Pursuit Policy Criticised

[spudchucka]

Oh dear, Oh Dear, Oh dear.

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

Very eloquent, but why resort to personal insults??

Elephant reflux would probably amount to a nutritional health suplement in some countries.

I'm sure you really meant that as a compliment!! Didn't you???

[SPman]

If you are innocent then you having nothing to fear! ...

Aaaarrrgh! Anybody who has a knowledge of history (not enough in my opinion, or societies wouldnt keep recycling the same old mistakes), would know that as the catchcry of a dubious regime as they, yet again, erode the liberty and enact tighter and more constrictive strangleholds on their societies!
And it invariably, eventually, all ends badly!
But

[Lou Girardin]

I didn't advocate any such thing, Spudchucker. My post was simply a statement of fact. The rights and wrongs of those issues are a different debate.
But I really dislike the statement; "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Ask any surviving Jew from 1930's Germany for an opinion on that!
Lou

[Holy Roller]

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...

And I thought the Minority Report was just a movie

[spudchucka]

I didn't advocate any such thing, Spudchucker. My post was simply a statement of fact. The rights and wrongs of those issues are a different debate.
But I really dislike the statement; "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear". Ask any surviving Jew from 1930's Germany for an opinion on that!
Lou

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.

These aren't facts, they are opinions. And this is the sort of thing you say that I will challenge because it portrays an unrealistic representation of the truth.

Comparing road policing to the holocaust is emotive and inflamitory and I'm picking it would be down right insulting to many people.

[Lou Girardin]

Blood/breath testing use your body products as evidence = self-incrimination, Fact
Roadside licence suspension = punishment by Police without the charge being proved. Fact.
Random checkpoints = breath testing driver without reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. Fact.

The holocaust came later, the Jews had all their civil rights removed first. But the majority failed to leave Germany because they knew they had done nothing wrong and thought that the pogrom was just a temporary political ploy.
In the words of John Pilger to Kim Hill, Spudchucker. READ!
Lou

[spudchucka]

Blood/breath testing use your body products as evidence = self-incrimination, Fact

By your logic DNA left behind by a rapist of finger prints left behind by a burglar should not be used as evidence either.

Roadside licence suspension = punishment by Police without the charge being proved. Fact.

28 suspension occurs when:
1: driver undergoes an evidential breath test and the result exceeds 800 micrograms / litre of breath.

Test: is the test result evidentialy acceptable - yes. Therefore it is proved.

2: driver undergoes a blood test and the result exceeds 160 milligrams / 100 mils of blood.

Test: is the test result evidentialy acceptable - yes. Therefore it is proved.

3: driver fails or refuses to undergoe a blood test after being required to do so under section 72 or 73 of Land Transport Act.

Test: is the person required to supply a sample - yes. Is the refusal documented and can that document be produced as evidence - yes. Therefore it is proved.

4: driver drove at a speed that exceeded the posted speed limit by 50kph or more.

Test: are the current methods of speed detection approved and accepted evidentialy - yes. Was the person operating the equipment trained and certified to use it - (lets assume) - yes. Was the code of operations complied with - (lets assume again) - yes. Therefore it is proved.

Random checkpoints = breath testing driver without reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. Fact.

This is subjective - any person driving a motor vehicle on a road may be under the influence of alcohol, thats not an unreasonable possibility.

Re the holocaust, you assume I know nothing of the subject. I refer back to your original post and again say that comparing it with road policing in NZ is foolish and provocative.

[Lou Girardin]

Gee, Spud. I don't think you're a cop at all now.
I mean proved in court, with the evidence challenged and examined. The supposed basis of our legal system.
I think this is boring everyone now, it's starting to bore me.
Lou

[Jackrat]

Gee, Spud. I don't think you're a cop at all now.
I mean proved in court, with the evidence challenged and examined. The supposed basis of our legal system.
I think this is boring everyone now, it's starting to bore me.
Lou

No no,Keep going,I'm enjoying watching spud pull you to bits.

[Lou Girardin]

This is my last post on this thread Jack.
The reason I don't think Spud is a cop, is that he's confusing evidence with proof.
That's why I'm totally against roadside susupensions, you're punished without the offence being PROVED in court. Just on the say so of a cop with a quota to fill and bragging rights to gain.
Lou

[spudchucka]

This is my last post on this thread Jack.
The reason I don't think Spud is a cop, is that he's confusing evidence with proof.
That's why I'm totally against roadside susupensions, you're punished without the offence being PROVED in court. Just on the say so of a cop with a quota to fill and bragging rights to gain.
Lou

My point on this particular issue, Lou, is that it is YOUR opinion that road side suspensions / checkpoints are wrong. Just cos Lou said so doesn't make it a fact.

The bulk of the population has no problem with it, so does that make them all wrong and you right?

My previous post in this thread is flawed, obviously. But its an opinion, isn't it? Does that make it fact? No, of course not.

So the offence isn't proved in court, so what!! Obviously the burden of proof required is lower than that required to throw someone in jail for murder. The police have tasks, one of which is road policing, if every speeding ticket required a court hearing imagine the chaos that would result. Serious cases wouldn't be heard because of the backlog. Your arguements are based on principals that you believe in, I can see that but they show no common sense and offer no practical alternatives.

I'm happy to let this thread go too. Bygones!!

[Marmoot]

In Japan they have those souped-up Civic type-Rs and NSX for chase cars. Now they're fast cars.
We can also have some R1s or Blades, give a forward-mounting camera.
Just chase them enough to get a frame with number plate and then call off the chase. That would be evidence enough to confiscate the vehicle, innit?

Or helicopter? Where was the helicopter all these times?

[pete376403]

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.
..

Technology exists now for vehicles to be fitted with 1.speed limiting devices or 2. speed reporting devices.
In case 1. you couldn't exceed the speed limit. The GPS within the device would adjust the maximum speed according to where you were.
In case 2. you could speed, but the device would report you to the law. The ticket would probably be waiting in your e-mail inbox by the time you got home, and the fine would probably be automatically deducted from your bank.

Which device would the politicians prefer?

[MikeL]

The bulk of the population has no problem with it, so does that make them all wrong and you right?

So the offence isn't proved in court, so what!! Obviously the burden of proof required is lower than that required to throw someone in jail for murder. The police have tasks, one of which is road policing, if every speeding ticket required a court hearing imagine the chaos that would result. Serious cases wouldn't be heard because of the backlog. Your arguements are based on principals that you believe in, I can see that but they show no common sense and offer no practical alternatives.

I'm happy to let this thread go too. Bygones!!

I too think this argument has gone as far as it can. Both sides have made valid points. We are left with 2 differing subjective assessments of the relative importance of civil liberties and law enforcement.
Lou, the theory is sound but the practicalities of everyday policing mean that the ideal will never be achieved. Some compromise is necessary.
Spud, do you realise the implications of what you have written? The anti-Jewish laws of Hitler's Germany were approved by the majority of the population. And the principles of fair trial and high standard of proof, once relaxed for the sake of expediency in "minor" matters can more easily be sacrificed for other offences.
IMO this debate, which is necessary and healthy, has much wider implications, as our approach to civil liberties and collective security comes in for the biggest shake-up in generations. Despite the passionate arguments we have read on this forum, I fear that in general this nation of sheep is not in a good position to give the wider debate the intelligent and robust scrutiny it needs.

[SPman]

IMO this debate, which is necessary and healthy, has much wider implications, as our approach to civil liberties and collective security comes in for the biggest shake-up in generations. Despite the passionate arguments we have read on this forum, I fear that in general this nation of sheep is not in a good position to give the wider debate the intelligent and robust scrutiny it needs.

True.
People just say - "shut up and get on with life" - "cant be bothered with all that"... as long as it doesnt affect them.

Then one day they wake up and its too late!