Pursuit Policy Criticised

[wkid_one]

Yes'm Cleatus - thum thar is fighten speak - sur's.

I agree with Jim in that at the end of the day - the police are no more than a political engine whose directives are mainly aligned with the whims and fancies of the political party in control.

Speeding can be demonstrated to NOT be the plague on society it is being held out to be - yet - it is an easy and quick target to win votes with - no more no less.

Why do we invest so much money and time in the police force policing our roads - because it is highly visible and highly tangible in terms of outcomes.

Our police force is quickly becoming a joke in the eyes of our public as no more than a glorifed traffic patrol.

[spudchucka]

I get the feeling you're a cop, right?

I present a point of view and you attack?

Feeling a bit like the finger is being pointed?

I was trying to make the point that the Land Transport Act was amended to make the checkpoints legal, and that the politicians, NOT policeman will change whatever act or create whatever law they wish to "fix" the current public outcry, or percieved law enforcement problem. Irrespective of the morals of the law or whether or not they create a law that allows a uniformed state organisation to stop and interrogate citizens going about there business in the hopes of catching a couple of recidivist drunk drivers. Who will just get back on the road drunk the next day anyway. In a different car.

If you are a cop then try to understand that SOME of us are clued up enough to know that you do the job under the auspices of law created by politicians.

Instead of putting on the badass internet tough guy act try educating instead smashing it down my throat. I probably won't accept your argument, but I will listen.

My beliefs may be a pile of shit to you, but I will defend your right to hold a pile of shit opposite view with my life.

And while we're at it exactly whose freedom did I personally restrict? I'm not quite sure I understand your last crack.

LAte Edit: UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 is the specific article.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (which we no longer do)

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country

Check the NZ Bill of Rights Act, section 18(1)(2)(3)(4). It guarantees the same right that you say alcohol checkpoints deny you.

I wasn't saying theat your beliefs are crap, cos I have no idea what your beliefs are. I was responding to the post, thats all.

I find it odd that you would feel so strongly about your freedom of movement being adversly effected by alcohol check points and yet you would advocate seizing motor vehicles and forcing the owners to prove that they weren't driving at the time of an allleged offence. This would be a clear breach of sections 21 & 25(c) of the same Act.

The majority of NZder's do not think that being stopped at a checkpoint is a grievous loss of personal freedom and I don't think they would consider being asked to produce a drivers licence and to undergoe a passive breath test would amount to interogation.

[James Deuce]

I find it odd that you would feel so strongly about your freedom of movement being adversly effected by alcohol check points and yet you would advocate seizing motor vehicles and forcing the owners to prove that they weren't driving at the time of an allleged offence. This would be a clear breach of sections 21 & 25(c) of the same Act.

The majority of NZder's do not think that being stopped at a checkpoint is a grievous loss of personal freedom and I don't think they would consider being asked to produce a drivers licence and to undergoe a passive breath test would amount to interogation.

Point 1: Uh I do NOT advocate seizing vehicles - wherever did you get that idea??

Point 2: Of course NZers don't. They are a profoundly apathetic bunch with very short horizons. I believe that being stopped at 3 checkpoints on the way home from dropping my sister-in-law at 5am on a Saturday morning to be grossly interfering with my personal freedom.

It's an issue of principle more than anything and NZ Law obviously does not protect me from anything to do with a checkpoint. If I don;t stop I'll be apprehended. If I refuse Breath and blood tests I'll be incarcerated. Is that the actions of a civilised modern nation?

[Two Smoker]

Yes - that and the fact having faster cars mean cars run faster......States tried this with hotted up 'stangs....all it meant was they became more daring when being chased.

If someone is going to run.....they are going to run......the idea is to limit the chase situations and I don't think that Nuclear Threat is an equivalent comparision to doing a runner from a cop.

Surely you would be better having bikes by that assumption as you are sure as hell less likely to outrun a bike than a car?

Even having choppers in the states doesn't deter people from running.

Remember this - the person running is hardly RATIONAL - that is why they are running. Given this they are hardly likely to rationalise the type of car following them is likely to catch them.

This just promotes more problems that it solves....

Yes that is true that some people are going to run no matter what car is chasing them, BUT these people are generally Murderers, bank robbers etc that have nothing to lose.

The performance cars would be a deterrent to Boy Racers, and old pricks in Holdens that think they own the road.

Both the British and Australian Police have used high performance cars to good use in their respective countries. The main reason that the USA thing failed is: one its America and two: the choice of car made.

Because of the policy that is being set up, means that Joe Bloggs who normally wouldn't run from the cops will, now on run from the cops because he know that the cops will never catch him and very likely fail to prove that that person was driving the car at X time and at Y speed.

[Jackrat]

Well speaking on behalf of Joe Blogs,Because I am him.
I can assure you I will not be running from the cops no matter what either they or I am driving,The police chase policys will make no difference to me because I am not a criminal.If some body can come up with a cost effective way of apprehending criminals without chasing them,I have yet to hear it.
One thing I know i will hear,and that is the whinging that will start up if police
don't catch some Crim' because they call off a persuit and then he goes on to commit worse crimes.Of course then it will be blamed on the police.
Damn what a thankless job they have.

[mangell6]

A thankless job and having to 'police' the symptoms of a society gone soft.

[Lou Girardin]

Blood and breath testing are a breach of your protection against self-incrimination.
Roadside licence susupension is punishment without trial.
Random alcohol checkpoints do away with the need for Police to have a 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence.
The UK is proposing removing protections against double jeopardy.
I won't even detail all the civil rights abuses since the WTC attacks.
So, the question is, how many more rights and freedoms are YOU prepared to relinquish.
Lou

P S. NSW and UK, among others, use high performance cars, WRX's et. It doesn't seem to have reduced pursuits for them.

[Zed]

More young drivers will attempt to escape police following the introduction of tough new guidelines for police officers involved in high speed pursuits, the police officers' union says.

Anyone who chooses to do a runner from the police should be prepared to suffer the consequences, whether that be a greater punnishment or an high speed accident. If they kill some innocent then they are responsible- not the cops!

I think it's a joke to lay any blame on the cops for accidents/deaths caused because some loser who will not stop! Therefore, I disagree with this new policy and hope that the police don't enforce it too often?


Zed

[Zed]

Because of the policy that is being set up, means that Joe Bloggs who normally wouldn't run from the cops will, now on run from the cops because he know that the cops will never catch him and very likely fail to prove that that person was driving the car at X time and at Y speed.

Nah, the normal Joe Bloggs has a conscience and enuf morals to know to stop when pursued by police. This inner conviction will not change just because of a new policy!

Joe Bloggs who stops when the police pulls them over have the sense to know that if they did a runner the cops would just record their rego and meet them at home. The ones who run just have no sense and no brains!

If you run from the police you are an utter loser and should be locked up! To blame the cops for your disregard for the law and other human lives is just shirking responsability & accountability (something Kiwis seem to be doing more and more?).


Zed

[Zed]

Blood and breath testing are a breach of your protection against self-incrimination.
Roadside licence susupension is punishment without trial.
Random alcohol checkpoints do away with the need for Police to have a 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence.

While I agree that more and more laws are being passed in NZ which are geared towards a police state, the ones that you mention above are necessary to keep our roads safe! If you are innocent then you having nothing to fear! ...and as for it all being a waste of your time, just bite your tongue man.

The UK is proposing removing protections against double jeopardy. I won't even detail all the civil rights abuses since the WTC attacks.
So, the question is, how many more rights and freedoms are YOU prepared to relinquish. Lou

I honestly don't believe that we are in control of our rights and freedoms in this country let alone the rest of the world- Mark my words, things WILL escalate to the point where you will either conform to the government requirements or be incarcerated!


Zed

[MikeL]

Technology as usual will come to our rescue. Crime (including speeding) will be eliminated as compulsory tracking devices surgically implanted in everyone are constantly monitored by police computers. It will become impossible to evade responsibility for wrong-doing.
All those airy-fairy PC libertarians will jump up and down as usual but we'll quickly get used to it. After all, we don't mind being stopped at random check-points, do we? Decent, law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear.
Mistakes, of course, will be impossible, and the police will enforce the new laws with the same impartiality, integrity and regard for justice that they have demonstrated in the past...

[spudchucka]

Blood and breath testing are a breach of your protection against self-incrimination.
Roadside licence susupension is punishment without trial.
Random alcohol checkpoints do away with the need for Police to have a 'reasonable suspicion' of an offence.
The UK is proposing removing protections against double jeopardy.
I won't even detail all the civil rights abuses since the WTC attacks.
So, the question is, how many more rights and freedoms are YOU prepared to relinquish.
Lou

P S. NSW and UK, among others, use high performance cars, WRX's et. It doesn't seem to have reduced pursuits for them.

Geez Lou, you accuse Greg O'connor of being unbalanced!!

Most "reasonable" people do not consider that the being tempoarily detained at a checkpoint is such a grievious loss of personal freedom. The public interest in apprehending drink drivers far outways the minor loss of the freedom of movement. How long does it take to go through a check point, 5 minutes if you are really unlucky.

You are advocating allowing drunk, disqualified drivers and unsafe vehicles to roam around unhindered because stopping them would be breach against their rights. That is such rubbish!!!

Yes, checkpoints are a drag net approach to apprehending offenders but it also makes joe public think about the possibility of being caught if they decided to drive home drunk.

As for roadside suspension, that only occurs when the driver is caught in the act. It's just another tool the police have and it's a good deterant. For instance look at the boy racer culture, the most important thing to them is their car and their licence.

You've said before that you are against police issuing traffic tickets, now you suggest that 28 day licence suspensions are punishment without trial. Exactly what type of traffic enforcement do you support or would you prefer to see anarchy on the roads?????

The question really should be "when do minor interuptions to ones movements become more important than the public interest in apprehending drunk drivers"??

[spudchucka]

Point 1: Uh I do NOT advocate seizing vehicles - wherever did you get that idea??

Post #9 of this thread. After re-reading it I see that you did not raise that point, my appologies.

Point 2: Of course NZers don't. They are a profoundly apathetic bunch with very short horizons. I believe that being stopped at 3 checkpoints on the way home from dropping my sister-in-law at 5am on a Saturday morning to be grossly interfering with my personal freedom.

3 times during one trip is pretty unlucky. Setting up checkpoints at 5AM on a Saturday morning sounds like a reasonable deployment time for alcohol checkpoints, why? Because drunks drive home during the wee small hours. Hey, they are just trying to keep the road safe for people like you.

It's an issue of principle more than anything and NZ Law obviously does not protect me from anything to do with a checkpoint. If I don;t stop I'll be apprehended. If I refuse Breath and blood tests I'll be incarcerated. Is that the actions of a civilised modern nation

If you hold a NZ drivers licence then you would be aware that under law you can be stopped by police at anytime and be checked for the presence of alcohol. You accepted these conditions when you applied for a drivers licence.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege and as such you have certain obligations that you and everybody else accepts by holding a licence.

What on earth do need to be protected from a checkpoint for?? If you drive drunk and you get caught, stiff shit.

[James Deuce]

Geez Lou, you accuse Greg O'connor of being unbalanced!!

Most "reasonable" people do not consider that the being tempoarily detained at a checkpoint is such a grievious loss of personal freedom. The public interest in apprehending drink drivers far outways the minor loss of the freedom of movement. How long does it take to go through a check point, 5 minutes if you are really unlucky.

You are advocating allowing drunk, disqualified drivers and unsafe vehicles to roam around unhindered because stopping them would be breach against their rights. That is such rubbish!!!

Yes, checkpoints are a drag net approach to apprehending offenders but it also makes joe public think about the possible of being caught if they decided to drive home drunk.

As for roadside suspension, that only occurs when the driver is caught in the act. It's just another tool the police have and it's a good deterant. For instance look at the boy racer culture, the most important thing to them is their car and their licence.

You've said before that you are against police issuing traffic tickets, now you suggest that 28 day licence suspensions are punishment without trial. Exactly what type of traffic enforcement do you support or would you prefer to see anarchy on the roads?????

The question really should be "when do minor interuptions to ones movements become more important than the public interest in apprehending drunk drivers"??

Sorry Spud that's the argument that was used to sell the idea to all "right thinking" kiwis.

I am sorry that you can't see the argument, but at least you ride a bike.

Keep your shiney side up.

[James Deuce]

Post #9 of this thread. After re-reading it I see that you did not raise that point, my appologies.



3 times during one trip is pretty unlucky. Setting up checkpoints at 5AM on a Saturday morning sounds like a reasonable deployment time for alcohol checkpoints, why? Because drunks drive home during the wee small hours. Hey, they are just trying to keep the road safe for people like you.



If you hold a NZ drivers licence then you would be aware that under law you can be stopped by police at anytime and be checked for the presence of alcohol. You accepted these conditions when you applied for a drivers licence.

Driving is not a right, it's a privilege and as such you have certain obligations that you and everybody else accepts by holding a licence.

What on earth do need to be protected from a checkpoint for?? If you drive drunk and you get caught, stiff shit.

Oh dear, Oh Dear, Oh dear.

That last point?? You sir are an excreble mound of steaming elephant reflux.