Pursuit Policy Criticised

[wkid_one]

More young drivers will attempt to escape police following the introduction of tough new guidelines for police officers involved in high speed pursuits, the police officers' union says.




The new policy, which follows a spate of fatal crashes including the death of a speeding motorcyclist and an innocent teenage driver last year, takes effect today.

The policy puts safety before "immediate" capture of dangerous drivers, establishes clear lines of command in pursuits and says police must slow down and turn off their lights and sirens as soon as they are told to abandon pursuit.

However Police Association president Greg O'Connor said today although the policy was aimed at protecting innocent motorists it could have the opposite effect.

Mr O'Connor said the policy could actually have the effect of creating more police chases.

"Young offenders in fast cars know they only have to plant boot to get away. That might mean you will get more people trying it on," he said.

He said there were some indications that was already happening.

"Officers are telling me that in some areas that is already the case."

He said while there were inherent risks in high speed chases there were also risks in not chasing dangerous drivers.

"Safety is what this business is about, but is it safer to let someone who has come to your attention because of their dangerous driving to continue driving dangerously? Or is it safer to pursue them and hopefully stop them."

Mr O'Connor said the argument that police pursuing a vehicle could merely take the registration number of a dangerous driver then apprehend them the next day was flawed.

"It then becomes a resource issue. You need people to then follow up the next day and rather than a straight apprehension you have to mount an investigation."

He said resources would have to be used in locating the car owner, then it would be difficult to prove who was actually driving the car.

While all this was achievable if the resources were available, no new resources were being promised to back up the new policy.

He said the policy was partly a knee-jerk reaction to high profile police chases that had ended in death either for the person trying to escape police, or innocent drivers.

However he said every year dozens of other people died as a result of unapprehended dangerous drivers, but those cases did not grab the same headlines.

"You could potentially have the situation where there will be more deaths as a result of dangerous drivers, because they are not being apprehended."

Under the policy police chases will be controlled by a supervisor in a police communications centre.

Mr O'Connor said while that established clear lines of control there would be strong incentives for the controller to call off the chase.

"They have everything to lose and very little to gain from a chase like this."

However the Automobile Association (AA) today welcomed the new policy saying that overall it would protect innocent motorists.

Public affairs director George Fairbairn said the AA recognised there were cases where pursuits were required, but in many cases there were other options available.

"In many of these chases in the past they've gone on for longer than they probably should of because of that ability for a more individual decision to be made on the part of an officer on where and when it should stop," he said.

Mr Fairbairn said some people would undoubtedly try and flout the law as a result of the new policy, but overall the new procedures would ensure the safety of innocent motorists.

"The overriding concern has to be 'is a pursuit really necessary?' and are there other means to stop that person doing what they are doing and apprehending them.

"At the end of the day We have to limit the occasions where innocent people can be unnecessarily killed as a result of a pursuit."

[Hitcher]

I suspect this policy will only result in "Claytons" pursuits... (following offenders in "close proximity" rather than "chasing" them)

[riffer]

I suspect this policy will only result in "Claytons" pursuits... (following offenders in "close proximity" rather than "chasing" them)
Maybe, maybe not.

My interpretation of the coroners report on the Whangarei crash was that the Police officer had "abandoned" the chase, and had turned off the siren; however, they still had their lights on and were following the bike in close proximity - this had the effect of misleading the motorcyclist into thinking that they were still chasing him - and in effect, was a major factor in the cause of the crash.

Maye the police will take this message and think about it.

[SPman]

Mr O'Connor said the argument that police pursuing a vehicle could merely take the registration number of a dangerous driver then apprehend them the next day was flawed.

"It then becomes a resource issue. You need people to then follow up the next day and rather than a straight apprehension you have to mount an investigation."

He said resources would have to be used in locating the car owner, then it would be difficult to prove who was actually driving the car.

So?
Just seize the f**kin vehicle! - if the owner wasn't driving, it should soon flush out the driver.!

[spudchucka]

[/color][/size][/font]

So?
Just seize the f**kin vehicle! - if the owner wasn't driving, it should soon flush out the driver.!

Great idea, but;

Under what law would the cops be able to do that??

You'd have the PC brigade and civil libitarians jumping up & down in no time!

[spudchucka]

The moral of the story is, "if you are a crim make sure you get a fast get-away car for the next armed robbery".

[SPman]

Great idea, but;

Under what law would the cops be able to do that??

You'd have the PC brigade and civil libitarians jumping up & down in no time!Ummm Im sure theyd think of something - if the vehicle has been linked to a serious offence, it could at least be held as "evidence" to further their inquiries.

[Lou Girardin]

Gregg O'Connor is not the nost balanced individual. The cops probably love him dearly, but he doesn't seem to have much credibility with the public since the Wallace shooting. This policy will be a good move, if they apply it. But, as I have seen done, 180km/h chases will be reported as 140 km/h chases over the RT. We used to do it when our bosses got twitchy over pursuits.
Lou

[James Deuce]

Great idea, but;

Under what law would the cops be able to do that??

You'd have the PC brigade and civil libitarians jumping up & down in no time!

Probably the same law that (in contravention with numerous international human rights conventions and "laws") allows cops to set up blockades and stop people irrespective of a total lack of suspicion of criminal activity or criminal intent. They call them drink driving checkpoints.

The "PC brigade and civil libitarians(sic)" did leap up and down, but the average Kiwi can't differentiate righteous opinion and hyperbole from a fundamental abrogation of personal freedom.

[James Deuce]

The moral of the story is, "if you are a crim make sure you get a fast get-away car for the next armed robbery".

Shouldn't "get" be "steal"?

[Two Smoker]

Another thing that could solve it, would to have high performance police cars, for instance a Subaru WRX (Cheap but very quick). The threat of being chased by a fast car mean that the person being chased will either not try it or give up very quickly. Its like having a big stick (Or in the USA's case the most nuclear weapons), they have the power to hit hard,but generally don't have to hit hard because of the threat.

The less chases and the quicker chases end means that the Innocent people will be safer overall. If you start saying "The police can go see them later on..." that means that there is more time wasting. Also if you dont cease the chase who knows how long that individual will go on speeding and driving dangerously? The chances of someone doing something minor and then thinking "Shit i better make a runner for it because i don't have the dollars to pay for it" will increase, Those two things indanger innocent peoples lives far more than the current policy.

Therefore im saying keep the current policy and work on getting high performace car (the big stick)

BTW i knew Erin Burgess and i dont hold the Police responsible for her death, i hold the tosser on the motorbike responsible.

[Holy Roller]

Another thing that could solve it, would to have high performance police cars, for instance a Subaru WRX (Cheap but very quick). The threat of being chased by a fast car mean that the person being chased will either not try it or give up very quickly. Its like having a big stick (Or in the USA's case the most nuclear weapons), they have the power to hit hard,but generally don't have to hit hard because of the threat.

The less chases and the quicker chases end means that the Innocent people will be safer overall. If you start saying "The police can go see them later on..." that means that there is more time wasting. Also if you dont cease the chase who knows how long that individual will go on speeding and driving dangerously? The chances of someone doing something minor and then thinking "Shit i better make a runner for it because i don't have the dollars to pay for it" will increase, Those two things indanger innocent peoples lives far more than the current policy.

Therefore im saying keep the current policy and work on getting high performace car (the big stick)

BTW i knew Erin Burgess and i dont hold the Police responsible for her death, i hold the tosser on the motorbike responsible.


Well said Two Smoker

[wkid_one]

Yes - that and the fact having faster cars mean cars run faster......States tried this with hotted up 'stangs....all it meant was they became more daring when being chased.

If someone is going to run.....they are going to run......the idea is to limit the chase situations and I don't think that Nuclear Threat is an equivalent comparision to doing a runner from a cop.

Surely you would be better having bikes by that assumption as you are sure as hell less likely to outrun a bike than a car?

Even having choppers in the states doesn't deter people from running.

Remember this - the person running is hardly RATIONAL - that is why they are running. Given this they are hardly likely to rationalise the type of car following them is likely to catch them.

This just promotes more problems that it solves....

[spudchucka]

Probably the same law that (in contravention with numerous international human rights conventions and "laws") allows cops to set up blockades and stop people irrespective of a total lack of suspicion of criminal activity or criminal intent. They call them drink driving checkpoints.

The "PC brigade and civil libitarians(sic)" did leap up and down, but the average Kiwi can't differentiate righteous opinion and hyperbole from a fundamental abrogation of personal freedom.

What a load of shite, why don't you justify what you say by quoting the "international human rights conventions" that are being breached by alcohol checkpoints in NZ. The fact that vehicle stops are covered under the Land Transport Act and the seizure of vehicles as evidence is covered under another Act entirely demonstrates your lack of any knowledge on the subject.


the average Kiwi can't differentiate righteous opinion and hyperbole from a fundamental abrogation of personal freedom

You sound like a victim of your own words.

[James Deuce]

What a load of shite, why don't you justify what you say by quoting the "international human rights conventions" that are being breached by alcohol checkpoints in NZ. The fact that vehicle stops are covered under the Land Transport Act and the seizure of vehicles as evidence is covered under another Act entirely demonstrates your lack of any knowledge on the subject.



You sound like a victim of your own words.

I get the feeling you're a cop, right?

I present a point of view and you attack?

Feeling a bit like the finger is being pointed?

I was trying to make the point that the Land Transport Act was amended to make the checkpoints legal, and that the politicians, NOT policeman will change whatever act or create whatever law they wish to "fix" the current public outcry, or percieved law enforcement problem. Irrespective of the morals of the law or whether or not they create a law that allows a uniformed state organisation to stop and interrogate citizens going about there business in the hopes of catching a couple of recidivist drunk drivers. Who will just get back on the road drunk the next day anyway. In a different car.

If you are a cop then try to understand that SOME of us are clued up enough to know that you do the job under the auspices of law created by politicians.

Instead of putting on the badass internet tough guy act try educating instead smashing it down my throat. I probably won't accept your argument, but I will listen.

My beliefs may be a pile of shit to you, but I will defend your right to hold a pile of shit opposite view with my life.

And while we're at it exactly whose freedom did I personally restrict? I'm not quite sure I understand your last crack.

LAte Edit: UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 is the specific article.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (which we no longer do)

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country

[wkid_one]

Yes'm Cleatus - thum thar is fighten speak - sur's.

I agree with Jim in that at the end of the day - the police are no more than a political engine whose directives are mainly aligned with the whims and fancies of the political party in control.

Speeding can be demonstrated to NOT be the plague on society it is being held out to be - yet - it is an easy and quick target to win votes with - no more no less.

Why do we invest so much money and time in the police force policing our roads - because it is highly visible and highly tangible in terms of outcomes.

Our police force is quickly becoming a joke in the eyes of our public as no more than a glorifed traffic patrol.

[spudchucka]

I get the feeling you're a cop, right?

I present a point of view and you attack?

Feeling a bit like the finger is being pointed?

I was trying to make the point that the Land Transport Act was amended to make the checkpoints legal, and that the politicians, NOT policeman will change whatever act or create whatever law they wish to "fix" the current public outcry, or percieved law enforcement problem. Irrespective of the morals of the law or whether or not they create a law that allows a uniformed state organisation to stop and interrogate citizens going about there business in the hopes of catching a couple of recidivist drunk drivers. Who will just get back on the road drunk the next day anyway. In a different car.

If you are a cop then try to understand that SOME of us are clued up enough to know that you do the job under the auspices of law created by politicians.

Instead of putting on the badass internet tough guy act try educating instead smashing it down my throat. I probably won't accept your argument, but I will listen.

My beliefs may be a pile of shit to you, but I will defend your right to hold a pile of shit opposite view with my life.

And while we're at it exactly whose freedom did I personally restrict? I'm not quite sure I understand your last crack.

LAte Edit: UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 is the specific article.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (which we no longer do)

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country

Check the NZ Bill of Rights Act, section 18(1)(2)(3)(4). It guarantees the same right that you say alcohol checkpoints deny you.

I wasn't saying theat your beliefs are crap, cos I have no idea what your beliefs are. I was responding to the post, thats all.

I find it odd that you would feel so strongly about your freedom of movement being adversly effected by alcohol check points and yet you would advocate seizing motor vehicles and forcing the owners to prove that they weren't driving at the time of an allleged offence. This would be a clear breach of sections 21 & 25(c) of the same Act.

The majority of NZder's do not think that being stopped at a checkpoint is a grievous loss of personal freedom and I don't think they would consider being asked to produce a drivers licence and to undergoe a passive breath test would amount to interogation.

[James Deuce]

I find it odd that you would feel so strongly about your freedom of movement being adversly effected by alcohol check points and yet you would advocate seizing motor vehicles and forcing the owners to prove that they weren't driving at the time of an allleged offence. This would be a clear breach of sections 21 & 25(c) of the same Act.

The majority of NZder's do not think that being stopped at a checkpoint is a grievous loss of personal freedom and I don't think they would consider being asked to produce a drivers licence and to undergoe a passive breath test would amount to interogation.

Point 1: Uh I do NOT advocate seizing vehicles - wherever did you get that idea??

Point 2: Of course NZers don't. They are a profoundly apathetic bunch with very short horizons. I believe that being stopped at 3 checkpoints on the way home from dropping my sister-in-law at 5am on a Saturday morning to be grossly interfering with my personal freedom.

It's an issue of principle more than anything and NZ Law obviously does not protect me from anything to do with a checkpoint. If I don;t stop I'll be apprehended. If I refuse Breath and blood tests I'll be incarcerated. Is that the actions of a civilised modern nation?

[Two Smoker]

Yes - that and the fact having faster cars mean cars run faster......States tried this with hotted up 'stangs....all it meant was they became more daring when being chased.

If someone is going to run.....they are going to run......the idea is to limit the chase situations and I don't think that Nuclear Threat is an equivalent comparision to doing a runner from a cop.

Surely you would be better having bikes by that assumption as you are sure as hell less likely to outrun a bike than a car?

Even having choppers in the states doesn't deter people from running.

Remember this - the person running is hardly RATIONAL - that is why they are running. Given this they are hardly likely to rationalise the type of car following them is likely to catch them.

This just promotes more problems that it solves....
Yes that is true that some people are going to run no matter what car is chasing them, BUT these people are generally Murderers, bank robbers etc that have nothing to lose.

The performance cars would be a deterrent to Boy Racers, and old pricks in Holdens that think they own the road.

Both the British and Australian Police have used high performance cars to good use in their respective countries. The main reason that the USA thing failed is: one its America and two: the choice of car made.

Because of the policy that is being set up, means that Joe Bloggs who normally wouldn't run from the cops will, now on run from the cops because he know that the cops will never catch him and very likely fail to prove that that person was driving the car at X time and at Y speed.

[Jackrat]

Well speaking on behalf of Joe Blogs,Because I am him.
I can assure you I will not be running from the cops no matter what either they or I am driving,The police chase policys will make no difference to me because I am not a criminal.If some body can come up with a cost effective way of apprehending criminals without chasing them,I have yet to hear it.
One thing I know i will hear,and that is the whinging that will start up if police
don't catch some Crim' because they call off a persuit and then he goes on to commit worse crimes.Of course then it will be blamed on the police.
Damn what a thankless job they have. :argh:

[mangell6]

A thankless job and having to 'police' the symptoms of a society gone soft.

[Lou Girardin]

Blood and breath testing are a breach of your protection against self-incrimination.
Roadside licence susupension is punishment without trial.
Random alcohol checkpoints do away with the need for Police to have a 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence.
The UK is proposing removing protections against double jeopardy.
I won't even detail all the civil rights abuses since the WTC attacks.
So, the question is, how many more rights and freedoms are YOU prepared to relinquish.
Lou

P S. NSW and UK, among others, use high performance cars, WRX's et. It doesn't seem to have reduced pursuits for them.

[Zed]

More young drivers will attempt to escape police following the introduction of tough new guidelines for police officers involved in high speed pursuits, the police officers' union says.
Anyone who chooses to do a runner from the police should be prepared to suffer the consequences, whether that be a greater punnishment or an high speed accident. If they kill some innocent then they are responsible- not the cops! :mad:

I think it's a joke to lay any blame on the cops for accidents/deaths caused because some loser who will not stop! Therefore, I disagree with this new policy and hope that the police don't enforce it too often?


Zed

[Zed]

Because of the policy that is being set up, means that Joe Bloggs who normally wouldn't run from the cops will, now on run from the cops because he know that the cops will never catch him and very likely fail to prove that that person was driving the car at X time and at Y speed.
Nah, the normal Joe Bloggs has a conscience and enuf morals to know to stop when pursued by police. This inner conviction will not change just because of a new policy!

Joe Bloggs who stops when the police pulls them over have the sense to know that if they did a runner the cops would just record their rego and meet them at home. The ones who run just have no sense and no brains!

If you run from the police you are an utter loser and should be locked up! :brick: To blame the cops for your disregard for the law and other human lives is just shirking responsability & accountability (something Kiwis seem to be doing more and more?).


Zed

[Zed]

Blood and breath testing are a breach of your protection against self-incrimination.
Roadside licence susupension is punishment without trial.
Random alcohol checkpoints do away with the need for Police to have a 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence.
While I agree that more and more laws are being passed in NZ which are geared towards a police state, the ones that you mention above are necessary to keep our roads safe! If you are innocent then you having nothing to fear! ...and as for it all being a waste of your time, just bite your tongue man.


The UK is proposing removing protections against double jeopardy. I won't even detail all the civil rights abuses since the WTC attacks.
So, the question is, how many more rights and freedoms are YOU prepared to relinquish. Lou
I honestly don't believe that we are in control of our rights and freedoms in this country let alone the rest of the world- Mark my words, things WILL escalate to the point where you will either conform to the government requirements or be incarcerated! :angry:


Zed

[MikeL]

Technology as usual will come to our rescue. Crime (including speeding) will be eliminated as compulsory tracking devices surgically implanted in everyone are constantly monitored by police computers. It will become impossible to evade responsibility for wrong-doing.
All those airy-fairy PC libertarians will jump up and down as usual but we'll quickly get used to it. After all, we don't mind being stopped at random check-points, do we? Decent, law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear.
Mistakes, of course, will be impossible, and the police will enforce the new laws with the same impartiality, integrity and regard for justice that they have demonstrated in the past...

[spudchucka]

Blood and breath testing are a breach of your protection against self-incrimination.
Roadside licence susupension is punishment without trial.
Random alcohol checkpoints do away with the need for Police to have a 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence.
The UK is proposing removing protections against double jeopardy.
I won't even detail all the civil rights abuses since the WTC attacks.
So, the question is, how many more rights and freedoms are YOU prepared to relinquish.
Lou

P S. NSW and UK, among others, use high performance cars, WRX's et. It doesn't seem to have reduced pursuits for them.

Geez Lou, you accuse Greg O'connor of being unbalanced!!

Most "reasonable" people do not consider that the being tempoarily detained at a checkpoint is such a grievious loss of personal freedom. The public interest in apprehending drink drivers far outways the minor loss of the freedom of movement. How long does it take to go through a check point, 5 minutes if you are really unlucky.

You are advocating allowing drunk, disqualified drivers and unsafe vehicles to roam around unhindered because stopping them would be breach against their rights. That is such rubbish!!!

Yes, checkpoints are a drag net approach to apprehending offenders but it also makes joe public think about the possibility of being caught if they decided to drive home drunk.

As for roadside suspension, that only occurs when the driver is caught in the act. It's just another tool the police have and it's a good deterant. For instance look at the boy racer culture, the most important thing to them is their car and their licence.

You've said before that you are against police issuing traffic tickets, now you suggest that 28 day licence suspensions are punishment without trial. Exactly what type of traffic enforcement do you support or would you prefer to see anarchy on the roads?????

The question really should be "when do minor interuptions to ones movements become more important than the public interest in apprehending drunk drivers"??

[spudchucka]

Point 1: Uh I do NOT advocate seizing vehicles - wherever did you get that idea??

Post #9 of this thread. After re-reading it I see that you did not raise that point, my appologies.


Point 2: Of course NZers don't. They are a profoundly apathetic bunch with very short horizons. I believe that being stopped at 3 checkpoints on the way home from dropping my sister-in-law at 5am on a Saturday morning to be grossly interfering with my personal freedom.

3 times during one trip is pretty unlucky. Setting up checkpoints at 5AM on a Saturday morning sounds like a reasonable deployment time for alcohol checkpoints, why? Because drunks drive home during the wee small hours. Hey, they are just trying to keep the road safe for people like you.


It's an issue of principle more than anything and NZ Law obviously does not protect me from anything to do with a checkpoint. If I don;t stop I'll be apprehended. If I refuse Breath and blood tests I'll be incarcerated. Is that the actions of a civilised modern nation

If you hold a NZ drivers licence then you would be aware that under law you can be stopped by police at anytime and be checked for the presence of alcohol. You accepted these conditions when you applied for a drivers licence.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege and as such you have certain obligations that you and everybody else accepts by holding a licence.

What on earth do need to be protected from a checkpoint for?? If you drive drunk and you get caught, stiff shit.

[James Deuce]

Geez Lou, you accuse Greg O'connor of being unbalanced!!

Most "reasonable" people do not consider that the being tempoarily detained at a checkpoint is such a grievious loss of personal freedom. The public interest in apprehending drink drivers far outways the minor loss of the freedom of movement. How long does it take to go through a check point, 5 minutes if you are really unlucky.

You are advocating allowing drunk, disqualified drivers and unsafe vehicles to roam around unhindered because stopping them would be breach against their rights. That is such rubbish!!!

Yes, checkpoints are a drag net approach to apprehending offenders but it also makes joe public think about the possible of being caught if they decided to drive home drunk.

As for roadside suspension, that only occurs when the driver is caught in the act. It's just another tool the police have and it's a good deterant. For instance look at the boy racer culture, the most important thing to them is their car and their licence.

You've said before that you are against police issuing traffic tickets, now you suggest that 28 day licence suspensions are punishment without trial. Exactly what type of traffic enforcement do you support or would you prefer to see anarchy on the roads?????

The question really should be "when do minor interuptions to ones movements become more important than the public interest in apprehending drunk drivers"??


Sorry Spud that's the argument that was used to sell the idea to all "right thinking" kiwis.

I am sorry that you can't see the argument, but at least you ride a bike.

Keep your shiney side up.

[James Deuce]

Post #9 of this thread. After re-reading it I see that you did not raise that point, my appologies.



3 times during one trip is pretty unlucky. Setting up checkpoints at 5AM on a Saturday morning sounds like a reasonable deployment time for alcohol checkpoints, why? Because drunks drive home during the wee small hours. Hey, they are just trying to keep the road safe for people like you.



If you hold a NZ drivers licence then you would be aware that under law you can be stopped by police at anytime and be checked for the presence of alcohol. You accepted these conditions when you applied for a drivers licence.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege and as such you have certain obligations that you and everybody else accepts by holding a licence.

What on earth do need to be protected from a checkpoint for?? If you drive drunk and you get caught, stiff shit.


Oh dear, Oh Dear, Oh dear.

That last point?? You sir are an excreble mound of steaming elephant reflux.

[spudchucka]

Oh dear, Oh Dear, Oh dear.

That last point?? You sir are an excreble mound of steaming elephant reflux.

Very eloquent, but why resort to personal insults??

Elephant reflux would probably amount to a nutritional health suplement in some countries.

I'm sure you really meant that as a compliment!! Didn't you???

[SPman]

If you are innocent then you having nothing to fear! ...Aaaarrrgh! Anybody who has a knowledge of history (not enough in my opinion, or societies wouldnt keep recycling the same old mistakes), would know that as the catchcry of a dubious regime as they, yet again, erode the liberty and enact tighter and more constrictive strangleholds on their societies!
And it invariably, eventually, all ends badly!
But
:whocares:

[Lou Girardin]

I didn't advocate any such thing, Spudchucker. My post was simply a statement of fact. The rights and wrongs of those issues are a different debate.
But I really dislike the statement; "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Ask any surviving Jew from 1930's Germany for an opinion on that!
Lou

[Holy Roller]

Technology as usual will come to our rescue. Crime (including speeding) will be eliminated as compulsory tracking devices surgically implanted in everyone are constantly monitored by police computers. It will become impossible to evade responsibility for wrong-doing.
All those airy-fairy PC libertarians will jump up and down as usual but we'll quickly get used to it. After all, we don't mind being stopped at random check-points, do we? Decent, law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear.
Mistakes, of course, will be impossible, and the police will enforce the new laws with the same impartiality, integrity and regard for justice that they have demonstrated in the past...

And I thought the Minority Report was just a movie

[spudchucka]

I didn't advocate any such thing, Spudchucker. My post was simply a statement of fact. The rights and wrongs of those issues are a different debate.
But I really dislike the statement; "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Ask any surviving Jew from 1930's Germany for an opinion on that!
Lou


Blood and breath testing are a breach of your protection against self-incrimination. Roadside licence susupension is punishment without trial. Random alcohol checkpoints do away with the need for Police to have a 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence.

These aren't facts, they are opinions. And this is the sort of thing you say that I will challenge because it portrays an unrealistic representation of the truth.

Comparing road policing to the holocaust is emotive and inflamitory and I'm picking it would be down right insulting to many people.

[Lou Girardin]

Blood/breath testing use your body products as evidence = self-incrimination, Fact
Roadside licence suspension = punishment by Police without the charge being proved. Fact.
Random checkpoints = breath testing driver without reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. Fact.

The holocaust came later, the Jews had all their civil rights removed first. But the majority failed to leave Germany because they knew they had done nothing wrong and thought that the pogrom was just a temporary political ploy.
In the words of John Pilger to Kim Hill, Spudchucker. READ!
Lou

[spudchucka]

Blood/breath testing use your body products as evidence = self-incrimination, Fact

By your logic DNA left behind by a rapist of finger prints left behind by a burglar should not be used as evidence either.


Roadside licence suspension = punishment by Police without the charge being proved. Fact.

28 suspension occurs when:
1: driver undergoes an evidential breath test and the result exceeds 800 micrograms / litre of breath.

Test: is the test result evidentialy acceptable - yes. Therefore it is proved.

2: driver undergoes a blood test and the result exceeds 160 milligrams / 100 mils of blood.

Test: is the test result evidentialy acceptable - yes. Therefore it is proved.

3: driver fails or refuses to undergoe a blood test after being required to do so under section 72 or 73 of Land Transport Act.

Test: is the person required to supply a sample - yes. Is the refusal documented and can that document be produced as evidence - yes. Therefore it is proved.

4: driver drove at a speed that exceeded the posted speed limit by 50kph or more.

Test: are the current methods of speed detection approved and accepted evidentialy - yes. Was the person operating the equipment trained and certified to use it - (lets assume) - yes. Was the code of operations complied with - (lets assume again) - yes. Therefore it is proved.


Random checkpoints = breath testing driver without reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. Fact.

This is subjective - any person driving a motor vehicle on a road may be under the influence of alcohol, thats not an unreasonable possibility.

Re the holocaust, you assume I know nothing of the subject. I refer back to your original post and again say that comparing it with road policing in NZ is foolish and provocative.

[Lou Girardin]

Gee, Spud. I don't think you're a cop at all now.
I mean proved in court, with the evidence challenged and examined. The supposed basis of our legal system.
I think this is boring everyone now, it's starting to bore me.
Lou

[Jackrat]

Gee, Spud. I don't think you're a cop at all now.
I mean proved in court, with the evidence challenged and examined. The supposed basis of our legal system.
I think this is boring everyone now, it's starting to bore me.
Lou
No no,Keep going,I'm enjoying watching spud pull you to bits.

[Lou Girardin]

This is my last post on this thread Jack.
The reason I don't think Spud is a cop, is that he's confusing evidence with proof.
That's why I'm totally against roadside susupensions, you're punished without the offence being PROVED in court. Just on the say so of a cop with a quota to fill and bragging rights to gain.
Lou

[spudchucka]

This is my last post on this thread Jack.
The reason I don't think Spud is a cop, is that he's confusing evidence with proof.
That's why I'm totally against roadside susupensions, you're punished without the offence being PROVED in court. Just on the say so of a cop with a quota to fill and bragging rights to gain.
Lou

My point on this particular issue, Lou, is that it is YOUR opinion that road side suspensions / checkpoints are wrong. Just cos Lou said so doesn't make it a fact.

The bulk of the population has no problem with it, so does that make them all wrong and you right?

My previous post in this thread is flawed, obviously. But its an opinion, isn't it? Does that make it fact? No, of course not.

So the offence isn't proved in court, so what!! Obviously the burden of proof required is lower than that required to throw someone in jail for murder. The police have tasks, one of which is road policing, if every speeding ticket required a court hearing imagine the chaos that would result. Serious cases wouldn't be heard because of the backlog. Your arguements are based on principals that you believe in, I can see that but they show no common sense and offer no practical alternatives.

I'm happy to let this thread go too. Bygones!! :)

[Marmoot]

In Japan they have those souped-up Civic type-Rs and NSX for chase cars. Now they're fast cars.
We can also have some R1s or Blades, give a forward-mounting camera.
Just chase them enough to get a frame with number plate and then call off the chase. That would be evidence enough to confiscate the vehicle, innit?

Or helicopter? Where was the helicopter all these times?

[pete376403]

Technology as usual will come to our rescue. Crime (including speeding) will be eliminated as compulsory tracking devices surgically implanted in everyone are constantly monitored by police computers. It will become impossible to evade responsibility for wrong-doing.
..
Technology exists now for vehicles to be fitted with 1.speed limiting devices or 2. speed reporting devices.
In case 1. you couldn't exceed the speed limit. The GPS within the device would adjust the maximum speed according to where you were.
In case 2. you could speed, but the device would report you to the law. The ticket would probably be waiting in your e-mail inbox by the time you got home, and the fine would probably be automatically deducted from your bank.

Which device would the politicians prefer?

[MikeL]

The bulk of the population has no problem with it, so does that make them all wrong and you right?

So the offence isn't proved in court, so what!! Obviously the burden of proof required is lower than that required to throw someone in jail for murder. The police have tasks, one of which is road policing, if every speeding ticket required a court hearing imagine the chaos that would result. Serious cases wouldn't be heard because of the backlog. Your arguements are based on principals that you believe in, I can see that but they show no common sense and offer no practical alternatives.

I'm happy to let this thread go too. Bygones!! :)

I too think this argument has gone as far as it can. Both sides have made valid points. We are left with 2 differing subjective assessments of the relative importance of civil liberties and law enforcement.
Lou, the theory is sound but the practicalities of everyday policing mean that the ideal will never be achieved. Some compromise is necessary.
Spud, do you realise the implications of what you have written? The anti-Jewish laws of Hitler's Germany were approved by the majority of the population. And the principles of fair trial and high standard of proof, once relaxed for the sake of expediency in "minor" matters can more easily be sacrificed for other offences.
IMO this debate, which is necessary and healthy, has much wider implications, as our approach to civil liberties and collective security comes in for the biggest shake-up in generations. Despite the passionate arguments we have read on this forum, I fear that in general this nation of sheep is not in a good position to give the wider debate the intelligent and robust scrutiny it needs.

[SPman]

IMO this debate, which is necessary and healthy, has much wider implications, as our approach to civil liberties and collective security comes in for the biggest shake-up in generations. Despite the passionate arguments we have read on this forum, I fear that in general this nation of sheep is not in a good position to give the wider debate the intelligent and robust scrutiny it needs.True.
People just say - "shut up and get on with life" - "cant be bothered with all that"... as long as it doesnt affect them.

Then one day they wake up and its too late! :eek5: