but is resigned to see this girl walk out with a hit over the palm with a wet blanket thanks to the Police.

is it "Reckless Driving" or "Reckless Driving causing Death"?

what about "man slaughter"?

[Lou Girardin]

I guess it's not serious because she wasn't speeding.

[Gixxer 4 ever]

Good day

I came across some people writing about a dearly loved friend of mine Mark Tan-Wanklyn who was killed by a car on Sydmonds St and K Rd Intersection back in 9th Feb..

I remember this. Very sad.




I just thought I'd let you know, to make matters worse she (the lady who killed him) is denying responsibility...

I struggle with this. She should have been charged with murder. I know you think the same but maybe we are to blame for not shouting load enough. I have issues with this stuff so better not go on or I will get fucken angry and then lose the plot but we are all like vegetables and we are going to see things get worse. Stand up and shout kick ass and get in and support people who are trying to change things. I note certain information published by the sensible sentencing trust are to be removed from police stations. This would appear to have come from the government. What the fuck is going on. I will fight to the end Helen if you are going to continue down this road. Fucken unbelievable. Now I am angry. Sorry people and I feel for this family and with others.

[sAsLEX]

is it "Reckless Driving" or "Reckless Driving causing Death"?

what about "man slaughter"?

why not murder, if i pulled the trigger of a gun while pointing it at a crowd this is what i would be done for is it not??

running a red light is the same as pulling a trigger, making an active decision to disobey a safety device resulting in someones death, and this should not be swept under the carpet like this over and over again.

Or did she not "understand" red lights!?

[sAsLEX]

yea how can anyone mistake the letter for anything you wrote anyway? The letter made sense.


Sorry to hear about this one, May be time for some lynch mob justice, biker style. I got a rope we can use now me need a bike with high torque to tie it to...

have a look herehttp://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=958&postcount=1 , was fine in the beginning then the KB virus took over!!!!

oh and the first pic http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=61

[madboy]

I disagree with murder, on the basis that it was not a deliberate decision to take someones life.

I do, however, feel that manslaughter would be appropriate on the basis that it was a deliberate decision to commit the offence (running the red) which inadvertantly resulted in death. In the eyes of the law my understanding is that there has to be intent established before murder can be proven. And since the intent was to be a dumb f*** and run the red, then the death was accidental. Bit like a pub fight, you take a swing to knock someone flat cos they pinched your g/fs butt, get the angle slightly wrong and stick their nose into their brain and kill them. Deliberate punch, accidental death.

Look - I agree with everyone here, the stupid stupid stupid woman needs something more than reckless driving. But in the eyes of the law, murder is not a fair call, manslaughter should be a dead cert.

[sAsLEX]

Ahh true Madboy.


Now what would happen if it was a 16-25 year old male in a "boy Racer" car that did it?? I am sure he wouldn't even see the book flying at him! Nor would they take into account his innexperience, that would just help their case

[scumdog]

I guess it's not serious because she wasn't speeding.

You're all heart and sensitivity Lou.......

[Zapf]

any idea if we are allowed to hold up banners in the court room? or just outside the court room?

I really HATE red light runners... specially ones that still go thru 2 seconds after it turns red

[Mr Skid]

any idea if we are allowed to hold up banners in the court room? or just outside the court room?

I really HATE red light runners... specially ones that still go thru 2 seconds after it turns red
I'd expect you'd be removed from the court room quite quickly.
Judges tend to like to keep a tight rein on matters in their court rooms.

I can't see anything precluding an intimidating presence inside or outside the court room, but I'd be inclined to think about the impact on the victim's family first.

If you gained the permission of the family, and got people organised, you could probably have a decent presence outside the courtroom, which combined with a press release could highlight the issue in the news media.

Althernatively, you could contact the Herald, and see if they'd accept an opinion piece from you discussing this case and issues surrounding it i.e. driver licencing + training / immigration issues (if that's a factor in this instance) / motorcycle awareness or similar.

I see ACC are running the 'look out for motorbikes' campaign again. They might be keen to help you with information etc if they think it'll tie in with their campaign.

[ktulu]

:angry2: :angry2: :angry2:

DON"T EVEN FUCKEN START ME ON OUR ABSOLUTELY RUBBISH "" PUNISHMENTS "" WE GIVE PEOPLE

[jazbug5]

I'd expect you'd be removed from the court room quite quickly.
Judges tend to like to keep a tight rein on matters in their court rooms.

I can't see anything precluding an intimidating presence inside or outside the court room, but I'd be inclined to think about the impact on the victim's family first.

If you gained the permission of the family, and got people organised, you could probably have a decent presence outside the courtroom, which combined with a press release could highlight the issue in the news media.

Althernatively, you could contact the Herald, and see if they'd accept an opinion piece from you discussing this case and issues surrounding it i.e. driver licencing + training / immigration issues (if that's a factor in this instance) / motorcycle awareness or similar.

I see ACC are running the 'look out for motorbikes' campaign again. They might be keen to help you with information etc if they think it'll tie in with their campaign.

Papparazzi, you make a lot of sense. I read this and felt more furious with each additional detail- I mean- she RAN OVER HIS HEAD AFTER HE"D COME OFF HIS BIKE!!!
However, trying to appeal to the judge by creating a fuss in his courtroom is hardly going to work. Is there any point collating this and other instances of idiotic lawmaking and then starting up some sort of petition? Do Ulysses already have something on the go? Is there a way of getting something really well organised on the go- nationally?
This is absolutely revolting. So we should be revolting, too....

[Indiana_Jones]

F*cking hell our PC correct world makes my blood boil, We need more Tori's

-Indy

[James Deuce]

- I mean- she RAN OVER HIS HEAD AFTER HE"D COME OFF HIS BIKE!!!


Happened to me. Broke my neck and back in 4 places. Dude got disqualified for a month and fined $600. At the end of the day, you are better off putting it behind you and moving on. Punishing the perpetrator accomplishes a big fat zero in terms of the grieving process. The family and friends need to come to terms with their loss, but revenge is utterly hollow. There are better things in life that wallowing in negative feelings and attitudes.

[Waylander]

Just wanted to say, nice avatar there Jim2. Like Godsmack do ya? and clever to put the yammy forks in the middle.


Anyway like I said before I got the rope if someone wants to offer up their bike for a biker style lynchin... Oh and without punishing those that do this kind of crap people don't think of what would happen to them if they decide to run a red light. Make an example of them so others learn.

[James Deuce]

Just wanted to say, nice avatar there Jim2. Like Godsmack do ya? and clever to put the yammy forks in the middle.


Anyway like I said before I got the rope if someone wants to offer up their bike for a biker style lynchin... Oh and without punishing those that do this kind of crap people don't think of what would happen to them if they decide to run a red light. Make an example of them so others learn.(Thanks :))

I know what you are saying, but the cornerstone of modern civilisation is the judicial system, no matter how screwed up. Without it we are just beer swilling savages. The Judicial system dishes out punishment to fit a crime against the values of a society, not the victim. If we stop regarding motor vehicle incidents as accidents, we would go a long way toward providing motivation to behave better on the road, as the punishments would be more in line with the result of an "accident".

However, the "victim" and their family have to continue to live, to move on, and learn to live without their lost family member. That should be their primary focus, not organising or supporting a lynch mob.

In this particular case the chap killed was a very bright individual, and even though we'll never know I think NZ missed out when this guy died. But, and this is a big but, and may appear cruel, the accident report mentions that he was travelling in excess of 60km/hr in a 50km/hr zone. The Police themselves have said that they don't believe that the excessive speed contributed to the accident. "Could have beens" are a bit pointless, but if he hadn't have been speeding he wouldn't have been at a point in time and space to be struck by an incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced driver.

[Waylander]

(Thanks :))

I know what you are saying, but the cornerstone of modern civilisation is the judicial system, no matter how screwed up. Without it we are just beer swilling savages. The Judicial system dishes out punishment to fit a crime against the values of a society, not the victim. If we stop regarding motor vehicle incidents as accidents, we would go a long way toward providing motivation to behave better on the road, as the punishments would be more in line with the result of an "accident".

However, the "victim" and their family have to continue to live, to move on, and learn to live without their lost family member. That should be their primary focus, not organising or supporting a lynch mob.

In this particular case the chap killed was a very bright individual, and even though we'll never know I think NZ missed out when this guy died. But, and this is a big but, and may appear cruel, the accident report mentions that he was travelling in excess of 60km/hr in a 50km/hr zone. The Police themselves have said that they don't believe that the excessive speed contributed to the accident. "Could have beens" are a bit pointless, but if he hadn't have been speeding he wouldn't have been at a point in time and space to be struck by an incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced driver.
Was mostley joking about the lynch mob thing mate, Texan remember? Still use that form of justice in some parts. I'm not one to say death for death but I think a more sever punishment for those that break a law. Like you said punisment according to the result rather than the law broken would be much better.

[Ixion]

(Thanks :))

.. to be struck by an incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced driver.
With all respect this seems to me to be more than just "incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced ".

We've all been those things at some stage.

But in this case the driver

(a) Ran through a red light. Deliberately. I do not believe that you could get a restricted license without knowing that red means stop. So that bit wasn't just incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced . It was wilful negligence.

(b) She hit the car in front and that in turn hit the motorcyclist. She then continued driving (after hitting the Falcon) and ran over the motorcyclist. What sort of a person has a major impact with another vehicle and DOESN"T STOP ? So that wasn't just incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced . That was gross disdain for any injury she might have done.

I'd want at least manslaughter if it were me.

Saying it's just because of "incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced " is a cop-out.

She was wilfully negligent, and is also apparently completely remorseless.

Even someone who has never driven a vehicle in their life knows stop on red, and would stop after hitting someone .

If it were me, yes, I'd hang her. Society doesn't need people like that. And , yep, I'd pull the lever.

[James Deuce]

With all respect this seems to me to be more than just "incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced ".

We've all been those things at some stage.

But in this case the driver

(a) Ran through a red light. Deliberately. I do not believe that you could get a restricted license without knowing that red means stop. So that bit wasn't just incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced . It was wilful negligence.

(b) She hit the car in front and that in turn hit the motorcyclist. She then continued driving (after hitting the Falcon) and ran over the motorcyclist. What sort of a person has a major impact with another vehicle and DOESN"T STOP ? So that wasn't just incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced . That was gross disdain for any injury she might have done.

I'd want at least manslaughter if it were me.

Saying it's just because of "incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced " is a cop-out.

She was wilfully negligent, and is also apparently completely remorseless.

Even someone who has never driven a vehicle in their life knows stop on red, and would stop after hitting someone .

If it were me, yes, I'd hang her. Society doesn't need people like that. And , yep, I'd pull the lever.

If you're going to quote me please do it in context.

Cheers

Jim

[madboy]

The point sAsLEX made re: boyracer - hell yeah they'd fry him/her! And if the Falcon that got hit had been a lowered Integra with chromies, they probably woulda found that poor innocent person partially liable too.

As regards that "not stopping" after smacking the Falcon - it's a tough call to make the assumption that she deliberating tried to run him over. Hey, i'm not defending her here, what I'm saying is that we all have different panic reflexes, which is what her actions during the crash would have been. She might have hit the gas instead of the brake, coulda thought oh shit, I'm outta here... who knows?

Either way, I'm still voting manslaughter!

[FROSTY]

Maybee we need to introduce vehicular manslaughter into our legal system

[speedpro]

The Police themselves have said that they don't believe that the excessive speed contributed to the accident. "Could have beens" are a bit pointless, but if he hadn't have been speeding he wouldn't have been at a point in time and space to be struck by an incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced driver.
And if he'd been going even faster he wouldn't have been in a position to get nailed either. There is only one victim here and only one criminal.

I feel pretty strongly about this and regards your comment "if he hadn't have been speeding he wouldn't have been at a point in time and space to be struck by an incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced driver" - you can fuck off.

[Skyryder]

Just another example of one law for immigrants and another for the natives. Even if she is found guilty the judge will most likely giver her the cash payment option. Just bloody WRONG.

Skyryder

[soundbeltfarm]

Just another example of one law for immigrants and another for the natives. Even if she is found guilty the judge will most likely giver her the cash payment option. Just bloody WRONG.

Skyryder

hearing ya there mate.
fucken asians
i shouldn't say that probably, thers plenty of good ones.
and a few are my personal friends and they see where we coming from.
but thats the first thing that comes to mind .
they can do whatever they want and get a slap on the wrist and pay some money.
most of their driving is shithouse.
thats arrogance saying " im not responsible"
we should shoot the bitch then say it wasn't us your honour the gun was the one that got her i just pulled the trigger.

[spudchucka]

I guess it's not serious because she wasn't speeding.
You know better Lou. Care to explain to everyone what is required before laying a manslaughter charge in these circumstances?

[spudchucka]

:angry2: :angry2: :angry2:

DON"T EVEN FUCKEN START ME ON OUR ABSOLUTELY RUBBISH "" PUNISHMENTS "" WE GIVE PEOPLE
The maximum penalty for reckless driving causing death is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $20,000.

Blame the Courts and the soft Judges.

[spudchucka]

I'd want at least manslaughter if it were me.
Me too. But go and study the law and tell me whether manslaughter could be laid against this person.

[Ixion]

Me too. But go and study the law and tell me whether manslaughter could be laid against this person.

Crimes Act 1961

160.Culpable homicide—

(1)Homicide may be either culpable or not culpable.
(2)Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person—
(a)By an unlawful act; or
(b)By an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty; or
(c)By both combined; or
(d)By causing that person by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do an act which causes his death; or
(e)By wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person.
(3)Except as provided in section 178 of this Act, culpable homicide is either murder or manslaughter

According to the statements we have (admittedly, her version may be different) she deliberately failed to stop at a red light. Not just a roaring through at the tail end of the amber but a deliberate ignore the light. An unlawful act.Then after hitting another vehicle she failed to stop. And the failure must have been significant, because it was not originally her vehicle that knocked the biker off , but the one in front of her. So she had to overtake orpass that vehicle to run the biker over. Failure to perform a legal duty.

And under the old common law definition of homicide due to reckless and wilful negligence, she was certaily reckless, and negligent, and it was wilful.

Once again, caution required because we have only one side of the story. Not saying that it is wrong, but we've not heard her explanation.

On the facts we have this sounds more that the "usual" intersection smash.


And I don't agree that inexperience or training have anything to do with it. I asked my 80 year old mother in law who's never driven in her life. Can't get much more inexperienced or untrained. She knew you stop at a red light and stop if you hit something.

It's not murder because there was no intent aforethought, so if it was culpable it was manslaughter.IMHO.

I suspect that the prosecution figure she's young , tearful, will get sympathy from judge and jury, and decided to go with a charge they knew they could win. And killing a biker doesn't rank the same as killing an old lady.

Want to bet that if it had been a boy racer who killed an old lady it would have been manslaughter ?

[FEINT]

She has her restricted license which means that she probably started to drive / learn to drive in NZ. She has obviously passed her Restricted driving test which means she knows the road rules. If she chose to go through that red light then she did it on her own account and not on the rest of the asian drivers out there. (There are quite a few pretty bad ones around)

I think she should be charged. What she did was stupid and reckless. My thoughts are with the family and his friends. I hope the courts will deliver justice.

Ride safe out there.

[spudchucka]

Crimes Act 1961

160.Culpable homicide—

(1)Homicide may be either culpable or not culpable.
(2)Homicide is culpable when it consists in the killing of any person—
(a)By an unlawful act; or
(b)By an omission without lawful excuse to perform or observe any legal duty; or
(c)By both combined; or
(d)By causing that person by threats or fear of violence, or by deception, to do an act which causes his death; or
(e)By wilfully frightening a child under the age of 16 years or a sick person.
(3)Except as provided in section 178 of this Act, culpable homicide is either murder or manslaughter

According to the statements we have (admittedly, her version may be different) she deliberately failed to stop at a red light. Not just a roaring through at the tail end of the amber but a deliberate ignore the light. An unlawful act.Then after hitting another vehicle she failed to stop. And the failure must have been significant, because it was not originally her vehicle that knocked the biker off , but the one in front of her. So she had to overtake orpass that vehicle to run the biker over. Failure to perform a legal duty.

And under the old common law definition of homicide due to reckless and wilful negligence, she was certaily reckless, and negligent, and it was wilful.

Once again, caution required because we have only one side of the story. Not saying that it is wrong, but we've not heard her explanation.

On the facts we have this sounds more that the "usual" intersection smash.


And I don't agree that inexperience or training have anything to do with it. I asked my 80 year old mother in law who's never driven in her life. Can't get much more inexperienced or untrained. She knew you stop at a red light and stop if you hit something.

It's not murder because there was no intent aforethought, so if it was culpable it was manslaughter.IMHO.

I suspect that the prosecution figure she's young , tearful, will get sympathy from judge and jury, and decided to go with a charge they knew they could win. And killing a biker doesn't rank the same as killing an old lady.

Want to bet that if it had been a boy racer who killed an old lady it would have been manslaughter ?
If it is so clearly manslaughter then why do we have offences like dangerous driving, careless driving and reckless driving causing death or injury?

[Waylander]

Call it what you will, the punnishment should be more sever when someone does period. As in mandatory jail time more than a few months.

[spudchucka]

Call it what you will, the punnishment should be more sever when someone does period. As in mandatory jail time more than a few months.
Hey, I agree. I'm just trying to get people to think about what they are saying on this topic. Its too easy to say "charge the fucker with Blah Blah Blah" without even knowing whether, in the circumstances, the person could be charged with that offence.

[Jeremy]

Now I'm certainly not a lawyer (nor training to become one, a BSc(CompSci) is what I want). But I always thought that you could be charged with the sum of all the crimes commited.

So lets see:

Running through a red light. 25 demerit points? plus a fine
Breaching terms of license. 25 demerit points. plus $400 fine. Obviously breaking the road rules is breaching your license terms.
Unsafe driving. (More demerit points?) plus fine.
Hitting another a vehicle (does this come under willfull damage of another's property?), fine + replacement costs. Normally your insurance would cover you but as I've noticed if you look in the fine print usually if you commit a crime then they don't have to cover you if they don't want to.
Fleeing from a crime scene (jail time + fine?)
Not stopping at an accident (fine + demerit points?)
Reckless driving causing death. (fine + demerit points + jail time)

Now there is one thing I remember from legal studies in 6th form, is that Judges are are completely free to make up new laws on the spot. So there's nothing to stop the judge adding more to the sentence because you should never be in a position where you are unable to brake and stop an accident.

[Kwaka-Kid]

Sorry to hear about this wari :(

what about like when she pops outta court someone runs up and slugs her the quick 1-2 ? no?..

[Waylander]

Sorry to hear about this wari :(

what about like when she pops outta court someone runs up and slugs her the quick 1-2 ? no?..
I'll do it.

Anyway what's this about judges being able to make up laws on the spot? I hope there is somewhere where they have to justify this new law else people who go to court could be fined and such just becouse the judge thinks the person is an idiot.

[Ixion]

If it is so clearly manslaughter then why do we have offences like dangerous driving, careless driving and reckless driving causing death or injury?

Wouldn't care to say this one was clearly manslaughter. Just that is what I'd have gone for . Bearing in mind again, that we have only one side of the picture. The prosecution obviously don't think it's clearly manslaughter.

The offences you specify are a gradual continuum, with (obviously) manslaughter at the far end. So anyone who is careless, or worse reckless and someone dies as a result could face those charges. Careless might be a momentary lapse of attention, which happened to occur at the wrong time and place. Reckless might be an initial "who cares" followed by behaviour that indicates a "oh hell what have I done" and sensible behaviour .

What I'm wrestling with in this case is (1) it appears that the red light running was very deliberate, not just a "I thought I'd get through on the amber" . And (2) the fact that she had to pass the car in front, which actually knocked him off (but presumably didn't kill him) and then run over him. If she had stopped after hitting the Falcon he would (presumably) have lived. (Disclaimer again, that all this is based on one view point only. Hearing her story might alter things. But the one view point is the only one we have here).

"Just" (just deliberately in quotes to mark it as ironical) running a light late and hitting and killing a biker , ok maybe reckless driving or careless driving. (Not sure where dangerous fits in, think maybe there has to be speed or something for that. This is more reckless/careless). Driving over him, after a non-culpable smash, maybe careless. eg , perhaps, if it had been the Falcon driver that ran over him.

But this seems more than that, more wilful, more negligent. And take the two of them together, and the sum is more than the parts. She wasn't just reckless in going through the red light. She wasn't just careless in running overhim. She compounded one with the other.

[Jeremy]

I'll do it.

Anyway what's this about judges being able to make up laws on the spot? I hope there is somewhere where they have to justify this new law else people who go to court could be fined and such just becouse the judge thinks the person is an idiot.

A judge in a higher court can overturn the law.

EDIT: Went to LTSA website, they say:

Failing to stop after an accident where a person is injured or killed: Imprisonment for up to 5 years, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both, and disqualification for at least 1 year

Reckless or dangerous driving causing injury to or the death of another person: Imprisonment for up to 5 years, or a fine not exceeding $20,000, or both, and disqualification for at least 1 year

So that's up to 10 years with up to a 20,000 fine. And a minimum of 2 years disqualification.

[spudchucka]

Have a read of young Oliver's story and see what the likely differences are between his case and the case at hand.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/education/crim_js/fullstory.html

[Waylander]

A judge in a higher court can overturn the law.
But who controls that one?

[spudchucka]

A judge in a higher court can overturn the law.
A judge of a higher court can overturn a decision of a lower court. No court can re-write the law, only parliament can do that.

[Krusti]

The thing is that the Police in laying the charge of Reckless driving are saying that the person was fully aware of what they were doing.

I am amazed that it would be only Reckless not Reckless causing death.

Reckless driving charge is used when the person knows what they are doing and continue regardless. Not having read the file I can not say what the charge should be but if in fact she knew what she was doing then a charge which carries a more severe minimum sentence would be appropriate.

Maximum penalties mean diddly squat......minimum penalties are what matters!

[Jeremy]

Have a read of young Oliver's story and see what the likely differences are between his case and the case at hand.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/education/crim_js/fullstory.html

Hmm noticed something a little odd on: http://www.justice.govt.nz/education/crim_js/fullstory2.html

How come they didn't take away Oliver's keys to the car? If he isn't caught breaching bail in his car, how come the person who gave him keys allowing him to breach bail isn't charged? And if no-one gave him the keys how come he's not charged with theft?

[spudchucka]

Wouldn't care to say this one was clearly manslaughter. Just that is what I'd have gone for .I understand that, what I'm asking is whether it could actually be succesfully prosecuted. I'd like the people that slagged off the police at the start of the thread to give some thought to what they were actually saying.


Hearing her story might alter things. But the one view point is the only one we have here).Good thing no one is actually on trial here then, aye!

[Krusti]

Apart from all the discussions re penalties etc...this is a very disturbing crash and I feel for the families involved. Life really sux sometimes and I can not imagine how the family of this poor guy are feeling.

All I can say is I feel for them, poor buggers.

[Gen]

NZ is notorious for fucking over victims and rewarding the perpetrator.
Interesting how, 100-200 years and more ago, you got your hands chopped off for stealing a loaf of bread.

These days you get free bed and board in prison for a crime
.And a playstation and early parole if you're a 'model inmate'.Then you go out and murder, rape, speed again.

And the cycle continues.
It's fucking pathetic, and I bloody hope the law system does not reflect the majority of people's views on crime.

[spudchucka]

And if no-one gave him the keys how come he's not charged with theft?
A victim still has to make a complaint of unlawful taking before he could be charged with that offence. I guess he was driving his mum or dad's car and they didn't want to make a complaint.

[spudchucka]

I am amazed that it would be only Reckless not Reckless causing death.
I'd like to see that confirmed. I'd be surprised if it isn't reckless causing death.

[Zapf]

hearing ya there mate.
fucken asians
i shouldn't say that probably, thers plenty of good ones.
and a few are my personal friends and they see where we coming from.
but thats the first thing that comes to mind .
they can do whatever they want and get a slap on the wrist and pay some money.
most of their driving is shithouse.
thats arrogance saying " im not responsible"
we should shoot the bitch then say it wasn't us your honour the gun was the one that got her i just pulled the trigger.

careful.... and thankyou :) call me a banana :banana:

[spudchucka]

Now there is one thing I remember from legal studies in 6th form, is that Judges are are completely free to make up new laws on the spot.
I think you had better re-read that text book.

[Krusti]

I'd like to see that confirmed. I'd be surprised if it isn't reckless causing death.

Especially seeing that the Causing death part is the easy part to prove!

[Ixion]

Have a read of young Oliver's story and see what the likely differences are between his case and the case at hand.

http://www.justice.govt.nz/education/crim_js/fullstory.html

Well, Oliver had smoked a joint . Bad point. He also had a bad record. This might have influenced the prosecutor's choice of charge, but would be irrelevant to the actual case, since a person's record can't (normally) be brought forward at the trial. (Nothing specifically to indicate racing here)

So Oliver and the Asian girl both went through a red light . Oliver had the joint (though he wasn't charged with being under the influence of drugs so that may not be very relevant). But the girl in this case has the added factor that she didn't stop, and the death was (it appears) due to this . If she had stopped when she hit the Falcon he might not have died. She continued on , somehow, past the first car she hit, and ran over the biker. Which to my mind makes things much worse

So I personally don't see a big difference. But once again, the prosecutor has heard her story. We haven't.

[spudchucka]

Well, Oliver had smoked a joint . Bad point. He also had a bad record. This might have influenced the prosecutor's choice of charge, but would be irrelevant to the actual case, since a person's record can't (normally) be brought forward at the trial. (Nothing specifically to indicate racing here)

There are some cases where a persons record is relevant.

[Zapf]

Now I'm certainly not a lawyer (nor training to become one, a BSc(CompSci) is what I want). But I always thought that you could be charged with the sum of all the crimes commited.

So lets see:

Running through a red light. 25 demerit points? plus a fine
Breaching terms of license. 25 demerit points. plus $400 fine. Obviously breaking the road rules is breaching your license terms.
Unsafe driving. (More demerit points?) plus fine.
Hitting another a vehicle (does this come under willfull damage of another's property?), fine + replacement costs. Normally your insurance would cover you but as I've noticed if you look in the fine print usually if you commit a crime then they don't have to cover you if they don't want to.
Fleeing from a crime scene (jail time + fine?)
Not stopping at an accident (fine + demerit points?)
Reckless driving causing death. (fine + demerit points + jail time)

Now there is one thing I remember from legal studies in 6th form, is that Judges are are completely free to make up new laws on the spot. So there's nothing to stop the judge adding more to the sentence because you should never be in a position where you are unable to brake and stop an accident.

interesting... but from my understanding, when you are defending a traffic ticket. You can't be charged with more than what you have been issued. E.g if you got ticketed doing 70km in 50k zone. The JP's (acting Judge) can't charge you with 80km/h instead.

I suppose it could be the difference if its a "civil" or "criminal" matter / court.

[Krusti]

There are some cases where a persons record is relevant.

Normally only taken into account when considering sentencing

[spudchucka]

Vehicular manslaughter or agravated careless, dangerous or reckless driving requires a number of ingredients to be met before manslaughter can be laid.

[Zapf]

spudchucka,
On another note, is there any way people can report redlight runners?

[Ixion]

There are some cases where a persons record is relevant.


Yes, which is why I said normally.


I understand that, what I'm asking is whether it could actually be succesfully prosecuted. I'd like the people that slagged off the police at the start of the thread to give some thought to what they were actually saying.



With respect, and having re-read the whole thread, I don't think anyone was slagging off the police. People were angry at a perceived inadequacy of punishment, but that was (and correctly should be ) directed against the
courts and the "system" rather than against the police. The only reason the police would not charge her with something more serious is because whoever makes the decision (I assume it is the police in this country) didn't think they could win a case based on a more serious charge. I don't think that people are slagging off the police (or intending to) when they say "that sucks" (and once again, we haven't heard her story. If we did maybe we would agree that the lesser charge was the correct one.But naturally people will express an opinion based on the only information they have )

[Jeremy]

I think you had better re-read that text book.

sorry, I need to rewrite it with capital letters in the right place.


Judges are completely free to make court decisions.
The Law is the complete sum of all court decisions, Statutory laws and a variety of minor things.

Judges can't change Statutory laws. They can however change the Law due to their court decisions having legal precedence in lower courts. Thus any court decision made in the high court (sneakers aren't allowed to be worn inside the court room) holds true in all lower courts. However if the Supreme court or previous Privy court decisions were of else (you must wear sneakers in court) then that would overrule previous court decisions and come into effect in lower courts (district courts).

So there would be nothing to stop the Judges as long as there wasn't a higher court decision made (and it's in the High court so only Privy, Supreme and previous High court decisions would count) from saying that you must always been in complete control of you vehicle at all times.

[Krusti]

But... the simple fact that she has been charged with Reckless implies she had intent. It was not an accident.

[chickenfunkstar]

Sorry to hear about your friend Wari,

I never like hearing about things like this, especially when it seems so avoidable.

Hope the driver gets whats coming to her.

[Krayy]

(Puts on pessimist hat....)

Most likely outcome of this whole thing will be that judge will hand done either short prison term (a few months) or couple of hundred hours community service with a $10k ish fine, but her parents will stump up $40k (isnt that what a lifes worth in NZ based on that case in the Waikato petrol station) and commyute it to no prison, 100 hours community service and defer the fine due to it being her first offence.

(Puts on slightly liberal hat....)
My personal opinion is that yes, the perpertrator of the crime is suffering in their own way, but if the legal sytems stumps up a few "sacrificial lambs" and throws the book at them AND introduces parental responsibility for under 20s for a few years, it will breed this kind of criminal neglect out of the community in stuff all time.

Since NZ is pretty much an authoritarian state (under Labour at least), and none of the politicos in this country want to bang the "when in Rome" drum for the sake of a few million educational bucks (except Winston, but he doesnt have a shit show of passing up anything, especially a free meal from Kermadec) the roads will be full of immigrants who blatantly flaunt the law, buy fake licenses, kill bystanders, bikers and other innocents and (literally) get away with murder.

I suppose its up to the lobbyists and media to get the message through, nad maybe a public referendum will force a law change, but don't hold you breath, just keep your eyes open when you're on your bike.

P.S. Damn door lock grommit didn't do the job, anyone got another idea? :shake:

[Zapf]

(Puts on pessimist hat....)

Most likely outcome of this whole thing will be that judge will hand done either short prison term (a few months) or couple of hundred hours community service with a $10k ish fine, but her parents will stump up $40k (isnt that what a lifes worth in NZ based on that case in the Waikato petrol station) and commyute it to no prison, 100 hours community service and defer the fine due to it being her first offence.

(Puts on slightly liberal hat....)
My personal opinion is that yes, the perpertrator of the crime is suffering in their own way, but if the legal sytems stumps up a few "sacrificial lambs" and throws the book at them AND introduces parental responsibility for under 20s for a few years, it will breed this kind of criminal neglect out of the community in stuff all time.

Since NZ is pretty much an authoritarian state (under Labour at least), and none of the politicos in this country want to bang the "when in Rome" drum for the sake of a few million educational bucks (except Winston, but he doesnt have a shit show of passing up anything, especially a free meal from Kermadec) the roads will be full of immigrants who blatantly flaunt the law, buy fake licenses, kill bystanders, bikers and other innocents and (literally) get away with murder.

I suppose its up to the lobbyists and media to get the message through, nad maybe a public referendum will force a law change, but don't hold you breath, just keep your eyes open when you're on your bike.

P.S. Damn door lock grommit didn't do the job, anyone got another idea? :shake:

remember we or our fathers where all immigrants at one stage or another. And remember not all asian's are rich. A lot of the students (asian) are here on their own hard earned money trying to get an education that is more valued in Asia and living on a dime.

What is needed is driver education, and that is not just education about road rules. But about road manners...

:) 2cent...

[Indiana_Jones]

The bitch ran over the man's head. :angry2:

LET'S RUN OVER HER FUCKING HEAD! (in a Cajun voice)

-Indy

[spudchucka]

spudchucka,
On another note, is there any way people can report redlight runners?
Pick up the phone, they will send you out a Road Watch form to fill in and post back or go to the nearest cop shop.

[Ixion]

Pick up the phone, they will send you out a Road Watch form to fill in and post back or go to the nearest cop shop.

being teckonologicacal clued up Johnnies, we can also fill it in online Here (http://www.police.govt.nz/service/road/roadwatch.php)

But if you want them to investigate with a view to prosecution (as opposed, I guess, to sending a letter saying "bad boy"), you have to take it to the cop shop


I must admit I am a bit hesitant about this sort of thing, because it is inviting the Interchangeable Mabels to start filling them out everytime they see a biker doing something they don't approve of (ie doing anything at all )

I would suggest some restraint in their use. But I suspect that red light runners are habitual and maybe if the police started receiving dozens of reports about the same person they might "have a word"

[spudchucka]

sorry, I need to rewrite it with capital letters in the right place.


Judges are completely free to make court decisions.
The Law is the complete sum of all court decisions, Statutory laws and a variety of minor things.

Judges can't change Statutory laws. They can however change the Law due to their court decisions having legal precedence in lower courts. Thus any court decision made in the high court (sneakers aren't allowed to be worn inside the court room) holds true in all lower courts. However if the Supreme court or previous Privy court decisions were of else (you must wear sneakers in court) then that would overrule previous court decisions and come into effect in lower courts (district courts).

So there would be nothing to stop the Judges as long as there wasn't a higher court decision made (and it's in the High court so only Privy, Supreme and previous High court decisions would count) from saying that you must always been in complete control of you vehicle at all times.
You are talking about case law. Case law binds lower courts to the higher courts interpretation of the law. No decision in a court directly changes the actual law, only the way the law is interpreted, you've heard of the courts setting precedents, this is what case law is all about.

A higher court can overturn a decision from a lower court and then in future cases the lower court is bound by the decision of the higher court.

The decisions made in any court must be made within the laws of the day and although case law affects outcomes it doesn't change the written law.

[ManDownUnder]

Pick up the phone, they will send you out a Road Watch form to fill in and post back or go to the nearest cop shop.

Spuddy,

Out of curiousity, what actually happens after that form has been give to the cops? I've doe a few in my time but never really found out the rest of the steps...

Cheers
MDU

[Ixion]

You are talking about case law. Case law binds lower courts to the higher courts interpretation of the law. No decision in a court directly changes the actual law, only the way the law is interpreted, you've heard of the courts setting precedents, this is what case law is all about.

A higher court can overturn a decision from a lower court and then in future cases the lower court is bound by the decision of the higher court.

The decisions made in any court must be made within the laws of the day and although case law affects outcomes it doesn't change the written law.

Pretty much. Judges can only interpret the law. If a bigger judge decides a junior judge interpreted something wrong in the past he (boss judge) can change the interpretation. Which from the point of view of peasants like us is effectively a change to the law.

But judges can't actually change a statute. If the statute is clear and unambiguous (hah! some chance ) even the most senior judge can't change what it says (at this point I think I better go into hiding - Ms Elias is gonna come after me)

Special case is the Common Law. Some bits of the law have never actually been made into statutes (statutes being the "laws" passed by Parliament) . They are the body of the Common Law, "which hath existed since time immemorial" . Since the Common law is not based on statute it is precisly what a judge declares it to be. And a more senior judge can declare that the first declaration was wrong.

But there is (alas) not much of the Common Law left now. There used to be an even better sort of law called Equity, which was based on the strange and totally un-lawyer-like notion that things ought to be fair. Equity, like the Common Law, was what a judge said it was. However , alas, the lawyers managed to get rid of equity about 50 years ago. So don't waste time or breath nowadays expecting the legal system to be fair.

[spudchucka]

With respect, and having re-read the whole thread, I don't think anyone was slagging off the police.
OK, maybe I'm a little over sensitive in that area. The letter writer is clearly venting against the police, which is fine if they feel that way, I'd just like people to have a little better understanding of the issues involved before they fly off the handle.

The quotes below indicated to me that people can't take their emotional googles off and look at this from any perspective other than the, "The Law Is An ARSE" one.


The Police, or shall we say The Ignorant Police, have charged this lady with Reckless Driving, no other charges are planning on being laid as they say she is a Young Inexperienced Driver on a Restricted License with no previous convictions...


My friend leaves behind many close friends and a loving wife who only wishes justice but is resigned to see this girl walk out with a hit over the palm with a wet blanket thanks to the Police.


Why not murder, if i pulled the trigger of a gun while pointing it at a crowd this is what i would be done for is it not??

running a red light is the same as pulling a trigger, making an active decision to disobey a safety device resulting in someones death, and this should not be swept under the carpet like this over and over again.


She should have been charged with murder.

I actually agree with peoples sentiments but think it would be helpful to all if we all had a little better understanding of the limitations of the law.

[spudchucka]

Spuddy,

Out of curiousity, what actually happens after that form has been give to the cops? I've doe a few in my time but never really found out the rest of the steps...

Cheers
MDU
Not all stations run the same way but in my experience all the traffic complaints go over a Senior Sergeants desk. If the Senior thinks the complaint has merit a file is created and it is assigned to a Constable to be investigated.

These complaints usually result in the offending driver being warned or issued a ticket. If it is a more serious matter, Dangerous Driving etc, then the informant would be required to attend Court as a witness. For these matters police usually require more than just one witness before taking the matter to court.

[Ixion]

OK, maybe I'm a little over sensitive in that area. The letter writer is clearly venting against the police, which is fine if they feel that way, I'd just like people to have a little better understanding of the issues involved before they fly off the handle.



Well, yes, the letter writer was a bit anti. But the letter writer was (presumably) not actually a KBer. I was looking more at the comments from KBers.

I guess that it's understandable, they have seen someone they love killed (rather horribly from the sound of it), and perceive that the culprit is "getting away with it". The police are (for better or worse) the "public face" of the justice system, so they cop the flak. A lot of the grief and anger gets channelled down into that. Goes with the territory (or the uniform) I'm afraid.

[R6_kid]

is there anyway i can get the details of the court hearing. I would actually really like to be there to hear what kind of bullshit the accused comes up with.

IN FACT!
Why doest a large contingent of us show up in full biking gear to get the point accross. She deserves to pay for what she has done, running a red with no good reason, hitting another persons vehicle causing personal injury to an innocent by stander and then running them over. WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? how can you NOT be responsible, must be another case of "the car has a mind of its own..." (remember the film "christine")

[Zapf]

is there anyway i can get the details of the court hearing. I would actually really like to be there to hear what kind of bullshit the accused comes up with.

IN FACT!
Why doest a large contingent of us show up in full biking gear to get the point accross. She deserves to pay for what she has done, running a red with no good reason, hitting another persons vehicle causing personal injury to an innocent by stander and then running them over. WHAT THE FUCK?!?!? how can you NOT be responsible, must be another case of "the car has a mind of its own..." (remember the film "christine")

I think you can find out by ringing the court... but it pays to have the name of the defendent.... I won't mind listening or seeing what its about as well.

[Pixie]

Ahh once again our super efficient Boys in Blue do a wonderful job.(of cocking up the charges)

[Kickaha]

Ahh once again our super efficient Boys in Blue do a wonderful job.(of cocking up the charges)

And of course you can prove that can you?

[Pixie]

I'd want at least manslaughter if it were me.

Saying it's just because of "incompetent, poorly trained, and inexperienced " is a cop-out.

She was wilfully negligent, and is also apparently completely remorseless.

Even someone who has never driven a vehicle in their life knows stop on red, and would stop after hitting someone .

If it were me, yes, I'd hang her. Society doesn't need people like that. And , yep, I'd pull the lever.

Emotionally I agree,but after consideration you have to see it from the police and the establishment's point of view.
As Lou pointed out she wasn't speeding and therefore wasn't driving unsafely.
She only killed a motocyclist.
And when the cop interviewed her ,her eyes were probably welling up,which explains the light charges.

[TonyB]

...she was 50m away from the lights when the light turned red. So it has to be deliberate. She hit a Ford Falcon, which in turn hit my mate of his bike. She did not stop there, she continued to drive, and ran over my mates head - giving him injuries which were not survivable.

This post is a bit late in coming- haven't been able to get online reliably.

Firstly, my sincere condolences to all involved.

Two things. Pretty much EVERYONE from the age of about three and up knows that you stop for a red light. There is no way in hell you can get a licence in this or any other country without knowing this fact. Basic common sense and human decency mean that every man, woman and child on the face of the earth knows that driving a vehicle over the top of another human being is a despicable act. What difference then does it make that she is young, inexperienced or has no previous convictions? I've never fired a 105mm artillery piece, but I know it would be a bad idea to fire at an occupied building if I ever got the chance!!!! I can accept that she may have panicked. I would have thought that in any situation, if you panicked and did something that could only result in the death of another human being, then the only charge available would be manslaughter.

[Pixie]

And of course you can prove that can you?
No,but I do have one leg shorter than the other ,and the arse hole who caused the injury was charged with careless driving.The injury was ,apparently, inconsequential.

[MikeL]

Since NZ is pretty much an authoritarian state (under Labour at least)

Definition of "authoritarian state": one that passes laws that I don't approve of...
:p

[Pixie]

Finally, what people have said about the application of the law is ,sadly,true.
The charges were ,probably,the only ones applicable.But while we have this P.C. academic bullshit government(not to say the others differ much)we will not see the response we feel is justified by these events.
They ignored the public's wishes on sentencing.
It seems the first question they would ask any serious perpetrator,if the were directly involved in the punishment of such,is "How has society failed you,precious lamb?"

[spudchucka]

Ahh once again our super efficient Boys in Blue do a wonderful job.(of cocking up the charges)
Why the fuck do I bother?

[sels1]

Why the fuck do I bother?

Dont be discouraged Spud, most of us appreciate having yr professional viewpoint

[Gen]

Why the fuck do I bother?

For those of us that do appreciate most of the boys and girlies in da blue :)

I wouldn't want to do what you do.....scary stuff.

[MikeL]

Why the fuck do I bother?

Because if you keep plugging away with rational, logical, unemotional and balanced arguments you eventually expose ill-founded, ignorant, hot-headed and prejudiced opinion for what it is...

You won't change those people's opinions, but you have a chance of making others see the question more clearly...

[spudchucka]

Thanks for the positive messages, I appreciate it.

[Gremlin]

Why the fuck do I bother?
It may seem useless, but think. Even if you save one life or help one person, that person will always thank you for being there when they needed it.

Is that not worth it??

[spudchucka]

It may seem useless, but think. Even if you save one life or help one person, that person will always thank you for being there when they needed it.

Is that not worth it??
I'm not questioning why I do my job, my feelings are quite certain in that regard. I have been questioning why I bother attempting to shed light on topics relating to policing and the law in general, (for the benefit of Kiwi Biker members), when it seems to fall totally on deaf ears or blind monitors, whatever the internet equivalent is.

[jazbug5]

... it seems to fall totally on deaf ears or blind monitors, whatever the internet equivalent is.

Actually, though not everyone replies, I'm certain a great many people really appreciate what you have to tell us. Also, not everyone has the (one eyed) view that cop=adversary. I've met more good 'uns than bad in my time, and now work with ex cops- all very, very decent folk. Keep up the good work, and I hope you get another bike soon.

[MikeL]

Spud, you must have realized as soon as you made it known on this forum that you are a cop that you would be targetted by people with their own personal agendas who may or may not make a distinction between you as an individual policeman and the policies and procedures of law enforcement in general (and traffic law enforcement in particular).
Your everyday experience would also have made you aware that certain members of society will always be unwilling to make any attempt to see things from any perspective other than their own narrow self-interest.
To some extent you must have been willing to set yourself up as a target, knowing what would ensue. I think you have generally reacted with admirable restraint. Occasionally a hint of arrogance or impatience has crept in, but if you have resorted to tit for tat with certain members, it's probably only what they deserve...

Your difficulty, as I see it, is not so much dealing with the WINJAs of this world, whose horizons are limited by their immaturity to the extent that they think personal abuse and vilification will impress anyone, but rather the problem of entering into open and honest dialogue with those of us who may disagree with some aspects of current policy, considering that no matter what disclaimer you might make, you will be perceived as representing or symbolizing a police point of view. To what extent do you feel free to express your own opinion, and to what extent does loyalty require you to defend the official line?
And an equally important question: to what extent does your daily contact with the seamier and more sordid part of humanity give you a jaundiced and cynical view of everyone's actions and motives?
These are rhetorical questions, because I don't think it's possible to give an impartial answer...
One of the good things about forums like this is the insight it gives us into other people's ways of thinking. I've read all your posts with interest. As you know, we have some differences of opinion. I've tried to put forward my view of certain things reasonably calmly, and you have responded on the same level. Some of my views have been modified by what you've written, although we will probably have to agree to disagree on other things. For me, the dialogue has been valuable. It would be a pity if you were deterred from contributing further by the mindless rants of a few ignorant adolescents.

[Waylander]

All that and if you didn't bother, then who would we ask if something was legal or not?

[James Deuce]

Just to add my 10 cents: Bush Lawyerism has almost ceased on KB. If people want to discuss a point of law they are invariably digging up the legislation to discuss a point of interpretation. That contribution by Police KB members is one of those subtle cultural watersheds that elevates KB from self aggrandising waffle into legitimate informed discussion.

In respect to my attitude to Policing the roads, my Dad taught me to treat Traffic Police as the enemy, thereby dehumanising people doing a job.

You've fixed that, even though you aren't traffic yourself, and sometimes don't have good things to say about HP.

[Ixion]

Spud, you must have realized as soon as you made it known on this forum that you are a cop that you would be targetted by people with their own personal agendas who may or may not make a distinction between you as an individual policeman and the policies and procedures of law enforcement in general (and traffic law enforcement in particular).
Your everyday experience would also have made you aware that certain members of society will always be unwilling to make any attempt to see things from any perspective other than their own narrow self-interest.
To some extent you must have been willing to set yourself up as a target, knowing what would ensue. I think you have generally reacted with admirable restraint. Occasionally a hint of arrogance or impatience has crept in, but if you have resorted to tit for tat with certain members, it's probably only what they deserve...

Your difficulty, as I see it, is not so much dealing with the WINJAs of this world, whose horizons are limited by their immaturity to the extent that they think personal abuse and vilification will impress anyone, but rather the problem of entering into open and honest dialogue with those of us who may disagree with some aspects of current policy, considering that no matter what disclaimer you might make, you will be perceived as representing or symbolizing a police point of view. To what extent do you feel free to express your own opinion, and to what extent does loyalty require you to defend the official line?
And an equally important question: to what extent does your daily contact with the seamier and more sordid part of humanity give you a jaundiced and cynical view of everyone's actions and motives?
These are rhetorical questions, because I don't think it's possible to give an impartial answer...
One of the good things about forums like this is the insight it gives us into other people's ways of thinking. I've read all your posts with interest. As you know, we have some differences of opinion. I've tried to put forward my view of certain things reasonably calmly, and you have responded on the same level. Some of my views have been modified by what you've written, although we will probably have to agree to disagree on other things. For me, the dialogue has been valuable. It would be a pity if you were deterred from contributing further by the mindless rants of a few ignorant adolescents.


What he said. Esprit de corps makes it hard for members of groups like the police to separate criticism (including self criticism) of the organisational values, as articulated by the Commissioner, Minster etc, from criticism of the corps itself . From the point of view of a police officer it's one thing for them to bitch about policy amongst themselves in the locker room, it's another to agree with the public bitching about it

And the police are the public face of the whole justice system, the only part that most of us see on a daily basis. So they cop the flak when anyone has a gripe (justified or not) with any part of it. Including a gripe about the law itself, although the police usually have little input into what the law is (and individual officers less still)

I personally appreciate the input of the police members, even though at times I may not agree .

[gman]

never trust anyone you can blindfold with a shoelace.
:ar15:

[Ixion]

..
I personally appreciate the input of the police members,..

Meeep. I just realised that a phrase like that leaves me *Wide* open for innuendo and pisstake!

Good thing there's no-one on this group with a grubby mind. Clearly, all of you are good, clean, innocent minded folk. Choir girls and boys, studying hard to enter the church I have no doubt. Well done. In a debauched and degenerate age it is good to know that there is a group of clean minded ,clean living, abstemious, moral and principled folk such as you

So I'll take the piss out of myself first. :lol:

[jazbug5]

never trust anyone you can blindfold with a shoelace.
:ar15:


*yawn*

blahblahblahblah

[scumdog]

*yawn*

blahblahblahblah

I think that *yawn* was giving them too much acknowledgement of their existence!! :lol:

[scumdog]

Emotionally I agree,but after consideration you have to see it from the police and the establishment's point of view.
As Lou pointed out she wasn't speeding and therefore wasn't driving unsafely.
She only killed a motocyclist.
And when the cop interviewed her ,her eyes were probably welling up,which explains the light charges.

Of course! We all forgot that it was the interviewing cop that decided what charges were going to be laid!! DUH!!!

[spudchucka]

you must have realized as soon as you made it known on this forum that you are a cop that you would be targetted by people with their own personal agendasYes and I don't have a problem with that. I've just been getting fed up with a certain few whose attitudes frustrate me.


Your everyday experience would also have made you aware that certain members of society will always be unwilling to make any attempt to see things from any perspective other than their own narrow self-interest.Yes. It is difficult to assess the written word on a forum such as this and determine whether the person you are speaking to is one of Those people.


To some extent you must have been willing to set yourself up as a target, knowing what would ensue. I accept that I will be the subject of abuse, critiscism etc simply because of my chosen proffesion but some of it is so pathetic and so predictable that it has become quite tiresome.


Your difficulty, as I see it, is not so much dealing with the WINJAs of this world, whose horizons are limited by their immaturity to the extent that they think personal abuse and vilification will impress anyoneI've met enough WINJA's to not be in the slightest bit upset by any abuse he wants to throw my way. Hopefully he keeps it up and gets chucked in the sin bin again.


but rather the problem of entering into open and honest dialogue with those of us who may disagree with some aspects of current policy, considering that no matter what disclaimer you might make, you will be perceived as representing or symbolizing a police point of view.
I've got no problem with open and honest dialouge. Frustration sets in when people either miss or totaly ignore the points being made and simply conclude an ill informed arguement with a rank comment.


To what extent do you feel free to express your own opinion, and to what extent does loyalty require you to defend the official line? Pretty much everything I write here is my own opinion. If I've quoted policy I'll usually say, "this is the policy" or something like that. Where I think the police have got it wrong I'll say so. Equally where people making unfounded and incorrect critiscisms I try to offer an informed alternative.


to what extent does your daily contact with the seamier and more sordid part of humanity give you a jaundiced and cynical view of everyone's actions and motives?It certainly does change your outlook on life in general. I think what makes cops cynical is the failings of the justice system. Cops do their best to bring offenders before the courts and then get crapped on by the justice system. We then have to explain to the victims why we got the shitty outcome. This tends to make you somewhat cynical.

Dealing with the scumsucking bottom dwellers on a daily basis just makes you more concerned for the future of your kids.


I've read all your posts with interest. As you know, we have some differences of opinion. I've tried to put forward my view of certain things reasonably calmly, and you have responded on the same level. I accept that there will be certain issues that you and I will butt heads over but I most certainly respect you as being one of the members of this site that always has worthwhile and reasonable opinions.


Some of my views have been modified by what you've written,That comes as a bit of a surprise.


It would be a pity if you were deterred from contributing further by the mindless rants of a few ignorant adolescents.
I'm not planning on joining the recent group of Waka jumpers even though I have had some recent encouragement since becoming a non-biker.

[Krayy]

...Pretty much EVERYONE from the age of about three and up knows that you stop for a red light....
A little off topic, but my daughter (2 and a half) surprised us on Friday by singing a new song she learned in daycare.

Twinkle, twinkle, traffic light,
On the corner, shining bright,
Red means stop, green means go,
Orange means go, very slow,
Twinkle, twinkle, traffic light
On the corner, shining bright.

Now the orange bit is a bit suss, but at least they know what a red means.

[MikeL]

A litle known fact is that half the population suffers from a peculiar form of colourblindness in which the orange appears as red.
The other half correctly perceives the orange as a slightly altered hue of green.
What is more peculiar is that the division appears to operate along gender lines. Something to do with the X and Y chromosomes, I believe...

[Lou Girardin]

I'm not questioning why I do my job, my feelings are quite certain in that regard. I have been questioning why I bother attempting to shed light on topics relating to policing and the law in general, (for the benefit of Kiwi Biker members), when it seems to fall totally on deaf ears or blind monitors, whatever the internet equivalent is.

Unfortunately, you tend to confuse opinion with fact. And, equally unfortunately, have a tendency to defend the indefensible.

[Lou Girardin]

[QUOTE=MikeL]To what extent do you feel free to express your own opinion, and to what extent does loyalty require you to defend the official line?
And an equally important question: to what extent does your daily contact with the seamier and more sordid part of humanity give you a jaundiced and cynical view of everyone's actions and motives?
These are rhetorical questions, because I don't think it's possible to give an impartial answer...
QUOTE]

Don't forget that he tried to hide his occupation for quite some time. At least until his responses made it clear he was an insider. Bikeycop, for one, was upfront from day one.
Defending the official line seems to be enforced within the Police by intimidation by the hierachy, as we saw when info was leaked recently to the media by concerned Officers.
The other questions seem to have been answered by his reaction to certain questions/posts.

[spudchucka]

Unfortunately, you tend to confuse opinion with fact. And, equally unfortunately, have a tendency to defend the indefensible.
You have a tendency to be a complete arse and hold strong opinions about things you have no understanding of. Like that indefensible shooting at Waitara, (in your opinion) only you ignore the fact that it was defended..... in the High Court.

[spudchucka]

Don't forget that he tried to hide his occupation for quite some time.
Tried to hide? Did I? Did I ever say, "What a cop me.... no not me"?

If I'd never come out and said I was a cop what difference would it make?

[Storm]

I'm not planning on joining the recent group of Waka jumpers even though I have had some recent encouragement since becoming a non-biker.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but you're gonna come right and be seized by the mad impulse to buy another bike whilst randomly finding yourself passing the dealers, and thinking to yourself, "hmm might just have a quick look" , aren't you now? :ride:

[toads]

My friend leaves behind many close friends and a loving wife who only wishes justice but is resigned to see this girl walk out with a hit over the palm with a wet blanket thanks to the Police.

So sorry to read this Wari, It is typical of road crime to be so unfairly dealt with, if she had been in charge of a boat and your friend had drowned she would be facing a few years imprisonment, and she would have done far less to cause the accident also.

[scumdog]

[QUOTE=MikeL]To what extent do you feel free to express your own opinion, and to what extent does loyalty require you to defend the official line?
And an equally important question: to what extent does your daily contact with the seamier and more sordid part of humanity give you a jaundiced and cynical view of everyone's actions and motives?
These are rhetorical questions, because I don't think it's possible to give an impartial answer...
QUOTE]

Don't forget that he tried to hide his occupation for quite some time. At least until his responses made it clear he was an insider. Bikeycop, for one, was upfront from day one.
Defending the official line seems to be enforced within the Police by intimidation by the hierachy, as we saw when info was leaked recently to the media by concerned Officers.
The other questions seem to have been answered by his reaction to certain questions/posts.

Hmmmm, what occupation-related sins have I committed LOU?? :shifty:

[spudchucka]

Yeah, but you're gonna come right and be seized by the mad impulse to buy another bike whilst randomly finding yourself passing the dealers, and thinking to yourself, "hmm might just have a quick look" , aren't you now? :ride:Its a new challenge in my life to see how long I can last without a bike.

[XP@]

Does anyone know what happened to the young lady in question?

[Beemer]

I guess it's not serious because she wasn't speeding.

Precisely - if she'd been speeding, they would lock her up and throw away the key. Doesn't sound like justice to me so far, if she'd killed a native bird she'd be in deep shit.

[Lias]

Old thread!

Would be interesting to know what happened to her thou.

And I hope everyone in this thread who read this orginally and thought our justice system was a crock voted for one of the parties that wants tougher laws :whistle:

Justice should be about punishment, not rehabilitation.

[DemonWolf]

I think it should be about both.. but more hmmpht into punishment.

re-offenders get less of a chance with rehabilitation... depending on their crimes. Prison populations are growing... look at the over population at Auckland. Its not like we can ship them all off to a prison island... like.. hmmm Australia for example. And its not PC to use them as serious hard labour candidates... though I think they should be 'earning' the right for shelter and food over their heads... and with the upkeep of the prisons and paying for the wardens... hmmm chain gangs anyone? How bout a tunnel to the south island?