Watch This

[Jackrat]

Police chases,60 minites tonight.
Should be good for a yarn afterwards.

[Motoracer]

Police chases,60 minites tonight.
Should be good for a yarn afterwards.

Sweet, thanx man.

[marty]

except ex-sgt alex hope is once again spouting his mouth off. i see his mate (and ex boss) ex-s/sgt (and now fellow lawyer) mike meyrick has been awfully quiet since his face was on the front page of the times, having been charged with kiddie porn and perverting the course of justice charges....

[Lou Girardin]

except ex-sgt alex hope is once again spouting his mouth off. i see his mate (and ex boss) ex-s/sgt (and now fellow lawyer) mike meyrick has been awfully quiet since his face was on the front page of the times, having been charged with kiddie porn and perverting the course of justice charges....

So Alex Hope's experience is not valid because his ex-boss is into kiddie porn.
Phew! Glad you told me that, I might have taken him seriously.
Lou

[marty]

the media held hope and meyrick up in the same light as experts. alex hope's experience is valid, but unfortunately i believe it is tainted by what i see is a lack of compassion for his (previous) peers and co-workers, and their current situation. he has become like an ex-smoker - unable to appreciate that he was once one of those that he is now slagging off. he cleverly 'remembers' incidents, at the same time distancing himself from them. admittedly he's not the only ex-cop who suffers from that....

and btw, in my previos post i never said that hope's opinion wasn't valid. my comment was about meyrick.

[MikeL]

What annoyed me about the police spokesman's responses was his unwillingness to admit openly what must be fairly clear from an impartial assessment of their policy in operation, namely
(a) that "collateral damage" is acceptable, and
(b) that it has been made acceptable by a deliberate decision to place 100% of the blame, always, on the offender, and
(c) that attempts to challenge the authorized version of events through the PCA are futile because procedures and policies will always be deemed to have been fully complied with.

An attempt to create sympathy for the police by mentioning the psychological trauma that the officers experience when a pursuit results in tragedy left me unmoved, even though I recognize that it is a valid observation. Should they be surprised that some of their cynicism has rubbed off on me?

[Jackrat]

1 in 3 chases end in a crash,At times they know who the offender is any way.
They call off chases and then seconds later the offender crashes.
The cops are affected by adrenaline,The offender is affected by fear.
All the more reasons to take the same approch as more progressive police forces have done an simply stop doing it.Less cowboys and more detectives
Would probably catch more offenders before they got anywhere near a car in the first place.I'm certainly not going to knock the cops for trying but there must be a better way.As was pointed out,some countys in the states have stopped chases all togeather,and it seems to work.How many of these deaths would of happened if the stolen car or unlicenced driver had been let go and picked up at another time.I'm pretty sure that by the time even a petty crim gets to running from the law his prints are on file so it shouldn't be that hard to work it out.A life lost for the sake of an exspired WOF.Sounds a bit crook to me.The cops involed in the Whangarei crash have pretty much been proven as liars yet the big wig on TV still hasn't got the guts to admit it.
As the lady said, he'd change his tune if it was his family member killed for the sake of a WOF.140kms down the main and he puts all the blame on an offender they already knew.Hey I know I ain't that smart but I'm not stupid and neither are most of us.That sort of crap has to stop.

[Firefight]

Sweet, thanx man.


Hey MR, totally :Offtopic: but love your new aviturwhatsit thingy.


Firefight :eek:

[Lou Girardin]

Hell Jack, I'm impressed. I was getting the wrong idea about you.
On the subject of Supt. Steve Fitzgerald and the LTSA for that matter, why are these people so fanatical that they can't admit even the slightest doubt or concede that road safety isn't black and white.
It smacks of a type of fundamentalism to me. A sort of 'my dogma is better than yours'.
Lou

[Motoracer]

Hey MR, totally :Offtopic: but love your new aviturwhatsit thingy.


Firefight :eek:

Cheers man. See if you can see the guy comming towards you doing a stoppie and if you look at it differently, he'll be going away from you doing a stoppie! (although, a no right hand stoppie might be a bit hard to master :thud: )

[Motoracer]

As the lady said, he'd change his tune if it was his family member killed for the sake of a WOF.140kms down the main and he puts all the blame on an offender they already knew.Hey I know I ain't that smart but I'm not stupid and neither are most of us.That sort of crap has to stop.

Amen to that.

[Jackrat]

Hell Jack, I'm impressed. I was getting the wrong idea about you.
On the subject of Supt. Steve Fitzgerald and the LTSA for that matter, why are these people so fanatical that they can't admit even the slightest doubt or concede that road safety isn't black and white.
It smacks of a type of fundamentalism to me. A sort of 'my dogma is better than yours'.
Lou
As the truth comes out I start to lose a bit of faith.
The guy's on the street do a pretty thank less job,But mistakes must be admited to if they are going to mantain that Faith.
Most of our Pollys and people in high places seem to lack the abitlitie to admit mistakes.They certainly do their own cause no good.
And why are they like this???Their job is more important to them than anything else. :brick:

[Big Dog]

The hard part is the whole if they never persue everyone will do a runner thing. If there is any posssibility of getting away people do runners. It is all well and good to say no more pursuits except in circumstances involving violence and no knowledge of the offender or simmilar but at the end of the day Joe Bloggs who has been toasting st paddy all day will just do a runner (his judgement already impaired and all).

IMHO the only way to reduce pursuit deaths is to make it a severely punishable crime to do a runner. Who in their right mind would do a runner from a wof infringement if the runner could land you 2 years, 10 if involving an injury and a murder charge for a death (all automatically high security)?

That and something needs to be done about the fact that most people still think it is cool to have done or even gotten away with a runner, an unfortunate side effect of reality tv shows.

[SPman]

..On the subject of Supt. Steve Fitzgerald and the LTSA for that matter, why are these people so fanatical that they can't admit even the slightest doubt or concede that road safety isn't black and white.Lou Because they are fundamentalist zealots :wacko: with one particular point of view and like all zealots, they would rather die...or rather, you die, before they would consider anything, outside their narrow proscribed view!
They are trapped by their own dogma!
Fundamentalists!
Fuckin hate em! :kick:

:Oops:
:shutup:

[jrandom]

Who in their right mind would do a runner from a wof infringement if the runner could land you 2 years, 10 if involving an injury and a murder charge for a death (all automatically high security)?

I think that the stakes on running are already high enough, most of the time. Although... that fool on the Speed Triple who killed the Burgess girl was carrying a rifle without a firearms license, which comes with QUITE a risk of doing time, although firearms charges are usually used to nail gang members who have been doing much naughtier things, so the typical sentences may be a little skewed. Presumably he knew the cops probably had his plate, and he would rather have faced charges resulting from the runner than the firearms charges. Or maybe he was just off his nut on P and dak.

Who knows.

[Big Dog]

I think that the stakes on running are already high enough, most of the time.
The only runners I know of that got caught only got a fine and 1 night in the can. $400 is too low to be a deterent.

[Lou Girardin]

The 'no pursuit' policy seems to work in the US States that have adopted it. The cops get pissed off with bikers removing their plates and popping wheelies in front of them, but that's just too bad. At least people aren't dying in chases.
Lou

[Motoracer]

The cops get pissed off with bikers removing their plates and popping wheelies in front of them
Lou

hehe, that'd be pretty nice

[spudchucka]

Hell Jack, I'm impressed. I was getting the wrong idea about you.
On the subject of Supt. Steve Fitzgerald and the LTSA for that matter, why are these people so fanatical that they can't admit even the slightest doubt or concede that road safety isn't black and white.
It smacks of a type of fundamentalism to me. A sort of 'my dogma is better than yours'.
Lou
A bit priceless, you accusing others of being fanatical.

[spudchucka]

Consider for a moment the alternative. Police are banned from pursuing any fleeing drivers. Well you might as well take away the power to stop vehicles in the first place because who the hell would stop knowing they just had to speed away. All you would need is a device that conceals your rego plate and you would be scot free.

In order to prosecute a driver for an offence a considerable investigation would be required to even establish what vehicle was involved and who was driving it. This would eat up even more police resources and as a result people would have to wait even longer for burglaries etc to be attended.

If police no longer have the mandate to police traffic you would soon see all sorts of automatic / electronic methods of enforcement. Would you like to have a GPS transponder fitted to your bike or car. The LTSA or whoever was charged with enforcing traffic would know where you were and what you were doing at all times. Traffic fines and summonses would be produced automatically and it would be up to the driver to prove they did not commit the offence.

I have great sympathy for the victims that appeared on the 60 minutes show. However they like so many other people want the police to protect them and to enforce the law on their terms and dependent on their own experiences. If the same woman had lost her loved one in an armed robbery and the police had the chance to apprehend the offender but lost him because they refused to pursue the getaway car, imagine the shit she would be giving the police over that. Peoples expectations of the police vary dependant on their circumstances.

This is a really complex issue and there seems little point in even discussing it on an internet forum. Just remember that the police are doing the very best they can in often very difficult circumstances.

[marty]

and amen to THAT

[MikeL]

This is a really complex issue
agree
and there seems little point in even discussing it on an internet forum.
disagree (are you saying that it is so complex that it should be left to the "experts" and that any public debate is pointless because we are all ignorant, uninformed, prejudiced etc?)Just remember that the police are doing the very best they can in often very difficult circumstances.
that's the whole point: there is a fundamental disagreement on what the "best" means. Best for whom? If a judicial system on average executes 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty, the injustice may be seen by many, perhaps the majority, as acceptable if the benefit to society as a whole in terms of crime deterrence is overwhelming. (But if you happen to be that innocent person...) Suppose it is 1 in 50? 1 in 10? At some point you will draw the line. Many ethical issues are dealt with (if not exactly resolved) by drawing an arbitrary line at a level that we can live with without too much discomfort. That's what I meant when I wrote earlier about the acceptable level of collateral damage. Isn't this something that should be debated???

[SPman]

That's what I meant when I wrote earlier about the acceptable level of collateral damage. Isn't this something that should be debated???
You mean something like the yanks in Iraq.....1 US citizen in Felluja equals 120 Iraqui women and children!

:Oops::shutup:

[spudchucka]

that's the whole point: there is a fundamental disagreement on what the "best" means. Best for whom? If a judicial system on average executes 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty, the injustice may be seen by many, perhaps the majority, as acceptable if the benefit to society as a whole in terms of crime deterrence is overwhelming. (But if you happen to be that innocent person...) Suppose it is 1 in 50? 1 in 10? At some point you will draw the line. Many ethical issues are dealt with (if not exactly resolved) by drawing an arbitrary line at a level that we can live with without too much discomfort. That's what I meant when I wrote earlier about the acceptable level of collateral damage. Isn't this something that should be debated???
Your post emphasises my point. Here is a discussion about police pursuits and now you have turned it into a question of a judicial system that "executes" 1 innocent person in 100. How the hell did we arrive at that point???

If people really want to discuss police pursuits on this forum then go for it but keep it in context. That is why I say there is little point as these threads usually turn into an opportunity to vent rather than informed and intelligent discussion.

[wkid_one]

I agree with SC - at the end of the day - the abolition of the police chase - means that those of 'immoral' inclination are going to be more inclined to run - and those who have more to lose will do the same.

The other option is for the dash mounted videos like the states that are admissable in court - meaning you only need to get close enough and for long enough to read the plate - the rest can be dealt with later.

HOWEVER - I do believe that there exists only a very small group that are ever going to be likely to run from the police regardless of what the chase policy is. Removing the policy I don't think will have a dramatic increase in runners.

[spudchucka]

The other option is for the dash mounted videos like the states that are admissable in court - meaning you only need to get close enough and for long enough to read the plate - the rest can be dealt with later.
This would make for good evidence and would also stop a lot of bogus PCA complaints, not to mention make for good entertainment. The only problem with abandonong after reading the plate is that you have no way of varifying the Rego with a VIN or chassis number. Criminals would simply use stolen or fake plates.


HOWEVER - I do believe that there exists only a very small group that are ever going to be likely to run from the police regardless of what the chase policy is. Removing the policy I don't think will have a dramatic increase in runners.
True but the number of desperate criminal types is increasing with the popularity of P. That shit turns ordinary people into paranoid psychos.

[Lou Girardin]

Exactly MikeL, most pursuit deaths are not as a result of chasing serious criminals. Just pissy little offences, like WOF checks and minor speeding. None of them justified a death.
Lou

[MikeL]

Here is a discussion about police pursuits and now you have turned it into a question of a judicial system that "executes" 1 innocent person in 100. How the hell did we arrive at that point???



If you stop and think about it for half a millisecond, you'll realize that it's an analogy. Analogies are often used (and misused) in arguments for illustrating a point by making a comparison with a similar situation, or in this case, a reasonably accurate parallel. If an analogy is not used properly, as when the situations are not at all comparable, then it is misleading and weakens rather than strengthens the argument. In this case, I wanted to illustrate the point that society is willing to accept, up to a point, injustices such as the death of innocent people (what I referred to as "collateral damage") if overall the benefit is substantial. The tragic mistake of the execution of an innocent person (which undoubtedly happened in N.Z.in the past, and continues to happen in less enlightened countries today) as an unwanted "by-product" of the system is a fairly close parallel to the death of an innocent person in a police car chase.
I assume you believe I have used an inappropriate analogy. I would be interested to read your reasons.

[spudchucka]

If you stop and think about it for half a millisecond, you'll realize that it's an analogy. Analogies are often used (and misused) in arguments for illustrating a point by making a comparison with a similar situation, or in this case, a reasonably accurate parallel. If an analogy is not used properly, as when the situations are not at all comparable, then it is misleading and weakens rather than strengthens the argument. In this case, I wanted to illustrate the point that society is willing to accept, up to a point, injustices such as the death of innocent people (what I referred to as "collateral damage") if overall the benefit is substantial. The tragic mistake of the execution of an innocent person (which undoubtedly happened in N.Z.in the past, and continues to happen in less enlightened countries today) as an unwanted "by-product" of the system is a fairly close parallel to the death of an innocent person in a police car chase.
I assume you believe I have used an inappropriate analogy. I would be interested to read your reasons.
I simply don't see the death of an innocent party due to a traffic crash following a pursuit being compared with a state execution of a convicted criminal or wrongly convicted innocent as being a fair and reasonable analogy.

Its the sort of over emotional nonsense that people get away with on internet forums.

[spudchucka]

Exactly MikeL, most pursuit deaths are not as a result of chasing serious criminals. Just pissy little offences, like WOF checks and minor speeding. None of them justified a death.
Lou
What are you trying to say Lou, if the death occurred following the pursuit of a serious wanted criminal it would be justifiable loss?

[MikeL]

I simply don't see the death of an innocent party due to a traffic crash following a pursuit being compared with a state execution of a convicted criminal or wrongly convicted innocent as being a fair and reasonable analogy.

Its the sort of over emotional nonsense that people get away with on internet forums.

"Over emotional", moi? That's a bit rich...
O.K., let me spell it out. The analogy depends on the following parallel: In both situations society is aiming to achieve a benefit. If capital punishment deters, or at least removes potential re-offenders, everyone in society gains, except the occasional innocent victim executed by mistake. If police chases deter, or at least take off the roads dangerous drivers, everyone in society gains, except the occasional innocent victim. In both cases the innocent victim can be seen as an unavoidable cost of achieving the benefit. If capital punishment continues to be applied it is because society as a whole is comfortable with the ratio of benefit to cost. Likewise with road chase fatalities. The intention is not an issue. A judicial system does not set out to execute innocent people. The police do not intend, and genuinely regret, the deaths of innocent people. However, faced with the suggestion that the cost is too high, and that the existing policy should be abandoned, rather than honestly conceding the brutal reality of an acceptable level of collateral damage, they squirm and hedge and avoid the question by shifting the debate to the responsibility of the offender. The proponents of capital punishment used to insist that mistakes were impossible; faced with undeniable evidence to the contrary, they have at least had the courage of their convictions (as it were) now to admit that it does occasionally happen, but continue to insist that this is a price worth paying for the greater good.

From one ethical point of view, there is an argument that says it is better for 100 guilty men to go unpunished than for one innocent man to be condemned.
Most people familiar with the harsh realities of law enforcement would reject that notion as impossibly idealistic. I have never maintained that policing was anything other than arduous, challenging and frustrating work in which compromises have to be made at times. All I want to see is openness, integrity, commonsense and the willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. Dismissing reasoned argument as over-emotional nonsense is a cop- out.

[SPman]

............ All I want to see is openness, integrity, commonsense and the willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue. Dismissing reasoned argument as over-emotional nonsense is a cop- out. I agree.

Should be good for a yarn afterwards
Jeez Jack, you sure know how to "bait" a thread> :)

[Drunken Monkey]

<snip>

Bah...

Discussed ad nausem, I remove my thread...

[spudchucka]

Dismissing reasoned argument as over-emotional nonsense is a cop- out.
Although I see the point you intend to make I don't see your arguement as being reasonable - period.

[jrandom]

Perhaps Mike's post was a little too dense for careful analysis by some of us with less time to linger.

It seems easy enough. A police pursuit policy has benefits and risks. They should be easy to weigh, particularly in the presence of evidence that removes the necessity for speculation on precisely what those risks and benefits *are*. Such evidence does exist.

I can't actually see Mike arguing for one point or another. He's just doing what I spend most of *my* time doing, online and off... trying to define the debate in proper and rational terms.

[marty]

could not chasing offenders driving vehicles be compared to not taking a firearm to a suspected gun or offensive weapon incident, just in case someone innocent got hurt? how about this scenario. police have a 'no chase' policy. does that include no chasing of ag robbers who have just held up a bank with a gun? does that include escaped prisoners? drink/disqualified/unlicenced drivers? people pushing drugs to your kids?

the challenge is to meet midway, the risks and the outcomes, and to minimise harm to the general public on the way. even for the unwarranted (possibly dangerous) car, if it speeds off, police don't chase, then the wheel falls off, killing a child on their way to school, i guarantee the police will be in the firing line for not dealing with it at the time, once again having to either make excuses for not dealing with it when they could.

[spudchucka]

could not chasing offenders driving vehicles be compared to not taking a firearm to a suspected gun or offensive weapon incident, just in case someone innocent got hurt? how about this scenario. police have a 'no chase' policy. does that include no chasing of ag robbers who have just held up a bank with a gun? does that include escaped prisoners? drink/disqualified/unlicenced drivers? people pushing drugs to your kids?

the challenge is to meet midway, the risks and the outcomes, and to minimise harm to the general public on the way. even for the unwarranted (possibly dangerous) car, if it speeds off, police don't chase, then the wheel falls off, killing a child on their way to school, i guarantee the police will be in the firing line for not dealing with it at the time, once again having to either make excuses for not dealing with it when they could.
Thats just too much commom sense in one post for most people to digest in one sitting.

[Lou Girardin]

No, it is overly emotional use of inappropriate analogies.
Lou

[spudchucka]

No, it is overly emotional use of inappropriate analogies.
Lou
A bit like you comparing road policing to Nazi Germany and the holocaust. Fool!!


the challenge is to meet midway, the risks and the outcomes, and to minimise harm to the general public on the way.

How do you figure that to be over emotional or inappropriate?

[Racey Rider]

This Sunday night (16th May), 7:30 on TVOne
Doco about speed cameras, Stalkers, speeding fines and LTSA statistics lies.
Could be worth a watch.

[riffer]

This Sunday night (16th May), 7:30 on TVOne
Doco about speed cameras, Stalkers, speeding fines and LTSA statistics lies.
Could be worth a watch.
Bugger - the wife is addicted to top gear. Might be tough to convince her to change over for "conspiracy theories"