Unbelieveable cop negligence

**spudchucka** · 15th October 2004, 19:45

Originally Posted by NC30_chick

The Snozberries, taste like? Snozberries!!!

Hey man, you just ate like $100 worth of grass and $30 of shrooms.............So I'm gonna need like $130 bucks from you....OK! :spudwave:

**Paul in NZ** · 15th October 2004, 19:56

Originally Posted by Lou Girardin

Same old justifications from our friend. I'm interested to hear what he says about Ireana Asher (Rave On). It starting to sound like Canute has a modern accolyte.
Whatever cops do it's never wrong.

Oh for goodness sake...

Read what the man said. He is constrained by the LAW. A law he follows and at least he had the moxy to ring the complainent and deliver the out come.

Why have a go at the cop because of a bloody stupid law and the fact they don't have the means to deliver an evidential test on the side of the road!

If the law is faulty, do something about it. It's your right (that people died for)

Don't kick the cops arse for following the law. He probably hated it 1000 time worse than you did!

It's when the police DON'T feel the need to follow the law of the land that problems arise.

Paul N

**scumdog** · 15th October 2004, 20:18

Originally Posted by Paul in NZ

Oh for goodness sake...

Read what the man said. He is constrained by the LAW. A law he follows and at least he had the moxy to ring the complainent and deliver the out come.

Why have a go at the cop because of a bloody stupid law and the fact they don't have the means to deliver an evidential test on the side of the road!

If the law is faulty, do something about it. It's your right (that people died for)

Don't kick the cops arse for following the law. He probably hated it 1000 time worse than you did!

It's when the police DON'T feel the need to follow the law of the land that problems arise.

Paul N

Good on you Paul for having the gumption to say what is true, I take my hat off to you!!!

Often it is sooo easy to 'shoot the message bearer' rather than the issuer of said message~!!

**marty** · 18th October 2004, 09:02

and meanwhile in the post-weekend get together thread, there are more than a couple of stories of guys being let off/growled/not even stopped for what would appear to be pretty quick speeds! quota? obviously bullshit. discretion? can you say discretion, lou?

**Stinger** · 18th October 2004, 10:18

Originally Posted by marty

and meanwhile in the post-weekend get together thread, there are more than a couple of stories of guys being let off/growled/not even stopped for what would appear to be pretty quick speeds! quota? obviously bullshit. discretion? can you say discretion, lou?

Yeah, when I was on my learner licence I got stopped and I wasn't displaying my L plate, and I was going at about 90 on the southern motorway. The cop used his discretion and let me off, which in my case was exactly the right course of action I think. I realised that the potential for $600 worth of fines just wasn't worth it and I put my L plate on and pretty much kept to the speed limit.

So I think we've got to be fair to the good cops out there. My concern however is that the politicians are putting in more quota systems where it's just not going to be in the police's best interest to let anyone off - or they won't fill their quota.

**DEATH_INC.** · 18th October 2004, 10:37

Spud,why would he not have been charged with dangerous driving if he was being that reckless?

**spudchucka** · 18th October 2004, 10:52

Originally Posted by DEATH_INC.

Spud,why would he not have been charged with dangerous driving if he was being that reckless?

Not being there I can't say exactly but really it comes down to what you can prove. It pretty much depends on circumstances though, how many coroborating witnesses you have and how good their statements are. If you had two or three compelling witnesses (unrelated to each other, as in not from the same vehicle) that were prepared to go to court then you would look at dangerous. He was probably only charged with careless because it is the easiest to prove. That might sound like a lazy approach but its better than charging him with something that can't be proven in court, even if you know it is the more appropriate charge.

I'm only speculating, without speaking to the cop involved , who can say??

**marty** · 18th October 2004, 11:17

dangerous and reckless are two different charges, although to add confusion they are found under the same section. reckless is EXTEREMELY hard to prove, and really the only time i can recall someone being charged with reckless is when they drive in a dangerous manner, AFTER being flashed with blue and reds, or told by their friwends to slow down, as the INTENT of the driving changes - it has gone from simply being dangerous to persons/property, to being reckless as to whether person/property are put at risk. the difficulty with reckless is proving the intent to be reckless, and it is a brave prosecutor that will run a reckless over a dangerous charge.
is that your experience scumdog/spudchucker et al?

**Coldkiwi** · 18th October 2004, 11:24

hmm, sounds like Quasi and co would definitely have agreed to a definition of dangerous driving. What do you think Brett?

Isn't it a little ironic that it only needs corroboration from witnesses to make a dangerous/careless driving charge stick but it requires a medical professional to decide if drugs are involved? If someone is high as a kite, its surely pretty obvious and if everyone standing around agree's then whats the problem with saying 'hey, we couldn't test for it, but the fool could barely stand up and is clearly not capable of driving safely'.

Honestly, if more people rode bikes, the amount of drink/drugged driving would manage it self I think! (how far do you reckon a drunk could ride before crashing?)

**KATWYN** · 18th October 2004, 11:30

Originally Posted by Joni

aaaah and suddenly you take me back to memories to good old Johannesburg, was hijacked, 6 witnesses saw that I was held at gun point - police claim its my word against his.... huh!!!!!

:

A few months ago we had a nut case come into work asking for money-
(we are out of the public eye )

I did'nt ask questions,it was clearly a threatening situation- his eyes were glazed over from what ever he was on & making " I won't take no for an answer" demands.....so I gave the guy $150.00 dollers. Anyway when he
left we went to the police.....

Upon description the police had been looking for this guy that day.

All we got was "so why did you give him the money?"

and "next time if he turns up and threatens you, excuse yourself from him
and ring the police immediataly"

All this because "he never physically harmed us or had a weapon" so he hasn't really done anything wrong.

**spudchucka** · 18th October 2004, 11:32

Originally Posted by marty

and it is a brave prosecutor that will run a reckless over a dangerous charge.
is that your experience scumdog/spudchucker et al?

I've not charged anyone with reckless, however I've been involved in a few jobs that resulted in reckless charges being laid (no, not against me). One that comes to mind was a wanted crim trying to evade capture, he tried on several occasions to ram police vehicles in order to get away. He was eventually run off the road and locked up.

**scumdog** · 18th October 2004, 11:36

Originally Posted by marty

dangerous and reckless are two different charges, although to add confusion they are found under the same section. reckless is EXTEREMELY hard to prove, and really the only time i can recall someone being charged with reckless is when they drive in a dangerous manner, AFTER being flashed with blue and reds, or told by their friwends to slow down, as the INTENT of the driving changes - it has gone from simply being dangerous to persons/property, to being reckless as to whether person/property are put at risk. the difficulty with reckless is proving the intent to be reckless, and it is a brave prosecutor that will run a reckless over a dangerous charge.
is that your experience scumdog/spudchucker et al?

Pretty much sums it up, you don't see many charged with reckless, too hard to prove if the guy goes not guilty, makes more sense to go for the dangerous driving, less hassle and more likely to succeed.

**KATWYN** · 18th October 2004, 11:37

So, if any police read my previous thread- I am seriously
confused about how to train staff in these situations
after this incident- have asked another ex cop since
and he couldn't answer the question either???

I have always thought, you do what they say in a threatening
situation

**spudchucka** · 18th October 2004, 11:45

Originally Posted by Coldkiwi

If someone is high as a kite, its surely pretty obvious and if everyone standing around agree's then whats the problem with saying 'hey, we couldn't test for it, but the fool could barely stand up and is clearly not capable of driving safely'.

The problem is that the court won't accept "opinion" evidence unless the person giving that evidence is qualified as an expert in that field. Opinion evidence is like hearsay evidence, its genrally not allowed in court unless it is reckognised as being "Expert Opinion" evidence.

Originally Posted by Coldkiwi

Isn't it a little ironic that it only needs corroboration from witnesses to make a dangerous/careless driving charge stick but it requires a medical professional to decide if drugs are involved?

Some medical conditions can display symptoms of intoxication, a person having a diabetic crash can appear as if they are drunk. A doctor is required to make an assessment otherwise there will be too much doubt.

As for proving dangerous or reckless driving, the witnesses give there evidence to the court, (describe what happened, what they saw etc) if there is sufficient evidence to prove that the persons driving was dangerous or reckless then the court may well convict. If the police have 10 witnesses, unrelated to each other, who all saw the same thing from different angles then that is going to be pretty compelling evidence. If they only have one witness saying this and the defendant is saying that, the cop wasn't there and didn't see it and only charged the guy on the basis of the witnesses statement, then its going to be a lot tougher to prove anything.

Originally Posted by Coldkiwi

Honestly, if more people rode bikes, the amount of drink/drugged driving would manage it self I think! (how far do you reckon a drunk could ride before crashing?)

Natural selection at its finest............so long as noboby else gets killed, aye!

**spudchucka** · 18th October 2004, 11:47

Originally Posted by KATWYN

So, if any police read my previous thread- I am seriously
confused about how to train staff in these situations
after this incident- have asked another ex cop since
and he couldn't answer the question either???

I have always thought, you do what they say in a threatening
situation

Sorry, I'm not sure what thread you are talking about????