Police killing us again!

[scumdog]

say it aint so scummy :no:. Here I was thinking you were a cop, please don't tell me your actually a PIG :no:



You mean he posts those comments DESPITE being well informed???:confused:

[Gearup]

I imagine a police motorcyclist would exercise a greater degree of care when negotiating a blind crest.

You are totally missing the jolly point dear chap. Most unspiffing really!!

I'm with MarkH on the subject of Katman.

[Katman]

You are totally missing the jolly point dear chap. Most unspiffing really!!

I'm with MarkH on the subject of Katman.

No, you're missing the point.

[Gearup]

No, you're missing the point.

I said it first.

[Scuba_Steve]

You mean he posts those comments DESPITE being well informed???:confused:

I'm not sure about his posts?, you just got me worried with him mentioning "there should be no one with such a conviction in the Highway Patrol" and you responding with "Looks really bad for me then...."

[MSTRS]

Double yellow lines says: Do not cross here, do not pass here, do not turn here.


Here we go again...
A yellow line on YOUR side of the centre line says you may not cross it in order to overtake another vehicle. A double yellow simply means the same applies in either direction.
You are permitted to cross the yellow in order to turn into a driveway (for instance). Nothing is said about the legality of crossing in order to u-turn (for instance). Obviously, extreme caution applies and I believe the recommended process is to avoid the practice.

[Scuba_Steve]

Here we go again...
A yellow line on YOUR side of the centre line says you may not cross it in order to overtake another vehicle. A double yellow simply means the same applies in either direction.
You are permitted to cross the yellow in order to turn into a driveway (for instance). Nothing is said about the legality of crossing in order to u-turn (for instance). Obviously, extreme caution applies and I believe the recommended process is to avoid the practice.

the law does say "A driver, when driving, must not use a lane to the driver’s right of a no-passing line" the turning to a driveway is an exception to the governing rule so if no exception is made to a U'y then by default it is illegal.

It is arguable under the exception of
"A driver may also drive wholly or partly in a lane that is unavailable to the driver under subclause (1) or clause 4.6(2) to (4) if the driver drives in the lane to cross it to make a turn and drives in the lane for the minimum length necessary to complete the manoeuvre and for no more than a maximum length of 50 m; and gives way to vehicles entitled to use the lane."
but it's a hard sell if you ask me (or at least would be for anyone not part NZ's biggest gang :Police:)

[Gearup]

I'm not sure about his posts?, you just got me worried with him mentioning "there should be no one with such a conviction in the Highway Patrol" and you responding with "Looks really bad for me then...."

Don't forget, his signature line actually states he is into "Winding up...."

[Jack Miller]

the law does say "A driver, when driving, must not use a lane to the driver’s right of a no-passing line" the turning to a driveway is an exception to the governing rule so if no exception is made to a U'y then by default it is illegal.

It is arguable under the exception of
"A driver may also drive wholly or partly in a lane that is unavailable to the driver under subclause (1) or clause 4.6(2) to (4) if the driver drives in the lane to cross it to make a turn and drives in the lane for the minimum length necessary to complete the manoeuvre and for no more than a maximum length of 50 m; and gives way to vehicles entitled to use the lane."
but it's a hard sell if you ask me (or at least would be for anyone not part NZ's biggest gang :Police:)

A difficult sell for a U turn, an even more difficult sell for a 3-point turn.

[_Shrek_]

I'm not sure about his posts?, you just got me worried with him mentioning "there should be no one with such a conviction in the Highway Patrol" and you responding with "Looks really bad for me then...."

SS scummy is the least of your worries :laugh:

[caseye]

You youngsters go ahead and try to make a name for yourselves by attempting to upset ol Scummy. Won't Work. I'm telling ya's.

[Gearup]

You youngsters go ahead and try to make a name for yourselves by attempting to upset ol Scummy. Won't Work. I'm telling ya's.

Youngsters? Trying to make a name for ourselves?

A bit presumptuous there Mark.

[_Shrek_]

Youngsters? Trying to make a name for ourselves?

A bit presumptuous there Mark.

if ya under 40 then Youngsters it is :laugh:

[Gearup]

if ya under 40 then Youngsters it is :laugh:

But he doesn't look a day over 60!

[StoneY]

But he doesn't look a day over 60!

My moneys on Casseye
;)

[Gearup]

My moneys on Casseye
;)

The old MAG gang always stick together.......

[caseye]

Gotta show you young fellas how it's done aye.

[StoneY]

The old MAG gang always stick together.......

Actually I never been a member of MAG
Casseye and me go back way further than that............
Remember the 81 riots Cass?
I still got that dent in my head.....................

[riffer]

I still got that dent in my head.....................

Well that explains a bit :laugh:

[Bald Eagle]

Actually I never been a member of MAG
Casseye and me go back way further than that............
Remember the 81 riots Cass?
I still got that dent in my head.....................

I remember 81 .. and it wasn't me :lol:

[caseye]

Oh I remember alright, wasn't your head I put a dent in!, was it????????????? can't remember now, OLD ya noses.

[_Shrek_]

I remember 81 .. and it wasn't me :lol:

aye me to :facepalm: and it wasn't me :confused:

[_Shrek_]

had an interesting experience on the way to town this morning, had a :Police: turn his pretty lights on then do a 3 point turn as i was coming up behind him 150 mtrs approx on a main SHW, where he turned was below a crest & if he drove another 30to 50 mtrs he could have turned without having to do a 3 point turn, :facepalm: the car he was turning to chase had already pulled over & if he had looked before he turned he would have seen this, even after he saw me he still put car into reverse & backed into my lane making me pull left & slow right down, (I was driving small truck)

I think these cops that do this have "ticket Brain" & must catch at all times never mind any one else

I reckonmend that every cop should hold a m/c licence & be made to spend a lest two months on bike duty in one of the four major cities before they get a car, so that they are more awair of their suroundings

[gwigs]

had an interesting experience on the way to town this morning, had a :Police: turn his pretty lights on then do a 3 point turn as i was coming up behind him 150 mtrs approx on a main SHW, where he turned was below a crest & if he drove another 30to 50 mtrs he could have turned without having to do a 3 point turn, :facepalm: the car he was turning to chase had already pulled over & if he had looked before he turned he would have seen this, even after he saw me he still put car into reverse & backed into my lane making me pull left & slow right down, (I was driving small truck)

I think these cops that do this have "ticket Brain" & must catch at all times never mind any one else

I reckonmend that every cop should hold a m/c licence & be made to spend a lest two months on bike duty in one of the four major cities before they get a car, so that they are more awair of their suroundings

Maybe you should have taken his rego and put in a complaint.
Too many cowboys in cop cars..

[caseye]

Shrek,small truck or bike glad you were prepared for the worst and came off Scott free with No Damage, pity the same could not be said for Mr Plod! It hurts to see/hear of so many near misses with these guys, I've had em too spidey cuts in and you let em go but if it was a civy you'd be right up their nostrils pulling the big black ones with glee.
'They've got to develop a policy and stick to it.
Gwiggs, couldn't agree more it is time.A bit of balance though, I've seen some bloody awful driving displays from some Police officers of the later generations. I've also seen some damn fine examples of offensive driving to catch a real nasty bastard, we've all got to remember that pound for pound our front line guys and girls do a damn fine job on the whole.

[scumdog]

Maybe you should have taken his rego and put in a complaint.
Too many cowboys in cop cars..

Yee-haw!:wings:

[gwigs]

Shrek,small truck or bike glad you were prepared for the worst and came off Scott free with No Damage, pity the same could not be said for Mr Plod! It hurts to see/hear of so many near misses with these guys, I've had em too spidey cuts in and you let em go but if it was a civy you'd be right up their nostrils pulling the big black ones with glee.
'They've got to develop a policy and stick to it.
Gwiggs, couldn't agree more it is time.A bit of balance though, I've seen some bloody awful driving displays from some Police officers of the later generations. I've also seen some damn fine examples of offensive driving to catch a real nasty bastard, we've all got to remember that pound for pound our front line guys and girls do a damn fine job on the whole.

You,re right of course its not all the boys in blue..
For the most part they are doing a fine job and we should appreciate them.

[Gearup]

Actually I never been a member of MAG
Casseye and me go back way further than that............
Remember the 81 riots Cass?
I still got that dent in my head.....................

You were probably on the protest ride up Queen Street in '78 then. Slowest trip on a bike I've ever had. The only thing dented though was my pride when the bike overheated a bit.

[crshbndct]

Going back to the Buller incident....
The cop there did a 3-point turn in an equally stupid place, also within 150m or less of a roadside turn-around area and his action caused 2 bikes to hit his car. Those bikes were also believed to have been speeding, but there was no proof of that in exact terms. That cop was eventually pinged for a dangerous manoeuvre and ordered to pay $30,000 to each rider (if I remember right).
The point is, the parallels between the 2 cases almost exactly line-up. So why, oh why, was the Te Kawhata cop only fined $250??

becasue the guy who dies is not still alive - the other guy had to pay big money to the bikers because they were alive to pursue it further if they didnt get a fair ruling. but the other guy is dead, so "hell fuck it, just make him pay court costs and be done with it" noone to pay

[scumdog]

becasue the guy who dies is not still alive - the other guy had to pay big money to the bikers because they were alive to pursue it further if they didnt get a fair ruling. but the other guy is dead, so "hell fuck it, just make him pay court costs and be done with it" noone to pay

:confused:<_<

[crshbndct]

The crash investigator concluded: “Calculations show any speed above 101 km/h may have been too fast for Mr Brown to stop his vehicle within the
distance between first viewpoint and impact area.”

dont tell me, seriously, that ALL of you slow down to 30kmh whenever you see a blind rise.

and to those who blame the ute driver, you really should be blaming either adam for fucking eve, and giving birth to the human race, or (depending on your belief) the fish which crawled out of the primordial soup and evolved into the human race..

if this hadnt happened, the rider would still be alive.
hell, blame the big bang.

[scumdog]

dont tell me, seriously, that ALL of you slow down to 30kmh whenever you see a blind rise.

and to those who blame the ute driver, you really should be blaming either adam for fucking eve, and giving birth to the human race, or (depending on your belief) the fish which crawled out of the primordial soup and evolved into the human race..

if this hadnt happened, the rider would still be alive.
hell, blame the big bang.

Smoothly put...:whistle:

[Kickaha]

dont tell me, seriously, that ALL of you slow down to 30kmh whenever you see a blind rise.

You mean you dont?<_<

[swbarnett]

you really should be blaming either adam for fucking eve, and giving birth to the human race, or (depending on your belief) the fish which crawled out of the primordial soup and evolved into the human race..

if this hadnt happened, the rider would still be alive.
hell, blame the big bang.
Well, actually, no. No Adam, Eve or Fish and the rider would never have existed in the first place. Come to think of it we wouldn't be here to debate the point either.

[trustme]

and to those who blame the ute driver, you really should be blaming either adam for fucking eve, and giving birth to the human race, or (depending on your belief) the fish which crawled out of the primordial soup and evolved into the human race..

if this hadnt happened, the rider would still be alive.
hell, blame the big bang.

Two blokes who habitually ride/drive together at high speed . They did not call themselves ' The Coro Demons ' for nothing . When asked about the coppers, the answer was no copper could catch them. Paul found out they can in the worst way possible.
A close friend had been telling me about these guys for probably 12/18 months.
I won't bore you with all the tales
My response was always that sooner or later , no matter how good a rider you are , at those speeds sooner or later either you or some one else will make a mistake & someone dies.
You really think there is no link, take a minute , think again, learn a good lesson.
I'd like to think people other than the cops learn from this mess.
I'm probably wrong on both counts.

[_Shrek_]

Maybe you should have taken his rego and put in a complaint.
Too many cowboys in cop cars..

am making apointment to see the super, will ruther do it this way, it's like when they have let me off on more than one occasion, would prefer it done this way 1st

[Dodgy_Matt]

You really think there is no link, take a minute , think again, learn a good lesson.
I'd like to think people other than the cops learn from this mess.
I'm probably wrong on both counts.

Only because there are people who still believe it won’t happen to them because they are better than that. :no:

[Zedder]

Only because there are people who still believe it won’t happen to them because they are better than that. :no:

This whole saga is bloody sad and also frustrating but I'm reminded of a Ex RNZAF instructor who told me that he's lived by and teaches the maxim that "There's old pilots and there's bold pilots but there's no old bold pilots."

It can be applied to anything where the risk of a disasterous result is present.

[swbarnett]

at those speeds sooner or later either you or some one else will make a mistake & someone dies.
The speed is never the issue, it's the time and place.

[trustme]

The speed is never the issue, it's the time and place.

I used to agree, but I now realise that with many motorcyclists you are dealing with the lowest common denominator. They can not recognise the right time & place even if it bites them om the arse , & very often it does.

[_Shrek_]

I used to agree, but I now realise that with many motorcyclists you are dealing with the lowest common denominator. They can not recognise the right time & place even if it bites them om the arse , & very often it does.

actually trustme, I don't class myself or any of the other 85% of riders, as one of the lowest common denominators, I call it "testosterone" no matter where you are it has a tendency to take over if you don't keep it in check, no matter what the age wether it's 15 or 90, then it tends to bite you on the arse, some times worse than others

[scumdog]

The speed is never the issue, it's the time and place.

They are all equal parts of the equation.

Put all three together and it's speed being the one item that distinguishes 'oops' vs 'ouch'.

[Zedder]

They are all equal parts of the equation.

Put all three tpgether and it's speed being the one item that distinguishes 'oops' vs 'ouch'.

Yes,it's like the fire triangle: Fuel, air, ignition. You need all three elements to make it happen and if just one isn't present then there's no fire.

[oneofsix]

Yes,it's like the fire triangle: Fuel, air, ignition. You need all three elements to make it happen and if just one isn't present then there's no fire.

yes but where I don't agree totally with scumdog is the ouch factor all being down to speed. Like in the fire triangle more fuel doesn't always make in hotter, in fact too much fuel can put it out. As a general rule more speed does mean more ouch and more fuel means a bigger fire - but not always.

[Zedder]

yes but where I don't agree totally with scumdog is the ouch factor all being down to speed. Like in the fire triangle more fuel doesn't always make in hotter, in fact too much fuel can put it out. As a general rule more speed does mean more ouch and more fuel means a bigger fire - but not always.

Do you mean more speed but with high experience/skill can reduce the ouch factor a lot?

[oneofsix]

Do you mean more speed but with high experience/skill can reduce the ouch factor a lot?

more depends on the other factors, timing is a good one. Some times more speed at the right time means no ouch factor as the two vehicles are no longer trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

Another example of more speed helping is centripetal force being used to overcome wind gusts. Being a Wellington rider this one is in constant use.

[scumdog]

more depends on the other factors, timing is a good one. Some times more speed at the right time means no ouch factor as the two vehicles are no longer trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

:confused::scratch::rolleyes:

[Scuba_Steve]

If speed killed Hammond would be dead!
The faster you go the quicker you get there.



(*Driving to the conditions)

[scumdog]

If speed killed Hammond would be dead!
The faster you go the quicker you get there.



You're leaving time and place out of the 'triangle' equation of course?

In that case your comment is worthless...

[T.W.R]

I call it "testosterone" no matter where you are it has a tendency to take over if you don't keep it in check, no matter what the age wether it's 15 or 90, then it tends to bite you on the arse, some times worse than others

EGO :yes: it is a failure of both genders

[PrincessBandit]

EGO :yes: it is a failure of both genders

Hmmm, well us ladies certainly don't have the testosterone levels you blokies do - although as I've gotten older I've noticed the annoying little old lady's 'tache starting to appear. (At least our raised t levels don't cause us to grow the other thing which heaps of guys tend to think with...)

But ego, I suppose women can suffer from that as well. Pretty sure though we tend to have more finely honed self-preservation skills and not quite the same need to prove ourselves (generally speaking).

[Biggles08]

Two blokes who habitually ride/drive together at high speed . They did not call themselves ' The Coro Demons ' for nothing . When asked about the coppers, the answer was no copper could catch them. Paul found out they can in the worst way possible.
A close friend had been telling me about these guys for probably 12/18 months.
I won't bore you with all the tales
My response was always that sooner or later , no matter how good a rider you are , at those speeds sooner or later either you or some one else will make a mistake & someone dies.
You really think there is no link, take a minute , think again, learn a good lesson.
I'd like to think people other than the cops learn from this mess.
I'm probably wrong on both counts.

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you trustme, the simple fact is that the $250 is a BS fine and this is the only point I cannot fathom. Regardless of ALL the other contributing factors in this crash, the judge actually said the cop was driving "dangerously" and made a "brief mistake" that was "inexcusable" yet he got off with a $250 fine?!?!? So the precedent is now set. Its a disgrace and this sentence is pathetic.

[saul]

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you trustme, the simple fact is that the $250 is a BS fine and this is the only point I cannot fathom. Regardless of ALL the other contributing factors in this crash, the judge actually said the cop was driving "dangerously" and made a "brief mistake" that was "inexcusable" yet he got off with a $250 fine?!?!? So the precedent is now set. Its a disgrace and this sentence is pathetic.

The sentence is a disgrace:no: I do not know how the judge even got to this figure. If the hearing was held in a district court it won't set a precedent but bloody hell it's crazy sentencing:mad:

[T.W.R]

But ego, I suppose women can suffer from that as well. Pretty sure though we tend to have more finely honed self-preservation skills and not quite the same need to prove ourselves (generally speaking).

It's ego, equal for both, it's just how we project it

http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/Joe5pages/The%20human%20ego%20vs_%20the%20Self.htm

[trustme]

While I don't necessarily agree or disagree with you trustme, the simple fact is that the $250 is a BS fine and this is the only point I cannot fathom. Regardless of ALL the other contributing factors in this crash, the judge actually said the cop was driving "dangerously" and made a "brief mistake" that was "inexcusable" yet he got off with a $250 fine?!?!? So the precedent is now set. Its a disgrace and this sentence is pathetic.

I agree with you, I can understand why he did it, it was still a wrong decision & cost a life. $250 seems a very small price to pay.
There may be mitigating circumstances but plod certainly got off light.

[Biggles08]

I agree with you, I can understand why he did it, it was still a wrong decision & cost a life. $250 seems a very small price to pay.
There may be mitigating circumstances but plod certainly got off light.
I cannot understand why he did it when he is supposed to be a professional. Any halfwit with a peanut as a brain would understand where he did the U-turn was a dumb place to do one...its simple, mitigating circumstances or not, the Judge has done an injustice by the supposedly civilized standard we live in/by and personally I think needs some judgment placed back on him for this ridiculous decision.

[scumdog]

I cannot understand why he did it when he is supposed to be a professional. .

The same reason pilots fly perfectly good planes full of passengers into the ground on a clear day...

Or ships captains run their ship into other ships - or rocks...

People from all walks of life screw up at times, they make mistakes. (yes, big ones).

Luckily the rest of are not that type and will never make a mistake eh.<_<

[oneofsix]

The same reason pilots fly perfectly good planes full of passengers into the ground on a clear day...

Or ships captains run their ship into other ships - or rocks...

People from all walks of life screw up at times, they make mistakes. (yes, big ones).

Luckily the rest of are not that type and will never make a mistake eh.<_<
me? never :facepalm:
Its not the making of the mistake its the denying of it. (Ooops that sounds like a someone else if in a different context.)
There is a feeling the police don't like admitting they can make mistakes and if you don't admit to it how can you learn from it? The light-bulb case is a better example of this refusal to back down, like they think their authority comes from never backing down :stupid:
If you don't admit to your mistakes and own them you don't learn from them.

[Zedder]

I cannot understand why he did it when he is supposed to be a professional. Any halfwit with a peanut as a brain would understand where he did the U-turn was a dumb place to do one...its simple, mitigating circumstances or not, the Judge has done an injustice by the supposedly civilized standard we live in/by and personally I think needs some judgment placed back on him for this ridiculous decision.

Agreed. This certainly doesn't foster any faith in the justice system the way it stands now.

However, there is a process for complaining about judicial conduct so at least that's an option.

[Kiwi675]

http://www.r1-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321511 :shit:

[oneofsix]

http://www.r1-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321511 :shit:

shhh you will give them ideas.

[MarkH]

http://www.r1-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321511 :shit:

They'll probably give the biker a ticket for illegal parking.

[oneofsix]

They'll probably give the biker a ticket for illegal parking.

would that be double parking? :laugh:

[_Shrek_]

However, there is a process for complaining about judicial conduct so at least that's an option.

yeah on here :laugh: as there are alot of X sperts :shifty:

[Biggles08]

Luckily the rest of are not that type and will never make a mistake eh.<_<

Scumdog, smartarse, degenerate sarcastic comments like that do nothing for your image as a law enforcer on a serious issue like this, loose the attitude and listen for a moment.

My comments are based solely on the 'appearance' of justice being done (or lack of) rather than bagging on about the cop being an idiot (in which he clearly is). I am not stating all cops are like this and indeed I personally believe this particular one is an exception to the rule. My anger in this whole situation is the Judgment handed down by the judge. It is an insult to the value he placed on human life and more so an insult directly at the family of Paul Brown, regardless of Paul's choices good or bad.

While we all make mistakes, serious or otherwise, I'm not backing away from my statement that anyone with a peanut as a brain could see the place in which the cop did the U-turn was never going to be a good idea. "I'll have em" is an attitude we can do without in the police force, and a professional standard of performance should be expected of the police from the public. Your argument about other professional organizations such as pilots etc is redundant, as any of these people (if they lived through the poor choices you were referring to) should also feel the full force of judgment as rightly they should do.

I rate this choice of the cop in discussion as far as "terrible choices" go on a scale as a pilot flying under the influence of alcohol. its simply dumb dumb dumb and no excuse is ever going to be acceptable. Obviously the judge sees it as only a minor issue deserving of a penalty of $250?!

[White trash]

I cannot understand why he did it when he is supposed to be a professional.

I can.


Any halfwit with a peanut as a brain would understand where he did the U-turn was a dumb place to do one...its simple,

Correct, any non enforcement driver looking for a place to do a U-turn would not have chosen that spot. However the officer was not "any non enforcement driver" was he? What do you do for a living Morris? I only ask because when I'm "on the job" my mind is generally committed to doing my job to the best of my abilities. If you were a enforcement officer, on traffic patrol and a vehicle heading in the opposite direction hooned past at 150kph +, would you not think that it needed to be stopped? 150 kays isn't an indiscretion, it's hauling.

I'm not excusing Mr Browns death, it's fucken horrible and unnecessary. His family are hurting and wanting some answers, as are the public. The cop involved has to live with this for the rest of his life knowing HE KILLED A MAN DUE TO HIS POOR DECISION, but this decision was made in an instant, in his proffesional capacity. The NZ Police force have to stand up and back the guy, taking his decision as their own, and dealing with the consequences as a group.

While we're talking about decision making, if mr Brown and his mate had decided to not race each other on that road (let's not kid ourselves) that day, Mr Brown would still be alive today.

It's terribly sad, and I certainly hope never to put my family in the position that Mr Browns now are. But I'm fucken selfish so Sue knows there's every chance they will one day be.

Flame me the fuck, calls it like I sees it.


I cannot understand why he did it when he is supposed to be a professional. Any halfwit with a peanut as a brain would understand where he did the U-turn was a dumb place to do one...its simple, mitigating circumstances or not, the Judge has done an injustice by the supposedly civilized standard we live in/by and personally I think needs some judgment placed back on him for this ridiculous decision.

Edit: By the way, your rant and finger pointing should lay with the New Zealand justice department, not the officer. He was charged, stood trial, and his sentence handed down.

[White trash]

Scumdog, smartarse, degenerate sarcastic comments like that do nothing for your image as a law enforcer on a serious issue like this, loose the attitude and listen for a moment.

My comments are based solely on the 'appearance' of justice being done (or lack of) rather than bagging on about the cop being an idiot (in which he clearly is). I am not stating all cops are like this and indeed I personally believe this particular one is an exception to the rule. My anger in this whole situation is the Judgment handed down by the judge. It is an insult to the value he placed on human life and more so an insult directly at the family of Paul Brown, regardless of Paul's choices good or bad.

While we all make mistakes, serious or otherwise, I'm not backing away from my statement that anyone with a peanut as a brain could see the place in which the cop did the U-turn was never going to be a good idea. "I'll have em" is an attitude we can do without in the police force, and a professional standard of performance should be expected of the police from the public. Your argument about other professional organizations such as pilots etc is redundant, as any of these people (if they lived through the poor choices you were referring to) should also feel the full force of judgment as rightly they should do.

I rate this choice of the cop in discussion as far as "terrible choices" go on a scale as a pilot flying under the influence of alcohol. its simply dumb dumb dumb and no excuse is ever going to be acceptable. Obviously the judge sees it as only a minor issue deserving of a penalty of $250?!

How about the AOS member who managed to somehow shoot the courier driver on the Nor' Western that day. Should he have been done for murder?

[oneofsix]

How about the AOS member who managed to somehow shoot the courier driver on the Nor' Western that day. Should he have been done for murder?

at least manslaughter, ok that is a bit smart-arse but do you think for a moment the judge would be as lenient on you for your small mistakes even when you have an excuse? The point of a lot of this argument is that the focus on speed at the cost of other safety factors is wrong and in this case contributed to the death of the biker. If the focus was on safety rather than pure speed the officer would not have pulled the u-turn where he did, the biker would be alive and the ute driver would have got his ticket another day.

[White trash]

at least manslaughter

Hmmmmm, really? Doing his best to remove a dangerous P-fueled fuckwit out of doing the public anymore harm.

How's this for a scenario.

A Holden ute is clocked py a traffic cop doing 157kph in the opposite direction, cop thinks "Hmmmmm, I'll wait for a bit till I find a slightly better spot to turn around, by which the guy will be long gone but ah well" and said 157kph ute loses it 4 corners later, in the proccess taking out your wife and kids on the returning school run.

Just so you know, that's going to inquest.

Guess who's going to be screaming from the galleries that "Those fucken cops didn't do what they could of at the time to stop the dangerous driver!"?

Need a hint?

[White trash]

The point of a lot of this argument is that the focus on speed at the cost of other safety factors is wrong and in this case contributed to the death of the biker. If the focus was on safety rather than pure speed the officer would not have pulled the u-turn where he did, the biker would be alive and the ute driver would have got his ticket another day.

Lol. Edited while I quoted ya khannn! :)

Maybe, maybe not. But while we're on that track, do you think travelling over a blind crest at 150+ kph is speeding safely?


at least manslaughter, ok that is a bit smart-arse but do you think for a moment the judge would be as lenient on you for your small mistakes even when you have an excuse?

Sorry, to answer your question, yes. A judge was. Charged with "Dangerous Driving" for a small (non dangerous) indiscretion, discharged without conviction. Can't complain.

[oneofsix]

Hmmmmm, really? Doing his best to remove a dangerous P-fueled fuckwit out of doing the public anymore harm.

How's this for a scenario.

A Holden ute is clocked py a traffic cop doing 157kph in the opposite direction, cop thinks "Hmmmmm, I'll wait for a bit till I find a slightly better spot to turn around, by which the guy will be long gone but ah well" and said 157kph ute loses it 4 corners later, in the proccess taking out your wife and kids on the returning school run.

Just so you know, that's going to inquest.

Guess who's going to be screaming from the galleries that "Those fucken cops didn't do what they could of at the time to stop the dangerous driver!"?

Need a hint?
You over simplify the shooting, the :Police: had better earlier opertunities to take him out and instead shoot an :innocent: by firing at the wrong time in the wrong place.

No I'll be screaming at the fuck wit driver. In the case in point the fuck wit was in uniform :Police:

Own your mistakes so you can learn from them!

[Scuba_Steve]

Correct, any non enforcement driver looking for a place to do a U-turn would not have chosen that spot. However the officer was not "any non enforcement driver" was he? What do you do for a living Morris? I only ask because when I'm "on the job" my mind is generally committed to doing my job to the best of my abilities. If you were a enforcement officer, on traffic patrol and a vehicle heading in the opposite direction hooned past at 150kph +, would you not think that it needed to be stopped? 150 kays isn't an indiscretion, it's hauling.

But as this scam is operated claiming "safety" his actions were in total opposite, going by assumptions these guys were locals & probably diid this on regular basis they're prob had 5-10yrs doing these speeds no worries and would be at a 900-0 kill ratio, The PIG however does this move once & is currently at a 1-1 kill ratio... Safety??? :confused:



Edit: By the way, your rant and finger pointing should lay with the New Zealand justice department, not the officer. He was charged, stood trial, and his sentence handed down.
Both, the PIG pulled the maneuver the judge let him off


How about the AOS member who managed to somehow shoot the courier driver on the Nor' Western that day. Should he have been done for murder?
nope manslaughter, that was more BS from our law system.

[White trash]

Own your mistakes so you can learn from them!

Correct. Unfortunately Paul can't own this mistake and learn from it, and I dare say the U-turning officer has.

On a side note, does it say anywhere that a vehicle travelling at 100kph would have managed to stop in the distance from sight of U-turned vehicle, to vehicle?

[White trash]

But as this scam is operated claiming "safety" his actions were in total opposite, going by assumptions these guys were locals & probably diid this on regular basis they're prob had 5-10yrs doing these speeds no worries and would be at a 900-0 kill ratio, The PIG however does this move once & is currently at a 1-1 kill ratio... Safety??? :confused:

You MUST be fucking joking! Surely? You're not?

You're an Upper Hutt resident, right? I live in Heretaunga Square, Silver Stream. You probably know the back road to Trentham from Fergusson Drive?

Every single fucking day, there is some arsehole travelling trough those 90 deg turns at stupid speed in his shitbox WRX or EVO, a few V8's, whatever. They probably drive the road 2 times a day, 14 times a week, 62 times a month or 744 times a year. So one day, my next door neighbours kid is just going to be on the road collecting their rugby ball while one of these tards that has a 900:0 kill ratio happens to be coming through a blind turn at 75 kays. Guess what, it's now 901:1. Is that accpetable?

[oneofsix]

Correct. Unfortunately Paul can't own this mistake and learn from it, and I dare say the U-turning officer has.

On a side note, does it say anywhere that a vehicle travelling at 100kph would have managed to stop in the distance from sight of U-turned vehicle, to vehicle?

I disagree, thanks to a fuk wit judge the officer, his colleges, the govt and department are still in denial. It may be the officer is cut up about it but I feel sure the back slapping and support he will get will get him convinced he was correct in what he did.

[Scuba_Steve]

You MUST be fucking joking! Surely? You're not?

You're an Upper Hutt resident, right? I live in Heretaunga Square, Silver Stream. You probably know the back road to Trentham from Fergusson Drive?

Every single fucking day, there is some arsehole travelling trough those 90 deg turns at stupid speed in his shitbox WRX or EVO, a few V8's, whatever. They probably drive the road 2 times a day, 14 times a week, 62 times a month or 744 times a year. So one day, my next door neighbours kid is just going to be on the road collecting their rugby ball while one of these tards that has a 900:0 kill ratio happens to be coming through a blind turn at 75 kays. Guess what, it's now 901:1. Is that accpetable?

no but still better than a 1-1 & these morons aren't "justifying" a scam with "safety". But also if you look at the road, it is just a road no footpath, no houses, no 90 deg corners. 150km/h down an otherwise empty road like that I couldn't care less, 60km/h past a kindy/school during busy times we got issues in-fact 50km/h at those times we got issues

[White trash]

150km/h down an otherwise empty road over a blind crest like that I couldn't care less, 60km/h past a kindy/school during busy times we got issues in-fact 50km/h at those times we got issues

Sorry, you no one knows what is over that blind crest. Two bad decisions were made that day, unfortunately someone paid with their life.

It's a crying shame. That's it.

[oneofsix]

Sorry, you no one knows what is over that blind crest. Two bad decisions were made that day, unfortunately someone paid with their life.

It's a crying shame. That's it.

The :Police: didn't pay for their mistake and that's a crying shame.

[Katman]

The :Police: didn't pay for their mistake and that's a crying shame.

That's all you're interested in, isn't it?

Paying dues instead of learning lessons.

[oneofsix]

That's all you're interested in, isn't it?

Paying dues instead of learning lessons.

try reading the posts about idiot. As said multiple times if you don't own your mistakes you don't learn from them and the :Police: haven't owned their mistakes.
BTW :Police: in this case is inclusive of govt. and all the "speed kills" drongos.

[White trash]

try reading the posts about idiot. As said multiple times if you don't own your mistakes you don't learn from them and the :Police: haven't owned their mistakes.
BTW :Police: in this case is inclusive of govt. and all the "speed kills" drongos.

But speed did kill in this instance. What's your point again?

[oneofsix]

But speed did kill in this instance. What's your point again?

the ute driver lived only the rider cut off by a u-turning cop in over zealous persuite of a speed infringement died therefore the death was from the u-turn. If the cop had stopped to think no one would have died. His driving was careless causing death if not in fact dangerous due to it closeness to the brow of the hill. This is not the first time the cops have killed this way and until they (and you) learn that speed by itself does not kill we will have more senseless deaths at the hands of our "protectors"

[Scuba_Steve]

But speed did kill in this instance. What's your point again?

speed didn't kill him, his mate in the ute was going faster & he's still alive. Impact with a dangerously u-turning PIG killed him

[Katman]

speed didn't kill him, his mate in the ute was going faster & he's still alive. Impact with a dangerously u-turning PIG killed him

Well, that leads us conveniently back to the fact that if Paul had being doing 100kph I'm perfectly sure he could have stopped his bike in time.

[oneofsix]

Well, that leads us conveniently back to the fact that if Paul had being doing 100kph I'm perfectly sure he could have stopped his bike in time.

but that's a guess where as we know if the cop hadn't pulled the u-turn he definitely would have.

But it does lead to why you are so annoying. Rather than pushing learn from your fuk ups you only ever push the biker is wrong. I recognise the rider fuked up so whats wrong with also recognising the cop fuk'd?

[Katman]

but that's a guess where as we know if the cop hadn't pulled the u-turn he definitely would have.


Are you another motorcyclist who can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph?

You and Scuba Steve make a lovely couple.

[Scuba_Steve]

Are you another motorcyclist who can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph?

You and Scuba Steve make a lovely couple.


Originally Posted by The IPCA crash investigator
The crash investigator concluded: “Calculations show any speed above 101 km/h may have been too fast for Mr Brown to stop his vehicle within the
distance between first viewpoint and impact area.”

...Anytime you want to prove yourself Katman

[oneofsix]

Are you another motorcyclist who can't stop within 120 metres from 100kph?

You and Scuba Steve make a lovely couple.

The investigator said that at 101 k and he couldn't have stopped in time, the was the police investigator as well so not exactly independent. Also circumstances play a part, the :shit: factor or "you must be joking" reaction that slows the braking reaction. Either way it say it was the wrong place to pull a u turn.

Well thank you but you and White Trash make a nicer couple with your refusal to believe any blame could be anywhere other than on the biker.

[Katman]

...Anytime you want to prove yourself Katman

Refer post #1982.

[White trash]

Well thank you but you and White Trash make a nicer couple with your refusal to believe any blame could be anywhere other than on the biker.

Didn't say that. Trying to put forward a different point of view on a public forum is all. Bad decisions were made, some people paid a higher price than others. That's not to say constable dibble hasn't paid a fairly hefty price in the daily knowledge he alone paid the deciding part in another man losing his life.

[Katman]

...Anytime you want to prove yourself Katman

Try an experiment yourself.

Place two marker cones 120 metres apart.

Ride at 100kph and at the first cone start emergency braking.

When you've stopped, check out the distance between you and the second cone. That is the distance you have available for your reaction time.

[Scuba_Steve]

Refer post #1982.

your point??? it was written by a gang member, all gangs "look out for their own" which effectively means he was fucked at 100km/h too

so, refer again post #2087

[Scuba_Steve]

Try an experiment yourself.

Place two marker cones 120 metres apart.

Ride at 100kph and at the first cone start emergency braking.

When you've stopped, check out the distance between you and the second cone. That is the distance you have available for reaction time.

:facepalm: that is a controlled stop, we have been through this. Try to remember...

[MarkH]

What do you do for a living Morris? I only ask because when I'm "on the job" my mind is generally committed to doing my job to the best of my abilities. If you were a enforcement officer, on traffic patrol and a vehicle heading in the opposite direction hooned past at 150kph +, would you not think that it needed to be stopped? 150 kays isn't an indiscretion, it's hauling.

The real question I have here is what is his job? Is it to dish out tickets at any expense? Is it to do what he can to improve the safety for all motorists?

It always strikes me that the police are claiming the 2nd thing, but the 1st one appears to be the reality. They say "safety first" with their words, but their actions suggest that giving out tickets is priority number one and safety can go get fucked.



Sorry, you no one knows what is over that blind crest. Two bad decisions were made that day, unfortunately someone paid with their life.

And the other paid with a $250 fine. It doesn't seem right that the penalty for a road safety professional guilty of making a mistake which lead to the loss of a life wasn't something a bit more in keeping with what you or I would expect for a mistake with such a serious consequence, from someone that we should expect better from.

My idea of leniency would have been something like $2500 fine & 3 months loss of license. I would consider that a very lenient judgement indeed, but maybe reasonably fair in this case. A $250 fine just doesn't come close to justice appearing to be done, IMO.

[Katman]

:facepalm: that is a controlled stop, we have been through this. Try to remember...

You're not very bright, are you?

The first part of it is a controlled stop. The distance you have left in front of you to the second cone is the distance in which you would have time to think "Fuck, hit the brakes!!!"

[Scuba_Steve]

You're not very bright, are you?

The first part of it is a controlled stop. The distance you have left in front of you to the second cone is the distance you have in which you would have time to think "Fuck, hit the brakes!!!"

the stopping in itself is different between a "panic" state & a complete "calm" state so you could not guarantee in a "panic" state thats how much time you have to react.

[Katman]

the stopping in itself is different between a "panic" state & a complete "calm" state so you could not guarantee in a "panic" state thats how much time you have to react.

Yes you can, you clown.

Once the braking has started, the braking distance covered is the same whether started from a "calm" state or a "paniced" state.

The distance left over is the distance you can be as paniced as you like in.

[PrincessBandit]

the stopping in itself is different between a "panic" state & a complete "calm" state so you could not guarantee in a "panic" state thats how much time you have to react.

One of the reasons why emergency braking should be practiced. Sure, it's not done "in a state of panic", but the whole purpose is so that if practiced often enough then reflexes kick in and execute it automatically.

I'm surprised that people are still squabbling over the whole "the police haven't paid/learnt" thing. At the end of the day I agree - the end result seems very lenient in light of the outcome; but travesties of justice are committed every day in New Zealand in all sectors of business. Some people get dealt a shit deal in life, others who "deserve" to have the book thrown at them come out smelling like roses.

Continuing to beat your breast and stamp your foot and throw your tanty, ain't gonna change things - probably won't even stop it happening again in the future. As motorcyclists if we can't ride defensively and expect everyone/everything else on the road to watch out for us sooner or later we'll end up in a pine box.

[spookytooth]

It is a pitty they never charged the cop with drawing on a wall.He would have got jail time for that

[Katman]

Those of you who are focused solely on the idea that :angry2:"SOMEONE MUST PAY!!!!" :angry2:are missing the point entirely.

None of us can control what the police do. None of us can control what any other road user does.

We can only control what we do.

[Biggles08]

Edit: By the way, your rant and finger pointing should lay with the New Zealand justice department, not the officer. He was charged, stood trial, and his sentence handed down.

I quote myself from an earlier post Whitetrash (oh and underline and bold for your eyes to focus better):

"My comments are based solely on the 'appearance' of justice being done (or lack of) rather than bagging on about the cop being an idiot (in which he clearly is). I am not stating all cops are like this and indeed I personally believe this particular one is an exception to the rule. My anger in this whole situation is the Judgment handed down by the judge. It is an insult to the value he placed on human life and more so an insult directly at the family of Paul Brown, regardless of Paul's choices good or bad."

I think you will find we agree on this subject if you read carefully.

[Jack Miller]

Didn't say that. Trying to put forward a different point of view on a public forum is all. Bad decisions were made, some people paid a higher price than others. That's not to say constable dibble hasn't paid a fairly hefty price in the daily knowledge he alone paid the deciding part in another man losing his life.

So do you agree with the judge reducing the charge and the $250 penalty or not?

[Jack Miller]

Yes you can, you clown.

Once the braking has started, the braking distance covered is the same whether started from a "calm" state or a "paniced" state.

The distance left over is the distance you can be as paniced as you like in.

Unless your panicked state causes you to lock up or otherwise stop imperfectly.

[Katman]

Unless your panicked state causes you to lock up or otherwise stop imperfectly.

Let's not forget that in this instance we're talking about a motorcyclist to whom extreme braking technique would have been second nature.

[Kickaha]

The PIG however does this move once & is currently at a 1-1 kill ratio... Safety??? :confused:
You're assuming he had only done it once to get the 1-1 he could have pulled the same maneuver hundreds or thousands of times over in his time in the job

Rather than pushing learn from your fuk ups you only ever push the biker is wrong.
You must be fairly thick if you think that is Katmans message

The investigator said that at 101 k and he couldn't have stopped in time
It has been quoted on here that he said "may not have been able to stop in time"" that is a lot different than "couldn't"

[FJRider]

Let's not forget that in this instance we're talking about a motorcyclist to whom extreme braking technique would have been second nature.

Unless his braking "option" was not his first choice of action ... He left 30 odd metres(I stand to be corrected on this) of skid-mark ... and still hit the patrol car with enough force to send him a further 70 metres down the road. Not something I would expect from one which "extreme braking is second nature"

His first view of the patrol car would have been of the disco's (even over the crest of a hill would easily be seen before the actual car could be seen)... and guessed they were for him. Avoidence of being stopped would (in my opinion) have been his first choice.

[BoristheBiter]

And the other paid with a $250 fine. It doesn't seem right that the penalty for a road safety professional guilty of making a mistake which lead to the loss of a life wasn't something a bit more in keeping with what you or I would expect for a mistake with such a serious consequence, from someone that we should expect better from.

My idea of leniency would have been something like $2500 fine & 3 months loss of license. I would consider that a very lenient judgement indeed, but maybe reasonably fair in this case. A $250 fine just doesn't come close to justice appearing to be done, IMO.

I agree with what you are saying but until other drivers are handed out this sort of sentence then there is nothing more to say in this case. Regardless of what his occupation is, regardless of the reason why he tried to do a u-turn he made a bad decision like many motorists do every day.

The whole justice system is fucked, we all know that. Just like when scum get let off with community service for bashing cops, others get off for bashing and killing their, or others, kids.

So maybe instead of bagging the police maybe you should have a go at the courts and the sentences handed down in all cases.

[Gearup]

yeah on here :laugh: as there are alot of X sperts :shifty:

Ya don't have to be an Xpert to know that some things are just really wrong.

[Katman]

Ya don't have to be an Xpert to know that some things are just really wrong.

Widen your gaze a little.

It just gets worse.

[White trash]

I quote myself from an earlier post Whitetrash (oh and underline and bold for your eyes to focus better):

"My comments are based solely on the 'appearance' of justice being done (or lack of) rather than bagging on about the cop being an idiot (in which he clearly is). I am not stating all cops are like this and indeed I personally believe this particular one is an exception to the rule. My anger in this whole situation is the Judgment handed down by the judge. It is an insult to the value he placed on human life and more so an insult directly at the family of Paul Brown, regardless of Paul's choices good or bad."

I think you will find we agree on this subject if you read carefully.

Thanks bud, I'm seeing your point now thanks to the underlining. But only a little better.

[FJRider]

I think you will find we agree on this subject if you read carefully.

Perhaps ... those in court that heard ALL the evidence against him ... may choose to disagree ...

How many KB members were there ... in court ... to hear it ... ???

[White trash]

Unless his braking "option" was not his first choice of action ... He left 30 odd metres(I stand to be corrected on this) of skid-mark ... and still hit the patrol car with enough force to send him a further 70 metres down the road. Not something I would expect from one which "extreme braking is second nature"

Unless he was travelling FUCKING quickly of course.


His first view of the patrol car would have been of the disco's (even over the crest of a hill would easily be seen before the actual car could be seen)... and guessed they were for him. Avoidence of being stopped would (in my opinion) have been his first choice.

Maybe, maybe not.

Here's the deal, I'm not saying anyone is blameless, and that no one should be held accountable. But there's allways two sides to a story, and motorcyclists are notorious for only seeing their side of it.

I'll give you another scenario.

Parallel to Tinakori road in Thorndon is a street called Alexander Rd (I think). Anyway, I used to travel this road every day on my way home from work because it had less congestion. There's fuck all traffic on this oad and it's dead straight, with a really cool crest towards the northern end. I learned that at certain speed, you could do a pretty sweet jump off this crest on the way home from a hard days yaka at work. So one Friday evening, after a beer or two on my way home, I steadily hit 7K on the tach of my GSX400 twin in each gear towards the crest. 7K in 6th seemed to be the magic number for a sweet jump, you understand. So anyway, at 7K in 6th, I bust over the top of this crest, thinking I was Travis Pastrana before he was even born, to find a Toyota Starlet in the middle of the road. Hit the back of it before the wheels hit the ground, totaled my bike, the car and more importantly my wrist without having the chance to hit the picks. In my months of FMX practice, I'd never even noticed the tiny little church on the left or the driveway exiting just north of my take off ramp. The woman driving the car admitted she "hadn't seen me" before pulling out onto the road, and thinking back, how the fuck would she?

Anyway, had I been travelling at 50kph I probably still would have hit her car. It certainly wouldn't have been written off though. My bike would have possibly survived and my wrist, ulner and radius would be nowhere near as fucked as they are today.

Interestingly, we both faced careless use charges, hers causing injury. Which is fucked up, as there wouldn't have been an injury had I not been being a fuckwit. Poor bitch. As I was charged and convicted, as was she, our insurance companies decided neither was at fault and covered their own policy holder only.

If I'd have died, who'd be hung out to dry?

[blueblade]

The cop fucked up big time - no question about that.

The Judge fucked up big time also - most seem to agree about that.

To me the most important factor in this whole sorry saga is that the biker also fucked up big time.

If he had been doing somewhere around the legal limit, he might have avoided the collision totally or perhaps just ended up with a bent bike and a few bruises or broken bones.

If you continually approach blind corners or crests at very high speeds, leaving very little or no margin for evasive action, you will eventually come unstuck. Hopefully when that happens you will only hurt yourself and not some other road user.

If you have been out on the roads or following Kiwibiker over the past few years you will have seen many instances of so called "skilled or experienced" riders killing or seriously injuring themselves by ignoring this relatively simple and obvious fact.

I once shared the same piece of road with Mr Brown on a group ride. I was no angel and often enjoyed some very "spirited" riding - having done numerous track days on both high powered sports bikes and motards.

The riding and passing manoevers I saw on that particular ride put the shits up me to the extent that I backed right out and spent the majority of the ride well and truly on my own.

I have seen first hand one mate killed in a high speed head on that resulted in injury to others. I dont ever want to be a witness to anything like that again.

If they were honest, I dont think any of Pauls mates would be particularly surprised that he died on a motorcycle. Yes - the circumstances are tragic and unforgivable as it relates to the cops actions - but I think that its almost more of a shame that those circumstances should overshadow what should be the bigger message from this event.

Motorcyclists should stop using the road as a race track and ride with a very big margin of safety up their sleeves - to cover those unexpected and sometimes idiotic things that will continue to happen out there.

I learned my lessons the hard way but was lucky enough to survive (and it was only luck!!!!)
After that I decided I would rather be around to kick a ball with my grandkids - rather than just a memory.

[Gearup]

Widen your gaze a little.

It just gets worse.

It would be a bit boring if we all agreed though.

[_Shrek_]

Ya don't have to be an Xpert to know that some things are just really wrong.

steady there Gearup, just trolling :whistle:

[Gearup]

steady there Gearup, just trolling :whistle:

Apologies, it was the proximity of Katman that initiated the response.

[crshbndct]

Well, actually, no. No Adam, Eve or Fish and the rider would never have existed in the first place. Come to think of it we wouldn't be here to debate the point either.


oh hell i just reread what i wrote, lol what an idiot i am. :headdesk:

[crshbndct]

The same reason pilots fly perfectly good planes full of passengers into the ground on a clear day...

Or ships captains run their ship into other ships - or rocks...

People from all walks of life screw up at times, they make mistakes. (yes, big ones).

Luckily the rest of are not that type and will never make a mistake eh.<_<

You ever watched the show on prime TV on sunday nights called Mayday? When pilots make errors and fly planes into the ground, they dont just get a slap on the wrist and continue flying. Major, MAJOR shit happens. Cockpits get redesigned, operating procedures change, Millions of dollars get spent to try and make the system work in such a way that incidents do not re-occur.

Yes, i take on board what your saying about the fact that people are human, and that things happen, and no one is perfect, nor will any amount of money bring the dead rider back, but $250 is just insulting. For such an astronomical lapse of judgement, a pilot (if he survived the crash) would have his license revoked, and pretty much never be allowed to be in control of an aircraft again.

[StoneY]

Apologies, it was the proximity of Katman that initiated the response.

I can well relate to that!

[scumdog]

Perhaps ... those in court that heard ALL the evidence against him ... may choose to disagree ...

How many KB members were there ... in court ... to hear it ... ???


Piss off FJ, remember this is KB - where half-truths, suppositions, outright guess-work and emotional clap-trap are the order of the day...<_<

[MSTRS]

Piss off FJ, remember this is KB - where half-truths, suppositions, outright guess-work and emotional clap-trap are the order of the day...<_<

Huh! You seem to think that we know nothing. This is to tell you that we, in fact, know damn all....

[nadroj]

When I was a little younger I always looked at an accident / incident to allocate blame.
I haven't attended a defensive driving course recently but the one I attended changed my thinking to looking forward, and working out how an accident could have been prevented taking all factors into account.

Going fast into a blind corner or over a blind crest is more often done by an immature (addreneline overriding consequences) rider that makes me look like a nana rider even if I feel I am riding at my comfortable limit.

[BoristheBiter]

You ever watched the show on prime TV on sunday nights called Mayday? When pilots make errors and fly planes into the ground, they dont just get a slap on the wrist and continue flying. Major, MAJOR shit happens. Cockpits get redesigned, operating procedures change, Millions of dollars get spent to try and make the system work in such a way that incidents do not re-occur.

Yes, i take on board what your saying about the fact that people are human, and that things happen, and no one is perfect, nor will any amount of money bring the dead rider back, but $250 is just insulting. For such an astronomical lapse of judgement, a pilot (if he survived the crash) would have his license revoked, and pretty much never be allowed to be in control of an aircraft again.

This isn't the first and won't be the last insulting sentence handed down.

[jellywrestler]

breast Hehehe, she said Breast.

[Scuba_Steve]

If I'd have died, who'd be hung out to dry?

Going back to this White Trash, I've thought about it & I'd have to say no-one going by the info you've given. It sounds like a lose-lose area/situation

[PrincessBandit]

Hehehe, she said Breast.

I thought "beating your breast" sounded more poetic than "thumping ya titties"

[Gearup]

This isn't the first and won't be the last insulting sentence handed down.

I've just read an article which stated that complaints against judges in NZ have increased by 60% in the past year.

[FJRider]

Piss off FJ, remember this is KB - where half-truths, suppositions, outright guess-work and emotional clap-trap are the order of the day...<_<

Fuck I forgot that ... Here I was in the real world ... :wings:

[Spearfish]

Fuck I forgot that ... Here I was in the real world ... :wings:

But you said that here!

[FJRider]

But you said that here!

It was an echo ... :innocent:

[Jdogg]

Can anyone say inconsistent??? :Police:<_<

http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5510062/Motorist-fined-after-biker-hurt

[Parlane]

Can anyone say inconsistent??? :Police:<_<

http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5510062/Motorist-fined-after-biker-hurt

"Lee was fined $600 plus court costs and ordered to pay the motorcyclist $2270 for the loss of his clothing, for medical costs and the insurance excess."

The insurance excess? Wouldn't he be paying out the total cost? Unless it means his own insurance excess :\ But the way it's worded soundslike the biker is paying his own insurance company and Lee the car driver is paying the biker's excess for him.

[nadroj]

His insurance company will seek reimbursement from the accused's insurer or the accused.

[scumdog]

Can anyone say inconsistent??? :Police:<_<

http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/5510062/Motorist-fined-after-biker-hurt

OK, I'll bite...



Oh, you mean there's an exact parrallel?:whistle:

I suppose there was:rolleyes:..a motorcyclist minding his own business and a car driver not....I'm struggling to find any more.
U-turn - nope
Speeding bike? nope
Offending driver had a clean record? nope
Death of motrcyclist? nope

And that's just a start...

[Jdogg]

OK, I'll bite...



Oh, you mean there's an exact parrallel?:whistle:

I suppose there was:rolleyes:..a motorcyclist minding his own business and a car driver not....I'm struggling to find any more.
U-turn - nope
Speeding bike? nope
Offending driver had a clean record? nope
Death of motrcyclist? nope

And that's just a start...

Thanks Scummy, someone had to.......and no there is not a parallel, more the fact that once you strip all the variables away there just seems to be no real upper or lower punishment that is consistently adhered to by the courts in regards to people not taking their role behind the wheel (or handlebars) seriously. In this case you could say that the punishment handed down is manifestly over the top when you take into account the result?

My question is, would you expect there to be a bare minimum that should be placed on a offender that kills someone through making a mistake while driving? obviously the rider has paid his price for his mistake and misjudgment, wouldn't you expect the courts to hand down a punishment that could be viewed by the public as fair and considered? or should all responsibility for the crash be placed onto somebody who cannot defend themselves?

I have always thought the the courts are expected to be consistent.......

[BoristheBiter]

I have always thought the the courts are expected to be consistent.......

You say the funniest things.

[Parlane]

You say the funniest things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Say_the_Darndest_Things

[Biggles08]

OK, I'll bite...



Oh, you mean there's an exact parrallel?:whistle:

I suppose there was:rolleyes:..a motorcyclist minding his own business and a car driver not....I'm struggling to find any more.
U-turn - nope
Speeding bike? nope
Offending driver had a clean record? nope
Death of motrcyclist? nope

And that's just a start...

Wrong end of the stick Scumdog...no cops were involved (from what I can see in the article he linked to) and I thought it pretty obvious Jdog was referring to the sentence handed down of $600 +damages vs $250. Considering the less tragic result of the misjudgement of the driver AND the fact that he owned up to his fuck up...I quote "Simon Lee, 25, unemployed, admitted a charge of careless driving" I do think this is a very good example of the bullshit sentence handed down to the cop who obviously made a meal of his driving, so much so the judge made reference to it AND still only fined him $250!?

Do you think the Judge was right in providing a fine of only $250 based solely on the knowledge we all collectively have in regards to Paul Browns death and the actions leading up to it? Yes or no? I understand this is only your opinion of course...but to me this whole subject is a very serious one regardless of whether it is on KB or not.

I'm interested considering your profession and the 'appearance' to us mere "NZ public" of the need of those in your profession to defend any colleagues actions at all cost (not referring to you per say, more to Wayne Abernathy who believes the sentence was fair!...WTF) .

[Daffyd]

Wrong end of the stick Scumdog...no cops were involved (from what I can see in the article he linked to) and I thought it pretty obvious Jdog was referring to the sentence handed down of $600 +damages vs $250. Considering the less tragic result of the misjudgement of the driver AND the fact that he owned up to his fuck up...I quote "Simon Lee, 25, unemployed, admitted a charge of careless driving" I do think this is a very good example of the bullshit sentence handed down to the cop who obviously made a meal of his driving, so much so the judge made reference to it AND still only fined him $250!?



I'm interested considering your profession and the 'appearance' to us mere "NZ public" of the need of those in your profession to defend any colleagues actions at all cost (not referring to you per say, more to Wayne Abernathy who believes the sentence was fair!...WTF) .

The expression is "per se"

[MSTRS]

We all know that it was the judge that has caused so much of the angst in this case, but since this is a bash-the-cops thread...how about the cop in Auckland that is apparently feuding with his neighbour? Entered the guy's property with a sledgehammer and destroyed a concrete block fence/post. His colleagues were called, but declined to follow through, stating it was a 'civil matter'. You what? Anyone else would have been charged with trespass and wilful damage.
The boys looking after their own. Again.

[Katman]

<img src="http://www.porchwithhouse.com/math/humor/images/tangent.jpg"/>

[avgas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_Say_the_Darndest_Things
<embed src="http://www.mymediaplaylist.com/flvplayer.swf" FlashVars="config=http://www.mymediaplaylist.com/videoconfigxmlcode/?pg=video_195_no_0" quality="high" bgcolor="#000000" width="450" height="370" name="flvplayer" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="always" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" allowFullScreen="true"/><br>Watch: <a href=http://www.mymediaplaylist.com/viewvideo/195/Family_Guy___Stewie_And_Bill_Cosby/ target="_blank">Family Guy - Stewie And Bill Cosby</a>

[BoristheBiter]

We all know that it was the judge that has caused so much of the angst in this case, but since this is a bash-the-cops thread...how about the cop in Auckland that is apparently feuding with his neighbour? Entered the guy's property with a sledgehammer and destroyed a concrete block fence/post. His colleagues were called, but declined to follow through, stating it was a 'civil matter'. You what? Anyone else would have been charged with trespass and wilful damage.
The boys looking after their own. Again.

Well everyone gets some perks in there job.

[Jdogg]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/5580207/Apology-at-last-for-victims-mum/

[Scuba_Steve]

Rather than start a new thread, this just in... Not quite a death but coulda been, not too much details

Police car hits woman (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5593547/Police-car-hits-woman)

[NighthawkNZ]

Rather than start a new thread, this just in... Not quite a death but coulda been, not too much details

Police car hits woman (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5593547/Police-car-hits-woman)

To me this one sounds like dizzy blond syndrome... playing MP3 not lookinga nd run across road smack into car... that so happened to have pretty lights atop

[Scuba_Steve]

To me this one sounds like dizzy blond syndrome... playing MP3 not lookinga nd run across road smack into car... that so happened to have pretty lights atop

yea to me it sounds like she was shit-faced drunk & did it to herself.

[Parlane]

yea to me it sounds like she was shit-faced drunk & did it to herself.

Completely agree, this story has nothing to do with the title of this thread. It could have been any car.

Person to blame in this scenario is the girl and the bouncer(pub). They tend to just kick people out once they are intoxicated and let them find their own way home.
(There was a rape case in Christchurch for when a bouncer kicked out a young girl and a guy took her home.. :angry: )

Pubs etc should be held more responisble. (IMO)

[NighthawkNZ]

yea to me it sounds like she was shit-faced drunk & did it to herself.yup.........

[oneofsix]

Completely agree, this story has nothing to do with the title of this thread. It could have been any car.

Person to blame in this scenario is the girl and the bouncer(pub). They tend to just kick people out once they are intoxicated and let them find their own way home.
(There was a rape case in Christchurch for when a bouncer kicked out a young girl and a guy took her home.. :angry: )

Pubs etc should be held more responisble. (IMO)

to lead this totally off topic I am going to disagree to the bit about pub responsibly. The young people turn up to the pubs half cut for the music friends and atmosphere, and when they exceed there ability to absorb anymore and the pub does the required thing and tells them to piss off their 'friends' can't be buggered looking after them. The Chch girl was even under aged and knew what she was doing before she went there so where is her responsibility and that of her 'mates'?

[Scuba_Steve]

Completely agree, this story has nothing to do with the title of this thread. It could have been any car.

Pubs etc should be held more responisble. (IMO)

Yea I just stuck it here as I didn't think it warranted it's own thread & we don't know what the final outcome will be, it might turn out the cop was in wrong (but I doubt it)

Should they? I don't like the idea of anyone being responsible for anyone else, we do it to ourselves. Theres a chance this women was never in the pub & thus they never got her to this state why should they then be responsible for her? If they outright rejected her they were being responsible by not giving her more & no pub can afford to have their bouncers taking each individual home.

[Parlane]

to lead this totally off topic I am going to disagree to the bit about pub responsibly. The young people turn up to the pubs half cut for the music friends and atmosphere, and when they exceed there ability to absorb anymore and the pub does the required thing and tells them to piss off their 'friends' can't be buggered looking after them. The Chch girl was even under aged and knew what she was doing before she went there so where is her responsibility and that of her 'mates'?


My sisters friends have fake ids, now these are just real ids with this bit of plastic you stick over the birth year. It scratches off. How can I know this and bouncers can't?

Because a pub doesn't make money unless there are young attractive girls there.

While I may have overstated how much responsibility a pub should have for their patrons, I still believe that if you are in the service of getting people drunk you should also be in the service of making sure that when they leave they are capable of doing so safely... (Offering to call a cab may be as much as they can do, and they probably do.. Not that I've seen though). My local has a free van to drop you home. (Islington Tavern a.k.a. The Swamp)

[Murray]

My sisters friends have fake ids, now these are just real ids with this bit of plastic you stick over the birth year. It scratches off. How can I know this and bouncers can't?


So whose committing the crime??.

Pub I worked at confiscated so many fake licenses it wasnt funny! All handed to the police and no further follow up - I thought this was a crime. Also the one's that do get through the door on their fake licenses (remember its usually at night and doorways/entrances are not the best lit areas) when asked by the police to show their licenses say they don't have one and the pub gets done for serving underages.

[oneofsix]

My sisters friends have fake ids, now these are just real ids with this bit of plastic you stick over the birth year. It scratches off. How can I know this and bouncers can't?

Because a pub doesn't make money unless there are young attractive girls there.

While I may have overstated how much responsibility a pub should have for their patrons, I still believe that if you are in the service of getting people drunk you should also be in the service of making sure that when they leave they are capable of doing so safely... (Offering to call a cab may be as much as they can do, and they probably do.. Not that I've seen though). My local has a free van to drop you home. (Islington Tavern a.k.a. The Swamp)

How you know your sister and friends have fake IDs is because she is your sister maybe and you aren't have to check hundreds of id in dim light nor are you checking the ids whilst being hassled for delay the little darling access to the pub. Where is your responsibility to your sister by the way???

They aren't in the service of getting people drunk, in fact they get heavily fined a criticized for having drunks on the premises. There problem is people turning up already nearly drunk, holding it together just long enough to get past the bouncer. Does your sister and/or her friends know the best breath mints or whatever to cover the smell of booze as well?

Sorry but using the pubs as soft targets for lack or personal responsibility sucks. Yes like all businesses they have their issues and dodgy owners but they also carry the bigger burden and are more responsible than a lot of the competition, like dairies selling booze and 'legal' (not anymore) highs.

[scumdog]

So whose committing the crime??.

Pub I worked at confiscated so many fake licenses it wasnt funny! All handed to the police and no further follow up - I thought this was a crime. Also the one's that do get through the door on their fake licenses (remember its usually at night and doorways/entrances are not the best lit areas) when asked by the police to show their licenses say they don't have one and the pub gets done for serving underages.

I hear what you're saying but to prosecute every one of those people with false IDs would require two full time staff doing just that and nothing else.

[Katman]

Rather than start a new thread, this just in...

Are you desperate for attention?

[Parlane]

So whose committing the crime??.

Pub I worked at confiscated so many fake licenses it wasnt funny! All handed to the police and no further follow up - I thought this was a crime. Also the one's that do get through the door on their fake licenses (remember its usually at night and doorways/entrances are not the best lit areas) when asked by the police to show their licenses say they don't have one and the pub gets done for serving underages.

The nightclub in the crowne casino in Melbourne is amazing. First you get an id check at the bottom of the escalator(weeds out people who don't have id). Then you get your picture taken at the door and your id throughly checked.

Comes down to money(&time) I guess.

Pretty easy to do a scratch test on these id's though. And I believe the legal term is "id fraud". So yes my sisters friends should be the ones in trouble.

[scumdog]

Sorry but using the pubs as soft targets for lack or personal responsibility sucks. Yes like all businesses they have their issues and dodgy owners but they also carry the bigger burden and are more responsible than a lot of the competition, like dairies selling booze and 'legal' (not anymore) highs.


True dat!:yes:

Although some pubs let the under-aged and drunks in just to get that extra few $$$.

But too many pub-goers are too quick to blame the pub/bouncer/police when they get into the shit due to their own dishonesty, sneakiness and general drunken stupidity.
"They shouldn't have let me in when I was pissed and I wouldn't have got in the shit".

"They should have known I wasn't 18"

Best: "Aw, you can tell my ID has been changed so they shouldn't have let me in"

[Scuba_Steve]

Are you desperate for attention?

pot, kettle, black??? :yes:

[Scuba_Steve]

True dat!:yes:

Although some pubs let the under-aged and drunks in just to get that extra few $$$.

But too many pub-goers are too quick to blame the pub/bouncer/police when they get into the shit due to their own dishonesty, sneakiness and general drunken stupidity.
"They shouldn't have let me in when I was pissed and I wouldn't have got in the shit".

"They should have known I wasn't 18"

Best: "Aw, you can tell my ID has been changed so they shouldn't have let me in"

Thats because we always wanna blame someone else right???...

[Parlane]

How you know your sister and friends have fake IDs is because she is your sister maybe and you aren't have to check hundreds of id in dim light nor are you checking the ids whilst being hassled for delay the little darling access to the pub. Where is your responsibility to your sister by the way???

They aren't in the service of getting people drunk, in fact they get heavily fined a criticized for having drunks on the premises. There problem is people turning up already nearly drunk, holding it together just long enough to get past the bouncer. Does your sister and/or her friends know the best breath mints or whatever to cover the smell of booze as well?


My sister doesn't have a fake id, her friends do. My responsibility to her? I took her to the pub for her 18th birthday and had a drink with her.
There was a pub brawl that night, how exciting for her first pub visit! Haha.

They may not be in the service for getting people drunk, but they are in the service for selling drinks. The more they can sell on average to one person, the more they make for that night. (A good reason they don't let drunk people in other than their legal requirement not to do so of course. Drunk people don't tend to buy many more drinks.)

[Parlane]

I hear what you're saying but to prosecute every one of those people with false IDs would require two full time staff doing just that and nothing else.

Also, prosecuting 16/17 year olds just wouldn't be "cool". A fraud charge would probably affect them in life more than the punishment should be.

Suitable punishment:

Cop drives them home and has a lovely chat with the parents. If the parents don't care, then there is pretty much nothing that can be done.

[Deano]

Pubs etc should be held more responisble. (IMO)

Not necessarily - people should take more responsibilty for themselves. (Yes I agree that some pubs are not good operators and a lot of bouncers are arseholes)

A licensee can be prosecuted for allowing an intoxicated person to be on the premises.

But can the intoxicated person be charged ? No - not unless disorderly.

How is the culture of drinking in NZ expected to change when there is no personal responsibility ?

[scumdog]

Not necessarily - people should take more responsibilty for themselves. (Yes I agree that some pubs are not good operators and a lot of bouncers are arseholes)

A licensee can be prosecuted for allowing an intoxicated person to be on the premises.

But can the intoxicated person be charged ? No - not unless disorderly.

How is the culture of drinking in NZ expected to change when there is no personal responsibility ?

Bring back Drunk in a Public Place:yes:

[Parlane]

Not necessarily - people should take more responsibilty for themselves. (Yes I agree that some pubs are not good operators and a lot of bouncers are arseholes)

A licensee can be prosecuted for allowing an intoxicated person to be on the premises.

But can the intoxicated person be charged ? No - not unless disorderly.

How is the culture of drinking in NZ expected to change when there is no personal responsibility ?

I regret my original comment on the matter. I said *more* responsible. As in not fully, but they should be doing *more* to help intoxicated people before they leave the premises *alone*.
Personally I think you should already have your way home organised (money for a cab or have a friend (or ya mum) drop you home). The tv ads were pretty good (playing stupid games to work out sober driver).

And you probably shouldn't be at a pub by yourself anyway.. Tag team yo!

[oneofsix]

Also, prosecuting 16/17 year olds just wouldn't be "cool". A fraud charge would probably affect them in life more than the punishment should be.

Suitable punishment:

Cop drives them home and has a lovely chat with the parents. If the parents don't care, then there is pretty much nothing that can be done.

+1 first statement. clip around the ear and sent them home :oops: clipping them around the ear is illegal as is the boot up the backside :facepalm:

But why should they be provided with the tax payer funded taxi service? If the parent care they can call them as they all have cellphones these days. Or they can go home the way they were going to originally, again, where are there so called friends?

As Deano said,

How is the culture of drinking in NZ expected to change when there is no personal responsibility ?

[Scuba_Steve]

Bring back Drunk in a Public Place:yes:

:blink: Thats every Thurs, Fri, Sat up here, plenty of people drunk in a public place :lol:

[Parlane]

Bring back Drunk in a Public Place:yes:

Either A) you are asking for more drunks in public places.

Or B) you are asking for a law that I didn't know had been removed to be reinstated.

Isn't it called drunk & disorderly ? Or just disordely behaviour in general?

(Not all drunks are problems in public places! I'm a very nice drunk :innocent: )

[Parlane]

+1 first statement. clip around the ear and sent them home :oops: clipping them around the ear is illegal as is the boot up the backside :facepalm:

But why should they be provided with the tax payer funded taxi service? If the parent care they can call them as they all have cellphones these days. Or they can go home the way they were going to originally, again, where are there so called friends?

As Deano said,


Good point. Tax them then!
A ticket, no demerits, just a fine to cover cost of dropping them home. And because the parents are responsible they should be the ones paying it?

Parents would then obviously make their kids pay it...

But police are here to serve the public too. Not just enforce. (I thought)

[oneofsix]

:Offtopic: this has got really off the topic and onto another interesting debate.

Scumdog are you serious that it is no longer an offense to be drunk and disorderly in a public place? That sucks. Did it get wrapped in with offensive behaviour, i.e. streaking at the RWC?

[Parlane]

:Offtopic: this has got really off the topic and onto another interesting debate.


Just shows that the OP of this topic was 100% wrong with not starting a new thread haha.:innocent:

[Zedder]

Good point. Tax them then!
A ticket, no demerits, just a fine to cover cost of dropping them home. And because the parents are responsible they should be the ones paying it?

Parents would then obviously make their kids pay it...

But police are here to serve the public too. Not just enforce. (I thought)

"Safer communities together."

[Scuba_Steve]

Just shows that the OP of this topic was 100% wrong with not starting a new thread haha.:innocent:

yea maybee I should have started one "Booze & the responsibility that lies with it"

[oneofsix]

Good point. Tax them then!
A ticket, no demerits, just a fine to cover cost of dropping them home. And because the parents are responsible they should be the ones paying it?

Parents would then obviously make their kids pay it...

But police are here to serve the public too. Not just enforce. (I thought)

New form of party bus goes around collecting the drunks and under aged and dropping them home.
No reason they couldn't have a 'holding area' in the CBD so they only have to do one or two drop-off runs. Actually the holding area could be a problem as it might be seen to be false arrest so might require some adjustments to the laws and that involve politicians so is likely to get screwed up. Bugger!

[willytheekid]

14yrs I worked in and ran bars & nightclubs around NZ......loved the Job right up till they lowered the drinking age!
I walked away from that career due to my own morals telling me selling alcohol to KIDS! was wrong, I could see the industry changing for the worse....and having all the drunk children spitting in my face, swinging at me etc....Just for running a clean bar & following the letter of the law!...enough was enough.
Was quiet amazed at the "circle of friends" in Chch city council looking after their mates bars while they ran illegal promotions etc such as $1 drinks or free ladys drinks etc....complained like hell and got no where!
Still, at least I walked away with the best LLA CCC & Police bar report my boss had seen in 30yrs!
Its no wonder we have a drinking problem in NZ!...just no bloody morals left nowdays

(For the record...RockyCola cafe....before that idiot from shooters bought the place and screwed all my hard work keeping up standards....I do miss talking to sarg tho)

[oneofsix]

yea maybee I should have started one "Booze & the responsibility that lies with it"

There done. Now a thread for Booze and Responsibility.

[Scuba_Steve]

There done. Now a thread for Booze and Responsibility. (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/141865-Booze-and-responsiblity)

fixed it up a bit link now included

[BoristheBiter]

Rather than start a new thread, this just in... Not quite a death but coulda been, not too much details

Police car hits woman (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5593547/Police-car-hits-woman)


Get a fucking life.

She ran across the road in front of the cop car.

[oneofsix]

Get a fucking life.

She ran across the road in front of the cop car.

She did. I reckon if she had done that to most other drivers she would be dead.

[idb]

Rather than start a new thread, this just in... Not quite a death but coulda been, not too much details

Police car hits woman (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5593547/Police-car-hits-woman)

You're right, it could have been so much worse for the poor cop.
A lucky escape I think.

[idb]

Yea I just stuck it here as I didn't think it warranted it's own thread & we don't know what the final outcome will be, it might turn out the cop was in wrong (but I doubt it)

Should they? I don't like the idea of anyone being responsible for anyone else, we do it to ourselves. Theres a chance this women was never in the pub & thus they never got her to this state why should they then be responsible for her? If they outright rejected her they were being responsible by not giving her more & no pub can afford to have their bouncers taking each individual home.

So you already have an opinion on fault.
Most likely the cop according to your theory.
Probably a reasonable assumption based on the evidence presented in the article that you quoted.

[idb]

True dat!:yes:

Although some pubs let the under-aged and drunks in just to get that extra few $$$.

But too many pub-goers are too quick to blame the pub/bouncer/police when they get into the shit due to their own dishonesty, sneakiness and general drunken stupidity.
"They shouldn't have let me in when I was pissed and I wouldn't have got in the shit".

"They should have known I wasn't 18"

Best: "Aw, you can tell my ID has been changed so they shouldn't have let me in"

How about "They shouldn't have let me in...they know I'm an arse-hole".

That should be allowed at the door..."I don't care about your age, where's your ID saying that you're not a prick. Without that I'm sorry you can't come in."

[idb]

Bring back Drunk in a Public Place:yes:

Yeah!
I enjoy that!

[scumdog]

Yeah!
I enjoy that!


Your input on this site and to drunkeness in public has been noted!

[idb]

Your input on this site and to drunkeness in public has been noted!

You make me feel so proud!

[Deano]

Bring back Drunk in a Public Place:yes:

The response from a local cop on that issue is that they don't want this law returned (or one for being drunk in a bar), because then the drunk becomes the Police responsibility and they don't have the resources (or inclination - who could blame them really) to deal with it all.

And around in circles we go.

[scumdog]

The response from a local cop on that issue is that they don't want this law returned (or one for being drunk in a bar), because then the drunk becomes the Police responsibility and they don't have the resources (or inclination - who could blame them really) to deal with it all.

And around in circles we go.

Yep, your local cop is dead right - and cops get pissed off taking drunken twats in for detox when there's other more worthwhile stuff to be done.

(Oh and it's already law that a pub cannot serve or allow to remain any 'intoxicated persons')

At present they can be arrested for disorderly behaviour and know it so push the boundaries a bit, hide behind their mates etc knowing they won't be arrested very readily and suddenly behave when arrest is looming.

But you can't suddenly be sober - so the drunks would keep away from where they could be picked up for drunk in public place.

[StoneY]

Anyone keen to let this thread die yet????

:lol:

Scumdog for Commissioner!

[idb]

All cops are pricks!!!

[scumdog]

All cops are pricks!!!

Goes without saying.

Sorta like a secret KB wave - everybody knows it.

[oneofsix]

Anyone keen to let this thread die yet????

:lol:

Scumdog for Commissioner!

And StoneY for el presidentee

[oneofsix]

Yep, your local cop is dead right - and cops get pissed off taking drunken twats in for detox when there's other more worthwhile stuff to be done.

(Oh and it's already law that a pub cannot serve or allow to remain any 'intoxicated persons')

At present they can be arrested for disorderly behaviour and know it so push the boundaries a bit, hide behind their mates etc knowing they won't be arrested very readily and suddenly behave when arrest is looming.

But you can't suddenly be sober - so the drunks would keep away from where they could be picked up for drunk in public place.

Wouldn't drunk be easier to prove and therefore process? The difference between disorderly and having a bit of fun can be hard to establish and as already agreed in this thread "all cops are pricks" therefore it would be a fair defense to say the cop was just being a prick :shutup: :whistle:

[willytheekid]

.......Scumdog for Commissioner!

.....Commissioner?, how about EL PRESIDENT! :devil2: ....Be a better choice than what we presently have :laugh:

[blueblade]

All cops are pricks!!!

So you know them all do ya ??????

Must have been a busy boy then.

[idb]

So you know them all do ya ??????

Must have been a busy boy then.

Possibly








2345

[imdying]

Also, prosecuting 16/17 year olds just wouldn't be "cool". A fraud charge would probably affect them in life more than the punishment should be.Better off just letting them in so they can be kicked out totally pissed and then get raped :blink:

Don't need an ongoing charge, just two nights in jail will be fine. If the law can't accommodate that, then it should be changed. Or we could just have the joke (liqour licensing) laws we have now, they're working out pretty good.

I wonder if girls get raped because they dress like sluts, or just because it's so easy to do?

[Daffyd]

Prolly a bit of both.

[Parlane]

Better off just letting them in so they can be kicked out totally pissed and then get raped :blink:



That will put them off drinking for a while :facepalm: