Lying pig, scumbag filth [Archive]

peasea

21st May 2007, 12:26

I made mention a while back about being given two tickets for 111kph in quick succession in the Puhoi region. I've also mentioned to SD about seeing cops lie in court and here we go again.

I entered a plea of 'not guilty' to both tickets so I could at least have my say put on record. (I am also getting my speedo checked as I don't believe I was doing the alleged 111kph on either occasion.)

I requested some information which duly arrived in the mailbox and I've had a quick read. In the lying scumbag pig's notes he makes two absolutely false claims. The first is that I declined to view the speed detection device; that's absolute rubbish, he never offered a viewing on either occasion! I also mentioned that on KB and there were some responses pointing to the fact that it's not a legal requirement to offer a viewing. Fair enough, he didn't offer, I didn't ask; now he claims he did offer. Bollocks! He's a barefaced, lying c**t.

He also claims that I threw the ticket on the ground, another fabrication. He went to hand it to me, I went to grab it and he let it go, it fell to the ground. I did NOT put it there! His statement makes it sound like I deliberately threw it on the ground.

So here I am faced with having to do battle with a liar in a uniform in a court that is weighted in favour of the bullshitting scumbag. Joe Average doesn't get a fair hearing if the cops are lying before proceedings even get under way.

Shit like this further erodes what little respect I have left for the cops and it taints the reputations of any cop(s) who might actually tell the truth.

However, honest cops seem to be a rarity these days and how can you respect anyone who doesn't earn it? If you're going to get nailed it should at least be done honestly.

The Pastor

21st May 2007, 12:45

cops lying? no way. that never ever happens.

There good a lying in court under oth or what ever too.

Let me guess he had ginger hair? Bit of a moustace and beard?

Big Dan

21st May 2007, 12:45

Big Dan

21st May 2007, 12:46

cops lying? no way. that never ever happens.

There good a lying in court under oth or what ever too.

Let me guess he had ginger hair? Bit of a moustace and beard?

you mean Oath

haha Hitcher i bet you to it

skelstar

21st May 2007, 12:50

However, honest cops seem to be a rarity these days and how can you respect anyone who doesn't earn it? If you're going to get nailed it should at least be done honestly.
Clarify for us: and how many cops have you dealt with again? I'm just wondering how many it takes to qualify as a 'rarity' cause I must be pretty damn lucky so far.

Sucks that you've struck a dodgy cop though...

The Pastor

21st May 2007, 12:54

Clarify for us: and how many cops have you dealt with again? I'm just wondering how many it takes to qualify as a 'rarity' cause I must be pretty damn lucky so far.

Sucks that you've struck a dodgy cop though...

Im my experiance its 50/50.

Ive had some people do me for 50 over the limit, loss licence and court, (he was a nice cop, and fair)

Ive had some coppas do me for 10 over the limit for the same speed.

Ive had cops lie to me in court (and get busted hehe)

Ive had cops through away a careless driving charge, becuase I came into them and turn my self in so to speak, offer to sort it out with the victim etc.

RantyDave

21st May 2007, 12:58

In the lying scumbag pig's notes he makes two absolutely false claims.

Three words for you: Police Complaints Authority. http://www.pca.govt.nz/. They take a pretty dim view of this sort of shit because.

Shit like this further erodes what little respect I have left for the cops and it taints the reputations of any cop(s) who might actually tell the truth.

Someone on KB (and I can't remember who) had the pleasure of going to court and having someone from the PCA taking notes on their lying scumbag pig while he gave evidence. Case was thrown out, judge thought it was abysmal.

Grass the fuckers up - return the favour.

Dave

Toaster

21st May 2007, 12:58

Well, if all of that is true - make a complaint to the PCA.

Who is the cop/What is his number? I used to work in Rodney when I was in the job. If this sort of thing is going on, it is a disgrace. Making shit up is the dumbest thing a cop can do.

RantyDave

21st May 2007, 12:59

haha Hitcher i bet you to it
You mean "beat".

+1 Ironic.

Dave

peasea

21st May 2007, 13:01

Three words for you: Police Complaints Authority.

Already under way bro.............

peasea

21st May 2007, 13:06

peasea

21st May 2007, 13:11

Clarify for us: and how many cops have you dealt with again? I'm just wondering how many it takes to qualify as a 'rarity' cause I must be pretty damn lucky so far.

Sucks that you've struck a dodgy cop though...

Yeah, ok, quite a few. My biggest crime has always been having too much fun and plenty of times I've had a finger waved at me and I've been sent on my way. However, I ain't no spring chicken and I've noticed over the decades that attitudes have become focussed more on 'performance expectations' than community based, positive policing.

I can recall getting tickets with the word 'warning' written on them and I'd get off the gas and thank my lucky stars. These days you just get banged for the bucks and it makes people angry, especially for minor infringements. As I said, I'm off to Robinsons to get my speedo checked coz I'm adamant I wasn't doing 111kph, I knew he was there for crying out loud. I'm crazy, not stupid.

Grahameeboy

21st May 2007, 13:11

And what will be achieved. Can you put your hand on your heart and say you were not exceeding the speed limit? If not then nuff said.

Yes if the cop has lied that is wrong, however, it does not detract from the fact that you were caught speeding on of all places SH1 which is a dodgy place to speed.

So far all you are saying is that the cop showed you the read out when you say he did not and he alleges that you threw ticket on the ground........so you get Judge to agree with you.....what next.

If what you say is true the cop was being a shit but sometimes life is like a shit sandwich, the more bread you use the more shit you get.......

Grahameeboy

21st May 2007, 13:16

Don't get me wrong, I have sympathy and there should really be 2 cops when it comes to traffic offences.

In the UK there will always be 2 cops for speeding points. The problem here is that with just 1 cop on the case, there is the risk you have encountered.

Guess only problem with getting speedo calibrated is that it will be as of now not close to the date of offence.

I was told by a cop a while back that they used to issue warnings but now have a directive to issue tickets.

riffer

21st May 2007, 13:46

skelstar

21st May 2007, 14:06

Someone on KB (and I can't remember who) had the pleasure of going to court and having someone from the PCA taking notes on their lying scumbag pig while he gave evidence. Case was thrown out, judge thought it was abysmal.
Firefly I think. Naki boy as I remember.

vifferman

21st May 2007, 14:11

An uncalibrated speedo does not give you an excuse for exceeding the speed limit.

I know; I've tried.

All it does is increase the court costs. I even went so far as to get a proper calibration test done on a dyno in Petone to prove that the Speedo on my 1989 Mitsi Galant VR4 read 105 when the car was doing 118.

Didn't help at all.
Hmmm... I can understand that.
The onus is on you to have a properly working speedo; it's not the cop's responsibility to make sure your speedo is OK. It's part of the WOF requirements, and your vehicle is supposed to be up to those standards whenever you're using it on the road.
Besides, if you could get off by proving your speedo was lying, then CleverBastids like me would just adjust their speedos before having them checked. Lesseee... my last ticket was for 23 km/h in a 50; that's 46% too high, so 5 clicks on the dial of my speedo corrector and voila! (a small musical instrument, misspelled) proof that it wasn't my fault! My speedo lied to me!! :shit:

MWVT

21st May 2007, 14:14

And what will be achieved. Can you put your hand on your heart and say you were not exceeding the speed limit? If not then nuff said.

Doesn't the cop have to prove speeding occured (i.e. guilt) rather than KBer proving it didn't (innocence).

After that speedo is tested.... "hand on heart i wasn't speeding officer/judge", may well be possible. Best case scenario here, the speedo is perfectly accurate.

jahrasti

21st May 2007, 14:25

. However, I ain't no spring chicken and I've noticed over the decades that attitudes have become focussed more on 'performance expectations' than community based, positive policing.

I can recall getting tickets with the word 'warning' written on them and I'd get off the gas and thank my lucky stars. These days you just get banged for the bucks and it makes people angry, especially for minor infringements.

So isn't this society/law makers which drive this change? Look at trades men, there are some good old school ones out there, and lots of dodgy younger ones that ruin the reputation of the whole industry.

Grahameeboy

21st May 2007, 14:26

Doesn't the cop have to prove speeding occured (i.e. guilt) rather than KBer proving it didn't (innocence).

After that speedo is tested.... "hand on heart i wasn't speeding officer/judge", may well be possible. Best case scenario here, the speedo is perfectly accurate.

I suspect it is the other way round.

Cop swears an oath as a Police Officer, so the Court will presumably accept what he says unless unequivacal evidence says otherwise.....the onus I guess is with the Defendant to show that they were not speeding....

The Stranger

21st May 2007, 14:26

Grahameeboy

21st May 2007, 14:32

So your odds are better against 2 liars?

Geeze...........ya canna win eh!!

Well who knows. With 2 cops there is always the chance that 1 will back down........or they may make the other cop think twice....if there is a ?mark then the "Good" cop may not want to look stupid.....well you get what I am saying.

Better than 1 I say.........

Deviant Esq

21st May 2007, 15:04

By the way.. Pigs means: Professional, Intelligent, Smart and Good Looking (P.I.G.S)
Actually, the way you've put it... P.I.S.G? Maybe the S doesn't belong there after all? :dodge:

As you were.

The Pastor

21st May 2007, 16:39

If the cop/witness is proven to lie in court, on the smallest issue or point, anything he has said in court is deemed to be untrue.

But here is the kick in the pants. If you are deemed innocent, you still have to pay the court costs.

IMHO the cop should pay this as his fine for being a cunt, wasting my tax payers money, loss of income for going to court (takes like 3 or 4 court appearnces) and being an asshole.

Jantar

21st May 2007, 17:08

But here is the kick in the pants. If you are deemed innocent, you still have to pay the court costs.
Not so. Court costs are not imposed if you are found not guilty.

The Pastor

21st May 2007, 17:15

Not so. Court costs are not imposed if you are found not guilty.

Funny, I remember paying them.

bell

21st May 2007, 17:28

If the cop/witness is proven to lie in court, on the smallest issue or point, anything he has said in court is deemed to be untrue.

Perhaps "perjury" is the word you're after RM?

The Pastor

21st May 2007, 17:33

don't know, whats it mean?

Skyryder

21st May 2007, 17:36

I sympathize Peasea but there's a reality check here and unfortunatley it's not good. The chances of winning on your own are zilch. A solicititor may be of help but that's gonna cost on top of the fine. That's the reality painfull as it is.
However you do have some teeth. You say that the cop lied in the statement that you have recieved in the post. You can lay an offical complaint about these two issues. I would do this through a solicitor prior to going to trial. If you get get some confirmation that the cop has lied on this then you may have a chance of getting off. At best your complaint will go on his record. He may think twice about doing this sort of thing again..............who knows. Best of luck and have a good day on the day and put this down to one of lifes learning curves.

Skyryder

MSTRS

21st May 2007, 17:36

don't know, whats it mean?

You're shitting us, right?
A lie is only a lie if proof is provided of the untruth....in court the lie is then known as perjury

peasea

21st May 2007, 17:38

If the cop/witness is proven to lie in court, on the smallest issue or point, anything he has said in court is deemed to be untrue.

Quite right, I was involved in a case in Wellington years ago, two cops on the scene, one "was mistaken" while the other got it right, Case dismissed coz the testimonies had to match for a conviction.

I also have a witness who will testify as to the cops driving, ie; u-turn in the middle of a saddle and flying past said witness at high speed through 60kph road works. She thought his driving was over the top. (Read; cowboy.)

peasea

21st May 2007, 17:45

And what will be achieved. Can you put your hand on your heart and say you were not exceeding the speed limit? If not then nuff said.

I have admitted earlier (in another thread) that I WAS exceeding 80k, no argument. I don't believe that I was doing 111k however. I reckon the cop saw me, knew I was doing over 80k and had 111k from a previous bust on his machine, so even if I'd asked to view it he'd have had a figure to show me. I didn't ask to see his machine but would it make any difference? The point here is; he didn't offer a viewing, now he claims he did. He's a lying fuck.

TheFilth

21st May 2007, 17:52

Im guessing you were caught on radar.

You can ask to see the radar calibration test. This is a requirement to operate the radar. If one cannot be provided to you you should contest the fine on the basis that the radar was not calibrated to do the job. It's a slim outside chance the unit wasn't calibrated, but an almost guaranteed out if you do not sight one.

Otherwise its your word versus his in court and your chances of getting one up are next to zero.

If you do have a genuine beef against what you perceived to be unprofessional conduct, go through the PCA.

This is real "hand on heart" stuff so you better be sure about your facts, and not just puffing up your chest in the quiet obscurity of the internet.

The Pastor

21st May 2007, 19:10

Who cares, if the cop said he was the queen of england, and somone got a ticket for doing lower than what they actually were doing, you can get off the ticket becuase the cop lied about him being the queen of england when if fact he is not.

Its how it works. Now shut the hell up and get off my screen.

McJim

21st May 2007, 19:24

Regardless of the truth of the matter the problem remains that the public perception of traffic police remains that they are unscrupulous, will lie and will cheat in order to get a collar or to gain revenue.

The 'close ranks, we're holier than thou' attitude adds to the general perception of collusion and conspiracy that the public have.

I reseved judgement on NZ police until I witnessed something in taranaki that has changed my opinion for good.

D50 you'd do better to ignore these threads rather than comment. I have no doubt that you are an honest fella and that you mean well. However the current salaries being offered to police are not exactly going to attract the brightest and best.

We need to pay our cops more to get better cops - pay peanuts and get monkeys.

Yeah - there are some genuine fellas in uniform out there but some are not so pure....

peasea

21st May 2007, 19:27

I really don't care about the money or the demerits, that's not the issue. The issues are

a; his attitude on the day and b; now he's lying in his paperwork.

This IS hand on heart, I was speeding through the 80k zone, no argument.

This cop is a liar when he says he (twice) offered me a viewing. He did not.

I'll make the prediction that I'll lose in court and the PCA will run my complaint through the shredder..............it's just another day at the office.

The police will lie, they'll cash up, I'll plead poverty and put it all on the drip.

Or am I being too cynical?

Big Dan

21st May 2007, 19:32

You mean "beat".

+1 Ironic.

Dave

I love irony and that was funny

Jantar

21st May 2007, 19:34

Funny, I remember paying them.
Then I would suggest you claim them back. According to http://www.fines.govt.nz/ court costs are payable in addition to the fine on being found guilty. Where the defendant is found not guilty the costs are paid the party bringing the case, (Usually the police). There are some circumstance where costs are apportioned, eg where the defendant has a degree of responsibility.

I have defended traffic offences successfully on a number of occassions, and have never had to pay costs when found not guilty. I have had to pay costs when found guilty.

peasea

21st May 2007, 19:34

[QUOTE=peasea;1063856]

Dude thats a pretty big accusation to say that you reckon he had a previous lock and did you for that. I dont know any cops who would do such a thing even the most harsh nazi traffic cop's would not stoop to that.

I wouldn't put it past any of them...........it's easy money, easy to reach required 'performance expectations'.

The Pastor

21st May 2007, 19:39

Then I would suggest you claim them back. According to http://www.fines.govt.nz/ court costs are payable in addition to the fine on being found guilty. Where the defendant is found not guilty the costs are paid the party bringing the case, (Usually the police). There are some circumstance where costs are apportioned, eg where the defendant has a degree of responsibility.

I have defended traffic offences successfully on a number of occassions, and have never had to pay costs when found not guilty. I have had to pay costs when found guilty.

The judge said I had to pay? Wouldnt he know the law better than anyone else?

Maybe I got the case thorwen out due to lack of evidence not a "not guilty" charge??

He used big words, I didnt understand them... I was too nervous lol.

Jantar

21st May 2007, 19:45

The judge said I had to pay? Wouldnt he know the law better than anyone else?

Maybe I got the case thorwen out due to lack of evidence not a "not guilty" charge??

He used big words, I didnt understand them... I was too nervous lol.
You may have found guilty, but discharged. This can happen when the judge believes you are guilty, but it would be a miscarriage of justice to have the offence recorded against your name. In these circumstances you may still have to pay a penalty and/or costs, but you do not have the offence recorded as guilty.

The Pastor

21st May 2007, 19:48

Maybe, All I had to pay were costs and lawyers fees...

Toaster

21st May 2007, 19:53

[QUOTE=Dynamytus50;1063957]

I wouldn't put it past any of them...........it's easy money, easy to reach required 'performance expectations'.

Mate, I am horrified, disgusted and ashamed that this sort of thing is happening. I loved policing and always did everything by the book - if I didn't catch someone - too bad, you just don't lie. Catching crims was always more fun anyway.... and just wave as bikers past me by.... wishing I was out riding too.

peasea

21st May 2007, 20:05

[QUOTE=peasea;1064022]

Mate, I am horrified, disgusted and ashamed that this sort of thing is happening. I loved policing and always did everything by the book - if I didn't catch someone - too bad, you just don't lie. Catching crims was always more fun anyway.... and just wave as bikers past me by.... wishing I was out riding too.

So why'd ya get out?

Toaster

21st May 2007, 20:13

So why'd ya get out?

More time for social life, more money, more challenging work - my old employer made a good offer! But I do miss the action.... and the great people I worked with.

peasea

21st May 2007, 20:20

[QUOTE=peasea;1064094]

More time for social life, more money, more challenging work - my old employer made a good offer! But I do miss the action.... and the great people I worked with.

What about the great drugs and chicken movies?

Toaster

21st May 2007, 20:23

[QUOTE=Toaster;1064117]

What about the great drugs and chicken movies?

Ah yes the sweet smell as you walked in the door to get ready for duty..... Scrambled eggs on toast was always a favourite for the Toaster.

peasea

21st May 2007, 20:27

[QUOTE=peasea;1064128]

Ah yes the sweet smell as you walked in the door to get ready for duty..... Scrambled eggs on toast was always a favourite for the Toaster.

My favourite is the pic in your profile...nice shot of your own shadow.
Brill. I've been taking pics for years for a living and I still (rarely though) get myself in the chrome or something shiny. It usually happens when I'm in a hurry or blown away by the subject matter.

All good. Your bike is too clean, go out and get it dirty.

Toaster

21st May 2007, 20:31

[QUOTE=Toaster;1064135]

My favourite is the pic in your profile...nice shot of your own shadow.
Brill. I've been taking pics for years for a living and I still (rarely though) get myself in the chrome or something shiny. It usually happens when I'm in a hurry or blown away by the subject matter.

All good. Your bike is too clean, go out and get it dirty.

Yeah I noticed that - glad I wasn't nude, or had chickens running about in the backgroud - I'd be the laughing stock of KB!! There are sheep though.

Took her out for 4 hours on Saturday. Primo ride. Lots of HP coppers in Wellsford. Its been cleaned again already.

peasea

21st May 2007, 20:53

[QUOTE=peasea;1064143]

Yeah I noticed that - glad I wasn't nude, or had chickens running about in the backgroud - I'd be the laughing stock of KB!! There are sheep though.

Took her out for 4 hours on Saturday. Primo ride. Lots of HP coppers in Wellsford. Its been cleaned again already.

Well, I've learnt my lesson, I'll be very wary anywhere between our place on the Shore and Kerikeri, the place is riddled with them.

Saturday was mint wasn't it? Ended up building a retaining wall, took until sundown, spewing. Did get out Sunday, caught up with a few characters at the Riverhead, too short a ride though but then thay always are. Even after our last trip around the Mainland we unpacked the bikes, took our boots off and sat on the couch for a while. I said to the missus "wanna do it again?"

peasea

21st May 2007, 21:47

[QUOTE=peasea;1064022]

Well you put it past them because they wouldnt do it, its a big accusation to make with out any proof.

Yup, it's the copper's word against mine, so I'm fucked.
The first casualty in any war is the truth.

geoffm

21st May 2007, 22:17

[QUOTE=peasea;1063856]

Dude thats a pretty big accusation to say that you reckon he had a previous lock and did you for that. I dont know any cops who would do such a thing even the most harsh nazi traffic cop's would not stoop to that.

It happened to me a number of years ago -early- mid ninties in my car by the Ellerlsie off ramp on the motorway. While I could never prove it, I would bet good money on it, based on my speed and the traffic conditions at the time.

OTOH, I have got off with warnings in the past, back when they used to do such things, so I guess it comes out even, but it still left a sour taste in my mouth.

Geoff

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 08:48

.... witnessed something in taranaki ....

Ah...the old 'setting up the road works signs on a stretch of pristine road c/w 30kph signs and put a cop at each end to ping the innocent' trap...
We'd rather chew off our own right arm than believe the cops would stoop to that.
Wouldn't we?

jahrasti

22nd May 2007, 09:08

Ah...the old 'setting up the road works signs on a stretch of pristine road c/w 30kph signs and put a cop at each end to ping the innocent' trap...
We'd rather chew off our own right arm than believe the cops would stoop to that.
Wouldn't we?

Well the 30kph signs aren't a suggested speed, we need more cops at road work sights to slow down wankers.

Blackbird

22nd May 2007, 09:09

[QUOTE=Dynamytus50;1063957]

OTOH, I have got off with warnings in the past, back when they used to do such things, so I guess it comes out even.....
Geoff

That's my experience too, have got away with far more than I deserve to. A case in point was on Sunday, coming back from Coromandel in the car. I was coming down one of the long straights between Paeroa and Te Aroha at a fair bit above the speed limit. Brain was at half mast and I simply failed to recognise that a HWP car was coming the other way. Thought I was a gonner but all he did was point down at his speedo as I went past.

I have no doubt there's the odd cop about who abuses his position simply on statistical grounds but personally, I have yet to meet one. Haven't been pulled over for a good few years but when I have, it's been handled professionally and I've undoubtedly deserved it:shutup: .

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 09:13

Well the 30kph signs aren't a suggested speed, we need more cops at road work sights to slow down wankers.

You wally....the cops set up the signs as a trap. It was total bullshit.

Patrick

22nd May 2007, 10:40

You wally....the cops set up the signs as a trap. It was total bullshit.

As is this post perhaps? We don't have any 30kmph roadwork signs... Accident signs sometimes, but that is it...

Patrick

22nd May 2007, 10:44

a; his attitude on the day and b; now he's lying in his paperwork.

This IS hand on heart,

While it is there, what was your attitude like on the day?

I know this cop from years back, he is ex MOT and a decent sort, worked with him after the merger... but if he copped attitude, well... you know how it works??? Dunno about the paperwork bit tho, he wasn't like that... a straight arrow.

sAsLEX

22nd May 2007, 10:46

Guilty until proven innocent in NZ.......unless your brown....the it would be racist to accuse you....

Grahameeboy

22nd May 2007, 10:51

Guys, life is not perfect........he was exceeding the 80kph speed limit.........was he doing 111kph, who knows.

So the cop was not nice, allegedly lied......to be honest a relatively minor lie given that he was still speeding.

Why get stressed about it.....you are trying to prove a point because you are cynical about the Police and have got on that anti cop band wagon......yeah it is a pain eh but in the whole scheme of things it is just a nuisance.......to me you are just biting.

When I was suspended for 3 months last year...okay I got a limited licence for the car......I just thought, well I was clean for 25 years and although my 2nd speeding offence was dubious, life is just too short to worry about it and it has made me think more when out riding so it taught me that I am not invincible.

Pay the fine, accept......if the cop was an arsehole, accept that too and move on.

Sorry, I probably deserve a slapping for being so honest but that is me.

Guilty until proven innocent in NZ.......unless your brown....the it would be racist to accuse you....

Nite nite Sir Alex................

sAsLEX

22nd May 2007, 11:16

Firefly I think. Naki boy as I remember.

not if patrick says.....happened in The king Country I think? up near there anyways

Or am I being too cynical?
I don't think there is such thing as being too cynical until you are proven wrong......

Nite nite Sir Alex................

Nah mate your a civilian you outrank me Sir!

Jantar

22nd May 2007, 11:26

[QUOTE=geoffm;1064373] I have no doubt there's the odd cop about who abuses his position simply on statistical grounds but personally, I have yet to meet one. Haven't been pulled over for a good few years but when I have, it's been handled professionally and I've undoubtedly deserved it:shutup: .

I have found that most of the cops I've met have been bloody good, some have been fair and proffessional, and a very few have been mini hitlers who have abused their power. Probably 60% good, 30% fair, 10% abusers.

The worst one I ever came across was near Hampden, south of Oamaru, just after speed cameras were introduced and were operated by uniformed cops. I was approaching Hampden from the north, and noticed that the 70 kmh sign at the edge of the town was missing. Then I noticed it lying in the grass at the side of the road. Further up the road there was a speed camera station wagon with the camera pointing in the direction of the missing sign.

I stopped and mentioned to the officer that the sign was down, and that any motorists approaching from that direction would be unaware that they weren't still in a 100kmh area. The cop's reply just about floored me. He said " Yes, I know its down, its not my problem." I can't remember the cop's name, but I believe he is still in the north otago area.

peasea

22nd May 2007, 11:59

While it is there, what was your attitude like on the day?

I know this cop from years back, he is ex MOT and a decent sort, worked with him after the merger... but if he copped attitude, well... you know how it works??? Dunno about the paperwork bit tho, he wasn't like that... a straight arrow.

Well, he's stated in the paperwork that I "declined to view" on both occasions, I was there and I'm telling you he never even offered. He's a fucking liar.

He asked for my license, I simply handed it over, there was no "good morning" no reason given for stopping me until he had his book out. I didn't give him any lip until he made the comment (while smirking) that the speeding was going to cost me three hundred dollars. I'd give any smarmy prick the same treatment, a copper, the mayor or the bloody pope.

When you get a bill from a plumber or a bike shop they don't hand it to you grinning like a Cheshire cat with obvious glee that they're making your wallet lighter, do they?

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 12:07

As is this post perhaps? We don't have any 30kmph roadwork signs... Accident signs sometimes, but that is it...

Not bullshit. The roadworks and speed signs were (allegedly) put up by a pair of cops as a sting. There were no roadworks in the area - just the 2 cops and their bullshit trap.

Patrick

22nd May 2007, 12:08

Well, he's stated in the paperwork that I "declined to view" on both occasions, I was there and I'm telling you he never even offered. He's a fucking liar.

He asked for my license, I simply handed it over, there was no "good morning" no reason given for stopping me until he had his book out. I didn't give him any lip until he made the comment (while smirking) that the speeding was going to cost me three hundred dollars. I'd give any smarmy prick the same treatment, a copper, the mayor or the bloody pope.

When you get a bill from a plumber or a bike shop they don't hand it to you grinning like a Cheshire cat with obvious glee that they're making your wallet lighter, do they?

Fair enough, but hey... instead of "declined to," insert "did not"... Dunno about the smirk part... wasn't there but sounds poor. At least he was up front about the costs?

As for the Plumber and Bike Shops, I agree totally, until you are out of sight and they begin high 5's all round...!!! Bastards!!!

Grahameeboy

22nd May 2007, 12:15

Not bullshit. The roadworks and speed signs were (allegedly) put up by a pair of cops as a sting. There were no roadworks in the area - just the 2 cops and their bullshit trap.

So what is the difference between this and a normal speed trap..............yep I know I am being a smart arse but just looking at from a different angle...........it is still a speed trap to catch people out so why can't they do this......

Ya know it makes sense.......

terbang

22nd May 2007, 12:22

He asked for my license, I simply handed it over, there was no "good morning" no reason given for stopping me until he had his book out.

A great start, I also can't be bothered chatting to cops that are booking me, nicely or other. It's a simple business transaction. I just take the ticket, get on my way and pay the revenue at the latest due date. Simple really.
Sucks that he had to lie to stick the boot in but he has to live with that, not you.

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 12:23

So what is the difference between this and a normal speed trap..............yep I know I am being a smart arse but just looking at from a different angle...........it is still a speed trap to catch people out so why can't they do this......

Ya know it makes sense.......

Expected better of you....spose you think that prick down dunedin way was a fine fellow too???
Legitimate radar/whatever anywhere we expect. But not a deliberate altering etc of a piece of road or lure by default like Jantar's post to achieve 'results'
Seen these?....
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=7326&d=1108339688

Grahameeboy

22nd May 2007, 12:25

Expected better of you....spose you think that prick down dunedin way was a fine fellow too???
Legitimate radar/whatever anywhere we expect. But not a deliberate altering etc of a piece of road to achieve 'results'
Seen this?....

So they were not trolling then.......................

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 12:30

So they were not trolling then.......................

You didn't have to open your wallet, accept the demerits and have a record that follows you when it comes to insurance when you took the bait here tho....

Grahameeboy

22nd May 2007, 12:33

You didn't have to open your wallet, accept the demerits and have a record that follows you when it comes to insurance when you took the bait here tho....

Hey got a 3 month suspension last year, paid fine, $2,000 excess for Bike and $1250 for car.............I'm 'ard now, I am.........wheres my vest?

Anyway, was trolling earlier, agree with you 100%.......

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 12:44

Hey got a 3 month suspension last year, paid fine, $2,000 excess for Bike and $1250 for car.............I'm 'ard now, I am.........wheres my vest?

Anyway, was trolling earlier, agree with you 100%.......

Hang your head in shame. You maniac, you. Deserved a jolly good rogering by the spotless HP, didn't you?
:Pokey:

Karma

22nd May 2007, 12:48

Well the 30kph signs aren't a suggested speed, we need more cops at road work sights to slow down wankers.

Maybe if the fucken roadie companies pulled finger and got the roads sorted...

Auckland northern motorway, all that shit on upper harbour highway, how long have these roadworks been here?

Grahameeboy

22nd May 2007, 13:01

Hang your head in shame. You maniac, you. Deserved a jolly good rogering by the spotless HP, didn't you?
:Pokey:

Nah, just a lesson........but the roggering sounds good.

I was 10 days away from 2 years and got 35pts for crossing a no passing line.....and I didn't have to stop....ah well

Maybe if the fucken roadie companies pulled finger and got the roads sorted...

Auckland northern motorway, all that shit on upper harbour highway, how long have these roadworks been here?

What about Esmond Road.....geeze the roadworks changed daily, inadequate signs and coming off from the City they have 3 lanes at lights which rapidly change to 2 about 10 metres further on.......uurrr

Winston001

22nd May 2007, 13:09

Guys, life is not perfect........he was exceeding the 80kph speed limit.........was he doing 111kph, who knows.

So the cop was not nice, allegedly lied......to be honest a relatively minor lie given that he was still speeding.

Why get stressed about it.....you are trying to prove a point because you are cynical about the Police and have got on that anti cop band wagon......yeah it is a pain eh but in the whole scheme of things it is just a nuisance.......to me you are just biting.

Agreed, Its frustrating but a small matter really.

Did it occur to you that the officer might have misremembered the specific events and blurred them with another motorcyclist he caught that day? We are all human and memory is a tricky beast.

The officer may very well agree in evidence that he was mistaken about throwing down the ticket or offering you to look at the speed, but so what? I can't see the judge being influenced by that. It is irrelevant to the charge.

There is a thin possibility that you could persuade the judge to discharge you as a warning to the police not to spice up facts - judges don't like that - but honestly the odds aren't good.

I have no doubt you are telling the truth. It is entirely possible the officer thinks he is also telling the truth. Memories aren't always reliable.

skidMark

22nd May 2007, 13:15

side note there are some fine looking female officers

amen!!! some of them are bloody gorgeous!!!!

jahrasti

22nd May 2007, 13:38

Not bullshit. The roadworks and speed signs were (allegedly) put up by a pair of cops as a sting. There were no roadworks in the area - just the 2 cops and their bullshit trap.

IF they did do that then that's about as bad as me and you dressing up in a blue uniform and start pulling people over. We have a bad enough ignorance as it is on road work sites.

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 13:42

You're on your own there, sunshine. I don't do dress-ups....
Know what you mean re roadworks BUT and it's a big but...roading crews must have shitloads of signs since they leave them all over for months after the works are completed. No wonder people take so little notice of them - it's the boy who cried wolf syndrome.

jahrasti

22nd May 2007, 13:48

I agree, I can't talk for the whole industry. There can be reasons( bumpy road, large shove etc) BUT there is a lot of lazyness and this is the bit that fucks everyone off.

Toaster

22nd May 2007, 16:05

Dude you misquoted me i didnt say :

I wouldn't put it past any of them...........it's easy money, easy to reach required 'performance expectations'.

peasea did.

Yeah I know - I didn't quote you bro.... did I???!!!! Now I am confused.

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 16:10

Oi you two....fix your quote brackets + all will be well

MSTRS

22nd May 2007, 17:38

How did he get sprung? Refuse to discount to the hierachy?
That bloke needs to be suspended. By the neck. Along with all the other P dealers.

peasea

22nd May 2007, 17:46

How did he get sprung? Refuse to discount to the hierachy?
That bloke needs to be suspended. By the neck. Along with all the other P dealers.

Total agreement. Whatever the cops do or don't do they have pretty much universal support (from sane people that it is) when it comes to stomping on that crap. I've said elsewhere that I wouldn't want to be on the sharp end of a P-bust and a pat on the back for those that do it.

Anyone got firends/associates who've wrecked their lives with that shite?

sAsLEX

22nd May 2007, 21:29

The officer may very well agree in evidence that he was mistaken about throwing down the ticket or offering you to look at the speed, but so what? I can't see the judge being influenced by that. It is irrelevant to the charge.

There is a thin possibility that you could persuade the judge to discharge you as a warning to the police not to spice up facts - judges don't like that - but honestly the odds aren't good.

I have no doubt you are telling the truth. It is entirely possible the officer thinks he is also telling the truth. Memories aren't always reliable.

All this "evidence" is creating a character profile of yourself the judge would base his decision on, if its a smart arse cheeky fuck kinda of attitude the judge might not like that..... but if the evidence was correct and he simply handed his license over and took the fine that is a completely different attitude shown towards the justice system......

Patrick

23rd May 2007, 00:13

Great this will be another kick in the groin

http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NewsDisplay/tabid/209/articleID/27503/Default.aspx

Hes not even a policeman from what i have been able to find out.

Read that one, even tho it said TV3...

WTF is a "Temporary sworn member of Police?"

I assume he is on his 2 year probation period????

Or is this one of the famed copper graduates who can't speak English, and as a result, has been made a "Temporary" until his English improves?????????????????

spudchucka

23rd May 2007, 15:24

Read that one, even tho it said TV3...

WTF is a "Temporary sworn member of Police?"

I assume he is on his 2 year probation period????

Or is this one of the famed copper graduates who can't speak English, and as a result, has been made a "Temporary" until his English improves?????????????????

A temporary constable is a civilian that is contracted to fulfil some of the duties of a sworn member on a temporary basis. They are usually used to guard crime scenes and look after high risk prisoners etc. They are not cops, they have not been trained at the police college, although theoretically, as a temporary constable they can invoke many of the powers bestowed upon police. This is necessary in the above mentioned scenarios where they may have to man handle a prisoner or physically eject any persons attempting to enter a crime scene.

They are vetted by police as employees and obviously they don't get the job if they have history for drug offending etc.

(Patrick: I'm sure you're familiar with temporary constables, I've written this for everybody else's benefit)

The headline by TV3 is typical of the gutter trash style of journalism that they are becoming known for.

Patrick

24th May 2007, 00:10

(Patrick: I'm sure you're familiar with temporary constables, I've written this for everybody else's benefit)

The headline by TV3 is typical of the gutter trash style of journalism that they are becoming known for.

Thanks Spud, but nah, I did not know that... all we get here is "Jailers" and they are mostly ex cops... Too true about TV3 tho...

roogazza

24th May 2007, 12:04

spudchucka

24th May 2007, 12:28

The media have a lot to answer for , don't listen or watch them, it just encourages them !!!!
Patrick may be able clarify , but I believe temps have no power of arrest (this could have changed ?)
Sworn jobbies are the real deal.
Now , wonder if I could be a jailer ?????????? Gaz. :yes:

Temporary constables are just that, they do holdbasically the same powers for the limited time they serve. However, they get none of the training that cops get so if they ever tried to make an arrest they'd get shat on big time. As I said earlier, they are just used as scene guards, jailers etc but if necessary, (civil emergencies etc) they could be deployed in more "front line" roles.

SPman

24th May 2007, 16:03

An uncalibrated speedo does not give you an excuse for exceeding the speed limit.

I know; I've tried.

All it does is increase the court costs. I even went so far as to get a proper calibration test done on a dyno in Petone to prove that the Speedo on my 1989 Mitsi Galant VR4 read 105 when the car was doing 118.

Didn't help at all.
My brother had the same in his new Nissan van on the Waitara bypass. Got the speedo calibrated, sent in the certificate of calibration, showing a similar discrepancy and got off!
Luck of the draw, I guess.

..........
I'll make the prediction that I'll lose in court and the PCA will run my complaint through the shredder..............it's just another day at the office.
and...until we get an independent PCA, that's the way it will remain........

scumdog

25th May 2007, 02:35

[QUOTE=peasea;1064022]

Mate, I am horrified, disgusted and ashamed that this sort of thing is happening. I loved policing and always did everything by the book - if I didn't catch someone - too bad, you just don't lie.

My attitude too -why bother telling porkies just to get another ticket (like who's counting?)

But I guess there are always a certain number in any organisation who will 'let the team down', luckily I've never met one myself.

scumdog

25th May 2007, 10:21

Your boss(es)

Not my bosses matey.

I'm sure I've issued even less than last year (I don't count them and neither does anybody else so I'm a bit vague on this) and as yet nobody has said a thing.

MSTRS

25th May 2007, 10:26

Perhaps there is still a part of NZ where sanity prevails?? Lucky Southlanders eh?

scumdog

25th May 2007, 10:30

Perhaps there is still a part of NZ where sanity prevails?? Lucky Southlanders eh?

Hmm, in more and more ways I'm finding the 'advantages' of living way up north somewhat obscure and even daunting.........and I suspect do not outweigh the 'disadvantages' of living down here...

Fatjim

25th May 2007, 10:49

Perhaps there is still a part of NZ where sanity prevails?? Lucky Southlanders eh?

More likely they can't count past 12, the number of digits on both hands.

scumdog

25th May 2007, 10:58

More likely they can't count past 12, the number of digits on both hands.

Shock-horror!

You mean you mere mortals from the north have LESS than 12 fingers??? No wonder you're a sorry underproducing lot and ride your bikes funny!!

terbang

25th May 2007, 11:27

Yup, you can easily spot a southlander they all have a scar on thier left shoulder where the other head was surgically removed after birth.:shutup:

Virago

25th May 2007, 18:31

Yup, you can easily spot a southlander they all have a scar on thier left shoulder where the other head was surgically removed after birth.:shutup:

.....As opposed to the Norf Islanders who have a scar on their right shoulders, from the surgical removal of a chip.......:dodge:

Grahameeboy

25th May 2007, 18:36

.....As opposed to the Norf Islanders who have a scar on their right shoulders, from the surgical removal of a chip.......:dodge:

How do you remove a chip?

Never understood this Norf v Soff stuff....love the South South Island but there are pros and cons for both I guess......

NighthawkNZ

25th May 2007, 18:58

I reckon the cop saw me, knew I was doing over 80k and had 111k from a previous bust on his machine, so even if I'd asked to view it he'd have had a figure to show me.

I know of a few cases where this has happened. 5 people I know (in different vehicles) traveling to the same location and 4 of them got a speeding ticket with the same speed. 113kph. The first swears she was doing 80, 2nd swears he was on 100 as does the third. The fourth swears was only doing 95... The fifth didn't get a ticket, but past the cop writing one out... Coincedence... that they all got the same speed...:scratch: I think not.

I got a ticket for for doing 120... which well I may or may not have been doing that speed. However 5 minutes later a different cop pulls me up says I was doing 65 in a 50... this is the one I disagree with... my speedo and GPS was saying 45kph

But on the whole MOST are good cops... just a few to spoil the batch

scumdog

25th May 2007, 22:47

How do you remove a chip?

Never understood this Norf v Soff stuff....love the South South Island but there are pros and cons for both I guess......

South = poorer, more red-necks, colder, less amenities, too many fingers etc but better hunting, more open roads and less traffic.

North = richer, more sophisticated, warmer, get all the rock groups and concerts, 'flasher' houses, more yachting/surfing and beach lifestyles, sheaper products/bigger variety etc etc,

My view of the North? Too many people, too busy roads, too much crime, too impersonal, too expensive.

OK, may be a sweeping generalisation but it's MY perception.:yes:

Could live there should I want to but have yet to be convinced it's a 'good move'.

peasea

25th May 2007, 23:19

South = poorer, more red-necks, colder, less amenities, too many fingers etc but better hunting, more open roads and less traffic.

North = richer, more sophisticated, warmer, get all the rock groups and concerts, 'flasher' houses, more yachting/surfing and beach lifestyles, sheaper products/bigger variety etc etc,

My view of the North? Too many people, too busy roads, too much crime, too impersonal, too expensive.

OK, may be a sweeping generalisation but it's MY perception.:yes:

Could live there should I want to but have yet to be convinced it's a 'good move'.

Well, I grew up in Welly, moved to Hastings for a couple of years, back to Welly in 83 and up to Auckland in 86. I've done zillions of k's on both islands and met almost as many people. Without doubt the Mainland has it over the north island and I can't wait for our move at Christmas. Auckland IS impersonal, Wellington is a much better place/has more firendly people but I got sick of the topography. It depends what you want; we want to tour and have toured the NI to death. When I can't tour on two wheels I'll do it on four but the way I figure it there's little chance I'll get the years on the Mainland that I've had on the NI; however, I'll give it a shot.

I'm a firm believer in the old saying 'don't leave town 'til you've seen the country' and there's a heap I ain't seen yet buy my old eyes see better things in the south. The way New Zealand used to be.

The Pastor

25th May 2007, 23:21

ima SI fan too, mainly cos I hate people.

peasea

26th May 2007, 18:40

Right; check this out!
Today I get some mail related to my PCA complaint, it reads;
"I have been instructed to investigate your complaint dated 17 July 2007".

So when that date occurs I'll be sure to lodge another one.

If this is the level of professionalism we're dealing with, what hope have I got?

Further to that my complaint has been assigned to someone who's about to go on leave. Then that particular Sgt requests contact details that I supplied on the original form.

WTF????

Storm

26th May 2007, 20:45

Its called incompetance mate. Sadly a regular feature of govt dept's these days

peasea

26th May 2007, 21:10

Its called incompetance mate. Sadly a regular feature of govt dept's these days

Errm, you're not wrong mate.

Trouble is; most kiwis roll over and go for the easy way out. That means pay the fine or whatever. I don't.

If they are going to look for the most miniscule infringement (as they often do, like 111kph) I'll look for their own miniscule cockup. You NEED to know your rights and you NEED to know THEIR procedures so that if they drop the ball you don't get screwed.

The best thing you can do is go and have a few beers with some cops, (I've done it heaps) get onside, be laid back, get the info and be better prepared. To know one's enemies is to be better armed.

Spy vs spy.

Patrick

26th May 2007, 21:12

peasea

26th May 2007, 21:15

Probably a pre formatted standardised letter... don't lose sleep over it.

Not me mate, just loading up.......

98tls

26th May 2007, 21:26

Errm, you're not wrong mate.

Trouble is; most kiwis roll over and go for the easy way out. That means pay the fine or whatever. I don't.

If they are going to look for the most miniscule infringement (as they often do, like 111kph) I'll look for their own miniscule cockup. You NEED to know your rights and you NEED to know THEIR procedures so that if they drop the ball you don't get screwed.

The best thing you can do is go and have a few beers with some cops, (I've done it heaps) get onside, be laid back, get the info and be better prepared. To know one's enemies is to be better armed.

Spy vs spy. WTF.............you get nicked...........so what........you get nicked......man up and get on with it...........you kicked this thread off sounding like a complete cock so i will lower my response to your level and say if i were you i would be proud to get a speeding ticket on a lumbering piece of shit which you were riding..................

peasea

26th May 2007, 21:37

WTF.............you get nicked...........so what........you get nicked......man up and get on with it...........you kicked this thread off sounding like a complete cock so i will lower my response to your level and say if i were you i would be proud to get a speeding ticket on a lumbering piece of shit which you were riding..................

Meeeoooow!

I don't diss your bike, grow up.

spudchucka

26th May 2007, 21:54

The best thing you can do is go and have a few beers with some cops, (I've done it heaps) get onside, be laid back, get the info and be better prepared.

Sort of like going under cover aye? That'll fuck em!

peasea

26th May 2007, 22:13

Sort of like going under cover aye? That'll fuck em!

Kinda, only less dangerous.

scumdog

26th May 2007, 22:54

Kinda, only less dangerous.

Who for, - the cops??:dodge:

idb

27th May 2007, 05:26

111km/hr = 11% over the limit.

laRIKin

27th May 2007, 09:27

Meeeoooow!

I don't diss your bike, grow up.

You miss the point.

Patrick

27th May 2007, 11:16

111km/hr = 11% over the limit.

From memory, it was 111 in an 80 zone... but the problem was he got two of em after he "roared off" the first time and got snapped at exactly the same speed "alledgedly" while he roared off...

Have had a few do that,:laugh: but admittedly, not at the same speed as the 1st one tho... Can see why he is dubious, but can also see how it is possible...

peasea

27th May 2007, 18:55

Who for, - the cops??:dodge:
Oh yes, I'd never be a danger to them.

peasea

27th May 2007, 18:56

You miss the point.

Actually, no.

peasea

27th May 2007, 18:58

From memory, it was 111 in an 80 zone... but the problem was he got two of em after he "roared off" the first time and got snapped at exactly the same speed "alledgedly" while he roared off...

Have had a few do that,:laugh: but admittedly, not at the same speed as the 1st one tho... Can see why he is dubious, but can also see how it is possible...

Dubious, yes, thank you.

Patrick

5th June 2007, 09:56

Dubious, yes, thank you.

but you forgot... "can also see how it is possible..."

peasea

5th June 2007, 14:00

but you forgot... "can also see how it is possible..."

Quite right, 'possible' but highly improbable.

Patrick

5th June 2007, 15:26

Quite right, 'possible' but highly improbable.

but still quite "possible"...... Have you sought copies of any notebook entries (not just the officers notes on the ticket???)?

peasea

5th June 2007, 20:14

but still quite "possible"...... Have you sought copies of any notebook entries (not just the officers notes on the ticket???)?

It's all coming with the PCA stuff I think, it really doesn't matter. I'm gonna lose coz he's a liar and he wears the uniform. Right or wrong, the blue will win, it's a done deal. I just want my say, my side on paper, for what it's worth, which in the eyes of the court is SFA. Some might call me defeatist, I think I'm a realist.

Patrick

6th June 2007, 10:52

It's all coming with the PCA stuff I think, it really doesn't matter. I'm gonna lose coz he's a liar and he wears the uniform. Right or wrong, the blue will win, it's a done deal. I just want my say, my side on paper, for what it's worth, which in the eyes of the court is SFA. Some might call me defeatist, I think I'm a realist.

As you said in another thread, you're not going to pay your speeding fines anyhow, so ......???

Knowing the cop involved, I could check out his side of the story, as there is always two sides.....????

peasea

6th June 2007, 23:25

As you said in another thread, you're not going to pay your speeding fines anyhow, so ......???

Knowing the cop involved, I could check out his side of the story, as there is always two sides.....????

I'll (no doubt) end up shelling out, it's the kiwi way. I have pay up or they'll...........they'll.........take my teddy bear all away from me.

Anyone who doesn't want to get locked up HAS to pay their fines but I'll contest the charges that I feel are unwarranted or laid by FUCKING LIARS.

I got word today that I have to shell out for doing 70 in a 50, tough shit, suck it up, no contest. No lies were told, no issue, I gotsta pay. Therein 'lies' the difference.

alexthekidd

6th June 2007, 23:56

If you did want to take it to a current affairs show, i'm friends with Jake Milne at my school, Kevin Milne's son so could be something done?

peasea

7th June 2007, 00:10

If you did want to take it to a current affairs show, i'm friends with Jake Milne at my school, Kevin Milne's son so could be something done?

I dunno, what's his gun collection like?

Cheers mate, I have TV connections myself but they're not interested in truth, only gutter journalism and sensationalism.

Patrick

20th June 2007, 12:04

peasea

20th June 2007, 12:16

Hey Peasea, another thing to consider...

If he stopped you in moving mode, he would change to stationary mode to get you the 2nd time when you took off. Once modes are changed on the radar, any previous locked speed is cleared.

You have multiple modes, depending on the radar, which can have a front antenna and rear antenna -
- "Moving opposite" - cop car driving along, you heading toward him in opposite lane
- "Same lane" - cop in same lane in front, or behind, you.
- "Stationary" - cop car parked, pinging those coming or going, front or rear...

Check the tickets on the rear... what "mode" was he in for both catches?

I was rolling for both catches but that's the silly thing about catch number two; I knew he was there, I was watching my speedo closely, I wasn't doing 111kph and he admitted he only gave me the second ticket for my 'attitude'. I'm seeing the PCA on Friday at 3.00pm. I'm also not holding my breath for a positive outcome, they are as bent-as and would rarely, if ever, find in favour of any member of the public, let along some poor sap on a motorcycle. It'll just be another carefully worded, twisted whitewash.

Thanks anyway for the suggestion.

Goblin

20th June 2007, 12:50

Pigs are a law unto themselves and when they decide you are going to be done for whatever, you WILL be done!
I am being summonsed to court for dangerous driving. Have not received a date yet as the pig is playing with me and trying to make me sweat. After being stopped and talked to, statement given, the pig then went and looked up my previous record and told my friend that I have a "colourful past". Now this pig is an EX detective....now a constable in traffic. Obviously a HUGE chip on his shoulder and thinks he has something to prove. I cant afford a lawyer so have to defend myself. We know how judges listen intently to pleece side of the story but when a defendant goes to speak, the judge will start reading something, shuffling papers and switch his ears off. This is how our justice system works.
Front page of the BOP Times yesterday was a write-up about a P dealer caught with heaps of P and a large amount of cash but he will be on bail, at large, for 12 months because the court system is tied up for that long with stupid *555 narks complaing when they get overtaken by a blonde chick in a beemer!
I really feel for you and hope you get a good result. All the very best for friday! Try and stay calm.

Goblin

20th June 2007, 14:02

P.I.G.S = Professional Intelligent, Goodlooking and Smart!

Detectives are very rarely demoted in a way that they would be busted back to Traffic Constable. Did he say he was a Detective or did he say something that made you assume he was? I would say most likely he is either a sergeant who has taken uniform promotion or a has voluntarily gone back to Constable due to wanting a break from the CIB.

If you have been summonsed then it will say on the summons what date you have to go to Court?? Have you have simply recieved a letter saying you are to be summonsed or Traffic Offence Notice? Thats not a summons. It means the cop has told you in writing he will be summonsing you and that he has sent the file to Court for a summons informaion to be laid or however it is done at Court there. Thats the Courts problem, not the cops, that you havent recieved your summons and date yet.

Also traffic hearings are held in a completley seperate Court to Class A for Supply charges. Although some of my Drug supply lockups have gone to the District Court (due to the High Court being so swamped with cases) they are not dealt with in the same Court as traffic offences and I dont understand how one could slow down the other? The only thing slowing serious crime going through the Courts expediently is other serious crime.I have been told by a reliable source that this particular pig was indeed demoted to traffic.

The alleged offence happend on the 4th of May and I received the ticket and a letter in the mail last week stating that I will be summonsed to court "in due course". Did he have to wait more than a month to write the ticket and post it to me?

Maybe you could shed some light on how the courts work? I have no idea. It seems to me that there is an epidemic of cop wannabes all dialing *555 when ever someone does something they dont like. Truck drivers will tell you how they get held up by slow traffic, then when there's a passing lane, the bastards speed up...then slow down again! I did not drive dangerously but the pig took an instant dislike to me and has taken it upon himself to try and put me in my place.

Also, what right does a constable have looking up my previous record and discussing it with the general public? What I did 15-20 years ago is none of his bloody business!! and has no bearing on the case pending.

I have also been informed by someone close to a lot of police that some of them do see it as a game. They like to play with peoples lives. It's all a big joke to them.

terbang

20th June 2007, 14:27

stupid *555 narks complaing when they get overtaken by a blonde chick in a beemer!

Bloody bling spreading it around machine won't let me bling ya for that little emerald gem.

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 15:06

Maybe you could shed some light on how the courts work? I have no idea.

Minor traffic offences go to JP Traffic Court, (defended Infringement Notices, careless Driving etc). These are offences that have no term of imprisonment as a possible sentence.

Serious ones, where there is a possibility of imprisonment, (EBA, Dangerous Driving etc) go to the District Court before a judge.

The most serious traffic offences involving death can be laid indictably, (in the High Court).

Everyday crimes like theft, common assault, possession of class C, low level burglaries etc go to the District Court. Some offence like burglary can be laid either summarily, (the District Court) or Indictably, (the High Court) depending upon how serious the offence or offences are.

The more serious crimes such as murder, rape & possession of class A are purely indictable and must be laid in the High Court.

Twats getting done for *555 type traffic offences do not end up in the High Court and therefore have no impact on the length of time required to push a case through to a High Court trial.

Grahameeboy

20th June 2007, 15:14

P.I.G.S = Professional Intelligent, Goodlooking and Smart!

Yep Pigs are the 4th most intelligent animal in the world........

Goblin

20th June 2007, 15:25

Serious ones, where there is a possibility of imprisonment, (EBA, Dangerous Driving etc) go to the District Court before a judge.

Twats getting done for *555 type traffic offences do not end up in the High Court and therefore have no impact on the length of time required to push a case through to a High Court trial.Thanks.
I'm not a twat and I dont drive like one but the twat who *555ed me admitted to doing 160kph ON A SPACE-SAVER TYRE!!! while talking on a celphone! But he's not being done for anything.
Now tell me who drove dangerously?:angry:

peasea

20th June 2007, 15:43

[QUOTE=Goblin;1102513]

Also, what right does a constable have looking up my previous record and discussing it with the general public? What I did 15-20 years ago is none of his bloody business!! and has no bearing on the case pending.

QUOTE]

Yeah, a curious thing that, it happened to me too. I get the letter in the mail telling of my preliminary hearing (coz I'm pleading not guilty) and lo and hehold, there's my full history attached. WTF? Why would the copper be looking that up and attaching it to the paperwork for the current charge? My last (petty) criminal conviction was 1981! What possible relevance has any of that got to the current charge? None, that's what, and YES, they are a law unto themselves, ragardless of the denials that will probably follow this post. I've seen it too many times to be convinced otherwise.

They lie in court too, seen it with my own eyes and more recently I've seen it in a coppers notes. Lies are what I'm up against, along with a brick wall and a myopic 'justice' system.

Join the queue.

Sanx

20th June 2007, 16:07

I've seen this thread a little late, but I think it was Dynamytus50 who said that it would have to be a very dumb traffic cop that made up evidence; for instance using the same read-out on the laser gun multiple times, or simply making up an alleged speed. Well, there are cops that dumb, though I haven't personally come across cases in New Zealand.

One such traffic cop apparently recorded a guy on a Fireblade doing 170-something miles-per-hour in about 1995. He claimed he had this recorded on his radar unit, calibrated according to Police procedure. Motorcycle News, however, proved in independent tests that the Fireblade in question couldn't do more than 165mph. Further investigation by the UK's PCA showed the radar gun to be 100% accurate. PCA reached the only possible conclusion; the cop lied and then perjured himself in court.

And a few years ago, my best friend and his wife were out for a little blat on their (own) bikes. It was a long run, with a particular pub as the planned destination. His wife always rode like a Nana and was therefore several minutes behind. Both were stopped by the same cop for allegedly doing the same speed; if memory serves, 87mph in a 60 zone. The pub they were meeting at was a favourite biker haunt. When they got there, a number of bikers had already been stopped by the same guy. All for 87mph. Over the next hour, other bikers turned up and a number of these all had 87mph tickets. They all swapped details and jointly made a complaint. Further investigation showed that the cop had issued over 30 tickets that day, all to motorbikes and all for doing 87mph. In every case, the cop had showed the biker the read-out on the laser gun. As is common with such devices, the gun had no audit facility. However, the PCA found it highly unlikely that there were 30+ 87mph incidents on the same road on the same day, and not one other recorded speed. Cop was stood down and formally reprimanded.

The argument has often been that cops have no reason to fabricate evidence or lie in court. Not true at all; and in cases where the cops are trying to put away some known villain, but find the evidence hard to get, I can almost understand it.

The memos leaked to the press last year, combined with Howard Broad's admission (backed up by Police Association president, Greg O'Connor) that traffic cops have ticket quotas (sorry, performance targets), showed that cops did have a good personal reason for issuing tickets. Promotion prospects could be affected if there was a continued failure to meet said targets, one memo stated. As laser and radar guns have no auditing capability (the machines do not record the date, time and speed each time the unit is triggered), the Police can get away with fabricating evidence and blatantly lying. There's nothing to contradict them. The magistrate will simply take the cop at his word. Such capability would not be expensive to build into the units either; in fact, I can't imagine it would add more than a few dollars to the cost of each, should the Police forces demand it. But they won't ask for it, as they know its main function will be to serve as a tool for exposing Police dishonesty.

As with any prosecution, the burden of proof should fall on the prosecuting body. They should be made to prove guilt. Under the present system, precisely the opposite is true; the accused has to prove his innocence.

Recent surveys have revealed public trust in the Police has reached all-time lows. This is, in part, down to the negative publicity following the Clint Rickard trials, the Irene Ascher debacle and the various other high profile incidents in the press. The Police should be actively encouraging the introduction of stricter controls as a method by which they can demonstrate their honesty to the public. Consider the following:
Cop pulls over motorist for doing 120 in a 100 zone. Cop refuses to let motorist see the radar / laser read-out. Motorist goes to court and pleads innocence. Cop simply stands up and states that "I, Officer #666, did see said motorist doing 120, verified by the reading on my radar / laser unit. No 'evidence' presented, but magistrate finds motorist guilty. Cop pulls over motorist for doing 120 in a 100 zone. Cop shows motorist the read-out. Motorist doesn't believe it and challenges it in court. Cop produces audit log from radar / laser unit showing the times triggered and the readings recorded. Cop shows calibration logs for the unit in question. Magistrate doesn't need to rely on the cop's word or honesty, but instead can convict on the evidence presented.

Now, which situation do you think is going to reinforce the Police's reputation with the public at large?

The Pastor

20th June 2007, 16:08

They lie in court too, seen it with my own eyes and more recently I've seen it in a coppers notes. Lies are what I'm up against, along with a brick wall and a myopic 'justice' system.

Join the queue.

Damn straight they lie in court, ive had it happen to me, it actually can be a blessing in disguise as if you can prove they lied in court you get off the charge. 99% of the time though you don't pick up on it (where lawyers come in handy...)

Cops :@ a few good ones mixed in with the bad, unfortuantly the good cops get off traffic duty.

Sanx

20th June 2007, 16:09

My last (petty) criminal conviction was 1981! What possible relevance has any of that got to the current charge?

Isn't there a seven-year time-bomb on old petty convictions? After seven years, they can no longer be given as grounds for treatment one way or the other?

Goblin

20th June 2007, 16:10

Yeah, a curious thing that, it happened to me too. I get the letter in the mail telling of my preliminary hearing (coz I'm pleading not guilty) and lo and hehold, there's my full history attached. WTF? Why would the copper be looking that up and attaching it to the paperwork for the current charge? My last (petty) criminal conviction was 1981! What possible relevance has any of that got to the current charge? None, that's what.Yeah I'd like some answers to these questions too.

and YES, they are a law unto themselves, ragardless of the denials that will probably follow this post. I've seen it too many times to be convinced otherwise.

They lie in court too, seen it with my own eyes and more recently I've seen it in a coppers notes. Lies are what I'm up against, along with a brick wall and a myopic 'justice' system.

Join the queue.I remeber a thread on here where some dood was done for something and the judge actually told this person that he would believe the word of an officer over the word of a teenager anyday!

Now Im not saying that ALL cops lie but, there are those that DO lie! And the judges believe them! How are innocent people, who are just trying to get on with their lives and do the best they can, supposed to respect the pleece when they do this kinda crap??? There are real criminals out there doing far worse shit than 111kph or just driving like they always do. Why waste pleece and court time on trivial traffic shit? Oh thats right....MONEY! Fines get dished out...lawyers get payed....judges are paid squillions to sit there and listen to pleece lie through their teeth then ignore defendants! It's all about the money honey!

My last "petty" crime was about 91 when they published court cases in the local paper. The one right under mine was a peadophile caught molesting 2 boys under 12 and the judge gave him 3 months Periodic Detention!!:gob: I got 200 hours community service for cannabis cookies. Where's the justice???:brick: :brick: :brick: :thud:

ilusiv

20th June 2007, 16:13

Minor traffic offences go to JP Traffic Court, (defended Infringement Notices, careless Driving etc). These are offences that have no term of imprisonment as a possible sentence.

Serious ones, where there is a possibility of imprisonment, (EBA, Dangerous Driving etc) go to the District Court before a judge.

The most serious traffic offences involving death can be laid indictably, (in the High Court).

Everyday crimes like theft, common assault, possession of class C, low level burglaries etc go to the District Court. Some offence like burglary can be laid either summarily, (the District Court) or Indictably, (the High Court) depending upon how serious the offence or offences are.

The more serious crimes such as murder, rape & possession of class A are purely indictable and must be laid in the High Court.

Twats getting done for *555 type traffic offences do not end up in the High Court and therefore have no impact on the length of time required to push a case through to a High Court trial.

Spudchucka, well explained, except that Indictably laid matters don't always mean the high court. Simply that they will be tried in the indictable jurisdiction (that is before a jury, rather than a judge sitting summarily (alone)). A large amount of district court trials will be from these matters, and the rest will be people who are electing trial on summary matters that can be proceeded with indictably (such as 3rd and Sub Traffic offences) & Assaults (crimes act or above)

Goblin

20th June 2007, 16:28

The memos leaked to the press last year, combined with Howard Broad's admission (backed up by Police Association president, Greg O'Connor) that traffic cops have ticket quotas (sorry, performance targets), showed that cops did have a good personal reason for issuing tickets. Promotion prospects could be affected if there was a continued failure to meet said targets, one memo stated. As laser and radar guns have no auditing capability (the machines do not record the date, time and speed each time the unit is triggered), the Police can get away with fabricating evidence and blatantly lying. There's nothing to contradict them. The magistrate will simply take the cop at his word. Such capability would not be expensive to build into the units either; in fact, I can't imagine it would add more than a few dollars to the cost of each, should the Police forces demand it. But they won't ask for it, as they know its main function will be to serve as a tool for exposing Police dishonesty.

As with any prosecution, the burden of proof should fall on the prosecuting body. They should be made to prove guilt. Under the present system, precisely the opposite is true; the accused has to prove his innocence.

Recent surveys have revealed public trust in the Police has reached all-time lows. This is, in part, down to the negative publicity following the Clint Rickard trials, the Irene Ascher debacle and the various other high profile incidents in the press. The Police should be actively encouraging the introduction of stricter controls as a method by which they can demonstrate their honesty to the public. Consider the following:
Cop pulls over motorist for doing 120 in a 100 zone. Cop refuses to let motorist see the radar / laser read-out. Motorist goes to court and pleads innocence. Cop simply stands up and states that "I, Officer #666, did see said motorist doing 120, verified by the reading on my radar / laser unit. No 'evidence' presented, but magistrate finds motorist guilty. Cop pulls over motorist for doing 120 in a 100 zone. Cop shows motorist the read-out. Motorist doesn't believe it and challenges it in court. Cop produces audit log from radar / laser unit showing the times triggered and the readings recorded. Cop shows calibration logs for the unit in question. Magistrate doesn't need to rely on the cop's word or honesty, but instead can convict on the evidence presented.

Now, which situation do you think is going to reinforce the Police's reputation with the public at large?Very VERY interesting!
They would lose too much revenue if they could record readings off these things! And they'd be shown up for the bullshite they get away with.

peasea

20th June 2007, 16:46

Isn't there a seven-year time-bomb on old petty convictions? After seven years, they can no longer be given as grounds for treatment one way or the other?

Tell that to Mister Porky.

peasea

20th June 2007, 17:22

Isn't there a seven-year time-bomb on old petty convictions? After seven years, they can no longer be given as grounds for treatment one way or the other?

Are there any coppers/legal types who can confirm/deny this?

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 20:40

I get the letter in the mail telling of my preliminary hearing (coz I'm pleading not guilty) and lo and hehold, there's my full history attached. WTF? Why would the copper be looking that up and attaching it to the paperwork for the current charge?

Its part of your disclosure, you're entitled to receive a copy of your own history. If you were being represented by a lawyer it would go to them. It also goes on the prosecution file and a copy goes to the judge, upon your guilty plea or having been found guilty. This is completely normal practice.

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 20:44

Spudchucka, well explained, except that Indictably laid matters don't always mean the high court. Simply that they will be tried in the indictable jurisdiction (that is before a jury, rather than a judge sitting summarily (alone)). A large amount of district court trials will be from these matters, and the rest will be people who are electing trial on summary matters that can be proceeded with indictably (such as 3rd and Sub Traffic offences) & Assaults (crimes act or above)

Its not law school mate, just a simple answer intended to help people who have no knowledge of such matters to get an idea of how the thing works.

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 20:47

Are there any coppers/legal types who can confirm/deny this?

It doesn't relate to the criminal courts. When you're up before the judge he gets to see you in all your glory.

Goblin

20th June 2007, 20:52

Its part of your disclosure, you're entitled to receive a copy of your own history. If you were being represented by a lawyer it would go to them. It also goes on the prosecution file and a copy goes to the judge, upon your guilty plea or having been found guilty. This is completely normal practice. Yeah but why are previous traffic offences and our whole history brought up for minor traffic offences yet when a officer of the pleece is up for a serious, real offence like rape, all his previous rape convictions are not disclosed? I smell a double standard here.

98tls

20th June 2007, 20:53

As well he should.................would grow boring dealing with first offenders day after day.................

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 20:59

Yeah but why are previous traffic offences and our whole history brought up for minor traffic offences yet when a officer of the pleece is up for a serious, real offence like rape, all his previous rape convictions are not disclosed? I smell a double standard here.

The difference is that what you are talking about is trial by media and public opinion. In court your previous convictions aren't any part of proving the case, (except in a few exceptional circumstances where the law allows it). In court your history only has relevance once the case against you has been proved when the judge considers it in passing sentence.

Also, in the Rickards etc case their previous history that you mentioned were in fact unproven cases, not actuall convictions, which would fly in the face of all legal due process and would have amounted to the NZ justice system becoming a total kangaroo court.

Goblin

20th June 2007, 21:21

The difference is that what you are talking about is trial by media and public opinion. In court your previous convictions aren't any part of proving the case, (except in a few exceptional circumstances where the law allows it). In court your history only has relevance once the case against you has been proved when the judge considers it in passing sentence.

Also, in the Rickards etc case their previous history that you mentioned were in fact unproven cases, not actuall convictions, which would fly in the face of all legal due process and would have amounted to the NZ justice system becoming a total kangaroo court.No. Dont try and tell me what I am talking about. This is all part of it too. Your handy dandy way of trying to put words in other's mouths, so to speak. You mentioned rikards, not me. It's not trial by media and public opinion, it's about suppressed evidence, double standards, shollum and shipton already locked up for rape, police drinking and driving habits, crashing into powerpoles then fleeing the scene and getting away with it scott free! Then the revenue collecting from innocent people who have done nothing wrong in the first place! It's the whole fucking system! PCA, pleece investigating pleece. We dont have a shit show.

scumdog

20th June 2007, 21:27

Yeah but why are previous traffic offences and our whole history brought up for minor traffic offences yet when a officer of the pleece is up for a serious, real offence like rape, all his previous rape convictions are not disclosed? I smell a double standard here.

What SC was TRYING to say was that the previous offences are released to the OFFENDER not the judge etc.

The previous offences are only released to the judge AFTER the offender/suspect is found guilty -as in your bad driving record..

Hence why the 'pleece' you mentioned don't get it dragged up - disclosure is made to the suspect and his lawyers only.

Git it?

peasea

20th June 2007, 21:41

It doesn't relate to the criminal courts. When you're up before the judge he gets to see you in all your glory.

So nothing gets deleted after 5 or 7 years?

peasea

20th June 2007, 21:46

What SC was TRYING to say was that the previous offences are released to the OFFENDER not the judge etc.

The previous offences are only released to the judge AFTER the offender/suspect is found guilty -as in your bad driving record..

Hence why the 'pleece' you mentioned don't get it dragged up - disclosure is made to the suspect and his lawyers only.

Git it?

Yeah, ok, but...........
Why does the copper even have do a 'search' for this info. Surely, in this modern age, it can be brought up on-screen in court if/after the perp is convicted of the 'crime' on the day. Why is it even there after 25+ years? It has no relevance, surely. We were all teenagers once, doesn't a clean slate for a quarter of a century count?

peasea

20th June 2007, 21:49

Its part of your disclosure, you're entitled to receive a copy of your own history. If you were being represented by a lawyer it would go to them. It also goes on the prosecution file and a copy goes to the judge, upon your guilty plea or having been found guilty. This is completely normal practice.

Entited to, sure, but I DIDN'T ask for it, so why does he go digging. Sounds like; "all witches are made of wood, therefore if they float they're made of wood and therefore they're witches...in that case we should burn them!!!!"

It's all a bit Monty Python to me.

scumdog

20th June 2007, 21:52

Yeah, ok, but...........
Why does the copper even have do a 'search' for this info. Surely, in this modern age, it can be brought up on-screen in court if/after the perp is convicted of the 'crime' on the day. Why is it even there after 25+ years? It has no relevance, surely. We were all teenagers once, doesn't a clean slate for a quarter of a century count?

Not all Courts have screen - and lawyers want to know what kind of shit-slide they're up against, a short record? MAY be innocent, loooong list? pfffarwww, not looking good.

Clean slate after 25 years? Most records hardly go back that far - ya got something to worry about????

Goblin

20th June 2007, 21:57

What SC was TRYING to say was that the previous offences are released to the OFFENDER not the judge etc.

The previous offences are only released to the judge AFTER the offender/suspect is found guilty -as in your bad driving record..

Git it?Yeah I get that Im screwed unless I can prove reasonable doubt that I drove dangerously. It's my word against theirs at the end of the day....and we know how judges believe police over anyone else.

scumdog

20th June 2007, 22:01

Yeah I get that Im screwed unless I can prove reasonable doubt that I drove dangerously. It's my word against theirs at the end of the day....and we know how judges believe police over anyone else.
Soooo,, you have a bit of a bad driving record eh?

Or are you just scared that you'll get nailed for what you did because you DID do it -regardless of record?:wait:

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 22:02

No. Dont try and tell me what I am talking about. This is all part of it too. Your handy dandy way of trying to put words in other's mouths, so to speak. You mentioned rikards, not me. It's not trial by media and public opinion, it's about suppressed evidence, double standards, shollum and shipton already locked up for rape, pigs drinking and driving habits, crashing into powerpoles then fleeing the scene and getting away with it scott free! Then the revenue collecting from innocent people who have done nothing wrong in the first place! It's the whole fucking system! PCA, pleece investigating pleece. We dont have a shit show.

No. Its not part of it. They were never convicted and if they were every legal doctrine says that their former convictions can't form part of the current case. It makes no difference whether they are charged with rape or failing to stop at a stop sign.

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 22:03

So nothing gets deleted after 5 or 7 years?

Nothing gets deleted ever. Its just a matter of what you do or don't have to disclose to employers etc. When you go to court on criminal charges it is all still there for the judge to see.

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 22:05

Yeah, ok, but...........
Why does the copper even have do a 'search' for this info.

Because the prosecutor also needs to know this too, for instance in a third or subsequent EBA. And why not have a paper cop on the file for reference?

98tls

20th June 2007, 22:06

Yeah I get that Im screwed unless I can prove reasonable doubt that I drove dangerously. It's my word against theirs at the end of the day....and we know how judges believe police over anyone else. What the hell.........on a day to day basis cops have to deal with an endless ocean of complete fuck ups so am picking the judge gives em the benefit of doubt.............in a perfect world things would be different but its not and he has to believe someone.................

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 22:07

Entited to, sure, but I DIDN'T ask for it, so why does he go digging.

Because some dip shit lawyer made case law by getting his fuck-wit client acquitted because the pigs didn't disclose it! So now they disclose it in ever case whether you want it or not.

peasea

20th June 2007, 22:11

Because some dip shit lawyer made case law by getting his fuck-wit client acquitted because the pigs didn't disclose it! So now they disclose it in ever case whether you want it or not.

Stacked deck..............

spudchucka

20th June 2007, 22:12

Stacked deck..............

Nope, catch 22.

Goblin

20th June 2007, 22:15

Soooo,, you have a bit of a bad driving record eh?

Or are you just scared that you'll get nailed for what you did because you DID do it -regardless of record?:wait:Im being nailed for some thing I DIDNT do! I never drove at 160kph or ran anyone off the road. The clown that *555ed me tried to close the gap when I indicated to pull back into my lane after doing a otherwise perfectly safe pass. He got stuck in slow traffic and I drove at the speed limit. He did 160 to catch up to me.... on a space saver tyre....while talking on the phone! I did NOT drive dangerously! Then the pig drags up my past before he even wrote the bloody ticket!!!

scumdog

20th June 2007, 22:16

You wouldn't believe how many things cops have to disclose etc because in the past lawyers thought it they didn't their clients would be disadvantaged.

And now the lawyers are kicking themselves 'cos so many clients are being sunk by the very rules etc that lawyers demanded..go figure..

scumdog

20th June 2007, 22:18

Goblin

20th June 2007, 22:25

So your REAL beef is whith the dude that phoned *555.

And if the cop had said nothing about your past but knew it anyway - how much difference would that have made?My beef is with the both of them. The clown for driving dangerously himself then accusing me of dangerous driving and the pig for believing him, dragging up my past, discussing it with the general public then deciding to write the ticket!!

Sanx

20th June 2007, 22:32

So your REAL beef is whith the dude that phoned *555. And if the cop had said nothing about your past but knew it anyway - how much difference would that have made?

I would be wondering why the cop involved automatically believed the guy calling *555 enough to write a ticket out for a pretty serious offence; one that will have significant consequences for Goblin anyway. Certainly part of my defence would simply to ask why this guy's word carried more weight than my own. If the magistrate gives any indication that it does without some bloody convincing justification, it's grounds for appeal. If he says it doesn'tt then the magistrate has to come down on your side as, in any case where it's simply one person's word against another's, innocence must be presumed unless proof is supplied to make a conviction justfiable against the 'all reasonable doubt' test.

Sanx

20th June 2007, 22:35

My beef is with the both of them. The clown for driving dangerously himself then accusing me of dangerous driving and the pig for believing him, dragging up my past, discussing it with the general public then deciding to write the ticket!!

Who did the cop discuss your conviction history with, and how much detail did they go into? There's a big difference between, for instance, saying "Oh yeah, we know her alright" and saying "Yes, we know her. She was convicted of such and such in 1981, was given such and such a sentence, and so on."

scumdog

20th June 2007, 22:36

Words fail me...............................

Goblin

20th June 2007, 22:52

I would be wondering why the cop involved automatically believed the guy calling *555 enough to write a ticket out for a pretty serious offence; one that will have significant consequences for Goblin anyway.
Simply because he thinks he has something to prove. Remember this is an ex-dectetive who was demoted to constable so he wants a conviction. It's all a game to him. He discussed my past with a friend of mine, not in detail, but infront of a collegue of his. Just the "oh we know her past....some pretty damning evidence" sort of comment. So why did he wait five weeks to write the ticket? Why didnt he just write it there and then when I gave my formal statement?

98tls

21st June 2007, 00:13

Absolutely fucking amazing........ive followed this thread from zero to hero.........all the shit that goes on around us and we take time to discuss the merits or otherwise of cops.......sometimes things dont go the way we think they should :gob: shame.........go outside look upwards and think a bit......jesus with all these sob storys i dunno how i am going to sleep tonight.......if i get real desperate i guess i can always blame the judicial system...........:zzzz:

spudchucka

21st June 2007, 06:04

So why did he wait five weeks to write the ticket? Why didnt he just write it there and then when I gave my formal statement?

Because he would have had to review your statement against the one made by the other person. A *555 call isn't a statement, if they want to follow through on their complaint they still need to make a formal statement.

MSTRS

21st June 2007, 09:51

......sometimes things dont go the way we think they should :gob: shame.........go outside look upwards and think a bit......jesus with all these sob storys i dunno how i am going to sleep tonight.......if i get real desperate i guess i can always blame the judicial system...........:zzzz:

I'm sure you wouldn't be so philosophical if it was you unjustly accused by some certifiable prat and then given a ticket by the po-lice.

peasea

21st June 2007, 13:22

I'm sure you wouldn't be so philosophical if it was you unjustly accused by some certifiable prat and then given a ticket by the po-lice.

Quite right, and shit doesn't go down EVERY time a ticket is written up and sometimes a ticket may not get written up. However, I think when an individual is dealing with the public and that individual has power over them (like the power to arrest/impound vehicles etc) then they need to be able to 'get over themselves' if they're having a bad hair day. Just because they've had a fight with the missus or stubbed their toe doesn't mean they can come across like a ten cent Nazi with the next member of the public they deal with.

I'm not saying it happens all the time, but it does happen. (They're human etc etc...)

I also feel that country coppers are head and shoulders above city cops with their attitudes; they appear to be more community oriented, less bolshy and less arrogant. Again I'll say; I can't wait to get out of this cesspit of a city.

scumdog

21st June 2007, 17:01

I also feel that country coppers are head and shoulders above city cops with their attitudes; they appear to be more community oriented, less bolshy and less arrogant. Again I'll say; I can't wait to get out of this cesspit of a city.

City cops are a reflection of city people.............

98tls

21st June 2007, 17:07

Quite right, and shit doesn't go down EVERY time a ticket is written up and sometimes a ticket may not get written up. However, I think when an individual is dealing with the public and that individual has power over them (like the power to arrest/impound vehicles etc) then they need to be able to 'get over themselves' if they're having a bad hair day. Just because they've had a fight with the missus or stubbed their toe doesn't mean they can come across like a ten cent Nazi with the next member of the public they deal with.

I'm not saying it happens all the time, but it does happen. (They're human etc etc...)

I also feel that country coppers are head and shoulders above city cops with their attitudes; they appear to be more community oriented, less bolshy and less arrogant. Again I'll say; I can't wait to get out of this cesspit of a city. Come south Peasea........dont know how you guys breathe up there..to many people to many cars to many buildings to many.........well you already know i guess.

peasea

21st June 2007, 17:43

City cops are a reflection of city people.............

Not a bad point.

I still say they need to be a cut above that crap though.

Again, not a bad point though.

peasea

21st June 2007, 17:45

Come south Peasea........dont know how you guys breathe up there..to many people to many cars to many buildings to many.........well you already know i guess.

Just going through the motions of checking container prices. I've got it down to 3200 bucks for two 20's to Nelson Port, then some storage for a while and final delivery to an address anywhere between Hira and Spring Grove. Not bad I thought. Unless there's some KB'er with a better idea/price? Happy to do bizzo with a coastal shipping KB'er.

Krusti

22nd June 2007, 08:39

Try Spacewise, ChCh. In the yellow pages. Used them for sons shift south.

Bloody Mad Woman (BMW)

22nd June 2007, 10:43

I would be wondering why the cop involved automatically believed the guy calling *555 enough to write a ticket out for a pretty serious offence; one that will have significant consequences for Goblin anyway. Certainly part of my defence would simply to ask why this guy's word carried more weight than my own. If the magistrate gives any indication that it does without some bloody convincing justification, it's grounds for appeal. If he says it doesn'tt then the magistrate has to come down on your side as, in any case where it's simply one person's word against another's, innocence must be presumed unless proof is supplied to make a conviction justfiable against the 'all reasonable doubt' test.

Pure and simple - Goblin is a female. In Court and/or offences Females are persona non gratis. Speak from experience. In Goblin's case the males would have felt threatened. You make think I am generalising but I am not. It really is as simple as that. Guy's itty bitty ego gets damaged "I'll get the bitch" is the mentality.

Example - a male friend and I doing same speed - he got pulled up and let off - I got pulled up and got ticketed. Nice as pie I was. I get derogatory comments from cops when pulling me up because I am a female riding a big bike - next one I get I will file a complaint. I don't mind facing the consequences for my actions and taking responsibility - but I also expect to be treated equally.

peasea

22nd June 2007, 12:58

Try Spacewise, ChCh. In the yellow pages. Used them for sons shift south.

Will try their prices, cheers.

Patrick

22nd June 2007, 15:02

Im being nailed for some thing I DIDNT do! I never drove at 160kph or ran anyone off the road. The clown that *555ed me tried to close the gap when I indicated to pull back into my lane after doing a otherwise perfectly safe pass. He got stuck in slow traffic and I drove at the speed limit. He did 160 to catch up to me.... on a space saver tyre....while talking on the phone! I did NOT drive dangerously! Then the pig drags up my past before he even wrote the bloody ticket!!!

Simple math... you passed him at normal speed, he got held up in slower traffic as you moved away and then he/she had to do 160 to catch up to you... he/she has to go much faster than your speed just to catch you up. To say you were doing 160 would mean they would have to keep an even distance between you and their car and at a steady speed of 160 over a distance of however 100's of metres.... How long was this driver following you at an even distance at a steady speeed of 160?

Did you point out that on passing, he tried to close the gap for you to pull back into, the space saver at 160kmph (twice the allowable maximum speed for most, if not all, space savers by the way...) while talking on the phone is definitely careless use, if not possibly dangerous..

As for "your past," he would probably have dragged up the other drivers "past" too...

Simply because he thinks he has something to prove. Remember this is an ex-dectetive who was demoted to constable so he wants a conviction. It's all a game to him. He discussed my past with a friend of mine, not in detail, but infront of a collegue of his. Just the "oh we know her past....some pretty damning evidence" sort of comment. So why did he wait five weeks to write the ticket? Why didnt he just write it there and then when I gave my formal statement?

This is funny... There is nothing to "prove," detectives go back to uniform for many reasons:whocares: , so what is there to prove?

He wants a conviction? Yep... Isn't that why we catch people for whatever? He was a detective, he has probably had more convictions than the dollars spent on his suits and ties...

Win some, lose some, they come again...

Patrick

22nd June 2007, 15:11

Isn't there a seven-year time-bomb on old petty convictions? After seven years, they can no longer be given as grounds for treatment one way or the other?

Judges will "see" it, but ignore it as it is over 7 years old... it is not eveidence, as they only see it once you have been found guilty.

Goblin

22nd June 2007, 15:57

How long was this driver following you at an even distance at a steady speeed of 160? He didn't. I never did 160kph.

Did you point out that on passing, he tried to close the gap for you to pull back into, the space saver at 160kmph (twice the allowable maximum speed for most, if not all, space savers by the way...) while talking on the phone is definitely careless use, if not possibly dangerous..Yes I did but the cop didn't want to know. I was the one being questioned....not him.

As for "your past," he would probably have dragged up the other drivers "past" too...I'd be interested to see that too.

This is funny... There is nothing to "prove," detectives go back to uniform for many reasons:whocares: , so what is there to prove? !He wants to prove that he is right and I am wrong! and a bad bad person who should be fined and not allowed to drive or ride for 12 months or more for believing im right.

He wants a conviction? Yep... Isn't that why we catch people for whatever? He was a detective, he has probably had more convictions than the dollars spent on his suits and ties... Yup! It's all about the money.

Win some, lose some, they come again...So do you think he'll let me tell my side of the story in court? Or will he butt in and put his own opinion in like he did at the interview?

MSTRS

22nd June 2007, 16:11

So do you think he'll let me tell my side of the story in court? Or will he butt in and put his own opinion in like he did at the interview?

The complainant will have to front too. Else case dismissed. And no, the cop can't stop you giving your side in court.

scumdog

22nd June 2007, 17:10

The complainant will have to front too. Else case dismissed. And no, the cop can't stop you giving your side in court.

Sounds like Goblin is not a regular appearer in court..

_Gina_

22nd June 2007, 21:43

Enough inaneness (is that a word?) already.

I can back Kell up here.

I was DIC'd a couple of years ago.
When I was back at the station and the (very nice) Sargeant was conducting the official reading, some other guy was checking all my particulars and in he bowls to the room and asks me whether I had resided at XXX address, to which I deadpan answer - where? No - he goes on about it for a while and then I just ignored him. When he finally fucked off, for a donut break no doubt, I turned to the Sargeant and said...I had a bit of a rough start to life. He smiled and then apologised, said some guys can't help themselves....

The address he was talking about was of the Henderson Teenage Centre of which I was a ward of the state and while there a general all round 13 year old criminal, with convictions.

Made me laugh at the time, but I have seen this kind of bullshit tactic deployed and, hey, I am just too fucken smart to give the numb nut his kick for the evening.

scumdog

22nd January 2008, 09:08

Entited to, sure, but I DIDN'T ask for it, so why does he go digging.

It's all a bit Monty Python to me.

But your lawyer would immediately ask for it - and sometimes people want to represent themselves.

BTW Where IS peasea?

And IdleIdol Idyll??

And other high flyerrs we don't see on-line anymore?

spudchucka

22nd January 2008, 10:39

But your lawyer would immediately ask for it - and sometimes people want to represent themselves.

BTW Where IS peasea?

And IdleIdol Idyll??

And other high flyerrs we don't see on-line anymore?

I heard they moved down south.

Waxxa

22nd January 2008, 15:41

When ever you (I) get pulled over for speeding, always ask to look at cops radar and always ask for a calibration certificate from the cops for their radar.

If they cant produce the certificate it will give you a possible case to get off the infringement (which happened in my case) . Also helps if a riding buddy or pillion can collabarate your asking of the certificate.

spudchucka

22nd January 2008, 16:23

Certificates of accuracy are not kept in police cars. You are entitled to receive a copy of it but don't expect to get off a ticket because a cop couldn't produce it when requested at the road side.

scracha

22nd January 2008, 17:38

Nah, just kiss their arse before bending over as you're gonna get fucked one way or another. They're racist too...you always get the book thrown at you if you weren't born on this island.

Waxxa

23rd January 2008, 07:21

Your right Spudchucka! My post was short and vague.
If you do want to contest your ticket you need to be as detailed as possible with your facts and version of events. This is where a witness like a pillion is handy.

You need officers' numbers, name (if possible), unit number (car) and rego, what questions the officer ask you, times, your version of events, as much detail as possible and you need to write it down, as a record, on the spot. Part of that record is that you asked for the calibration certificate. The cops will have to produce that proof of calibration (and it wont be roadside as Spudchucka said). You are trying to vindicate yourself, write down everything that occurred.

Though KBers, you have to be adamant that it wasn't you speeding, that he did bust the wrong rider. If you got sprung fair and square, you will have to suck up the ticket fine, demerit points or possible loss of licence.

There's no point in antagonising a cop when you were actually speeding and are annoyed that you did get caught.

spudchucka

23rd January 2008, 08:58

If you are planning on defending a ticket just write in to request a hearing and ask for full disclosure. The certificate of accuracy is part of the disclosure, as are the cops training certificate and notes made at the time etc. It makes no difference whether you asked the cop at the road side for the certificate of accuracy or not.

SixPackBack

1st July 2009, 08:07

SixPackBack

1st July 2009, 08:57

..............I have just read this entire thread and it is more than obvious it has been interfered with.? A member called Dynamytus50 has posted and with the exception of quotes all evidence of his presence has been erased, in fact Dynamytus50 is not in the member list?......what gives mods?

Swoop

1st July 2009, 09:18

SixPackBack

1st July 2009, 09:31

Has D50 changed his username?
He is a cop.

He was/is a cop, and from memory most definitely on the 'right side'......just doing some 'Detective' work to find out what happened to him hahaha...

Ixion

1st July 2009, 11:11

SixPackBack

1st July 2009, 11:23

I do not know anything about the status of Mr Dynamytus50.

But I do know that at least one police officer member got into quite serious trouble for posting on this site. Even though it was in a purely personal capacity.

And consequently he (the member) went through and deleted all his posts, and had his membership removed (about the only time that ever happens I think).

I know of another member involved in emergency services (not a cop) who has had the same experience.

So I think maybe that is why Mr Dynamytus50 has 'disappeared"

The plod do not like their members consorting with the enemy. Which says a great deal about the attitude of the cop top brass , actually (in their case it's really top tin, they have silver braid not gold)

'Enemy' is the correct term Ixion. It seems the top brass prefer to see officers divorced from the general public.
How refreshing it would be if an 'official' police log-on existed on KB, a place to ask questions, point out dodgy police behaviour [in the hope some form of follow up and transparency could exist]. And in return the police could provide guidance to members, a vanilla personality might be needed but I could see it gaining traction [after the shit fights had calmed down hahaha].
Instead we are left with secrecy, mistrust and a perpetual worsening of public relations.