Police go away

[PuppetMaster]

My Opinion.
The Police need to sort out some priorities. This is one reason why the police find it difficult to get respect from normal people in NZ. FFS. Shes just lost half her family, shes a wee bit upset about it, is it really necessary to put the boot in ?


http://www.stuff.co.nz/3931782a19715.html

[vifferman]

Shes just lost half her family, shes a wee bit upset about it, is it really necessary to put the boot in ?

But of course. It will teach her not to do it again.:spanking:

Similar thing happened with my son a couple of years ago. He was driving to his grandparents' house, hadn't driven on the open road much, was startled my a hawk flying up from the side of the road, jerked the wheel to avoid it and crashed the car, which was written off. While waiting bloody ages for the towtruck, a cop happened to drive by, interviewed him, and gave him a ticket.

We wrote in, but the police proceeded with the case. Fortunately, when it went to court, the judge agreed that he had learned enough from the crash, which caused him a lot of distress, a week of poor sleep, and cost him the car, and discharged him without conviction (a very rare and unusual outcome).

[Squeak the Rat]

I gotta agree. Why should this woman be charged?


Punishment? Surely she has suffered enough. What does it say about the police if they believe she needs to suffer more?

Prevention? What's more likely to stop her accidentally crashing again - a driving charge or the memory of her three children dying in the car next to her with their blood all over the place?

Please note that any criticism of this will be seen as police bashing :yawn: so let's just accept that our views are wrong.

[Paul in NZ]

Look at it from the other side...

her actions directly caused the deaths of 3 people and to date she has not given a reasonable account of what happened. What do you expect the Police to do? Walk away and say 'Oh it was probably an accident - don't worry about it.'

Not a lot different to the Kahui case. She won't say what happened, there is little physical evidence and she appears not to be taking responsibility for the deaths.

No problem for me....

[Beemer]

I have to agree with Paul, it would set a dangerous precedent if she were not charged with careless driving causing death or similar. Yes, she has suffered in that she lost three members of her family, but would you have been so sympathetic if she had hit another vehicle and killed three members of someone else's family?

Saying she should not be charged sends a message to others that if you crash and kill someone, for whatever reason, as long as you didn't do it deliberately, you won't be penalised. Next we'll be saying that those who rob banks and then spend all the money shouldn't be charged because now they are poor so it would be cruel to punish them!

[Patrick]

I gotta agree. Why should this woman be charged?

Please note that any criticism of this will be seen as police bashing :yawn: so let's just accept that our views are wrong.

Not Police bashing... Yet....

But what Paul and Beemer say is actually spot on. Can't argue that...

Judge has discretion to impose whatever sentence, if any. Let the courts decide on all of the facts. I'm sure no one will be upset if she was convicted and discharged as she has suffered enough over the loss of her 3 kids.

[imdying]

Look at it from the other side...

her actions directly caused the deaths of 3 people and to date she has not given a reasonable account of what happened. What do you expect the Police to do? Walk away and say 'Oh it was probably an accident - don't worry about it.'Agreed... this is not a responsibility that I want weighting down a policemans shoulders. Whether she is guilty of a crime or not is not his job to decide... his (or her) obligation is only to decide if there's sufficient evidence to charge her with, and if so, to do so.

Sure, I don't expect them to follow that 100% indiscriminately in every circumstance, but I do expect them to follow it 100% when there's been a loss of life.

As a society we have nominated judges as the people who're obliged to determine guilt (or a jury), you can't blame the police for fulfilling their obligations.

[KLOWN]

fine or prison is too harsh but maybe loss of drivers license for 6 months to a year, I mean how the fuck do you crash on a straight road on a good day unless it is driver error and IF another car was coming the other directon it couldv'e been a whole lot worse.

[James Deuce]

The Police charge people in regard to laws they have broken and cases they have to answer.

Judges and juries determine guilt and consequences.

Would you prefer summary roadside executions for breaking the law, a la Judge Dredd?

It isn't optional for the Police to not lay charges when there is clearly a charge to answer.

[Beemer]

I think she should be charged, but I'd place money on her being given a period of licence disqualification and perhaps a fine or some community sentence. She has to live with this for the rest of her life, but the community has to feel that justice has been served. It would be no different if she had run off the road but NOT killed anyone, she should still be charged as she was responsible for the accident. If there had been an explanation, like a blown tyre, oil on the road, an animal running out in front of her (nothing has been put forward that I know of, I think she may have fallen asleep at the wheel by the sound of it), then no, she should not be charged.

[Patrick]

My Opinion.
The Police need to sort out some priorities. This is one reason why the police find it difficult to get respect from normal people in NZ. FFS. Shes just lost half her family, shes a wee bit upset about it, is it really necessary to put the boot in ?


http://www.stuff.co.nz/3931782a19715.html

3 people are dead. You suggest "do nothing..." What is wrong with this picture? And no, this is not a puppet or squeaky rat bashing thread...

[slimjim]

yes i too agree with Paul, life may be hard , but its not taken easly, nor should the police, and taking their time in this matter , is giving thought , her rushing things in relation to been charged, seems very short sighted to me,

[Squeak the Rat]

3 people are dead. You suggest "do nothing..." What is wrong with this picture? And no, this is not a puppet or squeaky rat bashing thread...

:lol: Nice.

I see you're points, but I'm not sure I agree with the "charge every one" mentality. Unfortunately head is too sore to type a well reasoned argument, and I'm sure if I did I'd probably contradict myself anyway.


What I would suggest to the girl is that if the cops want an explanation she should say her sunglass case fell on the floor - it works for mayors......

[Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)]

"Rifle says she suffered flashbacks but could not remember the crash."

[imdying]

What I would suggest to the girl is that if the cops want an explanation she should say her sunglass case fell on the floor - it works for mayors......Mayors that kill three people?

[Squeak the Rat]

Mayors that kill three people?

So what you are saying is that Police SHOULD make a judgement call on who to charge, dependant on their perceived severity of the crime?

[Crisis management]

So what you are saying is that Police SHOULD make a judgement call on who to charge, dependant on their perceived severity of the crime?

Surely a very different case, Shadbolt injured others in the crash (and himself) and offered an explanation for the crash.
Isn't it an explanation that is lacking in Rifles' case?

[Squeak the Rat]

Surely a very different case, Shadbolt injured others in the crash (and himself) and offered an explanation for the crash.
Isn't it an explanation that is lacking in Rifles' case?

T'was exactly my point about 5 posts ago, she should say her sunglass case fell on the floor.

(Did people actually believe Tim Shadbolts story?)

[candor]

Very irresponsible reporting :nono:

So what if a fireman said she is nice and she looks "nice", reasonably attractive etc. The picture of the "happy American family" is very calculating.

A person with a conscience would shut up and leave it to the courts and not be so worried about her precious image. The grief would be their greatest concern and they would not be so preoccupied with charges etc to go to media and paint themselves the victim IMO.

What is she hiding or afraid of to not talk to Police. The court would not send her to jail over this one. It would simply be a conviction and nothing more and her losses would more than be taken into account in our liberal system. I'm betting she wouldn't talk as maybe she was stoned?!? Or did something really stupid like ?lipstick applying.

Most people who say they don't remember - really they do. No special treatment is deserved here. Its owed to those kids to have the record straight and the truth out. We should not be giving parents the message they can do away with their kids thru "carelessness" and then everyone will go "oooh aaah" in sympathy.

Too many kids are killed and injured by idiots on the road. I'm not denying the mother is in agony and that there could be no greater pain than what she now has. But this is not just about her - there are wider issues imo. I hope she gets good support and the rest of the family - as well as charged if she has done wrong.

[Crisis management]

I take your point, but then you can not complain when the police use their discretion (Shadbolt case), can you?

From the article it appears her wall of silence is being used to prepare a defence for court rather than "assisting the police in their enquiries" and after the Kahui case I don't blame them for charging her.

[imdying]

So what you are saying is that Police SHOULD make a judgement call on who to charge, dependant on their perceived severity of the crime?Nope, they should charge him (as they did) just like they charged her (as they did).

The police should of course have some discretionary powers to exercise... like making a drunk clean up his piss with his shirt rather than flatly arresting them for urinating on public property. They don't appear to grossly abuse that power, so all for the status quo to be maintained.

[Hitcher]

This matter has nothing to do with suffering or a justice system determining whether somebody may have suffered "enough". It's about whether a crime was committed or not. That's what the Police have to determine. If they decide that it has, then charges should be pressed.

I am surprised that the usual KB vigilante gang hasn't already thrown its noose over a limb on this matter.

[ManDownUnder]

I am surprised that the usual KB vigilante gang hasn't already thrown its noose over a limb on this matter.

New ropes are on backorder - the old ones are far too thin and started snapping heads right off...

[Paul in NZ]

I am surprised that the usual KB vigilante gang hasn't already thrown its noose over a limb on this matter.

I'm not quite sure thats strictly fair as everyone deserves a trial before their execution. :yes: Besides - having a different opinion on sentencing and the appropriateness of capital punishment in some cases does not make most of us vigilantes. I prefer the term 'realists'.

No - the thing is 3 people are dead because of carelessness or incompetence OR an outside influence. If she parked the van on a slipway, left the handbrake off and let it roll into the sea and claimed it was an accident what would you think then? (I know what I would think). If she stupidly left the kids in the van in the hot sun while she was inside playing the pokies? While stupidity or incompetence is NOT a crime the consequences of both these things can become a chargeable offence.

A lot of traffic accidents are sufficiently badly explained to make me go hmmmm.... (prob not the case here) but I know that if I have my kids in the car OR I'm riding in an area highly likely to have others I take extra care.

We don't know the whole story. Perhaps she has a terrible accident history or something or maybe the Police think this was just a terrible accident thats never likely to happen again and are looking for a way of NOT charging her?

Regardless of this - 3 people in her care are DEAD and surely there MUST be an explanation or accounting.

[Deano]

The system puzzles me sometimes.

Say she had killed three family members by leaving hot oil on the stove and burnt the house down - would she have been charged with anything ? Manslaughter perhaps ?

What about the parents of the 13 year old boys (or the boys themselves) - one of which nearly died when his mate shot him in the head.....don't you have to be 14 to use an air gun without parental supervision ? Yet no charges...

Crims getting bail for unremorseful rape...murder....it's got me buggered.

[Skyryder]

These sort of accidents where there is the possibility of driver error, and where the driver survives and family members (occupant) die, usually leaves me with some disquite. On one hand there is sympathy for the driver in as much, they have suffered enough and should be left alone, and the dispensing of justice for those killed. The police in these cases can be dammed if they do and dammed if they dont.

Given the fact that the driver has not, and appears unwilling to give an explanation of what happened then the police have a duty to lay charges.

Sometimes I think it is better just to tell the truth even if it is through a lawyer. This woman seems to be hiding something and whatever it is, it needs to be pursued.

Skyryder

[Paul in NZ]

Crims getting bail for unremorseful rape...murder....it's got me buggered.

Ouch - brave admission - don't worry - I'll arrange some restorative couselling for you...

(know what you mean though)

[Patrick]

(Did people actually believe Tim Shadbolts story?)

TUI.... TUI.... TUI....

Now where did that black dog go????

[Patrick]

The system puzzles me sometimes.

Say she had killed three family members by leaving hot oil on the stove and burnt the house down - would she have been charged with anything ? Manslaughter perhaps ?

What about the parents of the 13 year old boys (or the boys themselves) - one of which nearly died when his mate shot him in the head.....don't you have to be 14 to use an air gun without parental supervision ? Yet no charges...

Crims getting bail for unremorseful rape...murder....it's got me buggered.

13 year old can't be charged... too young.

Need to be 16 and supervised by a parent or licenced firearm holder. 14-15 year olds are not "supposed" to be near air guns...

[Patrick]

Given the fact that the driver has not, and appears unwilling to give an explanation of what happened
This woman seems to be hiding something and whatever it is, it needs to be pursued.

Skyryder

Murder/suicide perhaps? Only got it half right maybe?

[The Stranger]

Look at it from the other side...

her actions directly caused the deaths of 3 people and to date she has not given a reasonable account of what happened...

She won't say what happened...
No problem for me....


Ever suffered amnesia?

I have been involved 2 MV accidents which are a complete mystery to me and I would not be able to tell the police - or anyone else for that matter what happened.

[James Deuce]

I've got the same problem CaN, but I wouldn't use it as an excuse if I'd killed someone.

[The Stranger]

What is she hiding or afraid of to not talk to Police.

Hello - am I the only one who has had amnesia in an accident??
As to what she is hiding (if anything) - you have led a very shetlered life haven't you? Ask Arthur Alan Thomas if he feels co-operating with the police (as he did) is such a good idea. It is prudent to seek legal advice in a case such as this.

[The Stranger]

I've got the same problem CaN, but I wouldn't use it as an excuse if I'd killed someone.


I assume that the problem to which you refer is amnesia. Just to be clear, that means you can't bloody remember right?
So now I am real intrigued - how would you tell the police what you didn't remember?

Or are you referring another problem which we share?

[ArcherWC]

I have woken up at least twice in the ambo after MotoX crashes, with absolutly no idea how i got there, and one of them, i dont even remember going to the race.

[spudchucka]

I've been offline for a few days but its good to see that the old tradition of spouting off on subjects that people know fuck all about hasn't changed while I've been away.

There is a lot more to this case than what appears on face value so just let the system do its job and in the mean time take Chris Rock's advice.

[The Stranger]

I'm not quite sure thats strictly fair as everyone deserves a trial before their execution. :yes: Besides - having a different opinion on sentencing and the appropriateness of capital punishment in some cases does not make most of us vigilantes. I prefer the term 'realists'.

No - the thing is 3 people are dead because of carelessness or incompetence OR an outside influence. If she parked the van on a slipway, left the handbrake off and let it roll into the sea and claimed it was an accident what would you think then? (I know what I would think). If she stupidly left the kids in the van in the hot sun while she was inside playing the pokies? While stupidity or incompetence is NOT a crime the consequences of both these things can become a chargeable offence.

A lot of traffic accidents are sufficiently badly explained to make me go hmmmm.... (prob not the case here) but I know that if I have my kids in the car OR I'm riding in an area highly likely to have others I take extra care.

We don't know the whole story. Perhaps she has a terrible accident history or something or maybe the Police think this was just a terrible accident thats never likely to happen again and are looking for a way of NOT charging her?

Regardless of this - 3 people in her care are DEAD and surely there MUST be an explanation or accounting.

Here is where I have a problem with a case such as this.
What purpose is served by punishing her?

Surely there should be a purpose to an action. Why take an action if there is no purpose?

So ok, if there is a purpose, take the action, but if there is none, leave her be.

Will her facing a charge bring the dead back, or make her drive better, or provide satisfaction for the family of hte deceased?
Perhaps there is some logic in removing a bad driver from the road so she can't do it to someone else, however, from what I read of the article she couold be back on the road in 6 months at most anyway.

[spudchucka]

Will her facing a charge bring the dead back,

By the same logic, why do we charge murderers?

[Squeak the Rat]

Murder by definition is not accidental.

[spudchucka]

Murder by definition is not accidental.

Negligence does not = accident.

[James Deuce]

I assume that the problem to which you refer is amnesia. Just to be clear, that means you can't bloody remember right?
So now I am real intrigued - how would you tell the police what you didn't remember?

Or are you referring another problem which we share?

Lol.

No, just the amnesia. ;)

I lost the majority of three days prior to my "big" accident, and a good couple of days after, plus spots over the next 3 years or so.

I couldn't tell the Police (MOT it was then) what had happened, and didn't know my name for a bit. I didn't offer up any excuse though, because I didn't know what happened. Witnesses and crash scene investigation reconstructed the accident and it apparently wasn't my fault. The Cop suggested I didn't need to go to court as I wasn't being charged with anything, so I left it at that and so did they.

Can't fight what you don't know anything about.

[James Deuce]

Murder by definition is not accidental.

Neither are 99% of road traffic "accidents".

[Skyryder]

Here is where I have a problem with a case such as this.
What purpose is served by punishing her?

Surely there should be a purpose to an action. Why take an action if there is no purpose?

So ok, if there is a purpose, take the action, but if there is none, leave her be.

Will her facing a charge bring the dead back, or make her drive better, or provide satisfaction for the family of the deceased?
Perhaps there is some logic in removing a bad driver from the road so she can't do it to someone else, however, from what I read of the article she could be back on the road in 6 months at most anyway.


Are you seriously suggesting that because you can not bring back the dead or undo the past of whatever else you want to call it, there should be no consequences.(prosecution) Would you agree with your rationale if other members of the public are killed, a biker for example?

We are all held accountable in the eyes of the law for our actions where death and injury result. The police can use their desecration, but they need to be able to do this on the information given to them. Not on the lack of it.

Skyryder

[doc]

I've been offline for a few days but its good to see that the old tradition of spouting off on subjects that people know fuck all about hasn't changed while I've been away.

There is a lot more to this case than what appears on face value so just let the system do its job and in the mean time take Chris Rock's advice.

Been undercover have we ? I agree all this is based on media again not having all the evidence. The outcome is not for any use to us, but justice must been seen to be done. So why does she (The effigy) wear a blindfold. Don't we have the right to remain silent or is that just on TV ?

[James Deuce]

Don't we have the right to remain silent or is that just on TV ?

No, that's just in the US.

[spudchucka]

Are you seriously suggesting that because you can not bring back the dead or undo the past of whatever else you want to call it, there should be no consequences.(prosecution) Would you agree with your rationale if other members of the public are killed, a biker for example?

We are all held accountable in the eyes of the law for our actions where death and injury result. The police can use their desecration, but they need to be able to do this on the information given to them. Not on the lack of it.

Skyryder

I don't think I've ever done that, sounds like it could get you into strife.

[James Deuce]

Sounds exciting! I might join up if I get to desecrate!

[The Stranger]

By the same logic, why do we charge murderers?

Help stop them re-offending - harder to re-offend if you are in prison or dead.
Retaliation.
Teach them the error of their ways.
Honouring the dead and their families.
Probably some other reasons I have overlooked too.

[doc]

No, that's just in the US.
And they are allowed all those guns as well. At least we got pineapple lumps and Lemon and Paeroa.

[KLOWN]

The system puzzles me sometimes.

Say she had killed three family members by leaving hot oil on the stove and burnt the house down - would she have been charged with anything ? Manslaughter perhaps ?

What about the parents of the 13 year old boys (or the boys themselves) - one of which nearly died when his mate shot him in the head.....don't you have to be 14 to use an air gun without parental supervision ? Yet no charges...

Crims getting bail for unremorseful rape...murder....it's got me buggered.

you have to be 16 to use an air rifle and the mother said she thought they were getting ready to go out in the car like she told them to, she had no idea that they had gotten the air rifle, hence no supervision.

[The Stranger]

Are you seriously suggesting that because you can not bring back the dead or undo the past of whatever else you want to call it, there should be no consequences.(prosecution)


No, not for a second.
Just that there should be some purpose to an action (please note there was an "or" not "and" between my list of possible reasons). If for example any one of the examples I gave (or some other lucid reason) was met I see no problem with her being charged.

I was just trying to draw a distinction between charging someone for no other reason than "it's the law" and charging someone because there is a rational purpose.

No law is a one size fits all.

[Skyryder]

I've been offline for a few days but its good to see that the old tradition of spouting off on subjects that people know fuck all about hasn't changed while I've been away.


That's what makes this forum so knowledgeable. No one knows what they are talking about. Welcome back Spud for a new year of fun, frolics and flaming, not to mention the odd pisstake and pontificating, from KBer's pleonastic plebeians.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Don't we have the right to remain silent or is that just on TV ?

You're not obliged to say anything, pity more people in these threads haven't realised that yet.

[Skyryder]

I don't think I've ever done that, sounds like it could get you into strife.

Bloody spell checker. See my post on this. Woopssy doosy I just want to go and hide.

skyr

[Skyryder]

No, not for a second.
Just that there should be some purpose to an action. If for example any one of the examples I gave (or some other lucid reason) was met I see no problem with her being charged.

I was just trying to draw a distinction between charging someone for no other reason than "it's the law" and charging someone because there is a rational purpose.

No law is a one size fits all.

Yes no one law fits all sizes. But where an explanation is not given (in the event of an action that results in death or injury) then there is a responsibility on the part of the police to lay a charge. Then it is up to a jury to decide one way or the other.

Skyryder

[Squeak the Rat]

What evidence will the court base a judgement on? Surely (?) there needs to be some evidence of (sufficiently serious) negligence.

The cop's quote would suggest there is no such evidence:

If Mrs Rifle offered us a reasonable explanation, charges would not arise

Welcome back Spud, sorry if us stoopid civilians are discussing how the law works, I know it's none of our business.....

[The Stranger]

Yes no one law fits all sizes. But where an explanation is not given (in the event of an action that results in death or injury) then there is a responsibility on the part of the police to lay a charge. Then it is up to a jury to decide one way or the other.

Skyryder

To serve what purpose?

[Ixion]

Well, it may seem harsh, but I guess there is an expectation that cars do not crash and kill people when they are driven carefully.

So if they do crash, in the absence of any explanation of the "it happened because..." either from the driver, or from the crash investigation chappies, or witnesses etc, the police have to assume that someone was careless.

[Patrick]

. So why does she (The effigy) wear a blindfold.

She is blind, not deaf and dumb...

[Patrick]

What evidence will the court base a judgement on? Surely (?) there needs to be some evidence of (sufficiently serious) negligence.

The cop's quote would suggest there is no such evidence:


Welcome back Spud, sorry if us stoopid civilians are discussing how the law works, I know it's none of our business.....

You chopped off the best part of the coppers quote:doh: ... The part where he says if she offered some sort of explanation "there just isn't one there." You're in Media, aren't you???:Pokey:

[Squeak the Rat]

You chopped off the best part of the coppers quote:doh: ... The part where he says if she offered some sort of explanation "there just isn't one there." You're in Media, aren't you???:Pokey:

:whistle: :innocent:

[doc]

She is blind, not deaf and dumb...

So she can't see the prick in the suit that he has never worn before in his life. With his face covered in tats sneering at anything white in the court. Probably just as well .

[Ixion]

,,
Otherwise lawyers would rip the Police to shreds for being selective on who to charge based on cirucumstances outside the law and the justice system should collapse.



Like, uh not charging Helen for this and that based on uh ah, um, well its obbvious my promotion prospects are NOT outside the law, so, ah,,,,,

[Ixion]

Oh, nuthin, jst a few pictures, n a fast trip 2 the rugby , n some piffling electn expenses n stuff like that

[candor]

Hello - am I the only one who has had amnesia in an accident??
As to what she is hiding (if anything) - you have led a very shetlered life haven't you? Ask Arthur Alan Thomas if he feels co-operating with the police (as he did) is such a good idea. It is prudent to seek legal advice in a case such as this.

Sheltered life - not at all. I was in a bangkok hilton type situation once when fanatical Police nudged their dog toward my car, seperated me from it then planted white powder in my car as they wanted a narc, and seemed to think I had info.

Lost sleep for 2 weeks while they harrassed me with the prospect of imprisonment for class A before they gave up. Dirty cops don't get results with people raised right! Police Complaint filed late 2000 - naturally went nowhere.

Yes she may have amnesia, but in my experience I've known a few crashers who claimed that when it wasn't true. A guy at a crash in which 2 of my friends died claimed Amnesia, 6 months later I got the truth out of him - needless to say his amnesia was very convenient.

Unless we are her we don't know if she had amnesia. What raises my suspicions is that she has prolly had time to talk to Police with a lawyer present by now. How long ago was that crash ? - I'd say a months or 6 weeks grace is fair.

I know what u r saying about - what does charging her achieve, but there are problems if she was negligent and is not charged. Charging does not have to be associated with punishment and I feel sure in this case it would not be the result or goal of charging. Given it was an accident

Charging tho could as others say mean that if she is a safety risk eg mentally ill, got a P habit or other such scenarios - it gets dug up and dealt to.

My mother sat on a jury in which a woman drove off a cliff and killed one of her kids in CHCH 20 yrs ago, she meant all to die. She was found guilty of whatever charged with (sanity was an issue) and just provided mental health care. If questions aren't asked / things investigated things that would sem unrel but are, do not come to light.

[Lou Girardin]

The Police can happily decide that it's 'not in the public interest' to charge Helen Clark with fraud or charge Heather Simpson with electoral offences, so why is it in the public interest to charge people like this woman?

[Paul in NZ]

Ever suffered amnesia?.

I can remember...


I have been involved 2 MV accidents which are a complete mystery to me and I would not be able to tell the police - or anyone else for that matter what happened.

Strangely enough - given the impact that remembering that you screwed up has on your insurance, not remembering exactly what happened is an astonishingly common event. I'm not disputing for a second that accident trauma does cause this but it appears wallet trauma is also a leading cause..

[Patrick]

Oh, nuthin, jst a few pictures, n a fast trip 2 the rugby , n some piffling electn expenses n stuff like that

Who died in either of these events?

[Squeak the Rat]

Who died in either of these events?

The public's belief in a fair and just system.

[Patrick]

The public's belief in a fair and just system.

Whats unfair about being charged over three people dying? The end "result" is up to the courts, as it has always been....

[Squeak the Rat]

Whats unfair about being charged over three people dying? The end "result" is up to the courts, as it has always been....

I meant unfair that Helen didn't get charged and the result left up to the courts......

[Patrick]

I meant unfair that Helen didn't get charged and the result left up to the courts......

My bad... good call...!!!

The rugby thing she is clean as... although she was a passenger and probably "incited" the driving, she says she didn't... prove it then... the bitch!

[davereid]

The system is getting a little sick i think, we may be nearing the time for a revolution...

I think that the Courts are the place for innocence and guilt to be determined and for punishment to be decided on. If the court finds that she has been punished enough already by the death of her loved ones then it won't apply extra penalties.

Sadly we now have a system where;

Its NOT in the public interest to prosecute Helen Clark for fraud
Its IS OK to prosecute policemen speeding under her orders
Its NOT OK to insist that taxpayers ripped off by government overspending get re-imbursed
It IS OK to impound vehicles at the side of the road with out a court hearing
It is NOT OK to restrict bail to murderers
It IS OK to remove drivers licences from accused speeders or drink drivers without conviction

[spudchucka]

Well, it may seem harsh, but I guess there is an expectation that cars do not crash and kill people when they are driven carefully.

So if they do crash, in the absence of any explanation of the "it happened because..." either from the driver, or from the crash investigation chappies, or witnesses etc, the police have to assume that someone was careless.

Its not an assumption. Cars don't just fall off the road for no reason, especially on dead straight pieces of road in fine weather and when there are no mechanical faults with the vehicle.

A carefull & prudent driver would make sure that didn't happen.

[spudchucka]

The Police can happily decide that it's 'not in the public interest' to charge Helen Clark with fraud or charge Heather Simpson with electoral offences, so why is it in the public interest to charge people like this woman?

Honestly Lou, what would you have done in your snaking days?

[spudchucka]

My bad... good call...!!!

The rugby thing she is clean as... although she was a passenger and probably "incited" the driving, she says she didn't... prove it then... the bitch!

I wonder if the reason the convictions have now been quashed is because of suggestions that she could have been liable for being party to dangerous driving?

[spudchucka]

Helen Clark's fraud would of been hard to convict as she herself did not get any pecuinary advantage or service...its not really fraud....more a civil case from the painter.

I'm no Helen fan but this was just another media beat up. There was never any intent to defraud anyone, it was done as a charity stunt. If the buyers feel agrieved they should remember the "buyer beware" saying in the future.

[Lou Girardin]

Honestly Lou, what would you have done in your snaking days?

Honestly Spud, I didn't write a ticket when I didn't think it was deserved. As far as I can recall, I wasn't second-guessed by the prosecutions section either.
Admittedly we did not do charges involving death.

[Lou Girardin]

So if someone causes the death of someone in a driving accident wether it be careless or intentional they should be let off because of the fact they have gone through the trauma of causing someones death?? whatever man :bs:


You're generallising a long way from the case being discussed. Man.

[spudchucka]

Honestly Spud, I didn't write a ticket when I didn't think it was deserved. As far as I can recall, I wasn't second-guessed by the prosecutions section either.
Admittedly we did not do charges involving death.

So who handled the fatal crashes in your time?

[Grahameeboy]

This reminds me of that Taranaki Farmer whose kid was killed riding his quad when he answered his mobile......an offence is an offence and I am sure that if charged the Judge will administer a sentence that befits the circumstances.

[RT527]

Mayors that kill three people?

No but Mayors with the potential to "Kill People", just because he didnt, doesnt mean that He wont

[scumdog]

No but Mayors with the potential to "Kill People", just because he didnt, doesnt mean that He wont

But this woman DID.

[RT527]

But this woman DID.

I understand that , but we still need to let the court decide whether it was by accident or by careless causing death/injury....

Did Tim shadbolt get charged with anything?...if not why not!.

[RT527]

So who handled the fatal crashes in your time?

If i understand it The police are the only ones with jurisdiction over deaths whether they were murders or Fatal car crashes both back when it was MOT and as it is Now.

[spudchucka]

If i understand it The police are the only ones with jurisdiction over deaths whether they were murders or Fatal car crashes both back when it was MOT and as it is Now.

Yeah I know. I was just fishing for a comment to highlight how easy and comfortable it is to sit at home making armchair judgements on these matters when none of those sitting in judgement have ever had the misfortune of having to actually deal with the reality or the complexities of it themselves.

[Clockwork]

If the Police have evidence of guilt then I guess they ought to prosecute (although I doubt that the public would get any real benefit for the costs such an action would incur) however they shouldn't be requiring the driver to furnish that evidence. Amnesia or not, I understand she is not required to give evidence against herself.

[scumdog]

I understand that , but we still need to let the court decide whether it was by accident or by careless causing death/injury....

Did Tim shadbolt get charged with anything?...if not why not!.


That is why she is charged - to get her to Court and let them decide.

And yes, Shadbolt WAS charged, admitted guilt and the Court dimissed the charge on the proviso he made a donation of $xxxx to some (charitable) organisation.

[Toaster]

Look at it from the other side...

her actions directly caused the deaths of 3 people and to date she has not given a reasonable account of what happened. What do you expect the Police to do? Walk away and say 'Oh it was probably an accident - don't worry about it.'

Not a lot different to the Kahui case. She won't say what happened, there is little physical evidence and she appears not to be taking responsibility for the deaths.

No problem for me....

I agree. The way the law works - they are obligated to charge. Its the Judges place to decide her fate, not the police. That is the point of having an independent Judicial system. Everyone knows the police are run as a political toy plaything. Thank goodness the judges are not.

[James Deuce]

Thank goodness the judges are not.

It's nice to see a subtle sense of humour in action.

[avgas]

Charge her, doesnt look like she has beat herself up enough in that photo. I would want the same to me if i looked that good after loosing my family. My family is my life, she looks like she had mail stolen.