Unbelieveable cop negligence

[Quasievil]

We just received a phone call from a cop who gave me the outcome of a situation we were involved in on tuesday.
I was travelling with my colleuges back from Auckland to Hammy after my flight back into NZ, we were behind a hyundia Stellar which wouldnt keep a constant speed 100km/h then 60km/h we went to pass he would speed up, we came up to Ohinewhai 4 lanes and went to pass, he saw this and swerved in front of us causing us to nearly hit the Armco, we stayed behind and dialled *555 , while giving directions to the cops the "offender"went out into oncoming traffic and narrowly missed a head on.
The cops pulled him over in Huntly which was great, they uncovered he was on "spray" and was off his face, he was also an illegal driver ie no licence.
we gave our account and left the scene while the driver was processed.
the cop rang today and said that he came right after 5 mins, he was on his way to Wellington,so he booked him for careless driving and sent him on his way!!!!!!
Now I find that completely inexcusable, he was obviously a danger to everyone on the road he had no licence.
No poetic licence was used this is exactly how it happened and exactly what the cop said, so Craig from Huntly police stn SHAME ON YOU MATE!!!!!!!!

[StoneChucker]

I feel so much safer on the roads now :sneaky2: I wonder how eager they would be to admit any fault if after they let the driver go, he had a head on and killed someone?!!

This is ofcourse assuming he did have no licence (maybe after you left they found he did have a licence? Still...) And, what is "Spray"?

[Cajun]

We just received a phone call from a cop who gave me the outcome of a situation we were involved in on tuesday.
I was travelling with my colleuges back from Auckland to Hammy after my flight back into NZ, we were behind a hyundia Stellar which wouldnt keep a constant speed 100km/h then 60km/h we went to pass he would speed up, we came up to Ohinewhai 4 lanes and went to pass, he saw this and swerved in front of us causing us to nearly hit the Armco, we stayed behind and dialled *555 , while giving directions to the cops the "offender"went out into oncoming traffic and narrowly missed a head on.
The cops pulled him over in Huntly which was great, they uncovered he was on "spray" and was off his face, he was also an illegal driver ie no licence.
we gave our account and left the scene while the driver was processed.
the cop rang today and said that he came right after 5 mins, he was on his way to Wellington,so he booked him for careless driving and sent him on his way!!!!!!
Now I find that completely inexcusable, he was obviously a danger to everyone on the road he had no licence.
No poetic licence was used this is exactly how it happened and exactly what the cop said, so Craig from Huntly police stn SHAME ON YOU MATE!!!!!!!!


Isn't your car meant to be impounded if you have no licence?

[Quasievil]

I feel so much safer on the roads now :sneaky2: I wonder how eager they would be to admit any fault if after they let the driver go, he had a head on and killed someone?!!

This is ofcourse assuming he did have no licence (maybe after you left they found he did have a licence? Still...) And, what is "Spray"?

well the cop said he had no licience, spray is aerosol, gets you high

[aff-man]

We just received a phone call from a cop who gave me the outcome of a situation we were involved in on tuesday.
I was travelling with my colleuges back from Auckland to Hammy after my flight back into NZ, we were behind a hyundia Stellar which wouldnt keep a constant speed 100km/h then 60km/h we went to pass he would speed up, we came up to Ohinewhai 4 lanes and went to pass, he saw this and swerved in front of us causing us to nearly hit the Armco, we stayed behind and dialled *555 , while giving directions to the cops the "offender"went out into oncoming traffic and narrowly missed a head on.
The cops pulled him over in Huntly which was great, they uncovered he was on "spray" and was off his face, he was also an illegal driver ie no licence.
we gave our account and left the scene while the driver was processed.
the cop rang today and said that he came right after 5 mins, he was on his way to Wellington,so he booked him for careless driving and sent him on his way!!!!!!
Now I find that completely inexcusable, he was obviously a danger to everyone on the road he had no licence.
No poetic licence was used this is exactly how it happened and exactly what the cop said, so Craig from Huntly police stn SHAME ON YOU MATE!!!!!!!!
idiots whats the bet he would be taking all the corners wide cause he couldn't judge them and bang there goes a head on or even worse another dead brutha. Now with the cops giving so many tickets to try and make the road SAFER what the hell does letting someone like that go do for road safety :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:

[Quasievil]

I feel so much safer on the roads now :sneaky2: I wonder how eager they would be to admit any fault if after they let the driver go, he had a head on and killed someone?!!

This is ofcourse assuming he did have no licence (maybe after you left they found he did have a licence? Still...) And, what is "Spray"?
Spray is aerosol and gets you high, if he had killed someone I would be talking to the media, Im quite pissed about it

[Blakamin]

Un fuckin real.... another moron to look out for!.. now if he had a sustained loss of traction he wouldnt have a car...

[NC]

Why does that NOT suprise me?

I have the up most respect for cops, but just some of them piss me off! :angry2:

Like the guy that tried to press charges against me cause I was defending myself cause he was choking me. When I said to him that I couldn’t breathe, he told me I was still talking to I must be able too. :mad:

It's not my bloody fault that I broke 6 of his fingers, spilt his nose open and dislocated his shoulder cause he wouldn't let go.:D

Apparently I apologized to him too :spudwhat:

[dhunt]

We just received a phone call from a cop who gave me the outcome of a situation we were involved in on tuesday.
I was travelling with my colleuges back from Auckland to Hammy after my flight back into NZ, we were behind a hyundia Stellar which wouldnt keep a constant speed 100km/h then 60km/h we went to pass he would speed up, we came up to Ohinewhai 4 lanes and went to pass, he saw this and swerved in front of us causing us to nearly hit the Armco, we stayed behind and dialled *555 , while giving directions to the cops the "offender"went out into oncoming traffic and narrowly missed a head on.
The cops pulled him over in Huntly which was great, they uncovered he was on "spray" and was off his face, he was also an illegal driver ie no licence.
we gave our account and left the scene while the driver was processed.
the cop rang today and said that he came right after 5 mins, he was on his way to Wellington,so he booked him for careless driving and sent him on his way!!!!!!
Now I find that completely inexcusable, he was obviously a danger to everyone on the road he had no licence.
No poetic licence was used this is exactly how it happened and exactly what the cop said, so Craig from Huntly police stn SHAME ON YOU MATE!!!!!!!!
Just curious did you say anything to the cop when he rang you today regarding what the guy was charged on?

[Cajun]

Why does that NOT suprise me?

I have the up most respect for cops, but just some of them piss me off! :angry2:

Like the guy that tried to press charges against me cause I was defending myself cause he was choking me. When I said to him that I couldn’t breathe, he told me I was still talking to I must be able too. :mad:

It's not my bloody fault that I broke 6 of his fingers, spilt his nose open and dislocated his shoulder cause he would let go.:D

Apparently I apologized to him too :spudwhat:

hahahhaa :kick:

[Joni]

Why does that NOT suprise me?

I have the up most respect for cops, but just some of them piss me off! :angry2:

Like the guy that tried to press charges against me cause I was defending myself cause he was choking me. When I said to him that I couldn’t breathe, he told me I was still talking to I must be able too. :mad:

It's not my bloody fault that I broke 6 of his fingers, spilt his nose open and dislocated his shoulder cause he would let go.:D

Apparently I apologized to him too :spudwhat:


aaaah and suddenly you take me back to memories to good old Johannesburg, was hijacked, 6 witnesses saw that I was held at gun point - police claim its my word against his.... huh!!!!!

Yeah NC, I have the utmost respect for the police, the things they deal with on a daily basis is something I would not want to see in my entire life - but like anything else, there are those few little rotten eggs... :mad:

[Paul in NZ]

Imagine using that a defence for drinking??

I guess the problem is an effective roadside test for those types of drugs. Until the cop has that he/she is leaving themselves wide open (I suppose).

Knowing someone is high as a kite is one thing, proving it in a court case 6 weeks later is another thing altogether unless you have evidence. The guy sobered up pretty quickly so I guess that means driving him to a doctor or a police station would not work either.

It's a shit but apparently the police are not allowed to arrest people they think are idiots. You have to wait until they cross the line and you can prove it. Maybe a video camera would work?

Paul N

[shandawg]

Far out :wacko:

I know it's hard for the police to catch the real offenders sometimes, but what about that guy! There's one!

:niceone:

[marty]

maybe you should make a formal complaint - you could do it in the time it took to write this post. There is nothing to be gained from bitching on here about it.

[Coyote]

What really pisses me off is that now the police is targeting speed and putting all their resorces into that, they piss around with everything else. We had the worst neighbours in the world, the ones that would make white trash look like royalty, and they were constantly harrasing us. We constantly asked for the police to stop these dickheads but they did nothing.

However, the police did come round at 3:00 am to our place when they got a complaint from our neighbours that we had our porchlight on, and it was disrupting their sleep:angry2: :angry2: :angry2:

[spudchucka]

We just received a phone call from a cop who gave me the outcome of a situation we were involved in on tuesday.
I was travelling with my colleuges back from Auckland to Hammy after my flight back into NZ, we were behind a hyundia Stellar which wouldnt keep a constant speed 100km/h then 60km/h we went to pass he would speed up, we came up to Ohinewhai 4 lanes and went to pass, he saw this and swerved in front of us causing us to nearly hit the Armco, we stayed behind and dialled *555 , while giving directions to the cops the "offender"went out into oncoming traffic and narrowly missed a head on.
The cops pulled him over in Huntly which was great, they uncovered he was on "spray" and was off his face, he was also an illegal driver ie no licence.
we gave our account and left the scene while the driver was processed.
the cop rang today and said that he came right after 5 mins, he was on his way to Wellington,so he booked him for careless driving and sent him on his way!!!!!!
Now I find that completely inexcusable, he was obviously a danger to everyone on the road he had no licence.
No poetic licence was used this is exactly how it happened and exactly what the cop said, so Craig from Huntly police stn SHAME ON YOU MATE!!!!!!!!
I can understand from your story why you are pissed off but before everyone crucifies this cop lets look at what the possible outcomes were.

1: If the guy is driving without a licence and has not been previously forbidden to drive then about all the cop could do is give him a $400 ticket and take the keys off him. The keys could then be picked up by any fully licenced driver that he brings into the station to uplift them. There is no power to impound the vehicle in this instance.

2: If the guy is unlicenced and has been forbidden to drive then the law says that the car must be impounded for 28 days. Its one of the only areas in law that gives police power where the word "must" is used. The driver could be arrested however this has been frowned upon in the past and unless arrest is absolutely necessary then a summons is prefered. So if this was the case the guy should have got a Traffic Offence Notice and his car taken off him.

3: If the guy was charged with Careless there is no power of arrest so again he would have got a TON and would be later summonsed to court. Again if he was unlicensed and forbidden to drive then the above would also apply.

4: You can charge a person with driving under the influence of drugs however I'm not sure off the top of my head that an aerosol spray would be considered a drug. In any case to prove it would require a doctors assessment and a blood test and considering how quickly these things wear off by the time a Dr was located there would be stuff all chance of proving anything.

Also I would like to know exactly what the cop meant when he said he "sent him on his way". Are you 100% sure that he put the guy back in his car and sent him on his merry way? If the guy was unlicensed then I'm sure that would not be the case and it certainly wouldn't be the case if the guy was forbidden to drive or disqualified.

Don't forget that cops have to act within the law and just because you think something should happen, (like that guy getting locked up because he is a menace) doesn't mean it can legally happen from a law enforcement point of view.

By the way I totally agree that the guy should not be permitted anywhere near a motor vehicle but the outcomes are limited by what is allowable under the current legislation.

[Hooks]

maybe you should make a formal complaint - you could do it in the time it took to write this post. There is nothing to be gained from bitching on here about it.


Yeah !!! What he said !! ... don't bitch mate, get it sorted and make a complaint or else he will do it again and someone WILL die ...... Anyone who displays poor judgement in a position that requires them to be making calls in an on-going role should be put under scrutiny immediately .... They are as dangerous as those they are supposed to be saving us from.

[Lou Girardin]

Same old justifications from our friend. I'm interested to hear what he says about Ireana Asher (Rave On). It starting to sound like Canute has a modern accolyte.
Whatever cops do it's never wrong.

[Hooks]

Hey Spud ... you're nearly a whore ... better get your permit !! ... :whistle:

[spudchucka]

Same old justifications from our friend. I'm interested to hear what he says about Ireana Asher (Rave On). It starting to sound like Canute has a modern accolyte.
Whatever cops do it's never wrong.
I'm not saying that what was done was right or wrong or justifying anything. All I did was give an account of what could have legally happened as an outcome. If people want to judge the guy at least make it an informed judgement.

Good to see you have confirmed you only posted that other thread as a big old troll, as usual.

[marty]

4: You can charge a person with driving under the influence of drugs however I'm not sure off the top of my head that an aerosol spray would be considered a drug. In any case to prove it would require a doctors assessment and a blood test and considering how quickly these things wear off by the time a Dr was located there would be stuff all chance of proving anything.

.'driving under the influence of a drink or drug'. petrol/aerosol/glue etc are not covered by this legislation. being creative with dangerous/reckless when people have been sniffing HAS been known to work, but it is very difficult, and invariably endures the wrath of the bench, as it is so difficult to prove - there is no legislative power to require a blood test, or even a drs examination - this is the same for DUI drugs - it is up to the individual to volunteer to the test, unless they are under arrest for another related offence (eg dangerous), and the drs exam is done subsequent to that (it is considered a search subsequent to arrest). the bleating liberals though, after insisting that the traffic legislation is broadened to 'protect' themselves, now bleat that the police powers are too oppressive, and defend them in court when they themselves are caught, leading to case law being created, making it difficult for the legislation to be utilised to get guys like this off the street.....

[spudchucka]

the bleating liberals though, after insisting that the traffic legislation is broadened to 'protect' themselves, now bleat that the police powers are too oppressive, and defend them in court when they themselves are caught, leading to case law being created, making it difficult for the legislation to be utilised to get guys like this off the street.....
There is just no pleasing the Lou's of this world. They are born to whinge!

[riffer]

At the end of the day, its the usual story. The legal process works on a series of steps that must be followed. And this means that you if you are a dishonourable, direputable criminal minded oxygen-stealer you will be able to manipulate the system to gain an advantage over your fellow, honest honourable man.

Disappointing, and dangerous, but this is the price we pay for our free society. The bad people will always take advantage of the good.

I would hope the person driving had a friend who was capable of driving, ad the police allowed him to take over the wheel of the car.

Maybe you should ring him again, Quasi.

[scumdog]

Same old justifications from our friend. I'm interested to hear what he says about Ireana Asher (Rave On). It starting to sound like Canute has a modern accolyte.
Whatever cops do it's never wrong.

Grow up Lou, do something positive - or get another windmill to tilt at!! - or stop :moon: trolling!! :confused:

[Quasievil]

Thanks spud, I was interested in all that, apparently he did let him continue on his jorney, I guess his judgement must have been sound, I guess I was a bit shocked to hear it is all. Personally i would have taken his keys for a period of time Im sure cops can do that

anyway, focusing on the Rally

Later people

[Blakamin]

Ok.,... dont wanna stir shit, but what about motorway patrol when they let the unlicenced driver drive his car home????

[NC]

There is just no pleasing the Lou's of this world. They are born to whinge!



The Snozberries, taste like? Snozberries!!!

[scumdog]

Thanks spud, I was interested in all that, apparently he did let him continue on his jorney, I guess his judgement must have been sound, I guess I was a bit shocked to hear it is all. Personally i would have taken his keys for a period of time Im sure cops can do that

anyway, focusing on the Rally

Later people

Yeah, we CAN forbid them if we see fit but hey, who knows the circumstances of this case?

[spudchucka]

Thanks spud, I was interested in all that, apparently he did let him continue on his jorney, I guess his judgement must have been sound, I guess I was a bit shocked to hear it is all. Personally i would have taken his keys for a period of time Im sure cops can do that

anyway, focusing on the Rally

Later people
I certainly would have taken the guiys keys and forbid him to drive for 12 hours. Its not a guarantee that he won't drive but at least you've done something positive.

I understand why you would be frustrated but the cop may not have had too many options. Only he will know the full story so we're only guessing here.

[spudchucka]

Ok.,... dont wanna stir shit, but what about motorway patrol when they let the unlicenced driver drive his car home????
Didn't see it but I've escorted unlicenced drivers home in the past so that the vehicle isn't left somewhere that it could be a hazard or get stolen.

[spudchucka]

The Snozberries, taste like? Snozberries!!!
Hey man, you just ate like $100 worth of grass and $30 of shrooms.............So I'm gonna need like $130 bucks from you....OK! :spudwave:

[Paul in NZ]

Same old justifications from our friend. I'm interested to hear what he says about Ireana Asher (Rave On). It starting to sound like Canute has a modern accolyte.
Whatever cops do it's never wrong.

Oh for goodness sake...

Read what the man said. He is constrained by the LAW. A law he follows and at least he had the moxy to ring the complainent and deliver the out come.

Why have a go at the cop because of a bloody stupid law and the fact they don't have the means to deliver an evidential test on the side of the road!

If the law is faulty, do something about it. It's your right (that people died for)

Don't kick the cops arse for following the law. He probably hated it 1000 time worse than you did!

It's when the police DON'T feel the need to follow the law of the land that problems arise.

Paul N

[scumdog]

Oh for goodness sake...

Read what the man said. He is constrained by the LAW. A law he follows and at least he had the moxy to ring the complainent and deliver the out come.

Why have a go at the cop because of a bloody stupid law and the fact they don't have the means to deliver an evidential test on the side of the road!

If the law is faulty, do something about it. It's your right (that people died for)

Don't kick the cops arse for following the law. He probably hated it 1000 time worse than you did!

It's when the police DON'T feel the need to follow the law of the land that problems arise.

Paul N

Good on you Paul for having the gumption to say what is true, I take my hat off to you!!!

Often it is sooo easy to 'shoot the message bearer' rather than the issuer of said message~!! :argh:

[marty]

and meanwhile in the post-weekend get together thread, there are more than a couple of stories of guys being let off/growled/not even stopped for what would appear to be pretty quick speeds! quota? obviously bullshit. discretion? can you say discretion, lou?

[Stinger]

and meanwhile in the post-weekend get together thread, there are more than a couple of stories of guys being let off/growled/not even stopped for what would appear to be pretty quick speeds! quota? obviously bullshit. discretion? can you say discretion, lou?

Yeah, when I was on my learner licence I got stopped and I wasn't displaying my L plate, and I was going at about 90 on the southern motorway. The cop used his discretion and let me off, which in my case was exactly the right course of action I think. I realised that the potential for $600 worth of fines just wasn't worth it and I put my L plate on and pretty much kept to the speed limit.

So I think we've got to be fair to the good cops out there. My concern however is that the politicians are putting in more quota systems where it's just not going to be in the police's best interest to let anyone off - or they won't fill their quota.

[DEATH_INC.]

Spud,why would he not have been charged with dangerous driving if he was being that reckless?

[spudchucka]

Spud,why would he not have been charged with dangerous driving if he was being that reckless?
Not being there I can't say exactly but really it comes down to what you can prove. It pretty much depends on circumstances though, how many coroborating witnesses you have and how good their statements are. If you had two or three compelling witnesses (unrelated to each other, as in not from the same vehicle) that were prepared to go to court then you would look at dangerous. He was probably only charged with careless because it is the easiest to prove. That might sound like a lazy approach but its better than charging him with something that can't be proven in court, even if you know it is the more appropriate charge.

I'm only speculating, without speaking to the cop involved , who can say??

[marty]

dangerous and reckless are two different charges, although to add confusion they are found under the same section. reckless is EXTEREMELY hard to prove, and really the only time i can recall someone being charged with reckless is when they drive in a dangerous manner, AFTER being flashed with blue and reds, or told by their friwends to slow down, as the INTENT of the driving changes - it has gone from simply being dangerous to persons/property, to being reckless as to whether person/property are put at risk. the difficulty with reckless is proving the intent to be reckless, and it is a brave prosecutor that will run a reckless over a dangerous charge.
is that your experience scumdog/spudchucker et al?

[Coldkiwi]

hmm, sounds like Quasi and co would definitely have agreed to a definition of dangerous driving. What do you think Brett?

Isn't it a little ironic that it only needs corroboration from witnesses to make a dangerous/careless driving charge stick but it requires a medical professional to decide if drugs are involved? If someone is high as a kite, its surely pretty obvious and if everyone standing around agree's then whats the problem with saying 'hey, we couldn't test for it, but the fool could barely stand up and is clearly not capable of driving safely'.

Honestly, if more people rode bikes, the amount of drink/drugged driving would manage it self I think! (how far do you reckon a drunk could ride before crashing?) :)

[KATWYN]

aaaah and suddenly you take me back to memories to good old Johannesburg, was hijacked, 6 witnesses saw that I was held at gun point - police claim its my word against his.... huh!!!!!

:


A few months ago we had a nut case come into work asking for money-
(we are out of the public eye )

I did'nt ask questions,it was clearly a threatening situation- his eyes were glazed over from what ever he was on & making " I won't take no for an answer" demands.....so I gave the guy $150.00 dollers. Anyway when he
left we went to the police.....

Upon description the police had been looking for this guy that day.

All we got was "so why did you give him the money?"

and "next time if he turns up and threatens you, excuse yourself from him
and ring the police immediataly" :laugh: :thud:

All this because "he never physically harmed us or had a weapon" so he hasn't really done anything wrong.

[spudchucka]

and it is a brave prosecutor that will run a reckless over a dangerous charge.
is that your experience scumdog/spudchucker et al?
I've not charged anyone with reckless, however I've been involved in a few jobs that resulted in reckless charges being laid (no, not against me). One that comes to mind was a wanted crim trying to evade capture, he tried on several occasions to ram police vehicles in order to get away. He was eventually run off the road and locked up.

[scumdog]

dangerous and reckless are two different charges, although to add confusion they are found under the same section. reckless is EXTEREMELY hard to prove, and really the only time i can recall someone being charged with reckless is when they drive in a dangerous manner, AFTER being flashed with blue and reds, or told by their friwends to slow down, as the INTENT of the driving changes - it has gone from simply being dangerous to persons/property, to being reckless as to whether person/property are put at risk. the difficulty with reckless is proving the intent to be reckless, and it is a brave prosecutor that will run a reckless over a dangerous charge.
is that your experience scumdog/spudchucker et al?

Pretty much sums it up, you don't see many charged with reckless, too hard to prove if the guy goes not guilty, makes more sense to go for the dangerous driving, less hassle and more likely to succeed. :Police:

[KATWYN]

So, if any police read my previous thread- I am seriously
confused about how to train staff in these situations
after this incident- have asked another ex cop since
and he couldn't answer the question either???

I have always thought, you do what they say in a threatening
situation

[spudchucka]

If someone is high as a kite, its surely pretty obvious and if everyone standing around agree's then whats the problem with saying 'hey, we couldn't test for it, but the fool could barely stand up and is clearly not capable of driving safely'.

The problem is that the court won't accept "opinion" evidence unless the person giving that evidence is qualified as an expert in that field. Opinion evidence is like hearsay evidence, its genrally not allowed in court unless it is reckognised as being "Expert Opinion" evidence.


Isn't it a little ironic that it only needs corroboration from witnesses to make a dangerous/careless driving charge stick but it requires a medical professional to decide if drugs are involved?
Some medical conditions can display symptoms of intoxication, a person having a diabetic crash can appear as if they are drunk. A doctor is required to make an assessment otherwise there will be too much doubt.

As for proving dangerous or reckless driving, the witnesses give there evidence to the court, (describe what happened, what they saw etc) if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the persons driving was dangerous or reckless then the court may well convict. If the police have 10 witnesses, unrelated to each other, who all saw the same thing from different angles then that is going to be pretty compelling evidence. If they only have one witness saying this and the defendant is saying that, the cop wasn't there and didn't see it and only charged the guy on the basis of the witnesses statement, then its going to be a lot tougher to prove anything.


Honestly, if more people rode bikes, the amount of drink/drugged driving would manage it self I think! (how far do you reckon a drunk could ride before crashing?) :)
Natural selection at its finest............so long as noboby else gets killed, aye!

[spudchucka]

So, if any police read my previous thread- I am seriously
confused about how to train staff in these situations
after this incident- have asked another ex cop since
and he couldn't answer the question either???

I have always thought, you do what they say in a threatening
situation
Sorry, I'm not sure what thread you are talking about????

[Coldkiwi]

Natural selection at its finest............so long as noboby else gets killed, aye!

well, if they're riding harleys (you know most of the populace would get a harley first if forced onto a bike because they don't know anything else)... they wouldn't be going very fast! :lol:

[scumdog]

well, if they're riding harleys (you know most of the populace would get a harley first if forced onto a bike because they don't know anything else)... they wouldn't be going very fast! :lol:


Ooooh! Oooooh! - I could so bitch-slap you for that Ck if I diddn't know you were such a troll!!!!

(retires to room in tears in case it's not a troll) :crybaby:

[spudchucka]

A few months ago we had a nut case come into work asking for money-
(we are out of the public eye )

I did'nt ask questions,it was clearly a threatening situation- his eyes were glazed over from what ever he was on & making " I won't take no for an answer" demands.....so I gave the guy $150.00 dollers. Anyway when he
left we went to the police.....

Upon description the police had been looking for this guy that day.

All we got was "so why did you give him the money?"

and "next time if he turns up and threatens you, excuse yourself from him
and ring the police immediataly" :laugh: :thud:

All this because "he never physically harmed us or had a weapon" so he hasn't really done anything wrong.
Sorry, I hadn't seen this post before now, I was looking for a different thread.

I'd like to know a bit more if possible. How was he threatening? Was it his words, his behaviour, his appearance? You mentioned that he didn't have a weapon, can you be sure of that? Why were the police looking for him?

If you feel that you are in immediate danger if you don't comply then I'd suggest doing what he asks. If you are sure he is not armed and you are confident that you can protect yourself then ring the police, tell him to piss off, kick him in the nuts, run out into the street and scream for help, whatever you think is the best option. The important thing is don't put yourself in a position where he can hurt you, its not worth it.

As for an offence, if he threatened you with violence if you did not hand over money then that is a robbery. If he just looked and acted threateningly and you gave him the money simply because you were scared of him and you wanted him to go away then that would be stretching things somewhat. For instance if a 7 foot tall Mongrel Mob memeber, all stinky and moko'd up walks into the corner dairy and says "give me some smokes" and the shop keeper craps himself at the sight of the guy, chucks him a carton and then runs and hides, is that robbery?

[Quasievil]

hmm, sounds like Quasi and co would definitely have agreed to a definition of dangerous driving. What do you think Brett?

Isn't it a little ironic that it only needs corroboration from witnesses to make a dangerous/careless driving charge stick but it requires a medical professional to decide if drugs are involved? If someone is high as a kite, its surely pretty obvious and if everyone standing around agree's then whats the problem with saying 'hey, we couldn't test for it, but the fool could barely stand up and is clearly not capable of driving safely'.

Honestly, if more people rode bikes, the amount of drink/drugged driving would manage it self I think! (how far do you reckon a drunk could ride before crashing?) :)
Well typically this has gone on for a huge debate, keep it simple .
Cops are representative of the LAW and IF the Law is an Arse so are the cops that represent it,I could have been killed I was on state one when a drugged driver served unexpectatly in front of ME and I left the road and went on the middle strip , I was lucky.
I RANG the cops to tell them, the cops stopped him, THE COPS LET HIM KEEP GOING all the way to Welly or whereever. The cop was a negligent as was the law HE REPRESENTS.
if the law cant protect its citizens from an obvious threat to peoples lives then it is an Arse as is those that represent the law.
simple end of story, i dont particulary care about the ins and outs of wreckless vs dangerous or about power of arrest or what a cop can and cant do its simple isnt it ?? a drugged driver was driving on the road and was permitted after soberring up 5 mins to keep going, so the law is an arse.
He should have lost his rights to drive for a period of time longer than 5 mins, the stupid prick probably had another breath from the glue /paint bag after he was let go!!!
Bloody hopeless:brick: :brick: :brick:

[KATWYN]

Sorry, I hadn't seen this post before now, I was looking for a different thread.

I'd like to know a bit more if possible. How was he threatening? Was it his words, his behaviour, his appearance? You mentioned that he didn't have a weapon, can you be sure of that? Why were the police looking for him?

If he just looked and acted threateningly and you gave him the money simply because you were scared of him and you wanted him to go away then that would be stretching things somewhat. For instance if a 7 foot tall Mongrel Mob memeber, all stinky and moko'd up walks into the corner dairy and says "give me some smokes" and the shop keeper craps himself at the sight of the guy, chucks him a carton and then runs and hides, is that robbery?

You pretty much got it in one, it was definitely just getting what you want using intimidation. There were three of us in my office. It was
pretty small and he was in the way of the "escape route"...so #1/ nowhere to run

#2/ yea the whole tats all over the face,neck,hands thing-but I tend to not
get too worried about that sort of thing.

#3/ my husband was in the office he is over 6 foot and 18 stone....and I found out afterwards he was feeling threatened at the time, but felt he could have a good go at the guy if he had pulled a knife...It appears I was the one feeling most threatened in the incident.

#4/ My 17 year old sister n law was outside aware of what was going on in the office and was really worried (prior,I had told her to stay in the car with the dog and not get out) - later she told me, she wanted to ring the police when we were all in the office, but instead she did what I told her....and that was to stay in the car with the dog.

#5/ His personality changed from "charming to aggressive" when hubby told him "why should we give you money".....thats when I could sense the unpredictibility

#6/ The police said he is "red flagged" (whatever that means) and that they were looking for him that day because he had intimidated some other people into giving him money as well. They said he had a list of drug related
and assault offences- but weren't prepared to tell us more.

My main concerns were with my 17 year old s'n'law as because of the constables comments etc she was very confused about giving or not giving money if you are feeling threatened in the future.

Thanks Spud I will pass the info on to her as well.

[scumdog]

.
or about power of arrest or what a cop can and cant do its simple isnt it ?? a drugged driver was driving on the road and was permitted after soberring up 5 mins to keep going, so the law is an arse.
He should have lost his rights to drive for a period of time longer than 5 mins, the stupid prick probably had another breath from the glue /paint bag after he was let go!!!
Bloody hopeless:brick: :brick: :brick:

Do what I have done (in a past life)
The driver was incapable at 5:30a.m. he ran off but left a passenger, I grabbed the keys, opened the bonnet, reached in and grabbed a handful of wires and HEAVED, there was a lot of snapping and cracking noise, then I threw away into the darkness the fistful of wires I had ripped out.

Car was stuck there that long I just KNOW the driver didn't drive drunk for many hours (days?) surprisingly no complaint and saved giving some poor cop more work.(I had no way of calling one anyway).

[2_SL0]

Dial 111, for the new Auckland Taxi service.
:killingme

[Gixxer]

Why does that NOT suprise me?

I have the up most respect for cops, but just some of them piss me off! :angry2:

Like the guy that tried to press charges against me cause I was defending myself cause he was choking me. When I said to him that I couldn’t breathe, he told me I was still talking to I must be able too. :mad:

It's not my bloody fault that I broke 6 of his fingers, spilt his nose open and dislocated his shoulder cause he wouldn't let go.:D

Apparently I apologized to him too :spudwhat:

Sorry, not sure if I missed something, was the guy choking you a cop?

[750Y]

...the "offender" went out into oncoming traffic and narrowly missed a head on....they uncovered he was on "spray" and was off his face...he was obviously a danger to everyone on the road

yeah that's bad news glad no-one was hurt, I've seen exactly the same thing..when the young woman in a 2 door hatch, also 'on spray', drifted across the centreline head on into a BMW 2 up from me. I was first to the car and found 4 kids in that car, none with seatbelts. when the driver(who had her own belt on which i'd cut off) came to and became abusive i felt like laying her out on the spot, but there were more importanat things going on at the time.
take it easy out there peoples and try to learn from others mistakes before someone gets hurt.
as for the cop.. i'm amazed.

[sAsLEX]

#6/ The police said he is "red flagged" (whatever that means) and that they were looking for him that day because he had intimidated some other people into giving him money as well. They said he had a list of drug related
and assault offences- but weren't prepared to tell us more.



well I feel safer now that they "flag" scum that go around using intimidation to take money from other law abiding citizens. We could replace prison with harsher colors and maybe even make them wear the flag around so we can spot them,

[spudchucka]

Well typically this has gone on for a huge debate, keep it simple .
Cops are representative of the LAW and IF the Law is an Arse so are the cops that represent it,I could have been killed I was on state one when a drugged driver served unexpectatly in front of ME and I left the road and went on the middle strip , I was lucky.
I RANG the cops to tell them, the cops stopped him, THE COPS LET HIM KEEP GOING all the way to Welly or whereever. The cop was a negligent as was the law HE REPRESENTS.
if the law cant protect its citizens from an obvious threat to peoples lives then it is an Arse as is those that represent the law.
simple end of story, i dont particulary care about the ins and outs of wreckless vs dangerous or about power of arrest or what a cop can and cant do its simple isnt it ?? a drugged driver was driving on the road and was permitted after soberring up 5 mins to keep going, so the law is an arse.
He should have lost his rights to drive for a period of time longer than 5 mins, the stupid prick probably had another breath from the glue /paint bag after he was let go!!!
Bloody hopeless:brick: :brick: :brick:

You don't have to say much to convince me that we need stronger laws, harsher penalties and more wide ranging police powers to deal with these sorts of vermin. Problem is we live in a country full of lefties that think that sort of thing is an infringement on their rights.

[spudchucka]

My main concerns were with my 17 year old s'n'law as because of the constables comments etc she was very confused about giving or not giving money if you are feeling threatened in the future.

Thanks Spud I will pass the info on to her as well.
The cop was wrong. You should always think of your own personal safety first.

[Pixie]

The cop hierarchy have decreed that traffic police concentrate enforcement on Joe and Jane average,as they trot off to the court and pay their fine like good little kiwis.After all,it's no use giving a ticket to a gang member who just tears it up,where's the revenue in that?

[inlinefour]

At the end of the day the law can be a real arse at times and we should not allways blame the Copper(s) involved. Aerosoles are a dangerous thing, this person will probably die rather young if he/she continues with the useage. I do know that individuals can come down rather quick off the crap. The important thing would be to take the aerosole off them. Mr Huntley copper does a good job, allways working when I'm off up north to see my boy. No point slagging off the Copper involved as I'm sure he would have done all that he could. I'm just surprised if he let the unlicienced individual drive away. Don't let the media know if thats the case...

[NC]

Sorry, not sure if I missed something, was the guy choking you a cop?
No he wasn't a cop...
You don't do that to cops.

[denill]

I'm just surprised if he let the unlicienced individual drive away...

After following this thread - I think it is quite probable that there was some confusion in the cop's telling Quasievil of the outcome. (that the driver was allowed to continue driving.)

If the thread is to have any validity Quasievil would need to verify that point. But who can blame him if he just wants to flag it???????????

[WINJA]

maybe you should make a formal complaint - you could do it in the time it took to write this post. There is nothing to be gained from bitching on here about it.
THERES PLENTY TO BE GAINED BY BITCHING HERE, FOR A START IM INTERESTED AND WANT TO HEAR WHATS HAPPENING, AND EVERYONE SHOULD BE ALLOWWED AN OPINOIN .
IM JUST REAL SUPRISED THE POLICE LET HIM GO WITH NO LICENCE BUT IVE BEEN WITH A GUY WHO WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO RIDE WITH NO LICENCE AS HE INSISTED HE DID HAVE ONE IT WASNT ON HIM AND THE COMPUTER THEY WERE CHECKING WITH MUST BE FUCKED, HE WAS RIGHT AND THEY TOOK HIS WORD FOR IT.

[peterjdaly]

The law as it stands was clearly written by someone who has never had to enforce it. :weep: :weep: :weep: If the guy had no licence at all he would have been forbidden from driving. It's a legal process. If he was then caught driving the car would be gone for 28 days.Trouble is, if he is in breach of an existing licence (like driving a car on a bike licence, or breaking every condition of a learners or restricted) all the cop can do is write the ticket, and let the lunatic go on his way. I guess that one was written by someone with an interest in a career in the Treasury.

:done:

[Stevo]

In future you'll have to carry your digicam with ya so so you tape proceedings. Cannot surely be more compelling evidence than this.

IMHO. I'm glad you managed to avoid disaster. Pity you cannot say you have learnt much from this that will help you in the future though.
:spudwhat:

Keep safe everyone

[Lias]

You don't have to say much to convince me that we need stronger laws, harsher penalties and more wide ranging police powers to deal with these sorts of vermin. Problem is we live in a country full of lefties that think that sort of thing is an infringement on their rights.

Amen, preach it brother!

The criminal system should be punitive not restorative, we dont need to just lock them up for longer, we need to make prison so horrible that scum fear to go there.

I'm not a huge fan of america, but that have some things right when it comes to the penal system. The 3 strikes and your out system for a start.. Plus I'm a great fan of Joe Arpaio, althoguh I dont think he went far enough.

We really need a return to bread, water, and hard labour for minor offenders, and the death penalty for serious offenders. If tagging got 5 years on a chaingang, and burglary got 20 years in a quarry breaking rocks, then I think we'd see a reduction in crime!

As for the lefties, they blather on about human rights, but goddamnit when are recividist offenders, or even first time offenders in certain types of crime (sexual crime for instance), I honestly believe they loose any rights they may have once had.

[Stevo]

We really need a return to bread, water, and hard labour for minor offenders, and the death penalty for serious offenders.

I honestly believe they loose any rights they may have once had.

I used to think the death penalty was good for two reasons...........
a) It stopped re-offending
b) As a taxpayer my tax money wasn't wasted on feeding and keeping people who do not deserve to live (mainly paedophiles, sex criminals, and murderers)

Since then I have grown wiser I believe. Yes those convicted and killed by the state certainly cannot re-offend...........
But Studies in the US have shown that it costs the state as much or more to send criminals to death row, because of trials and appeals etc etc. Police can mess up investigations because unbelievably they are human too. A jury is only as good as the citizens in it. And only God knows how good they are. Lawyers can win or lose their clients cases on minor technicalities! People have been wrongly committed before and will in the future, so how will sending them to death row help society????

I think I have matured somewhat..................... :spudwhat: :spudwhat:

[handy_dog]

The speedo was stuck on 109, Sir!

[BNZ]

At least a cop turned up and not a taxi!

[Sniper]

I think I have matured somewhat..................... :spudwhat: :spudwhat:



:killingme :killingme :killingme :lol: :niceone:

Sure

:killingme