Watch This

[Big Dog]

I think that the stakes on running are already high enough, most of the time.

The only runners I know of that got caught only got a fine and 1 night in the can. $400 is too low to be a deterent.

[Lou Girardin]

The 'no pursuit' policy seems to work in the US States that have adopted it. The cops get pissed off with bikers removing their plates and popping wheelies in front of them, but that's just too bad. At least people aren't dying in chases.
Lou

[Motoracer]

The cops get pissed off with bikers removing their plates and popping wheelies in front of them
Lou

hehe, that'd be pretty nice

[spudchucka]

Hell Jack, I'm impressed. I was getting the wrong idea about you.
On the subject of Supt. Steve Fitzgerald and the LTSA for that matter, why are these people so fanatical that they can't admit even the slightest doubt or concede that road safety isn't black and white.
It smacks of a type of fundamentalism to me. A sort of 'my dogma is better than yours'.
Lou

A bit priceless, you accusing others of being fanatical.

[spudchucka]

Consider for a moment the alternative. Police are banned from pursuing any fleeing drivers. Well you might as well take away the power to stop vehicles in the first place because who the hell would stop knowing they just had to speed away. All you would need is a device that conceals your rego plate and you would be scot free.

In order to prosecute a driver for an offence a considerable investigation would be required to even establish what vehicle was involved and who was driving it. This would eat up even more police resources and as a result people would have to wait even longer for burglaries etc to be attended.

If police no longer have the mandate to police traffic you would soon see all sorts of automatic / electronic methods of enforcement. Would you like to have a GPS transponder fitted to your bike or car. The LTSA or whoever was charged with enforcing traffic would know where you were and what you were doing at all times. Traffic fines and summonses would be produced automatically and it would be up to the driver to prove they did not commit the offence.

I have great sympathy for the victims that appeared on the 60 minutes show. However they like so many other people want the police to protect them and to enforce the law on their terms and dependent on their own experiences. If the same woman had lost her loved one in an armed robbery and the police had the chance to apprehend the offender but lost him because they refused to pursue the getaway car, imagine the shit she would be giving the police over that. Peoples expectations of the police vary dependant on their circumstances.

This is a really complex issue and there seems little point in even discussing it on an internet forum. Just remember that the police are doing the very best they can in often very difficult circumstances.

[marty]

and amen to THAT

[MikeL]

This is a really complex issue
agree
and there seems little point in even discussing it on an internet forum.
disagree (are you saying that it is so complex that it should be left to the "experts" and that any public debate is pointless because we are all ignorant, uninformed, prejudiced etc?)Just remember that the police are doing the very best they can in often very difficult circumstances.

that's the whole point: there is a fundamental disagreement on what the "best" means. Best for whom? If a judicial system on average executes 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty, the injustice may be seen by many, perhaps the majority, as acceptable if the benefit to society as a whole in terms of crime deterrence is overwhelming. (But if you happen to be that innocent person...) Suppose it is 1 in 50? 1 in 10? At some point you will draw the line. Many ethical issues are dealt with (if not exactly resolved) by drawing an arbitrary line at a level that we can live with without too much discomfort. That's what I meant when I wrote earlier about the acceptable level of collateral damage. Isn't this something that should be debated???

[SPman]

That's what I meant when I wrote earlier about the acceptable level of collateral damage. Isn't this something that should be debated???

You mean something like the yanks in Iraq.....1 US citizen in Felluja equals 120 Iraqui women and children!

[spudchucka]

that's the whole point: there is a fundamental disagreement on what the "best" means. Best for whom? If a judicial system on average executes 1 innocent man for every 100 guilty, the injustice may be seen by many, perhaps the majority, as acceptable if the benefit to society as a whole in terms of crime deterrence is overwhelming. (But if you happen to be that innocent person...) Suppose it is 1 in 50? 1 in 10? At some point you will draw the line. Many ethical issues are dealt with (if not exactly resolved) by drawing an arbitrary line at a level that we can live with without too much discomfort. That's what I meant when I wrote earlier about the acceptable level of collateral damage. Isn't this something that should be debated???

Your post emphasises my point. Here is a discussion about police pursuits and now you have turned it into a question of a judicial system that "executes" 1 innocent person in 100. How the hell did we arrive at that point???

If people really want to discuss police pursuits on this forum then go for it but keep it in context. That is why I say there is little point as these threads usually turn into an opportunity to vent rather than informed and intelligent discussion.

[wkid_one]

I agree with SC - at the end of the day - the abolition of the police chase - means that those of 'immoral' inclination are going to be more inclined to run - and those who have more to lose will do the same.

The other option is for the dash mounted videos like the states that are admissable in court - meaning you only need to get close enough and for long enough to read the plate - the rest can be dealt with later.

HOWEVER - I do believe that there exists only a very small group that are ever going to be likely to run from the police regardless of what the chase policy is. Removing the policy I don't think will have a dramatic increase in runners.

[spudchucka]

The other option is for the dash mounted videos like the states that are admissable in court - meaning you only need to get close enough and for long enough to read the plate - the rest can be dealt with later.

This would make for good evidence and would also stop a lot of bogus PCA complaints, not to mention make for good entertainment. The only problem with abandonong after reading the plate is that you have no way of varifying the Rego with a VIN or chassis number. Criminals would simply use stolen or fake plates.

HOWEVER - I do believe that there exists only a very small group that are ever going to be likely to run from the police regardless of what the chase policy is. Removing the policy I don't think will have a dramatic increase in runners.

True but the number of desperate criminal types is increasing with the popularity of P. That shit turns ordinary people into paranoid psychos.

[Lou Girardin]

Exactly MikeL, most pursuit deaths are not as a result of chasing serious criminals. Just pissy little offences, like WOF checks and minor speeding. None of them justified a death.
Lou

[MikeL]

Here is a discussion about police pursuits and now you have turned it into a question of a judicial system that "executes" 1 innocent person in 100. How the hell did we arrive at that point???

If you stop and think about it for half a millisecond, you'll realize that it's an analogy. Analogies are often used (and misused) in arguments for illustrating a point by making a comparison with a similar situation, or in this case, a reasonably accurate parallel. If an analogy is not used properly, as when the situations are not at all comparable, then it is misleading and weakens rather than strengthens the argument. In this case, I wanted to illustrate the point that society is willing to accept, up to a point, injustices such as the death of innocent people (what I referred to as "collateral damage") if overall the benefit is substantial. The tragic mistake of the execution of an innocent person (which undoubtedly happened in N.Z.in the past, and continues to happen in less enlightened countries today) as an unwanted "by-product" of the system is a fairly close parallel to the death of an innocent person in a police car chase.
I assume you believe I have used an inappropriate analogy. I would be interested to read your reasons.

[spudchucka]

If you stop and think about it for half a millisecond, you'll realize that it's an analogy. Analogies are often used (and misused) in arguments for illustrating a point by making a comparison with a similar situation, or in this case, a reasonably accurate parallel. If an analogy is not used properly, as when the situations are not at all comparable, then it is misleading and weakens rather than strengthens the argument. In this case, I wanted to illustrate the point that society is willing to accept, up to a point, injustices such as the death of innocent people (what I referred to as "collateral damage") if overall the benefit is substantial. The tragic mistake of the execution of an innocent person (which undoubtedly happened in N.Z.in the past, and continues to happen in less enlightened countries today) as an unwanted "by-product" of the system is a fairly close parallel to the death of an innocent person in a police car chase.
I assume you believe I have used an inappropriate analogy. I would be interested to read your reasons.

I simply don't see the death of an innocent party due to a traffic crash following a pursuit being compared with a state execution of a convicted criminal or wrongly convicted innocent as being a fair and reasonable analogy.

Its the sort of over emotional nonsense that people get away with on internet forums.

[spudchucka]

Exactly MikeL, most pursuit deaths are not as a result of chasing serious criminals. Just pissy little offences, like WOF checks and minor speeding. None of them justified a death.
Lou

What are you trying to say Lou, if the death occurred following the pursuit of a serious wanted criminal it would be justifiable loss?