Correct procedure for handing out a ticket.

**The Stranger:Me** · 26th November 2007, 15:30

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Wrong.

If you are in uniform you don't have to identify yourself.

If you are in plain clothes you do.

Your identity is confirmed by writing your QID on the ticket.

There is no requirement to wear your hat.

look, the poor sods day was fucked up already so I thought I may as well give him a little hope, build him up for the fall again later.
I rather liked the thought of some twat standing up in court arguing bullshit I had sprouted on line.

**The Stranger:Me** · 26th November 2007, 15:32

Originally Posted by spudchucka

What proof do you want, I'm telling that's how it is.

What was he wearing that has got your hopes up?

If you don't believe me go read the Land Transport Act and all of the related regulations, not to mention Police GI's and speed enforcement policy etc.

See spuddy, better to just do it my way, tell him what he wants to hear, he wanders off happy and you don't have to argue.

**The Pastor** · 26th November 2007, 15:35

Originally Posted by spudchucka

What proof do you want, I'm telling that's how it is.

What was he wearing that has got your hopes up?

If you don't believe me go read the Land Transport Act and all of the related regulations, not to mention Police GI's and speed enforcement policy etc.

yeah thats what I want, a linky would be nice

he wasnt wearing a hat, i heard a rumor that they have to. (ive had a cop search for his hat when he didnt have it before)

**jrandom** · 26th November 2007, 15:39

Noel, just for you, the next time I'm pulled over, I shall argue strenuously that the officer cannot ticket me because he's not wearing his hat.

**MSTRS:Me** · 26th November 2007, 15:40

Originally Posted by scumdog

Average conversation between me and Mr Public:

Me "Gidday, I stopped you because I recorded you travelling at 68 in a 50 area back be the pedestrian crossing, any explanation?"

Mr P. "Oh Gidday Scummy. I knew it was you. The skull mask gave it away"

Me "You must be a KBer"

Mr P. "Yeah sure am. I'm XDJHHVG"

Me "NO worries then. Nice to meet you, mate"

Mr P. "Cool. Wanna go for beer and donuts?"

Me "Just wait there while I grab the donuts and then I'll follow you down to the pisser"

and that kiddies is 90% of our conversation at the side of the road before he drives off...

C'mon SD. We know there's 2 versions of the roadside chat....

**Swoop** · 26th November 2007, 15:53

Originally Posted by scumdog

Average conversation between me and Mr Public:
...
Of course there's always one or two who seem to think a long loud abusive(from them) road-side chat is the essential part of being stopped, good fun, it livens up my day..

You forgot the last bit where they have to post on kb about "I got a bloody ticket"!!

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Wrong....

My goodness. I didn't expect you to accept that troll. Te Stranger did quite well I thought!
It was sooo blatant.

**Mom** · 26th November 2007, 16:15

Originally Posted by spudchucka

What was he wearing that has got your hopes up?

Fishnet stockings and a garter belt with a nice lacy corselette maybe?.....that mind you would be the undergarment officer as opposed to under cover I guess.......

Originally Posted by The Stranger

I rather liked the thought of some twat standing up in court arguing bullshit I had sprouted on line.

I will indeed call on that pearl of wisdom in future if I ever need a defense for speeding, no WOF/rego, poorly displayed number plate or what have you....thanks mate, you are a champ!

**marty** · 26th November 2007, 17:41

Originally Posted by renegade master

yeah thats what I want, a linky would be nice

he wasnt wearing a hat, i heard a rumor that they have to. (ive had a cop search for his hat when he didnt have it before)

don't be a lazy cunt. google is your friend for linkies. only cause i know it off by heart and i'm such a generous fucker that i can be bothered typing it out again.........

www.legislation.govt.nz is the ledge link. S.113 & 114 is what you want to read.

the hat thing though was a requirement for Traffic Officers under the old Transpot Act 1962, repealed by the LT Act 1998. Now there's no traffic officers, there's no 'at. The hat thing is still included, but not as a complete requirement for enforcement. (this is probably to cover the situation when a cop is in a raincoat, their hat is the identifier as to their enforcement status, as opposed to people thinking they are a STMS worker....

an officer out of uniform must produce ID. you are required to stop for a a plain car with flashing blue, flashing red and blues and/or a siren.

AND i might re-join just so i can hunt down 2-faced brain-dead fuckers like you

**Renegade** · 26th November 2007, 17:44

Originally Posted by renegade master, lying bunch of pigs.

yeah i'll miss out on a days wages for going to court, but as the NWA say, F THE POLICE.

last time the basterds gloat to me.

if thats the way you feel just remember not to call them when you need them, after all you dont like them so why would you want their help.

**skidMark** · 26th November 2007, 17:46

renegade_ master you seem awfully upset that you did not get to see the policemans helmet?

renaming it as a hat does not hide the fact.

**homer** · 26th November 2007, 17:58

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Absolutely, if they fuck up on either of these you will get off.
Your lucky day I guess.

only your word against theres ....youll lose

**spudchucka** · 26th November 2007, 19:11

Originally Posted by renegade master

yeah thats what I want, a linky would be nice

he wasnt wearing a hat, i heard a rumor that they have to. (ive had a cop search for his hat when he didnt have it before)

legislation.co.nz has all the statutes you'll ever need.

If you defend it based on the no hat thing could you please let me know where and when the court appearance will be because I need a really good laugh once in a while.