A visit from the Police

[Silage]

My son got a visit from the police yesterday who were following up on a complaint from the "public". They said he was doing donuts in his ute on a gravel road near Nelson when he was there a month ago. Son's version is that he parked on the grass at the side of the road and the back slipped slightly when he drove off (no big slide or anything) as it was slippery. A coupla "members of the public" having observed this laid a complaint. I suspect there may have been some words between the two parties and the area is probably frequented by hoons but I think son is being straight up saying he was not doing donuts, just took off a bit quick.

After talking with the cop, son was told that either he accepts a $600 fine (for loosing traction ...) or contests it in court. I expect the case would be heard in Nelson (son resident in Chch) so what choice does he have?? - $600 or a day off work, travel costs to Nelson and the possibility of still being found guilty.

Has anyone else had to defend themselves against a complaint from the public? Do they have to front in court if it is defended? This sounds like a good way to have a go at any segment of society that I happen not to like.

[Sniper]

He would do well off to contest it. Ok, they have proof that he was in Nelson, but Im fairly sure (Please don't quote me on this) that without evidence (Ie: photographic) all they have to go on is someones word. It is a bit silly that they have called on the police especially when your son admits to the back end slipping because the ground was slippery.

My opinion.

[Cibby]

After talking with the cop, son was told that either he accepts a $600 fine (for loosing traction ...) or contests it in court. I expect the case would be heard in Nelson (son resident in Chch) so what choice does he have?? - $600 or a day off work, travel costs to Nelson and the possibility of still being found guilty.

Has anyone else had to defend themselves against a complaint from the public? Do they have to front in court if it is defended? This sounds like a good way to have a go at any segment of society that I happen not to like.

How can they possibly charge him without actually being there to witness it themselves.. as far as i am aware, they are allowed to issue warnings but as far as issuing tickets for that, that is really shitty...
Can they prove that he "lost traction" and saying that a "number of people" complained..

Does that then mean that i can complain that i "think i saw someone look at me funny so they get an assult charge"

This sorta thing fucks me off.

Good luck!!!

[k14]

Just a side note (dont know how legit the ticket is) but I'm pretty sure that he can get the hearing moved to the court in chch.

[oldrider]

Even if he was doing donuts it still stinks. One of my nephews in Taupo had that done to him too. He was doing donuts but shit a brick he shoulda just got his arse kicked. Bloody PC makes me sick. Good luck, John.

[dangerous]

How can they possibly charge him without actually being there to witness it themselves.. !!!
They cant....... unless he says he did do it, or close to it like he admited.
Unfortunatly it is a case were you have to lie ya ass off... 'no sir I was never up there... mistaken identity'

Yes I have been there done that (they dont call me Dangerous for nothing ya know) anyway the public made the complaint I told the copper na havent been that way for years...... copper said 'ok.... dont do it again' the end :Punk:

[Big Dave]

I have had a very similar experience with my young bloke.
Contest it - go to court if necessary.
Can't divulge more as we have signed a confidentiality agreement with the police over the outcome. But that should tell you enough.

[Smorg]

Contest :mad: :mad:

[Postie]

hell yeah contest it, the cop probably got over excited when someone mentioned the word doughnut

[bugjuice]

hell yeah contest it, the cop probably got over excited when someone mentioned the word doughnut
lol.. funny fuk..

at the end of the day, it's their word against his. The cop didn't see squat. There's no solid evidence. The fact that he mentioned he did 'loose traction' (such PC bullshit, really is) should be the worst he admits to, cos they'll twist everything, but the court would probably chuck it out. Why waste the courts time over some aledged 'incident' that's over a month old?
tell 'em to go jump

[Lou Girardin]

Defend it. Try to get it heard in ChCh, chances are the narks will lose interest in giving evidence then. Just be aware that if it's moved to ChCh and you lose, you will be up for witness expenses.

The moral is, admit nothing to the cops. Identify the driver if required and say no more.

[flash]

one of my mates was caught by a cop while holding three vodka bottles...drunk
hes under age and was given something like a $400 fine, he contested it.
3 weeks later he got off scott free and didnt even have to go to court, even though a police actually caught him (not the public). shows how crap our courts are

[Aaron]

The 'sustaned lost of traction' rule was brought in to combat boy racers, (along with 'uncessary accleration' to combat the "I wasn't breaking the speed limit officer, just getting there really quickly" line). If he accidently spun a bit on gravel on a shingle road I don't see how they can really prosecute him for that.

Sounds like the cop was having a slow day or is a real wanker. I'm not sure it would stand up in court based on the definition of the law...

The law is 'SUSTAINED loss of traction', meaning it's intentional and prolonged, i.e. doing number 11's at the lights and wot not.

Fark, my 323 is front wheel drive and wheel spins on man hole covers (in the rain) when I acclerate away at the lights, (not racing, just really light car), are they gonna do me too?

Contest it, and like whosit said, try and get the hearing in Christchurch.

[R6_kid]

err i thinkt its called diversion - if he hasnt been done for anything before doesnt he get off with a warning and just have it on record as being reported for doing it....

sounds stupid to me... i did a burnout in pyros driveway, might get a letter in a month in which case i will be destroying all video evidence :Pokey:

[beelzebub]

$600 for "sustained loss of traction"?

Must be an even more murderous crime than speeding. :devil2:

[Marmoot]

Take it this way:

If you groan on the prospect of having to go to court to defend yourself, think of the witnesses.

It would be harder decision for them to go to court when their wallet is not involved in the equation, and they would lose 1 day wage as your son would.

In the end, there would be court without witness. What kind of court is done without witness? (bear in mind, the police in this case was not a witness since he was not there).

Logical?

[Lou Girardin]

The unnecessary acceleration thing is interesting. Compared to what?
Even a pootling start on a bike leaves any car for dead.
Is that unnecessary?
I happen to think it's a definite safety factor, a nice big gap back to any cretin unable to stop.

[ajdarrell]

After talking with the cop,

This is your problem.

My understanding is that they will do nothing unless they have mutiple credible witnesses or you admit that something happened. The only thing you have to tell a cop is your name and address, other than this say nothing.

A good number of convictions result from information given by the convictee.

Get it moved to CHCH and fight it.

[froggyfrenchman]

hope it all goes away for him... sucks. even if he was doin donuts!

[froggyfrenchman]

Take it this way:

If you groan on the prospect of having to go to court to defend yourself, think of the witnesses.

It would be harder decision for them to go to court when their wallet is not involved in the equation, and they would lose 1 day wage as your son would.

In the end, there would be court without witness. What kind of court is done without witness? (bear in mind, the police in this case was not a witness since he was not there).

Logical?

Not quite true... When my bikes were stolen, i was called to court as a witness. The courts contacted my employer, found out what my days pay would have been and paid me. cheque was here 3 days after court day

[madboy]

I'd fight it, but then I'm a sucker for punishment. Young boy's word vs old fart's word... don't like your chances. And God help you if there were any children within 100 miles. But I agree with others here, if you've already had a word with the cop you're farked. Best thing to do is name, address and speak to my lawyer, cop. Admit nothing. Truth is the first victim. The fact that you've admitted there was a loss of traction is a bad move. "Sustained" is very subjective and depends entirely on the age of the driver, vehicle they are driving and the last time the officer had sexual intercourse with a real live human being.

[inlinefour]

My son got a visit from the police yesterday who were following up on a complaint from the "public". They said he was doing donuts in his ute on a gravel road near Nelson when he was there a month ago. Son's version is that he parked on the grass at the side of the road and the back slipped slightly when he drove off (no big slide or anything) as it was slippery. A coupla "members of the public" having observed this laid a complaint. I suspect there may have been some words between the two parties and the area is probably frequented by hoons but I think son is being straight up saying he was not doing donuts, just took off a bit quick.

After talking with the cop, son was told that either he accepts a $600 fine (for loosing traction ...) or contests it in court. I expect the case would be heard in Nelson (son resident in Chch) so what choice does he have?? - $600 or a day off work, travel costs to Nelson and the possibility of still being found guilty.

Has anyone else had to defend themselves against a complaint from the public? Do they have to front in court if it is defended? This sounds like a good way to have a go at any segment of society that I happen not to like.

Twas my word against theirs. They stated that I did a wheelie as I went around the courner with the wheel up in the air, 90 degree turn. I said to the judge, sorry I can't even do that on my MX bike, let alone on a road bike on the road. He reckoned that he did not know much about bikes, but one of the magpies said that it would be a reasonably hard thing to do. On the end the case was dismissed and I walked away. However if I had lost, I would have had court costs on top of the fine. Let alone the day off work. Next time it happened, I just said to the magpie, yea I did it and paid the fine :devil2:

[limbimtimwim]

Twas my word against theirs. They stated that I did a wheelie as I w [...] Next time it happened, I just said to the magpie, yea I did it and paid the fine :devil2:And you want that on your record?

[inlinefour]

And you want that on your record?

Don't really think its something that anyone would ever drag up again, unless I reverted back to doing those things... :no:

[WINJA]

My son got a visit from the police yesterday who were following up on a complaint from the "public". They said he was doing donuts in his ute on a gravel road near Nelson when he was there a month ago. Son's version is that he parked on the grass at the side of the road and the back slipped slightly when he drove off (no big slide or anything) as it was slippery. A coupla "members of the public" having observed this laid a complaint. I suspect there may have been some words between the two parties and the area is probably frequented by hoons but I think son is being straight up saying he was not doing donuts, just took off a bit quick.

After talking with the cop, son was told that either he accepts a $600 fine (for loosing traction ...) or contests it in court. I expect the case would be heard in Nelson (son resident in Chch) so what choice does he have?? - $600 or a day off work, travel costs to Nelson and the possibility of still being found guilty.

Has anyone else had to defend themselves against a complaint from the public? Do they have to front in court if it is defended? This sounds like a good way to have a go at any segment of society that I happen not to like.

MEANWHILE SOMEWHERE THERE IS A RAPE,ASSAULT,MURDER OR BURGLARY HAPPENING YET THE PIGS FOLLOW UP THIS SMALL OFFENCE THAT WAS PROBABLY AN ACCIDENT , A REAL COP WOULD JUST GIVE HIM A WARNING , A COP MADE A DECESION TO TAKE ACTION , STOP BLAMING THE POLLIES BLAME THE FUCKERS ON THE COAL FACE FOR TAKING THE EASY OPTIONS

[Rainbow Wizard]

Because I wasn't jammin'. And I didn't have my right foot jammed to the floor. And I wasn't playing Jamiroquoi on the stereo either. Now piss off and go after some real crims ya deadbeat waste of space.


My son got a visit from the police yesterday who were following up on a complaint from the "public". They said he was doing donuts in his ute on a gravel road near Nelson when he was there a month ago. Son's version is that he parked on the grass at the side of the road and the back slipped slightly when he drove off (no big slide or anything) as it was slippery.......After talking with the cop, son was told that either he accepts a $600 fine (for loosing traction ...) or contests it in court....

Ask your boy if he took off in the direction he was parked or if he did a "U" turn. If he didn't then that's a unut not a donut! :gob:

Believe me, if the cops thought they had a case they probably would have charged him there & then. Let the bastards try and then contest it if they do. Bastards. :angry2:

[myvice]

Hmmm, Fun and games;
Get it moved to Chch,
3 days befor the date ask for an extension, say 3 weeks,
Repeat this as often as they will let you,
On the day walk in with a letter from a mechanic stating "Due to transmission problems this vehicle often "grabs" when pulling away from a standstill."
Ask for any evidence, an eyewitness? So? Was he/she an officer or a person of equal or higher standing?
Do they have any video or photographic evidence?
Tell them to stop wasting your time and that any further action can be directed through your lawyers.
After the run around then the "Prove it" statement only to be given a QC's name 99% of the bullying type back off.
If they don’t then make good on your threat and get a lawyer, charge them when you are found innocent!

[DevoDave]

I would be inclined to defend such a charge and then claim costs after a successful defense. Members of the public are rarely trained to give evidence and it should be easy to pick holes in it. Listen carefully to the evidence given and relate that to the witness you are looking to see if they have been primed by the pols. It is is quite easy to pick.. "I was proceeding in a easterly direction when.." Then you can challenge them on there evidence trying to draw it out of them that the words used are not theirs but those of the pols..

[Biff]

Do not let him admit anything or agree to accepting any charge/fine. They will then need to build a case in order to prove the charges. Chances are they wont, it'll probably be too much like hard work (getting witnesses into court etc), so the charges will be dropped.

But I bet you a packet of chips that your son was doing donuts. And I bet you another packet that, had you seen him do it, you would have been proud. :drinknsin

[Beemer]

Definitely contest it. My husband and I personally laid a complaint with the police in Paraparaumu (after being on hold with *555 for 15 minutes) after witnessing the worst case of dangerous driving we had ever seen. Guy in a late model BMW was overtaking on double yellow lines, in some cases using the oncoming passing lanes (complete with two lanes of oncoming traffic!) and forcing other traffic to take evasive action. Both of us were prepared to stand up in court and give evidence - and what happened? We got a letter about a month later, saying the driver had been spoken to and made aware his actions were not on. Yeah, right!

Tell them unless the witnesses are prepared to stand up in court and swear he was doing donuts, he is not prepared to admit to anything. Hell, a month later and they come knocking on his door? Sorry, but I'd be telling them to piss off and investigate a burglary or something!

[spudchucka]

Boy howdy there's some crap flyin around this thread tonight.

[scumdog]

Boy howdy there's some crap flyin around this thread tonight.

Quite right - and if people didn't tie up the cops by doing stupid skids the cops would have more time to investigate burglaries etc, eh WINJA? :whistle:

[dangerous]

But I bet you a packet of chips that your son was doing donuts. And I bet you another packet that, had you seen him do it, you would have been proud. :drinknsin
LMFAO.... same why apart from knowing him, thats what I would have been doing at his age too, but not in the snow in the middle of Sept in Chch tho.... ohhh no that be dangerous :sherlock:

Jimmie, that Mazda Mervin thing that he drives... does it have a limited slip diff??? If so then it is very difficult not to spin a wheel when doing a U turn in shingle, hell my Navara does it on the seal (serious this time) could be a good means of defeance.
Good on him for amiting that he was there, unfortunitly that is his 1st boo boo, I would a said.... never been there sir.

[Sniper]

If so then it is very difficult not to spin a wheel when doing a U turn in shingle, hell my Navara does it on the seal (serious this time) could be a good means of defeance.
Good on him for amiting that he was there, unfortunitly that is his 1st boo boo, I would a said.... never been there sir.

Been there and seen Navara's do it, so I believe you Dangerous! Its funny how one question to ask about a small thing always turns into how bad the cops are.

What sad people. I admit some cops are bad, but to stereotype them is the same as some people stereotyping bikers to be dangerous hooligans.

[dangerous]

Quite right - and if people didn't tie up the cops by doing stupid skids the cops would have more time to investigate burglaries etc, eh WINJA? :whistle:
Yes I know, but any complaint has to be followed up right? and boys will be boys nothing has ever changed there...... may be I should have got a pic of the hole a 1200 Sportster dug in a paddock on the west coast in Jan this year :niceone:

BTW yes SC/SD I too get sick of the moaners going on and on about the cops not doing real work :whocares:

[Marmoot]

Not quite true... When my bikes were stolen, i was called to court as a witness. The courts contacted my employer, found out what my days pay would have been and paid me. cheque was here 3 days after court day

Ha....paid witness!
It is not really a good justice system......

[Lou Girardin]

Ha....paid witness!
It is not really a good justice system......

If you didn't get compensated for lost time, how do you think they'd put juries together.
It's the deals done to get cell mates to give evidence that people should worry about. Scott Watsons trial for one example.

[Rashika]

LMFAO.... same why apart from knowing him, thats what I would have been doing at his age too, but not in the snow in the middle of Sept in Chch tho.... ohhh no that be dangerous :sherlock:



oh SHIT no...you'd NEVER do THAT eh Dangerous...nope NEVER :rofl:
too damn cold for you to be out in that sorta stuff :cold:
yeah fkg right!

how many times was it??? :rolleyes:

[kerryg]

If you didn't get compensated for lost time, how do you think they'd put juries together.



That's an interesting point. I've been called up for jury duty 3 times, and always got excused because I couldn't afford to be absent from work for a week or more (the most recent one, this year, said that the trial was expected to take up to 2 weeks). My employers won't pay me while I'm sitting on a jury, end of story, and the Courts pay you next to nothing to be a juror. Maybe others can afford to be off work for 2 weeks but I can't, big mortgage etc. And then there's the question of who will do my work when I'm absent.

It's a duty to be a juror, and one I'd actually be really interested to fulfil, and I always felt guilty about getting let off but didn't really have a choice. Makes me wonder how many other people have the dilemma. I'm sure I'm not alone. And so what does the average make-up of a jury look like: a lot of retired people, people who are not in work, etc etc?? If so a jury probably doesn't typically represent a cross-section of the public, and so the system tends to fall down. Maybe the answer is to make jury duty compulsory, so that even if your employer doesn't like it he has to pay you and arrange staff to cover for you while you're absent or preferably, the Court has to pay you what you would have earned had you been at work. I don't know if those are practical solutions but I think there's a definite risk, under the present system, that juries will tend not to represent (to echo Don Brash) mainstream NZ.

[dangerous]

It's the deals done to get cell mates to give evidence that people should worry about. Scott Watsons trial for one example.
Damn right Lou.... I ride with Scott Watsons (http://www.freescottwatson.com) brother, and it appears theres a lot to be answered there by the police.... weird shit went on, on there behalf

[Lou Girardin]

That's an interesting point. I've been called up for jury duty 3 times, and always got excused because I couldn't afford to be absent from work for a week or more (the most recent one, this year, said that the trial was expected to take up to 2 weeks). My employers won't pay me while I'm sitting on a jury, end of story, and the Courts pay you next to nothing to be a juror. Maybe others can afford to be off work for 2 weeks but I can't, big mortgage etc. And then there's the question of who will do my work when I'm absent.

It's a duty to be a juror, and one I'd actually be really interested to fulfil, and I always felt guilty about getting let off but didn't really have a choice. Makes me wonder how many other people have the dilemma. I'm sure I'm not alone. And so what does the average make-up of a jury look like: a lot of retired people, people who are not in work, etc etc?? If so a jury probably doesn't typically represent a cross-section of the public, and so the system tends to fall down. Maybe the answer is to make jury duty compulsory, so that even if your employer doesn't like it he has to pay you and arrange staff to cover for you while you're absent or preferably, the Court has to pay you what you would have earned had you been at work. I don't know if those are practical solutions but I think there's a definite risk, under the present system, that juries will tend not to represent (to echo Don Brash) mainstream NZ.


Here bloody here. Then we may get more common sense verdicts.

[spudchucka]

Mark Lundy supporters have a web site full of conspiracy theories too.

http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/

Then of course there is David Bain, Leslley Martin etc etc etc. The police got it wrong in these case too despite the numerous appeal decisions saying that they got it right. :bleh:

[mikey]

Just a side note (dont know how legit the ticket is) but I'm pretty sure that he can get the hearing moved to the court in chch.

ah just a side note

to get it transfered you have to say you will put in a guilty plea.

[dangerous]

Mark Lundy supporters have a web site full of conspiracy theories too.

http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/

Then of course there is David Bain, Leslley Martin etc etc etc. The police got it wrong in these case too despite the numerous appeal decisions saying that they got it right. :bleh:
Should you decide to read the link I posted Spud (asuming you arnt allready up with the play on that one) then do so with an open mind.... I have no idea if he did it or not but knowing what I do there was some bloody dodgy shit done by the police, and by saying that I arnt taring all police with the same brush... it only takes one or two.

[Ixion]

That's an interesting point. I've been called up for jury duty 3 times, and always got excused because I couldn't afford to be absent from work for a week or more (the most recent one, this year, said that the trial was expected to take up to 2 weeks). ..

It's a duty to be a juror, and one I'd actually be really interested to fulfil, and I always felt guilty about getting let off but didn't really have a choice. Makes me wonder how many other people have the dilemma. I'm sure I'm not alone. And so what does the average make-up of a jury look like: a lot of retired people, people who are not in work, etc etc?? ...


I have very little faith in the jury system, since I actually was on one about 5 years ago. I've been called up quite a few times over the years, but always in the past got excused because of work. But that time, a new and idealistic boss said - "no no you should do it, civic duty, doesn't look good for us to be seeking exemptions etc ". And I got paid anyway , so OK (he heartily regretted it when he found I was going to be away for 2 weeks solid - he thought it would be a day or two!).

But the other members of the jury that I was on were far from impressive. Half a dozen retired souls, neither cerebral nor wordly wise. One clued up guy, the rest students or unemployed. One of the unemployed was a VERY stroppy maori woman who dominated the proceedings by sheer bitchery. She told us all (in no uncertain terms) that none of the evidence mattered , because "she scould see auras", and the victim had a brown aura , which meant that she was a liar. And the accused had a blue aura which meant that he was good.

And the really sad thing is that by and large this is what determined the verdict. Some went with her because they were afraid of her, some because they believed her hocus pocus, and some (myself included) because at least it was injustice in the right side - ie not finding an innocent person guilty, and the accused was not really a bad sort, just a guy who had gotten tangled up in something he didn't intend. But it was very far from serving the interests of justice.

I still think that technically it was guilty, but I wasn't interested in holding out for a lost cause. Which would only have had the effect of either the same as a not guilty verdict, or of putting all those concerned through it all again. And I also felt that the police had been rather over zealous in charging the guy in the first place (it was a "domestic " type thing, but not the usual nasty sort of one, they were both good people who had lost the plot for a bit, counselling would have been a better option).

[ I probably should put in a caveat - I'm of open mind about the whole aura-Kirlian photography etc thing - I just don't believe that woman was any more than a fake]

[strayjuliet]

I would contest it as it is 1 persons word against anothers. If he has not been in trouble before for anything he may get diversion which is basically a bit of community service and no criminal record. Also he won't have to appear in court and he may be able to do that diversion in Chch. Dont quote me on that. To clear up some issues: yes, they do pay for a witness to appear in court. If they won't allow you to have the case heard in Chch then you might be able to ask them for some kind of help with travel costs. I'm not sure if they will help or not, but they did for me once when I had to appear in court. Good luck.

[kerryg]

II still think that technically it was guilty, but I wasn't interested in holding out for a lost cause. Which would only have had the effect of either the same as a not guilty verdict, or of putting all those concerned through it all again. And I also felt that the police had been rather over zealous in charging the guy in the first place (it was a "domestic " type thing, but not the usual nasty sort of one, they were both good people who had lost the plot for a bit, counselling would have been a better option).



Sounds like justice was served then in this case, at least no worries about an innocent person being convicted because of one lunatic and a few geriatrics on the jury....but I guess it doesn't always work out OK like this case did, and that's the worry.

[Lou Girardin]

Mark Lundy supporters have a web site full of conspiracy theories too.

http://www.lundytruth.co.nz/

Then of course there is David Bain, Leslley Martin etc etc etc. The police got it wrong in these case too despite the numerous appeal decisions saying that they got it right. :bleh:

The appeal process. A system devised to protect the justice system at all costs.
The Thomas and Ellis cases are prime examples.
The only way the truth was exposed in the Thomas case was through the efforts of a journalist and the employment of an Australian to adjudicate.
Apparently everyone else ( 2 appeals) believed that a .22 case could sit unnoticed in the Crews garden for 2 months and still be nice and shiny and have held a bullet that had never been loaded into those cases.
The sooner that prosecution duties are removed from the Police and given to an independant body, the better.

[Sniper]

You know Lou, at the first oppertunity of bashing Police, you are always on the bandwagon!

[Lou Girardin]

You know Lou, at the first oppertunity of bashing Police, you are always on the bandwagon!

Yup, that's right. Just me and me alone. Read all the posts yet?

[Sniper]

It would be very hard to read all the posts but the just of it is, where there is police bashing going on, you are always involved! Its not cool as those guys are just doing thier jobs.

They don't slag salesmen

[madboy]

I always get excused from jury duty. Every time I get called up I write in and say I don't like the Police, don't believe a word they say, and therefore am unable to provide a balanced opinion. On one occasion that failed and they told me I still had to appear, so I rang them up, explained in no uncertain terms that I hated the f***ing pigs and what was the f***ing point of wasting my time and theirs by even thinking of putting me on a jury when I would be saying not guilty before the first pig opened their mouth. I think after that colourful expression of my views they kinda got the gist.

And despite my colourful references above, which are not strictly representative of my views, the underlying basis is true. I have had cops perjure themselves in trials against me, so I have no faith that they would be any more honest in any other case.

Difficult to provide a balanced view, since only the accused will know whether the cop is being honest or not, and as a juror I won't. I dare say in my trials had there been a jury selected they would have fallen for what the cops said.

That's not to say the accused won't be lying their ass of either, hey I have before too. But I'm not the one wearing the neatly pressed uniform claiming to be serving justice.

SD/SC, nothing personal fellas, but your colleagues have tarred my opinion of everyone involved in this sorta thing.

And as for those salesmen... OMG Sniper how could you think that a salesman would ever lie?!! :weird: (pt)

[Paul in NZ]

The sooner that prosecution duties are removed from the Police and given to an independant body, the better.

Might be tempted to agree with you on this one Lou... Do you mean like a District Attourney type deal as per the USA?

Seperation of the Policing function from the Prosecution / court type function does have some good points... The problem is the Prosecution tends to become a Govt / political thing...

[Deano]

SD/SC, nothing personal fellas, but your colleagues have tarred my opinion of everyone involved in this sorta thing.


Unfortunately that is often the case, where a bad experience changes your whole viewpoint.

I once got called in to a police station 'on suspicion' of an offence when I was about 18 or 19. He was pretty rude about the request, basically demanding I go straight there.

Naively, I went by myself, and was asked to follow the officer to his office.

He began asking questions about the 'supposed offence'. To be honest, from his perspective it may have looked suspicious, but when he outright accused me of something I didn't do, and wouldn't believe a word I said in my defence, I started to get a bit anxious at my predicament.

As I had not been placed under arrest, I said I did not appreciate the way in which I was asked to come down to the station, and then to be treated the way I was, and started to get up out my chair to leave.

The officer stuck his foot on the chair between my legs to stop me moving and poked his finger into my cheek - then had a good old rant.

The same officer got busted for fraud a few months later, but was allowed to remain in the force, he just got transferred to an area.

Certainly made an impression on me - while I feel the majority of cops are honest and do a good job, not all cops can be trusted.

It definitely develops a culture of saying nothing until you have a lawyer present, which in itself does not look good if you don't have an explanation at the time of questioning.

[scumdog]

Yes I know, but any complaint has to be followed up right? and boys will be boys nothing has ever changed there...... may be I should have got a pic of the hole a 1200 Sportster dug in a paddock on the west coast in Jan this year :niceone:

BTW yes SC/SD I too get sick of the moaners going on and on about the cops not doing real work :whocares:

It was my evil twin brother and he told me he was stuck in the paddock and the throttle jammed and that is the last time he's borrowing my bike.... :innocent:

[Jantar]

I have had cops perjure themselves in trials against me, so I have no faith that they would be any more honest in any other case.


Interesting. I have defended traffic cases in court more than once, and I can honestly say that I have never had a police officer perjure himself. They may not give all information unless asked directly, but perjury would be just too much of a risk to take.

However Traffic Wardens now.... :brick:

[Lou Girardin]

It would be very hard to read all the posts but the just of it is, where there is police bashing going on, you are always involved! Its not cool as those guys are just doing thier jobs.

They don't slag salesmen

Spud does.
Anyhoo, why do you think there is so much criticism of the Police in general recently?
A conspiracy?
The Labour Government?
Or perhaps it's because the public is fed up with bullshit, cover ups and incompetence.
If you think any of the posts critical of the Police are untrue, why not post the truth rather than indulge in personal attacks.

[kerryg]

Yup, that's right. Just me and me alone. Read all the posts yet?


It's good we have democracy where people can express their views, whether we share them or not.

Generalisations (all cops are bad cops, or all cops are good cops) are not that useful but it's OK to make them for the purpose of making a point: they can't possibly be valid for all or possibly even very many of the thousands of individuals involved, and I doubt anybody would contend otherwise.

It's a tool for debate, and debate is good :yeah:

[Lou Girardin]

Might be tempted to agree with you on this one Lou... Do you mean like a District Attourney type deal as per the USA?

Seperation of the Policing function from the Prosecution / court type function does have some good points... The problem is the Prosecution tends to become a Govt / political thing...

I prefer the UK system. I don't trust the elected DA system the Yanks use. It's far too open to political influence.

[dangerous]

It would be very hard to read all the posts but the just of it is, where there is police bashing going on, you are always involved! Its not cool as those guys are just doing thier jobs.

They don't slag salesmen
Mate... dont worry bout it, the great thing about this forum is that we can say what we want just like you are... so let Lou be Lou, I like to hear what every body has to say not just the prats with there "PC" shit thing happening it would be a boreing place if that was so :scratch:

[Sniper]

Mate... dont worry bout it, the great thing about this forum is that we can say what we want just like you are... so let Lou be Lou, I like to hear what every body has to say not just the prats with there "PC" shit thing happening it would be a boreing place if that was so :scratch:

I suppose thats true. I gues a few deep breaths and getting some work done calmed me down. Sorry Lou

[Lou Girardin]

Thanks Sniper, but I'm cool with it. I'm of Italian descent arguing is a hobby. Not even the Spudlet gets under my skin.
It's one of the benefits of ageing, you tend to care less what people think of you.

[Big Dave]

It's one of the benefits of ageing, you tend to care less what people think of you.


That explains the haircut at least.....

[Lou Girardin]

That explains the haircut at least.....

Says the man juggling rocks in a glasshouse.

[spudchucka]

Should you decide to read the link I posted Spud (asuming you arnt allready up with the play on that one) then do so with an open mind.... I have no idea if he did it or not but knowing what I do there was some bloody dodgy shit done by the police, and by saying that I arnt taring all police with the same brush... it only takes one or two.
I've looked through the web site, I've watched the docos on the box, I've seen it from both sides and like the courts of appeal etc etc I still think he's guilty.

[spudchucka]

The appeal process. A system devised to protect the justice system at all costs.
The Thomas and Ellis cases are prime examples.
The only way the truth was exposed in the Thomas case was through the efforts of a journalist and the employment of an Australian to adjudicate.
Apparently everyone else ( 2 appeals) believed that a .22 case could sit unnoticed in the Crews garden for 2 months and still be nice and shiny and have held a bullet that had never been loaded into those cases.
The sooner that prosecution duties are removed from the Police and given to an independant body, the better.
How did I know that you would bring up the Crew murders?

Indictable matters are prosecuted by the Crown Solicitors office, not by police prosecuters.

[spudchucka]

Spud does.

You're the only salesman I slag off at, shit I used to be one too.

[spudchucka]

It's one of the benefits of ageing, you tend to care less what people think of you.
At least we have one thing in common.

[Beemer]

I have very little faith in the jury system, since I actually was on one about 5 years ago.

But the other members of the jury that I was on were far from impressive. Half a dozen retired souls, neither cerebral nor wordly wise. One clued up guy, the rest students or unemployed. One of the unemployed was a VERY stroppy maori woman who dominated the proceedings by sheer bitchery. She told us all (in no uncertain terms) that none of the evidence mattered , because "she scould see auras", and the victim had a brown aura , which meant that she was a liar. And the accused had a blue aura which meant that he was good.

And the really sad thing is that by and large this is what determined the verdict. Some went with her because they were afraid of her, some because they believed her hocus pocus, and some (myself included) because at least it was injustice in the right side - ie not finding an innocent person guilty, and the accused was not really a bad sort, just a guy who had gotten tangled up in something he didn't intend. But it was very far from serving the interests of justice.

I still think that technically it was guilty, but I wasn't interested in holding out for a lost cause. Which would only have had the effect of either the same as a not guilty verdict, or of putting all those concerned through it all again. And I also felt that the police had been rather over zealous in charging the guy in the first place (it was a "domestic " type thing, but not the usual nasty sort of one, they were both good people who had lost the plot for a bit, counselling would have been a better option).

Exactly my experience! I've served on a jury once and been excused a couple of times (once waiting to go into hospital and once while unemployed and actively trying to get a job) and I don't think the system works very well. If it really was a jury of your peers, they would allow criminals to serve on juries for a start!

The case I got was a fairly simple aiding and abetting the sale of marijuana (the guy was in the same room while the sale was conducted) to an undercover cop (codenamed "Brownie" - a huge Maori guy!). The defendant was white, but one elderly woman declared that because he had Maori mates, he MUST be guilty. Oh yeah, that makes sense... :wacko: One older guy was quite pushy and very pedantic over the charges and how they were worded. A couple of unemployed, mix of ages and roughly half male, half female. I went into it with an open mind but was quite young and felt pressured to agree with finding him guilty. I felt a little better when they read out the other charges (we didn't know them before) he was accused of - burglary, growing dope, etc. because he obviously wasn't squeaky clean, but I really think they need to screen people and find out if they have any prejudices or - a biggie - any brains!

[Marmoot]

I don't believe in jury trial either. It's like the proverbial "let the one without sin cast the first stone" story.

[*sic]

jury service is an eye opener in the sence that the general public are complete morons incapable of making sensible justified desisions.

my case (i was on the jury) was held out for a day extra, (few people backing one girl for a not guilty verdict) because one girl there, as she explained to me the day before we went into deliberation, "I get paid more cash if i stay here than if i go to work.. and i get free food".. so she proceeded to hold up the justice system untill 2pm when the court considers it a full day so she got paid accordingly, and then decided to flip the verdict back to the UNDENIABLE one....hmm.

I have no faith in peoples intentions or motives. ever.

[Deano]

The case I got was a fairly simple aiding and abetting the sale of marijuana (the guy was in the same room while the sale was conducted) to an undercover cop

Shit, I better stop sharing the same bit of road with the local hoons - I might get arrested for aiding and abetting their speeding !!

[Marmoot]

"I get paid more cash if i stay here than if i go to work.. and i get free food".. so she proceeded to hold up the justice system untill 2pm when the court considers it a full day so she got paid accordingly, and then decided to flip the verdict back to the UNDENIABLE one....hmm.

Can't she be prosecuted for perjury?

[Lou Girardin]

Can't she be prosecuted for perjury?

No. She didn't lie under oath.

[jaybee180]

Some of people really make me laugh - you bitch when you think the cops aren't doing their jobs, and you bitch when they are.

Like you all, they have certains roles to play within the force, and I'm sure NONE of you would turn around to your boss and say "Nah, I don't feel like doing that today."

Get onto the people that count and make changes if you want.

Contest the ticket if you want - it's your Right. Get it transferred - will be no problem if you get hold of the prosecution section.

Yup would probably be better if prosecutions were done independantly, but they aren't. Do you think the Police decide that? Nuh! Comes from your Government. The funding the Police recieve is allocated by the Government. We do what they tell us!!!!

Do you think they give tickets coz they REALLY, REALLY want to? Nah the directive comes from the government. Come on people, stop blaming the individuals who are doing their respective jobs, and start blaming the right people. Until WE change it, it ain't gunna get changed!

[WINJA]

I'm sure NONE of you would turn around to your boss and say "Nah, I don't feel like doing that today."

Get onto the people that count and make changes if you want.

IVE ABSOLUTELY TOLD MY BOSS TO FUCK OFF AND IVE DONE THE MORAL THING AND RISKED MY JOB MANY TIMES.
THE PEOPLE THAT COUNT ARE THE INDIVIDUALS, IN THIS CASE THE INDIVIDUAL MOTHERLESS FUCK THAT DECIDED TO PROSOCUTE THIS LAD.
AND THEY LET THE HOAX BOMBER OF TAURANGA OFF SCOT FREE.
WAKE UP JAYBEE YOU WONT THINK ITS SO COOL WHEN YOUVE LOST YOUR LICENCE FROM OCCURED DEMERITS OVER 2 YEARS FOR MINOR SPEEDING OFFENCES ONLY TO GET ON YOUR BIKE AFTER 6 MONTHS OF NO LICENCE THEN GET KNOCKED OFF YOUR BIKE BY A CARELESS DRIVER WHO GETS NO LOSS OF LICENCE , NO DEMERITS AND A $100 FINE , THE PIGS IN NZ ARE FUCKEN USELESS AND FUCKEN INCOMPETENT

[scumdog]

THE PIGS IN NZ ARE FUCKEN USELESS AND FUCKEN INCOMPETENT
And fuckin proud of it!! - 'cos you losers still pay us, yee haaa!

So suck that ya mutha!! (C.B. says)

[WINJA]

And fuckin proud of it!! - 'cos you losers still pay us, yee haaa!

So suck that ya mutha!! (C.B. says)
WELL WE SORTA PAY YOU , ITS ABOUT AS MUCH AS A GUY FLIPPIN BURGERS AT MCDS PROUDLY SPORTING A 2 YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT BADGE GETS.

[dangerous]

Do you think they give tickets coz they REALLY, REALLY want to? Nah the directive comes from the government. Come on people, stop blaming the individuals who are doing their respective jobs, and start blaming the right people
Yep damn right Miss goodie two shoes :msn-wink: they want to allright I have seen the twinkle in the coppers eyes as he writes me up, do you really think we dont know what you are saying. :doh:


THE PEOPLE THAT COUNT ARE THE INDIVIDUALS, IN THIS CASE THE INDIVIDUAL MOTHERLESS FUCK THAT DECIDED TO PROSOCUTE THIS LAD.
Amen to that ya Winjing fuker :apint: each cop has his own discretion regardless.


And fuckin proud of it!! - 'cos you losers still pay us, yee haaa!

So suck that ya mutha!! (C.B. says)
:killingme :kick: :killingme Thats bloody funny shit SD what more can we say LMFAO

[scumdog]

WELL WE SORTA PAY YOU , ITS ABOUT AS MUCH AS A GUY FLIPPIN BURGERS AT MCDS PROUDLY SPORTING A 2 YEARS OF EMPLOYMENT BADGE GETS.

Shit! we get paid THAT much?

I've been ripped off, where the hell is the rest of my pay?? :angry2: :crazy: