Lying pig, scumbag filth

[peasea]

[QUOTE=Goblin;1102513]

Also, what right does a constable have looking up my previous record and discussing it with the general public? What I did 15-20 years ago is none of his bloody business!! and has no bearing on the case pending.

QUOTE]

Yeah, a curious thing that, it happened to me too. I get the letter in the mail telling of my preliminary hearing (coz I'm pleading not guilty) and lo and hehold, there's my full history attached. WTF? Why would the copper be looking that up and attaching it to the paperwork for the current charge? My last (petty) criminal conviction was 1981! What possible relevance has any of that got to the current charge? None, that's what, and YES, they are a law unto themselves, ragardless of the denials that will probably follow this post. I've seen it too many times to be convinced otherwise.

They lie in court too, seen it with my own eyes and more recently I've seen it in a coppers notes. Lies are what I'm up against, along with a brick wall and a myopic 'justice' system.

Join the queue.

[Sanx]

I've seen this thread a little late, but I think it was Dynamytus50 who said that it would have to be a very dumb traffic cop that made up evidence; for instance using the same read-out on the laser gun multiple times, or simply making up an alleged speed. Well, there are cops that dumb, though I haven't personally come across cases in New Zealand.

One such traffic cop apparently recorded a guy on a Fireblade doing 170-something miles-per-hour in about 1995. He claimed he had this recorded on his radar unit, calibrated according to Police procedure. Motorcycle News, however, proved in independent tests that the Fireblade in question couldn't do more than 165mph. Further investigation by the UK's PCA showed the radar gun to be 100% accurate. PCA reached the only possible conclusion; the cop lied and then perjured himself in court.

And a few years ago, my best friend and his wife were out for a little blat on their (own) bikes. It was a long run, with a particular pub as the planned destination. His wife always rode like a Nana and was therefore several minutes behind. Both were stopped by the same cop for allegedly doing the same speed; if memory serves, 87mph in a 60 zone. The pub they were meeting at was a favourite biker haunt. When they got there, a number of bikers had already been stopped by the same guy. All for 87mph. Over the next hour, other bikers turned up and a number of these all had 87mph tickets. They all swapped details and jointly made a complaint. Further investigation showed that the cop had issued over 30 tickets that day, all to motorbikes and all for doing 87mph. In every case, the cop had showed the biker the read-out on the laser gun. As is common with such devices, the gun had no audit facility. However, the PCA found it highly unlikely that there were 30+ 87mph incidents on the same road on the same day, and not one other recorded speed. Cop was stood down and formally reprimanded.

The argument has often been that cops have no reason to fabricate evidence or lie in court. Not true at all; and in cases where the cops are trying to put away some known villain, but find the evidence hard to get, I can almost understand it.

The memos leaked to the press last year, combined with Howard Broad's admission (backed up by Police Association president, Greg O'Connor) that traffic cops have ticket quotas (sorry, performance targets), showed that cops did have a good personal reason for issuing tickets. Promotion prospects could be affected if there was a continued failure to meet said targets, one memo stated. As laser and radar guns have no auditing capability (the machines do not record the date, time and speed each time the unit is triggered), the Police can get away with fabricating evidence and blatantly lying. There's nothing to contradict them. The magistrate will simply take the cop at his word. Such capability would not be expensive to build into the units either; in fact, I can't imagine it would add more than a few dollars to the cost of each, should the Police forces demand it. But they won't ask for it, as they know its main function will be to serve as a tool for exposing Police dishonesty.

As with any prosecution, the burden of proof should fall on the prosecuting body. They should be made to prove guilt. Under the present system, precisely the opposite is true; the accused has to prove his innocence.

Recent surveys have revealed public trust in the Police has reached all-time lows. This is, in part, down to the negative publicity following the Clint Rickard trials, the Irene Ascher debacle and the various other high profile incidents in the press. The Police should be actively encouraging the introduction of stricter controls as a method by which they can demonstrate their honesty to the public. Consider the following:

1. Cop pulls over motorist for doing 120 in a 100 zone. Cop refuses to let motorist see the radar / laser read-out. Motorist goes to court and pleads innocence. Cop simply stands up and states that "I, Officer #666, did see said motorist doing 120, verified by the reading on my radar / laser unit. No 'evidence' presented, but magistrate finds motorist guilty.
2. Cop pulls over motorist for doing 120 in a 100 zone. Cop shows motorist the read-out. Motorist doesn't believe it and challenges it in court. Cop produces audit log from radar / laser unit showing the times triggered and the readings recorded. Cop shows calibration logs for the unit in question. Magistrate doesn't need to rely on the cop's word or honesty, but instead can convict on the evidence presented.

Now, which situation do you think is going to reinforce the Police's reputation with the public at large?

[The Pastor]

They lie in court too, seen it with my own eyes and more recently I've seen it in a coppers notes. Lies are what I'm up against, along with a brick wall and a myopic 'justice' system.

Join the queue.

Damn straight they lie in court, ive had it happen to me, it actually can be a blessing in disguise as if you can prove they lied in court you get off the charge. 99% of the time though you don't pick up on it (where lawyers come in handy...)


Cops :@ a few good ones mixed in with the bad, unfortuantly the good cops get off traffic duty.

[Sanx]

My last (petty) criminal conviction was 1981! What possible relevance has any of that got to the current charge?

Isn't there a seven-year time-bomb on old petty convictions? After seven years, they can no longer be given as grounds for treatment one way or the other?

[Goblin]

Yeah, a curious thing that, it happened to me too. I get the letter in the mail telling of my preliminary hearing (coz I'm pleading not guilty) and lo and hehold, there's my full history attached. WTF? Why would the copper be looking that up and attaching it to the paperwork for the current charge? My last (petty) criminal conviction was 1981! What possible relevance has any of that got to the current charge? None, that's what.

Yeah I'd like some answers to these questions too.

and YES, they are a law unto themselves, ragardless of the denials that will probably follow this post. I've seen it too many times to be convinced otherwise.

They lie in court too, seen it with my own eyes and more recently I've seen it in a coppers notes. Lies are what I'm up against, along with a brick wall and a myopic 'justice' system.

Join the queue.

I remeber a thread on here where some dood was done for something and the judge actually told this person that he would believe the word of an officer over the word of a teenager anyday!

Now Im not saying that ALL cops lie but, there are those that DO lie! And the judges believe them! How are innocent people, who are just trying to get on with their lives and do the best they can, supposed to respect the pleece when they do this kinda crap??? There are real criminals out there doing far worse shit than 111kph or just driving like they always do. Why waste pleece and court time on trivial traffic shit? Oh thats right....MONEY! Fines get dished out...lawyers get payed....judges are paid squillions to sit there and listen to pleece lie through their teeth then ignore defendants! It's all about the money honey!

My last "petty" crime was about 91 when they published court cases in the local paper. The one right under mine was a peadophile caught molesting 2 boys under 12 and the judge gave him 3 months Periodic Detention!! I got 200 hours community service for cannabis cookies. Where's the justice???

[ilusiv]

Minor traffic offences go to JP Traffic Court, (defended Infringement Notices, careless Driving etc). These are offences that have no term of imprisonment as a possible sentence.

Serious ones, where there is a possibility of imprisonment, (EBA, Dangerous Driving etc) go to the District Court before a judge.

The most serious traffic offences involving death can be laid indictably, (in the High Court).

Everyday crimes like theft, common assault, possession of class C, low level burglaries etc go to the District Court. Some offence like burglary can be laid either summarily, (the District Court) or Indictably, (the High Court) depending upon how serious the offence or offences are.

The more serious crimes such as murder, rape & possession of class A are purely indictable and must be laid in the High Court.

Twats getting done for *555 type traffic offences do not end up in the High Court and therefore have no impact on the length of time required to push a case through to a High Court trial.

Spudchucka, well explained, except that Indictably laid matters don't always mean the high court. Simply that they will be tried in the indictable jurisdiction (that is before a jury, rather than a judge sitting summarily (alone)). A large amount of district court trials will be from these matters, and the rest will be people who are electing trial on summary matters that can be proceeded with indictably (such as 3rd and Sub Traffic offences) & Assaults (crimes act or above)

[Goblin]

The memos leaked to the press last year, combined with Howard Broad's admission (backed up by Police Association president, Greg O'Connor) that traffic cops have ticket quotas (sorry, performance targets), showed that cops did have a good personal reason for issuing tickets. Promotion prospects could be affected if there was a continued failure to meet said targets, one memo stated. As laser and radar guns have no auditing capability (the machines do not record the date, time and speed each time the unit is triggered), the Police can get away with fabricating evidence and blatantly lying. There's nothing to contradict them. The magistrate will simply take the cop at his word. Such capability would not be expensive to build into the units either; in fact, I can't imagine it would add more than a few dollars to the cost of each, should the Police forces demand it. But they won't ask for it, as they know its main function will be to serve as a tool for exposing Police dishonesty.

As with any prosecution, the burden of proof should fall on the prosecuting body. They should be made to prove guilt. Under the present system, precisely the opposite is true; the accused has to prove his innocence.

Recent surveys have revealed public trust in the Police has reached all-time lows. This is, in part, down to the negative publicity following the Clint Rickard trials, the Irene Ascher debacle and the various other high profile incidents in the press. The Police should be actively encouraging the introduction of stricter controls as a method by which they can demonstrate their honesty to the public. Consider the following:

1. Cop pulls over motorist for doing 120 in a 100 zone. Cop refuses to let motorist see the radar / laser read-out. Motorist goes to court and pleads innocence. Cop simply stands up and states that "I, Officer #666, did see said motorist doing 120, verified by the reading on my radar / laser unit. No 'evidence' presented, but magistrate finds motorist guilty.
2. Cop pulls over motorist for doing 120 in a 100 zone. Cop shows motorist the read-out. Motorist doesn't believe it and challenges it in court. Cop produces audit log from radar / laser unit showing the times triggered and the readings recorded. Cop shows calibration logs for the unit in question. Magistrate doesn't need to rely on the cop's word or honesty, but instead can convict on the evidence presented.

Now, which situation do you think is going to reinforce the Police's reputation with the public at large?

Very VERY interesting!
They would lose too much revenue if they could record readings off these things! And they'd be shown up for the bullshite they get away with.

[peasea]

Isn't there a seven-year time-bomb on old petty convictions? After seven years, they can no longer be given as grounds for treatment one way or the other?

Tell that to Mister Porky.

[peasea]

Isn't there a seven-year time-bomb on old petty convictions? After seven years, they can no longer be given as grounds for treatment one way or the other?

Are there any coppers/legal types who can confirm/deny this?

[spudchucka]

I get the letter in the mail telling of my preliminary hearing (coz I'm pleading not guilty) and lo and hehold, there's my full history attached. WTF? Why would the copper be looking that up and attaching it to the paperwork for the current charge?

Its part of your disclosure, you're entitled to receive a copy of your own history. If you were being represented by a lawyer it would go to them. It also goes on the prosecution file and a copy goes to the judge, upon your guilty plea or having been found guilty. This is completely normal practice.

[spudchucka]

Spudchucka, well explained, except that Indictably laid matters don't always mean the high court. Simply that they will be tried in the indictable jurisdiction (that is before a jury, rather than a judge sitting summarily (alone)). A large amount of district court trials will be from these matters, and the rest will be people who are electing trial on summary matters that can be proceeded with indictably (such as 3rd and Sub Traffic offences) & Assaults (crimes act or above)

Its not law school mate, just a simple answer intended to help people who have no knowledge of such matters to get an idea of how the thing works.

[spudchucka]

Are there any coppers/legal types who can confirm/deny this?

It doesn't relate to the criminal courts. When you're up before the judge he gets to see you in all your glory.

[Goblin]

Its part of your disclosure, you're entitled to receive a copy of your own history. If you were being represented by a lawyer it would go to them. It also goes on the prosecution file and a copy goes to the judge, upon your guilty plea or having been found guilty. This is completely normal practice.

Yeah but why are previous traffic offences and our whole history brought up for minor traffic offences yet when a officer of the pleece is up for a serious, real offence like rape, all his previous rape convictions are not disclosed? I smell a double standard here.

[98tls]

As well he should.................would grow boring dealing with first offenders day after day.................

[spudchucka]

Yeah but why are previous traffic offences and our whole history brought up for minor traffic offences yet when a officer of the pleece is up for a serious, real offence like rape, all his previous rape convictions are not disclosed? I smell a double standard here.

The difference is that what you are talking about is trial by media and public opinion. In court your previous convictions aren't any part of proving the case, (except in a few exceptional circumstances where the law allows it). In court your history only has relevance once the case against you has been proved when the judge considers it in passing sentence.

Also, in the Rickards etc case their previous history that you mentioned were in fact unproven cases, not actuall convictions, which would fly in the face of all legal due process and would have amounted to the NZ justice system becoming a total kangaroo court.