Log in

View Full Version : Pursuit or chase?



Lou Girardin
10th April 2006, 08:31
When is a pursuit not a chase?
When a Police spokesthingy says they were in pursuit of a car but it wasn't a chase.
This was referring to the Subaru that dismantled itself on a bridge abutment in Dunnydun or ChCh or somewhere, after fleeing from an EBA checkpoint.
And before all you coppers and fellow travellers get all rabid, I don't particularly care which it was, or that the dick crashed.
Just amused is all.

bobsmith
10th April 2006, 08:42
This is very interesting... I would love to hear the answer.

Although I'm not a fan of Pi*#, one thing I hate more is the media which suggests that criminals should not be chased/pursuited (whichever).

Perhaps, there is some difference in legal definitions?

RantyDave
10th April 2006, 08:48
This was referring to the Subaru that dismantled itself on a bridge abutment in Dunnydun
Yeah, ummm, didn't it dismantle it's passengers as well?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3632725a11,00.html

But not the driver, I note.

Number one reason why speeding bikers is different from backwards hat wearers in rex's - when's the last time a bike crashed killing all four occupants?

Dave

spudchucka
10th April 2006, 09:06
Scenario:

Police have a check point set up and are breath testing drivers.

A white subaru approaches the check point, sees the police then stops, does a U-turn and drives off the other way.

Police staff notice the U-turning car and decide to get into a patrol car and chase after it in order to pull them over.

By the time the police get in their car and begin moving the subaru is already doing warp factor five in the other direction.

The police accelerate to catch up and activate their lights and sirens. The subaru is already around a corner and out of their view. They don't have a rego for the car or description of the driver.

The police continue around the corner, attempting to catch up and find the subaru in a mangled heap, having just hit a bridge abutment.

Was it a "pursuit"?

Was it a drunk driver attempting to avoid breath testing procedures?

Did the police play any active part in the subaru crashing?

Should the police have simply not bothered giving chase?

Would the subaru have crashed anyway?

I don't know whether this was the case in ChCh or not but its a scenario that happens whenever police do check points of any kind.

marty
10th April 2006, 09:10
it becomes a chase when the patrol car 'engages' the fleeing car - some form of ID can be got - car colour, rego, make etc.

although 'chase' is not used per se, it's either a pursuit or they're trying to catch up.

for those geeks who listen to the police radio, you'll hear all the time 'not calling a pursuit, just trying to catch someone who looks like they've done a runner...'

calling a pursuit more often than not involves paperwork :)

Drunken Monkey
10th April 2006, 09:13
So it's just semantics and/or technicalities then. Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a police action...

Sniper
10th April 2006, 09:15
Definition of pursuit: the act of pursuing in an effort to overtake or capture; "the culprit started to run and the cop took off in pursuit"

Definition of chase: go after with the intent to catch; "The policeman chased the mugger down the alley"; "the dog chased the rabbit"
pursue someone sexually or romantically.

Seems like the same thing to me, although the cop did want to do an oral test.

enigma51
10th April 2006, 09:18
I think in this case the car would have crashed even if a police car was chasing/pursuing behind it or not it was fleeing the roadblock while drunk feeling sorry for the family its not a nice thing to happen to them. As long as there is no hp restriction on drivers like there is on bikes this will happen again. Like the cop said in the news youngster + alcahol + high performance vehicle

spudchucka
10th April 2006, 09:28
Seems like the same thing to me, although the cop did want to do an oral test.
It becomes a pursuit when the fleeing driver has been signalled to stop and they fail to do so. There have been many 40kph pursuits where granddad has failed to stop because he simply didn't think that the police would want HIM to pull over. Its still a pursuit though and seems ridiculous when comms give their usual, "if there is any unjustified risk to any persons or property you are to abandon pursuit" speech.

chickenfunkstar
10th April 2006, 09:34
"It is believed that speed and alcohol were both factors in the crash."


Really????

Marmoot
10th April 2006, 09:58
Definition of pursuit: the act of pursuing in an effort to overtake or capture; "the culprit started to run and the cop took off in pursuit"

Definition of chase: go after with the intent to catch; "The policeman chased the mugger down the alley"; "the dog chased the rabbit"
pursue someone sexually or romantically.

Seems like the same thing to me, although the cop did want to do an oral test.

Damn...u beat me to Google.

Yes, I don't believe the police was pursuing the car sexually or romantically, so it cannot be a chase :rofl:

scumdog
10th April 2006, 11:47
It becomes a pursuit when the fleeing driver has been signalled to stop and they fail to do so. There have been many 40kph pursuits where granddad has failed to stop because he simply didn't think that the police would want HIM to pull over. Its still a pursuit though and seems ridiculous when comms give their usual, "if there is any unjustified risk to any persons or property you are to abandon pursuit" speech.

Have a few of them, got a bit of a :nono: when I responded to the "if there is any unjustified risk yadda yadda yadda" I replied "the only risk is me falling asleep if I have to keep driving at this speed" - we were screaming along at 35-40kph at the time.

One otherwise fairly law abiding driver driver had to be 'moving blocked' to get them to stop after 21km!!! (AND attemted to drive around it too!) their response? "Oh, I never realised you wanted me to stop!"

That Dunedin driver is a dick!!
(And sadly a lot of older driver seem to think "the young ones seem to have got the message compared to the oldies, they know not to drink and drive")
Yeah Right!!

speedpro
10th April 2006, 12:13
Some sort of guided missile would be the go. You do a runner, to protect innocent public the cops let you have it, EXCELLENT.

scumdog
10th April 2006, 12:17
Some sort of guided missile would be the go. You do a runner, to protect innocent public the cops let you have it, EXCELLENT.
.
Bit tough to do in this case as the car was not in sight of the patrol car giving chase and it did not have a description of the car they were after.

Lou Girardin
10th April 2006, 12:19
That's the one Spud.
Wouldn't it have been better to say, "Police at the scene pursued the vehicle from some distance behind , but lost sight of it just before the crash"?
It sounds a lot better than "the Police were pursuing it but weren't in a chase".

spudchucka
10th April 2006, 12:23
Before the pollies dropped the drinking age to 18 I would have almost gone along with that. There has been a definate spike in EBA offending in young people in the last few years.

scumdog
10th April 2006, 12:30
Before the pollies dropped the drinking age to 18 I would have almost gone along with that. There has been a definate spike in EBA offending in young people in the last few years.

I'm with you, bump the age back to 20, if the USA can do it so can this country.

And I don't want to hear platitudes and crap about "But if it's good enough to be able to vote at 18 and fight for your country at 18 you should be allowed to drink at 18"
I'm yet to see the logic in THAT argument - how would they feel if it was put to them "well in that case you can start driving when you get to 18"?.

BTW the reason 18 year olds are allowed to fight for their country (when was the last time any 18 year old ever 'fought for his country') is because all 18 year olds have no concept of mortallity or the fact the 'somebody' that might get shot could be THEM, hence they are quick to 'sign up'

Patrick
10th April 2006, 12:47
(when was the last time any 18 year old ever 'fought for his country') is because all 18 year olds have no concept of mortallity or the fact the 'somebody' that might get shot could be THEM, hence they are quick to 'sign up'

Nah... push the "refresh" button when shot and all will be OK...or alternatively, the "exit" and "new game" buttons...

Hitcher
10th April 2006, 13:15
Vietnam wasn't a war, it was a police action...
Vietnam was a war. Korea was the United Nations police action.

madboy
10th April 2006, 13:58
I don't see how horsepower restrictions will solve anything. My best (public road) crashes were in 66kw Civics and an 88kw MX-5. I'd grown out of crashing cars by the time I got to the 200kw+ Lancer.

I haven't seen anything to suggest the cops had acted inappropriately in this case. Just a waste of more ACC funds as far as I'm concerned.

That goodie goodie two shoes speech about public safety at the start of a pursuit is hilarious. If I hear it one more time I might fall off the bike laughing.

Lou Girardin
10th April 2006, 14:10
Vietnam was a war..

Albeit an undeclared one. Like WW2 at Pearl Harbour. And, dare I say it, Iraq.

Drunken Monkey
10th April 2006, 14:21
Hence the term 'police action'.

Hitcher, you going to give Wiki 'the learn' then?

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

What a load of piffle, Scumdog, it's not platitudes and crap at all. The "18" mark is considered a point of adulthood, where one can do many things, as you say, join the army, vote and also enter into contract. There is no logical reason for the drinking age to be different. Just because some/several/many (take your pick) 'young adults' in the 18-19 year bracket aren't mature enough to control their drinking, it doesn't invalidate the argument. On top of this, yes indeed, there are good reasons to bring the driving age up to 18 as well (a drivers license could be considered a contractual privelige, too many people treat it as a 'right').
As for 'no concept of mortallity' (sic), what the hell? Once again, the 18 year benchmark is there because a person had to enter into a contract to serve, its got little to do with a concept of mortality. It may compell young boys to want to join, but it is not the reason the law has been set this way (although it may be one reason why recruiting officers turned a blind eye to 15, 16 and 17 y.o. volunteers).

Jantar
10th April 2006, 14:56
That Dunedin driver is a dick!!
(And sadly a lot of older driver seem to think "the young ones seem to have got the message compared to the oldies, they know not to drink and drive")
Yeah Right!!

One of my works mates is absolutely thrilled about this crash, not because anyone was injured, but because his son (who is usually an even bigger dick) was supposed to have been in the car as well. He decided to walk home with his girlfriend rather than take the lift in the Subaru. Hopefully his son has learnt a lesson from this.

Hitcher
10th April 2006, 15:37
Hitcher, you going to give Wiki 'the learn' then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_action
Many thanks for this. I have learned something today. I had previously thought that the term "police action" related to collective decisions made by the United Nations.

Lou Girardin
10th April 2006, 16:57
I'm with you, bump the age back to 20, if the USA can do it so can this country.



20 for everything. Drinking, sex, smoking, driving, you name it.
No wait, make it 40. Better still.

Patrick
10th April 2006, 23:56
Meh...kids gotta go some time from the nest...

scumdog
11th April 2006, 00:00
20 for everything. Drinking, sex, smoking, driving, you name it.
No wait, make it 40. Better still.

The age reversal for drinking in the US caused a noticeable change in teen behaviour.

I and my workmates noticed a lot more negative behaviour with younger teens after the drinking age was lowered in NZ - all alcohol related..
True.

Patrick
11th April 2006, 00:06
The age reversal for drinking in the US caused a noticeable change in teen behaviour.

I and my workmates noticed a lot more negative behaviour with younger teens after the drinking age was lowered in NZ - all alcohol related..
True.

Hamilton coppers will attest to that too...and here in the Naki. Put it back up,I reckon.

Lou Girardin
12th April 2006, 15:24
The age reversal for drinking in the US caused a noticeable change in teen behaviour.

I and my workmates noticed a lot more negative behaviour with younger teens after the drinking age was lowered in NZ - all alcohol related..
True.

Everyone knows/knew that.
Except the pollies.

Sniper
12th April 2006, 15:27
20 for everything. Drinking, sex, smoking, driving, you name it.
No wait, make it 40. Better still.

What??? And keep the fun only for the dinosaurs?:bleh:

Grahameeboy
12th April 2006, 15:36
So many Police pursuits end up in accidents and death so I just don't agree with pursuits.....what is the end result and does it achieve anything?

Lou Girardin
12th April 2006, 15:40
What??? And keep the fun only for the dinosaurs?:bleh:

Dinosaurs! Bloody young snapperwhipper.
You'll be begging us to buy you booze when we change the law.
We are the baby boomers, we can do anything we like.

kickingzebra
12th April 2006, 15:47
The age reversal for drinking in the US caused a noticeable change in teen behaviour.

I and my workmates noticed a lot more negative behaviour with younger teens after the drinking age was lowered in NZ - all alcohol related..
True.
I don't doubt that young guys drinking is a pain in the arse, but when I was 15 and at school, the law still said 20. And getting alcohol was not a problem. Hell, I was a goody good nerd, and it was easy, so what would it be to the dumb shit cap backwards WRX driver??

My point is, why the difference? 2 years difference is going to mean they are either working (responsibility) or on the dole for a few years (too stoned to care) But if you can get booze at 15, when the age is 20, then they are still going to have it when the age is 18. Maybe the difference is proliferation

scumdog
12th April 2006, 16:58
I don't doubt that young guys drinking is a pain in the arse, but when I was 15 and at school, the law still said 20. And getting alcohol was not a problem. Hell, I was a goody good nerd, and it was easy, so what would it be to the dumb shit cap backwards WRX driver??

My point is, why the difference? 2 years difference is going to mean they are either working (responsibility) or on the dole for a few years (too stoned to care) But if you can get booze at 15, when the age is 20, then they are still going to have it when the age is 18. Maybe the difference is proliferation

Yes, they may have it when they're 18 (hell, I did!)- but they didn't have it so openly and they knew they would get their arses kicked (literally at times)if they were caught with it, also there were less drunk 14 and 15 year olds (and even 12 year olds)around.

It's probably a combination of things but hardly any young people get busted for behaviour crimes (or in fact most crimes) when sober.

madboy
12th April 2006, 17:35
So many Police pursuits end up in accidents and death so I just don't agree with pursuits.....what is the end result and does it achieve anything?IMO the cops have to chase. I don't necessarily agree with their tactics during pursuits, but they still have to give it a go. Most people I talk to that don't run would never consider a runner because they are scared they'll get caught. Reason they'll get caught is because they don't have the nerve (or stupidity gene) to take the big risks that you sometimes have to take to make the runner stick. If suddenly the rules changed and all you had to do to get away was wind it up to 80k in a 50 or 130k on the open road, how many bikers do you think would stop then? And car drivers? Chaos ensues. I think the small sacrifice here and there is better for the greater good of society.

As regards drinking age? Well, when I was "young" the drinking age was 20. So when I went to a pub or was in a public place pissed off my nut at 16 onwards, I was still a reasonably good boy because I didn't want to get busted. But now that it's perfectly legal for immature 18yos to act like complete dicks, they do. In the old days the immature ones wouldn't have either been able to, or dared to. Now they can. And it's those ones that are causing the problem.

Hitcher
12th April 2006, 20:56
When I was a lad growing up near Eltham (cue duelling banjoes), the local MOT cop (a big dude called Ray Whittaker) loved to chase offenders -- either until they gave themselves up, went home to Mum or ran out of gas. His record was a chase from Eltham to Feilding.

Sniper
12th April 2006, 21:17
the local MOT cop (a big dude

BDOTGNZA approved word?

Hitcher
12th April 2006, 21:43
BDOTGNZA approved word?
You have obviously never met Ray Whittaker.

kickingzebra
12th April 2006, 21:49
You have obviously never met Ray Whittaker.

nothing to do with good honest chocolate??
Just the good and honest bit right?

boomer
7th June 2006, 00:31
Dinosaurs! Bloody young snapperwhipper.
You'll be begging us to buy you booze when we change the law.
We are the baby boomers, we can do anything we like.




......wwwwwwwwwooooooooooooooooooahhhhhhh Neddy! Whats this "We Business' white man??

Lou Girardin
7th June 2006, 08:17
We are baby boomers, hear us roar! (followed by hacking, coughing, choking)

Skyryder
7th June 2006, 20:34
Damn...u beat me to Google.

Yes, I don't believe the police was pursuing the car sexually or romantically, so it cannot be a chase :rofl:

And if they were pursing the car sexually or romatically would it be 'chast' or chased. I suppose the definiteve answer to that would depend if they were carrying batons.:rofl: :rofl:

Skyryder