Police go away

**spudchucka** · 19th January 2007, 20:08

Originally Posted by Patrick

My bad... good call...!!!

The rugby thing she is clean as... although she was a passenger and probably "incited" the driving, she says she didn't... prove it then... the bitch!

I wonder if the reason the convictions have now been quashed is because of suggestions that she could have been liable for being party to dangerous driving?

**spudchucka** · 19th January 2007, 20:11

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

Helen Clark's fraud would of been hard to convict as she herself did not get any pecuinary advantage or service...its not really fraud....more a civil case from the painter.

I'm no Helen fan but this was just another media beat up. There was never any intent to defraud anyone, it was done as a charity stunt. If the buyers feel agrieved they should remember the "buyer beware" saying in the future.

**Lou Girardin** · 19th January 2007, 20:16

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Honestly Lou, what would you have done in your snaking days?

Honestly Spud, I didn't write a ticket when I didn't think it was deserved. As far as I can recall, I wasn't second-guessed by the prosecutions section either.
Admittedly we did not do charges involving death.

**Lou Girardin** · 19th January 2007, 20:17

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

So if someone causes the death of someone in a driving accident wether it be careless or intentional they should be let off because of the fact they have gone through the trauma of causing someones death?? whatever man

You're generallising a long way from the case being discussed. Man.

**spudchucka** · 19th January 2007, 20:28

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Honestly Spud, I didn't write a ticket when I didn't think it was deserved. As far as I can recall, I wasn't second-guessed by the prosecutions section either.
Admittedly we did not do charges involving death.

So who handled the fatal crashes in your time?

**Grahameeboy** · 19th January 2007, 20:58

This reminds me of that Taranaki Farmer whose kid was killed riding his quad when he answered his mobile......an offence is an offence and I am sure that if charged the Judge will administer a sentence that befits the circumstances.

**RT527** · 19th January 2007, 21:01

Originally Posted by imdying

Mayors that kill three people?

No but Mayors with the potential to "Kill People", just because he didnt, doesnt mean that He wont

**scumdog** · 19th January 2007, 21:05

Originally Posted by RT527

No but Mayors with the potential to "Kill People", just because he didnt, doesnt mean that He wont

But this woman DID.

**RT527** · 19th January 2007, 21:20

Originally Posted by scumdog

But this woman DID.

I understand that , but we still need to let the court decide whether it was by accident or by careless causing death/injury....

Did Tim shadbolt get charged with anything?...if not why not!.

**RT527** · 19th January 2007, 21:23

Originally Posted by spudchucka

So who handled the fatal crashes in your time?

If i understand it The police are the only ones with jurisdiction over deaths whether they were murders or Fatal car crashes both back when it was MOT and as it is Now.

**spudchucka** · 20th January 2007, 05:49

Originally Posted by RT527

If i understand it The police are the only ones with jurisdiction over deaths whether they were murders or Fatal car crashes both back when it was MOT and as it is Now.

Yeah I know. I was just fishing for a comment to highlight how easy and comfortable it is to sit at home making armchair judgements on these matters when none of those sitting in judgement have ever had the misfortune of having to actually deal with the reality or the complexities of it themselves.

**Clockwork** · 20th January 2007, 07:05

If the Police have evidence of guilt then I guess they ought to prosecute (although I doubt that the public would get any real benefit for the costs such an action would incur) however they shouldn't be requiring the driver to furnish that evidence. Amnesia or not, I understand she is not required to give evidence against herself.

**scumdog** · 20th January 2007, 07:52

Originally Posted by RT527

I understand that , but we still need to let the court decide whether it was by accident or by careless causing death/injury....

Did Tim shadbolt get charged with anything?...if not why not!.

That is why she is charged - to get her to Court and let them decide.

And yes, Shadbolt WAS charged, admitted guilt and the Court dimissed the charge on the proviso he made a donation of $xxxx to some (charitable) organisation.

**Toaster** · 20th January 2007, 20:21

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

Look at it from the other side...

her actions directly caused the deaths of 3 people and to date she has not given a reasonable account of what happened. What do you expect the Police to do? Walk away and say 'Oh it was probably an accident - don't worry about it.'

Not a lot different to the Kahui case. She won't say what happened, there is little physical evidence and she appears not to be taking responsibility for the deaths.

No problem for me....

I agree. The way the law works - they are obligated to charge. Its the Judges place to decide her fate, not the police. That is the point of having an independent Judicial system. Everyone knows the police are run as a political toy plaything. Thank goodness the judges are not.