For COPS only

**spudchucka** · 16th March 2006, 08:38

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

No worries 'mate'. Weve got a new CBR 1000 you can have for plus 15%.

Some mate you turned out to be.

Any way I was thinking more along the lines of a Vespa with a 95kph speed restrictor fitted. I wouldn't want to ride something like a CBR1000 that could potentially exceed the speed limit, I just couldn't live with the shame.

**Lou Girardin** · 16th March 2006, 11:04

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Some mate you turned out to be.

Any way I was thinking more along the lines of a Vespa with a 95kph speed restrictor fitted. I wouldn't want to ride something like a CBR1000 that could potentially exceed the speed limit, I just couldn't live with the shame.

What? No self-control? What do you do with crims that are just asking for a bash.

**spudchucka** · 16th March 2006, 16:03

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

What? No self-control? What do you do with crims that are just asking for a bash.

Leave the room while someone else gives them the bash?

Go get the Auckland yellow pages and leave it lying around just in case?

Spray myself for having evil thoughts and let the bad guy go with a warning?

Knock off early and go for a hoon on my vespa to take my mind off things?

**Lou Girardin** · 16th March 2006, 16:19

Or all of the above.

**cowpoos** · 16th March 2006, 19:05

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Yep. Saw a cop try to put down an injured horse in Massey with a .38.
The first 3 rounds bounced off it's forehead, till two of us useless snakes told the idiot to put one behind it's ear. That worked.

one behind it ear....that would still have been a lucky shot....
I have seen a cop put down a injured bull on the road with a rifle of some sort [not sure what police are issued with] took him 7 shots....he blew the bulls face/jaw/neck/nose to pieces till he got it in the brain...and yeah took a old snake to go and tell him where to aim....was a cruel sight

**spudchucka** · 17th March 2006, 05:53

Originally Posted by cowpoos

one behind it ear....that would still have been a lucky shot....
I have seen a cop put down a injured bull on the road with a rifle of some sort [not sure what police are issued with] took him 7 shots....

Remmington model 7, 223 cal, 5 shot mag, bolt action. These are being phased out and replaced with the bushmaster, still 223 cal but semi auto and 20 round mag.

Pretty much any dumb arse cop should be able to despatch a large animal with 20 rounds to play with.

**Krusti** · 17th March 2006, 06:01

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Remmington model 7, 223 cal, 5 shot mag, bolt action. These are being phased out and replaced with the bushmaster, still 223 cal but semi auto and 20 round mag.

Pretty much any dumb arse cop should be able to despatch a large animal with 20 rounds to play with.

Remember when some idiot in Welly decided to change from the 222's cause the ammo was too costly?

They were a good gun and didn't jam!

Point to horse shooting novises...38 revolvers only accurate to point of aim...maybe 20 metres!

One of the most interesting things learnt by me was that if a mad syco was running at you with a knife from say 12m the chance of dropping him prior to getting to you if you hit him centre mass was....

38 revolver...45%

223 rifle......90% plus

There ya go..........

**ajturbo** · 17th March 2006, 06:56

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Remmington model 7, 223 cal, 5 shot mag, bolt action. These are being phased out and replaced with the bushmaster, still 223 cal but semi auto and 20 round mag.

Pretty much any dumb arse cop should be able to despatch a large animal with 20 rounds to play with.

as long as it is the size of an elephant

**Lou Girardin** · 17th March 2006, 09:06

Originally Posted by Krusti

Point to horse shooting novises...38 revolvers only accurate to point of aim...maybe 20 metres!
........

This was 2 inches.

**scumdog** · 18th March 2006, 10:38

Originally Posted by Krusti

Remember when some idiot in Welly decided to change from the 222's cause the ammo was too costly?

They were a good gun and didn't jam!

Point to horse shooting novises...38 revolvers only accurate to point of aim...maybe 20 metres!

One of the most interesting things learnt by me was that if a mad syco was running at you with a knife from say 12m the chance of dropping him prior to getting to you if you hit him centre mass was....

38 revolver...45%

223 rifle......90% plus

There ya go..........

223 calibre is just a slightly 'gruntier' version of a 222, it was the 'el-cheapo' Remington rifles they replaced the Sakos with that were the problem.

BTW it can take up to 3 shots with a Glock ( in the correct place) to drop an unhappy bull - apparently!

**Skyryder** · 18th March 2006, 11:24

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Well it seems that accidents are no longer accidents, we should be prosecuting for every infraction of the law, of common sense, of hindsight.
Charge mechanics for not securing bolts properly, charge boaties for not making people wear life jackets, charge farmers if their bridges collapse, ad infinitum.
We're going to need a hell of a lot of jails soon.

As for horses, perhaps Christopher Reeves would have had an opinion on their safety. I don't trust anything without accelerator, steering and brakes.

There is a big difference between what you are suggesting and what actually happened. There was a deliberate decision to place a four year old on the quad. That in itself is not an accident. The accident happened as a result of the fathers decision to place the child on the quad.

If a boatie goes out on the water and all his pasangers but one have life jackets and something goes wrong and the one with no jacket drowns, then I would expect the skipper to be charged. If ysomeone takes there bike to the repair shop and as a result of neglect, a bolt or nut is left out and this results in their death

I would expect that person (mechanic) to be charged. Now on the surface this may sound harsh. But the alternitive is much harsher. One only has to go back into the history of the trade union movement (and I have used that just as an example) to see the indifference of managemt and owners when there was no lawfull consequences. There will always be risks in all things that we do but much of OSHlegislation is to mimimise that risk.

All of us have a part to play as well, and if we are so indifferent to those in our care, be it family, friend or customer, and someone dies as a result then the state has a duty to prosecute on our (societies) behalf. Now why do so many have a problem with that??

Skyryder

**Lou Girardin** · 20th March 2006, 14:13

Originally Posted by Skyryder

There is a big difference between what you are suggesting and what actually happened. There was a deliberate decision to place a four year old on the quad. That in itself is not an accident. The accident happened as a result of the fathers decision to place the child on the quad.

If a boatie goes out on the water and all his pasangers but one have life jackets and something goes wrong and the one with no jacket drowns, then I would expect the skipper to be charged. If ysomeone takes there bike to the repair shop and as a result of neglect, a bolt or nut is left out and this results in their death

I would expect that person (mechanic) to be charged. Now on the surface this may sound harsh. But the alternitive is much harsher. One only has to go back into the history of the trade union movement (and I have used that just as an example) to see the indifference of managemt and owners when there was no lawfull consequences. There will always be risks in all things that we do but much of OSHlegislation is to mimimise that risk.

All of us have a part to play as well, and if we are so indifferent to those in our care, be it family, friend or customer, and someone dies as a result then the state has a duty to prosecute on our (societies) behalf. Now why do so many have a problem with that??

Skyryder

That's all fine, but in the case of the mechanic, the person responsible wasn't charged. One guy left a ball joint loose, and the second person who finished other parts of the job was charged. (He got off)
The life jacket thing is a farce, will they charge drivers for not making adultpassengers wear seat belts too?
The State (Police) do not have a duty to prosecute, they have, dare I say it, discretion. But it's easier to cover your arse than to risk being criticised.

**spudchucka** · 20th March 2006, 20:23

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

The State (Police) do not have a duty to prosecute, they have, dare I say it, discretion. But it's easier to cover your arse than to risk being criticised.

The police are just as often critiscised when they elect not to charge as they are when the do charge. There are always people on both sides of the fence who think their way is right.

When a matter is investigated and it is found there is a prima facie case to answer then the police should charge in most cases. It then becomes a matter for the courts to dicide guilt or innocence and to determine sanctions.

You scorn the police for having powers to suspend driver licences outside of a court hearing and yet you expect them to make decisions of guilt or innocence outside of the court when a life has been lost as a consequence of the accused's actions.

Your logic is somewhat

.

**WINJA** · 20th March 2006, 20:28

Originally Posted by spudchucka

The police are just as often critiscised when they elect not to charge as they are when the do charge. There are always people on both sides of the fence who think their way is right.

When a matter is investigated and it is found there is a prima facie case to answer then the police should charge in most cases. It then becomes a matter for the courts to dicide guilt or innocence and to determine sanctions.

You scorn the police for having powers to suspend driver licences outside of a court hearing and yet you expect them to make decisions of guilt or innocence outside of the court when a life has been lost as a consequence of the accused's actions.

Your logic is somewhat

.

ITS NOT CONFUSING AT ALL , BUT THEN AGAIN IF YOUR THE CALIBRE OF POLICE WE HAVE IM SUPRISED THE UNIFORM DOESNT INCLUDE SHOES WITH VELCRO INSTEAD OF LACES