Officer charged over motorcycle crash

[sprag]

i say they will just give him a slap on the wrist and lower the charge as a bargin, that way he gets to keep his job

[DEATH_INC.]

Where's the 28 day instant loss?

[Mikkel]

As already stated, the thing that is a cause for aggravation is not that he did a U-turn at a badly chosen spot and caused an accident, it's the alleged statement of "You were speeding!" to the injured bikers.

I'd say dangerous is a bit over the top - I think careless use causing injury would be more appropriate.

Furthermore, it is neither impossible nor improbable that the bikers were speeding - however it doesn't change the fact that his ill-conceived "U-turn" was the cause of the accident and as such he should shoulder the blame (and not waste time preaching to injured bikers writhing in pain!)...

And no, I don't think he should loose his job. He hasn't demonstrated that he's a bad cop - just that he is capable of making a mistake like all other human beings... Fair enough if he gets to be a desk jockey for a year or two though.

[Banesto John]

Dangerous is a bit harsh, Careless sounds closer. The difference between a criminal record (dismissal) and a conviction comes down to intention. Had he intended to smoke 2 bikers he would be gone by lunchtime, but given that it was clearly a balls up, well, even I have some sympathy.

It will be interesting to see what he does, guilty or not guilty. Not guilty will mean the bikers having to appear in court months from now, a guilty plea will see it all over a lot sooner.

To those who think a bloke should lose a career for making a mistake, have a look at your own history before passing judgement.

[Banesto John]

Its not used in this offence that im aware of.

There is no 28 day suspension for this circumstance.

[scumdog]

I must say that dangerous seems harsh, careless or at most reckless I would have thought.

Reckless is way more worserer than dangerous, f.i.y....

[Fatjim]

Thats funny, the last cop I talked to about this said the penalty was the same for reckless and dangourous, but reckless was far harder to prove.

[Mikkel]

Reckless is way more worserer than dangerous, f.i.y....

I assume Hitcher is away on holiday... don't let that fool you!

I suppose you mean FYI...

Furthermore, I wasn't aware of that reckless being worse than dangerous. Thanks for clearing that up.

[scumdog]

Thats funny, the last cop I talked to about this said the penalty was the same for reckless and dangourous, but reckless was far harder to prove.

The MAXIMUM penalty may be the same - but try and get away with the same penalty on front of the judge when convicted of reckless....

[RantyDave]

I'd say dangerous is a bit over the top

Perhaps deliberately so? Go with dangerous and have a 90% chance that you won't be able to prove it (i.e. he gets off), or pick careless but only a 50% chance (or lower) that it won't fly. I bet that's the tactic involved here. They knew they had to charge him with something, best make certain it doesn't stick.

Dave

[Mikkel]

Perhaps deliberately so? Go with dangerous and have a 90% chance that you won't be able to prove it (i.e. he gets off), or pick careless but only a 50% chance (or lower) that it won't fly. I bet that's the tactic involved here. They knew they had to charge him with something, best make certain it doesn't stick.

Dave

I'm guessing here:

Well if the prosecution (sp?) does its job properly they won't be able to do it that way. It would then just mean that there's a risk that the offender might be convicted of a higher crime before having to face a careless charge.

Or how does it work?

Anyone here got charged with dangerous and went to court on it?


Just like you could be charged with murder one, be aquitted and instead convicted of involuntary manslaughter....

[Fatjim]

Bulllshitt

[gtr boy]

I don't understand why people always assume Police try and protect their own - it's kinda like "well if they are a Police Force of course they will protect their own...human nature and all that" - but its not true. They simply don't.

youve gotta be fkn joking buddy

[Nonbeliever]

He'll probably get some cruisey job walking the beat on the gold coast after a cover-up.

[jafar]

I don't understand why people always assume Police try and protect their own - it's kinda like "well if they are a Police Force of course they will protect their own...human nature and all that" - but its not true. They simply don't.

Good attempt @ the tui award there mate