Police to continue car chases

[Kinje]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/3946011/Police-to-continue-car-chases

Police say they will continue chasing offenders who try to flee in cars, despite the dangers high speed pursuits pose.

Police have just completed their fourth review in six years of their pursuit policy - part of an on-going programme to monitor the sensitive area of police chases.

The finding: "There is insufficient evidence to support the banning of police pursuits.

"Pursuits are initiated for one simple reason, a driver fails to comply with a police officer's request to stop," said Superintendent Paula Rose.

"Police stop vehicles - many, many vehicles at all times of the day and night - and only a very small minority fail to comply. But we do need to ask the question as to why this driver did not want to talk to police."

She acknowledged police chases are "a complex policy problem for police, who endeavour to balance the needs of law enforcement with public safety."

She said drivers who try to flee police endanger the lives of members of the public, police staff, themselves and their passengers.

She said the debate around the benefit of pursuits versus the risks is not unique to New Zealand.

Overseas jurisdictions also review their policies to try to make sure their pursuit practice is as robust and as safe as possible.

International research divides pursuit policies into three main types: judgemental; restrictive; and discouragement.

New Zealand's current policy is a restrictive one and has been since 2004, Rose said - meaning the over-riding issue for police is "public and staff safety take precedence over the immediate apprehension
of the offender."

The report recommends that New Zealand's pursuit policy should stay restrictive but recommends a number of changes to enhance safety.

Rose said it was likely that technological advances and new operational procedures would be introduced at some stage.

Among the changes to be introduced are: police will role play pursuits in training so they are better able to cope with the real thing; more hands-free radio kits will be installed in police cars; if police identify who the driver is they are chasing the policy will be to stop chasing and pick them up later.

The full recommended changes:

* Amending the responsibilities of the Police passenger to abandon a pursuit if they are senior in rank or service, or have a higher Professional Police Driver Programme (PPDP) classification;

* Including role-specific training to all staff involved in pursuits, especially pursuit controllers;

Ad Feedback * Introducing primary and secondary units with specific roles and responsibilities during a pursuit, such as the secondary vehicle taking over the pursuit commentary if required;

* Continuing with the introduction of hands-free radios in operational vehicles;

* Introducing strategies to limit the number of vehicles in a pursuit - this includes encouraging units in the vicinity to head to key sites in the area that offenders may head to;

* Amending the current wording regarding the use of force in the legislative section and how it relates to pursuit activity;

* Extending the abandonment criteria;

* Introducing a search phase into policy and procedure, post-abandonment or when a vehicle is lost;

* Amending the current policy to reflect the procedure when the Aerial Surveillance Unit (ASU) is involved in a pursuit;

* Amending the communication procedure to include a prompt regarding the activation of lights and sirens during a pursuit; and

* Amending the policy to state that a pursuit is to be abandoned once an offender's identity becomes known and apprehension may be effected later, so long as there is no immediate threat to staff or public safety

There have reportedly been eight deaths associated with a police chase in the past six months.

The latest was in Christchurch last month.

The Independent Police Conduct Authority are investigating the death of a 22-year-old man after a two minute police chase at 12.20am on Sunday June 20.

The car being chased turned lost control, striking a tree. The pursuit lasted just over two minutes, Mr Johnston said.

The driver of the car died while being taken to hospital. Two female passengers suffered moderate injuries.

[SMOKEU]

Bullshit. Comms make the cops abandon most chases if the offender is prepared to drive way fast enough.

[onearmedbandit]

If someone wants to run and kills them self, then I fully support that.
If they flee and kill someone innocent, then that is a tragedy, but we can't stop the police from pursuing in the general interest of the public's safety. However if they survive then slap 'em with a murder charge.

[Headbanger]

If someone wants to run and kills them self, then I fully support that.
If they flee and kill someone innocent, then that is a tragedy, but we can't stop the police from pursuing in the general interest of the public's safety. However if they survive then slap 'em with a murder charge.

My sentiments exactly.

[98tls]

If someone wants to run and kills them self, then I fully support that.
If they flee and kill someone innocent, then that is a tragedy, but we can't stop the police from pursuing in the general interest of the public's safety. However if they survive then slap 'em with a murder charge.

The cops or the runner?or both?.

[Patrick]

The cops or the runner?or both?.

It's the cops fault.... (apparently.... always....):shutup:

The states have some things right... flee over there and it's felony evasion, 5 years jail. :yes:

Here, it's only just gone up to 3 months disqualification and possibly a fine. Before Dec 1 it was usually "Convicted and Discharged...." (ie: big fat nothing.....).:sick:

[Toaster]

Dammed if they do and dammed if they don't.

:blink:

[Toaster]

felony evasion, 5 years jail. :yes:


If only!!!

[98tls]

It's the cops fault.... (apparently.... always....):shutup:

The states have some things right... flee over there and it's felony evasion, 5 years jail. :yes:

Here, it's only just gone up to 3 months disqualification and possibly a fine. Before Dec 1 it was usually "Convicted and Discharged...." (ie: big fat nothing.....).:sick:

Amazing eh,those that make up the rules in this country need a good arse kicking,ironic that if they performed so badly in the workplace anywhere else they would quick smart be sacked but hell no there free to carry on fucking up a once perfectly good country.

[Toaster]

I am in favour of the police dog having a compulsory chew...................... :innocent:

[Patrick]

.....

* Continuing with the introduction of hands-free radios in operational vehicles;

* Amending the current wording regarding the use of force in the legislative section and how it relates to pursuit activity;

* Extending the abandonment criteria;

* Amending the current policy to reflect the procedure when the Aerial Surveillance Unit (ASU) is involved in a pursuit;

* Amending the communication procedure to include a prompt regarding the activation of lights and sirens during a pursuit; and



The only new things are the 5 above - everything else already exists, so it's a reinvention of the wheel....... and most of this is radio procedures.

The chopper has always become the primary unit guiding the cars into the right areas, filming as they go...... But only in Auckland......

[Toaster]

Much of the time it is the weak applications of sentences.

Some offences carry good term lengths but they just get a smack on the hand instead.

Stick em in Jail and make them WORK for their taxpayer funded holiday behind bars... Jail needs to be a deterrent, not a free lunch and bed.

[Patrick]

I am in favour of the police dog having a compulsory chew...................... :innocent:

Gotta feed em something. May as well be an oxygen thief......

[Patrick]

Much of the time it is the weak applications of sentences.

Some offences carry good term lengths but they just get a smack on the hand instead.

Stick em in Jail and make them WORK for their taxpayer funded holiday behind bars... Jail needs to be a deterrent, not a free lunch and bed.

And not out in half the time served, regardless of how bad you behaved while in there.........

[onearmedbandit]

The cops or the runner?or both?.

The runners. However if the chasing unit/s are told to back down but don't then they too are culpable.

Make the rules plain and simple, for both sides.

[puddy]

If someone wants to run and kills them self, then I fully support that.
If they flee and kill someone innocent, then that is a tragedy, but we can't stop the police from pursuing in the general interest of the public's safety. However if they survive then slap 'em with a murder charge.
Exactly! If you can't drive, get out of the car or get out of the gene pool. Your choice. Just don't take out anybody else.:yes:

[98tls]

Much of the time it is the weak applications of sentences.

Some offences carry good term lengths but they just get a smack on the hand instead.

Stick em in Jail and make them WORK for their taxpayer funded holiday behind bars... Jail needs to be a deterrent, not a free lunch and bed.

Way back they did indeed work for there holiday which in turn the prison benefitted from ie they grew veges etc but it seems all that is long gone,dunno why.

[Scouse]

It's the cops fault.... (apparently.... always....):shutup:

The states have some things right... flee over there and it's felony evasion, 5 years jail. :yes:

Here, it's only just gone up to 3 months disqualification and possibly a fine. Before Dec 1 it was usually "Convicted and Discharged...." (ie: big fat nothing.....).:sick:
That’s f ing ridiculass NZ judiciary is way too soft with their sentencing

[Banditbandit]

Way back they did indeed work for there holiday which in turn the prison benefitted from ie they grew veges etc but it seems all that is long gone,dunno why.

Because what do you do if they refuse to work ? Can't lock 'em up - they're already there ...

It's bad enough to get these dopeheads to work on the outside ... almost impossible on the inside ...

[Banditbandit]

Here, it's only just gone up to 3 months disqualification and possibly a fine. Before Dec 1 it was usually "Convicted and Discharged...." (ie: big fat nothing.....).:sick:

Naa ... 20 years ago I did a runner on a bike - eventually flagged it 'cause you can lose one car .. but you can't beat the radios ..

I got a six-month disqualification (had a good lawyer - was expecting one year) and a pretty hefty fine ... it must be at least that- and if it's gone up it's got to be more ... it depends on what they are charged with - I got charged with wreckless driving ... that's harsher than "failing to stop for a police officer ... "

The judges are being soft on the sons and daughters of the middle classes ... after all, one of their own was involved in a racer incident in 2004 - wasn't she in a car doing something shocking across South Canterbury ?

[SMOKEU]

The runners. However if the chasing unit/s are told to back down but don't then they too are culpable.

Make the rules plain and simple, for both sides.

Police shouldn't abandon any pursuits in the first place.

[onearmedbandit]

Police shouldn't abandon any pursuits in the first place.

Every pursuit is different. I don't think you can just have a blanket rule like that.

[SMOKEU]

Every pursuit is different. I don't think you can just have a blanket rule like that.

The government is encouraging criminals to commit even more crimes. Anyone who has a reasonable level of driving skill can get away from the police in a residential area if they have a moderately quick car like a standard 6 cylinder Falcodore or a turbo Legacy. If someone does an armed robbery on a bank, and they're prepared to drive away fast enough, then they'll get away with it.

The vehicles in chases are often stolen, or the plates may have been switched around. There is often a time delay of several hours from when a vehicle gets stolen to the time that it gets reported stolen, so simply saying "Abandon the pursuit and chase up the registered owner the next day" doesn't work. If your pride and joy got stolen, would you really want the cops to give up chasing the criminal?

[onearmedbandit]

So you're quite happy for the police to pursue your pride and joy at over 200km/h down Moorhouse Ave resulting in a multiple vehicle collision causing a number of deaths, serious injury and destruction of not only your 'pride and joy' but other peoples as well? Where is the logic in that?

[jahrasti]

Naa ... 20 years ago I did a runner on a bike - eventually flagged it 'cause you can lose one car .. but you can't beat the radios ..

I got a six-month disqualification (had a good lawyer - was expecting one year) and a pretty hefty fine ... it must be at least that- and if it's gone up it's got to be more ... it depends on what they are charged with - I got charged with wreckless driving ... that's harsher than "failing to stop for a police officer ... "

The judges are being soft on the sons and daughters of the middle classes ... after all, one of their own was involved in a racer incident in 2004 - wasn't she in a car doing something shocking across South Canterbury ?

Your charge was different and carried a mandatory term of catching the bus. Wreckless is a more serious charge. Failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights/ police officer etc was until not to long ago fine only.

Most of the time is was convict and discharge. Much like Section 118 (the make the owner tell the popo who was driving thing). That is normally a SMALL fine at most or C&D even though they are lying their bumbums off.

[SMOKEU]

So you're quite happy for the police to pursue your pride and joy at over 200km/h down Moorhouse Ave resulting in a multiple vehicle collision causing a number of deaths, serious injury and destruction of not only your 'pride and joy' but other peoples as well? Where is the logic in that?

In that scenario, it wasn't me who caused the crash, and it wasn't the cop who caused the crash. How do you know that the offender wasn't going to crash anyway?

[T.W.R]

Way back they did indeed work for there holiday which in turn the prison benefitted from ie they grew veges etc but it seems all that is long gone,dunno why.

It's still happening :yes: Rolleston & Paparoa prisons have very large scale organic gardens that supply a few retailers :yes: Paparoa has a thriving wee business selling firewood & organic farming (livestock) too.



Failing to stop for red and blue flashing lights/ police officer etc was until not to long ago fine only.


:nono: Not so, know people who have been involved in chases that ended with a trip to court...2yr loss of licence & $900 fines for the perpetrators. One ended up involving 3-4 black & whites, 2 muffties, & 2 police bikes to block the road to stop the offender (even though there were 6 of us involved they only targeted the one bike in the group).
In saying that have been directly involved in a chase that had 2 cop cars block the street to stop us and were sent on our way with just a VERY SOLID ear bashing & on your way by one of the officers

[spacemonkey]

I am in favour of the police dog having a compulsory chew...................... :innocent:

Always used to crack me up when ever I saw them, up in Whangarei the two dog handler cars had on the back of them "Landshark 1" and "Landshark 2". :Punk:

[onearmedbandit]

In that scenario, it wasn't me who caused the crash, and it wasn't the cop who caused the crash. How do you know that the offender wasn't going to crash anyway?

One would assume that in that particular scenario the offender would have no need to travel at 200km/h in a 50km/h zone if he wasn't being pursued by police also at 200km/h.

[SMOKEU]

One would assume that in that particular scenario the offender would have no need to travel at 200km/h in a 50km/h zone if he wasn't being pursued by police also at 200km/h.

So you're saying that offenders should be allowed to run away and continue their crime spree? What if they just robbed a bank with a loaded shotgun?

[onearmedbandit]

So you're saying that offenders should be allowed to run away and continue their crime spree? What if they just robbed a bank with a loaded shotgun?

No. What I'm saying is neither you or I know what criteria the police use in determining whether it is safe to consider a pursuit or not. Like I said, every pursuit is different. Smarter minds than yours throughout the world have determined that in certain circumstances it is advisable to stop a pursuit.

[onearmedbandit]

If someone wants to run and kills them self, then I fully support that.
If they flee and kill someone innocent, then that is a tragedy, but we can't stop the police from pursuing in the general interest of the public's safety. However if they survive then slap 'em with a murder charge.


The runners. However if the chasing unit/s are told to back down but don't then they too are culpable.

Make the rules plain and simple, for both sides.

If I may quote myself, I'm all for the police to have the power to pursue, backed up by my original post in this thread. However, there may be circumstances that dictate a pursuit be stopped, as I said in my second post.

[jahrasti]

:nono: Not so, know people who have been involved in chases that ended with a trip to court...2yr loss of licence & $900 fines for the perpetrators. One ended up involving 3-4 black & whites, 2 muffties, & 2 police bikes to block the road to stop the offender (even though there were 6 of us involved they only targeted the one bike in the group).
In saying that have been directly involved in a chase that had 2 cop cars block the street to stop us and were sent on our way with just a VERY SOLID ear bashing & on your way by one of the officers

:nono::nono: back to you. Find below a copy of Section 114

(2) The maximum penalty on conviction for an offence against subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding $10,000.

(3) If a person is convicted of an offence against section 114 and has previously been convicted of an offence against section 114 or, while failing to comply with section 114, exceeded the applicable speed limit or operated a motor vehicle in an otherwise dangerous manner, a court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 3 months.

(4) If a person is convicted for a third or subsequent offence against section 114,—

(a) the maximum penalty is imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months; and

(b) the court must order the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence for 1 year.

Yes it did end in a trip to court. They would have been found guilty of other shit though.

But hey, you stick to your story it is much better than the truth.:shutup:

[T.W.R]

But hey, you stick to your story it is much better than the truth.:shutup:

No story, but fact

One of the guys wasn't seen by the cop until he passed the street where the cop was and was out of sight most of the time the cop was chasing him, he actually stopped and waited for the cop. went to court and got the 2yrs loss & $900 fine. The cop informed him that the reason was because of noise that he tried to stop him (500 Pantah with Contis) and it was written on the ticket "Failing to Stop" and had no other offences listed.
Then 6mths after getting his licence back got done for failing to stop (roughly 8kms before he did actually see the cop in the mirrors) went to court again got the same judge and hit with the same conviction.

The other event with the group of us the cops did the offending rider for failing to stop & ecxcessive speed because at the time the primitive radars they were using couldn't get a lock on him. That resulted in the end of the northern motorway southbound lane into ChCh being blocked at the Belfast pub being blocked to stop us.

[jahrasti]

No story, but fact

One of the guys wasn't seen by the cop until he passed the street where the cop was and was out of sight most of the time the cop was chasing him, he actually stopped and waited for the cop. went to court and got the 2yrs loss & $900 fine. The cop informed him that the reason was because of noise that he tried to stop him (500 Pantah with Contis) and it was written on the ticket "Failing to Stop" and had no other offences listed.
Then 6mths after getting his licence back got done for failing to stop (roughly 8kms before he did actually see the cop in the mirrors) went to court again got the same judge and hit with the same conviction.

The other event with the group of us the cops did the offending rider for failing to stop & ecxcessive speed because at the time the primitive radars they were using couldn't get a lock on him. That resulted in the end of the northern motorway southbound lane into ChCh being blocked at the Belfast pub being blocked to stop us.

So you mentioned black and whites. Do you mean actual black and whites (MOT) or Police. If MOT then shit that some time time ago. That was probably when the cops only had one light.

If that long ago then way before my time. I was just a young fella when they merged and didn't have a licence. Oh hang on, it still didn't stop me falling off a motorbike and breaking my wrist

I do still remember getting stopped by one of the local MOT for being a passenger and not wearing a seatbelt. He made me call him sir and the end of each sentence.

One would have to find the rules of the day,probably road rules or somethin like that to see what the penalty was for failing to stop back then.

I might have to google as now I am curious.

Watch this space.

[SMOKEU]

No. What I'm saying is neither you or I know what criteria the police use in determining whether it is safe to consider a pursuit or not. Like I said, every pursuit is different. Smarter minds than yours throughout the world have determined that in certain circumstances it is advisable to stop a pursuit.

I'm well aware of the criteria police comms use to determine weather or not a pursuit should be abandoned. It is based on the police driver, the police car, the speed of the offender, the manner of driving, traffic conditions, road conditions, the reason for the pursuit and how much of a tosser the comms shift commander is.

[onearmedbandit]

I'm well aware of the criteria police comms use to determine weather or not a pursuit should be abandoned. It is based on the police driver, the police car, the speed of the offender, the manner of driving, traffic conditions, road conditions, the reason for the pursuit and how much of a tosser the comms shift commander is.

That much is obvious. But do you know the determining limits and specific criteria for each of those areas?

[SMOKEU]

That much is obvious. But do you know the determining limits and specific criteria for each of those areas?

It is all based on what the comms shift commander considers "too dangerous". Sometimes 100kmh in a 50kmh zone is fine, other times the pursuit will be abandoned at only 120kmh in a 100kmh zone, out in the countryside with no other traffic around. So to answer your question, "specific criteria" is an opinion made by one person based on many different factors put together. As they say, "If there is any unjustified risk to members of the public, you must abandon the pursuit immediately".

[onearmedbandit]

It is all based on what the comms shift commander considers "too dangerous". Sometimes 100kmh in a 50kmh zone is fine, other times the pursuit will be abandoned at only 120kmh in a 100kmh zone, out in the countryside with no other traffic around. So to answer your question, "specific criteria" is an opinion made by one person based on many different factors put together. As they say, "If there is any unjustified risk to members of the public, you must abandon the pursuit immediately".

You seem to know a lot about pursuit procedure. Is this picked up from listening to your scanner?

[SMOKEU]

You seem to know a lot about pursuit procedure. Is this picked up from listening to your scanner?

Listening to my scanner for hundreds of hours has given me a lot of insight into police procedures.

[onearmedbandit]

Listening to my scanner for hundreds of hours has given me a lot of insight into police procedures.

I figured as much...

[SMOKEU]

I figured as much...

Yeah, well I sit at home all day listening to the scanner. It's like a full time job for me.

[T.W.R]

So you mentioned black and whites. Do you mean actual black and whites (MOT) or Police. If MOT then shit that some time time ago.

In the mid late 1980s :yes: MOT & Police merged in 1992

[Toaster]

So you're saying that offenders should be allowed to run away and continue their crime spree? What if they just robbed a bank with a loaded shotgun?

In a situation like that they would likely continue to pursue becasue the person still presents a very high risk to the public. That is more likely to end in AOS ramming them off the road and taking them down at gunpoint.

A numbnuts who merely runs a stop sign is obviously at the other end of the scale.

[SMOKEU]

In a situation like that they would likely continue to pursue becasue the person still presents a very high risk to the public. That is more likely to end in AOS ramming them off the road and taking them down at gunpoint.

A numbnuts who merely runs a stop sign is obviously at the other end of the scale.

Ramming them off the road - good one!

[jahrasti]

Ramming them off the road - good one!

Yes a moving block, older AOS operators especially are still qualified and able to do it, did they not teach you that at college?

[SMOKEU]

Yes a moving block, older AOS operators especially are still qualified and able to do it, did they not teach you that at college?

That would cause an unjustified risk to people!

[Patrick]

....- I got charged with wreckless driving ... that's harsher than "failing to stop for a police officer ... "

Which is why you were hammered... certainly not for failing to stop.


Not so, know people who have been involved in chases that ended with a trip to court...2yr loss of licence & $900 fines for the perpetrators. ......

Again... NOT for faling to stop.


No story, but fact

One of the guys wasn't seen by the cop until he passed the street where the cop was and was out of sight most of the time the cop was chasing him, he actually stopped and waited for the cop. went to court and got the 2yrs loss & $900 fine. The cop informed him that the reason was because of noise that he tried to stop him (500 Pantah with Contis) and it was written on the ticket "Failing to Stop" and had no other offences listed.
Then 6mths after getting his licence back got done for failing to stop (roughly 8kms before he did actually see the cop in the mirrors) went to court again got the same judge and hit with the same conviction.

The other event with the group of us the cops did the offending rider for failing to stop & ecxcessive speed because at the time the primitive radars they were using couldn't get a lock on him. That resulted in the end of the northern motorway southbound lane into ChCh being blocked at the Belfast pub being blocked to stop us.

"ONE OF THE GUYS" was pulling your pisser. Definitely "story. Definitely NOT fact.


In the mid late 1980s :yes: MOT & Police merged in 1992

Failing to Stop has always been a pissy offence. Even before the merger. Even in the mid 80's....

Jahrastri correctly points out it has only recently gone up to what it is now. It has been a Maximum $10,000 fine only since the early 90s from memory. It used to be a $1000 fine maximum, so to lose the licence for 2 years and get a $900 fine is bollocks. There is FAR more to that story.......


That would cause an unjustified risk to people!

Comes down to training. Taking out an armed robber armed with a shotgun wouldn't be justified?

Can be done easily and the patrol car damage could be fixed with twink. Better if bullbars were fitted...... just like the yank cars.

[jonbuoy]

Modern car and bike ECU´s are pretty smart these days, it wouldn´t take much to have a small short range receiver inside them to put the engine into a "limp" mode - ie limit top speed and power output. Pursuing cops could be sent an encyrpted code from a secure database to activate the limp mode, only needs to be active for 20 minutes or so to bring the chase to a stop.

[pritch]

The states have some things right... flee over there and it's felony evasion, 5 years jail. :yes:



And I believe that if somebody dies while a felony is being committed the charge must be murder 1?

[rastuscat]

How about the people who have failed to stop get together and have a review of their decisions not to stop.

Then we could all blame them, instead of only having one target in our sights i.e. the Popos.

Just a thought.

[davereid]

How about the people who have failed to stop get together and have a review of their decisions not to stop. Then we could all blame them, instead of only having one target in our sights i.e. the Popos. Just a thought.

They have only themselves to blame if they get hurt by not stopping.

I'm much more sympathetic for the innocent person caught up in a chase.

So far I tend towards the view that the nutty driving was what caused the chase. Not chasing therefore would not eliminate the danger.

I'm puzzled however as to the large number of chases.

Anecdotally, some of the young fellas I have talked to about it, have a sincere belief that they will get away. Their peer group talk is all bragging of the cop that got left behind. I haven't seen any statistics as to the number of abandoned chases. It would appear however, that the more chases that are abandoned, the more the lads will think they can get away.

Another factor is the penalties if they do stop.

In my day, the traffic department had few teeth. So stopping was viable, as the ticket would leave you chastised but not fucked over.

But now-a-days fines are massive, disqualification, vehicle impoundments and serious financial cost is never far away.

So we have combined a natural belief that you can get away, with a natural belief that you will be savaged if you stop.

[Patrick]

How about the people who have failed to stop get together and have a review of their decisions not to stop.

Then we could all blame them, instead of only having one target in our sights i.e. the Popos.

Just a thought.

You forgot to add.... "So there...."

Fixed. :Punk:

[rastuscat]

So there.

Sorry.

So there.

Tee hee.

So there.

[Patrick]

Thats better...

So there....

[idb]

It'll be great when all the cops have guns, they'll be able to lean out the window and shoot out the tyres.

[Banditbandit]

That much is obvious. But do you know the determining limits and specific criteria for each of those areas?

The cops are never going to say what the specific criteria are. If they did, we would all know what we had to do to lose one in a chase ...

[onearmedbandit]

The cops are never going to say what the specific criteria are. If they did, we would all know what we had to do to lose one in a chase ...

Which is my point. Listening to a scanner for hours on end doesn't really give much insight into police procedure.

[T.W.R]

"ONE OF THE GUYS" was pulling your pisser. Definitely "story. Definitely NOT fact.
There is FAR more to that story.......


Were you there to see the events unfold Paddy?? nah didn't think so.

Bit like the Invercargill Judge who ordered a bike destroyed a few years ago because the rider had been playing silly buggers in town on it.

I could give you a couple of good MOT events from years gone by...like a drunk driver being apprehended after a chase across at least 4 suburbs of ChCh hitting cars taking, out property fences etc only to go to court & the officer involved being claimed to have been overzealous in his apprehension of the offender because he & a member of the public gangtackled the offender and held him down till back-up arrived.

or a classic closing of the ranks by the cops because an officer stopped a drunk driver, laid charges only to have it swept under the carpet because the drunk was a senior sargent and it would have ruined his career.

[Bald Eagle]

Were you there to see the events unfold Paddy?? nah didn't think so.

Bit like the Invercargill Judge who ordered a bike destroyed a few years ago because the rider had been playing silly buggers in town on it.

I could give you a couple of good MOT events from years gone by...like a drunk driver being apprehended after a chase across at least 4 suburbs of ChCh hitting cars taking, out property fences etc only to go to court & the officer involved being claimed to have been overzealous in his apprehension of the offender because he & a member of the public gangtackled the offender and held him down till back-up arrived.

or a classic closing of the ranks by the cops because an officer stopped a drunk driver, laid charges only to have it swept under the carpet because the drunk was a senior sargent and it would have ruined his career.

Or the District Court Judge apprehended for drink driving, and quietly transferred to a different district.

[Spearfish]

The only deterrent of crime is the fear of getting caught, no matter what.

If you let those breaking the law dictate the rules for engagement so controlling the rules for capture then there will never be an effective police procedure. Tail wagging the dog.
Imagine the same rules applying to guns..
Someone with a gun is shooting road signs, shop windows, street lamps etc in a built up area of auckland cops turn up ask him politely to stop, he says piss off I know you cant do anything in case I start shooting into houses, they recognise him from many, many other "events" so walk off with the intention of catching up with him sometime later.
We don't want to cause a problem now do we, might get some people complaining about police on the website kiwi gunner.