NZ Police public image

[spudchucka]

A question for the policemen on here.
Do you guys ever get on job auditing? As in, a training officer type, follows you around, or goes out with you, at random times, to see how you are performing in the field and ensuring you do things "by the book", etc?

Thats the job of your supervisor. He / She checks all your paper work for detail and accuracy. Sometimes they ride along with you but generally you'll only get serious performance audits after you stuff up and they put the cop on a performance management plan.

[spudchucka]

when (in the complainers opinion) there were no hazards at all.

What they fail to see is that at that time THEY were a hazard to anyone else using the road.

[spudchucka]

It happened in ChCh, although it was not a suspension offence, whether it was deliberate or the cop didn't care to much about correct radar operation is debatable. The guy got off because he, luckily, had a reading of his speed from GPS.

The speed was 113 as I recall, which is out of context in a discussion about licence snatching offences. Did the guy prove that he didn't speed or did he simply create reasonable doubt? As I've said before I won't ticket anyone unless I'm 110% certain of the offence and the offender. If this cop had lower standards than that at the time of this incident then hopefully he has raised them accordingly.

[spudchucka]

I say again. It is dangerous to give a cop the power of a judge and jury......

Its dangerous to travel at high speeds. Thats why laws were passed to deal with the worst offenders quickly and efficiently. Retaining your drivers licence is your responsibility.

[denill]

Its dangerous to travel at high speeds. Thats why laws were passed to deal with the worst offenders quickly and efficiently. Retaining your drivers licence is your responsibility.

I have to admire you.

You always come back with an answer - even if it is just a diatribe that does not address the topic with any logical reasoning. That pretty much makes sure no resolution is ever reached but just results in perpetuation of the thread. Until every body gets sick of it - or dies of old age.

I think I will settle for the former (rather than the latter).

Cheers
Bill

[saiko]

I'd just like to say that this is a very popular thread. Well, now I've had my say too....

[saiko]

...unless I'm 110% certain of the offence ....

Fair enough, but I often wonder when I read stuff like this, is it possible to be > 100%?

I mean I can understand when prices go up 110%, but how can a fixed quantity be greater than 100%. "No you can't have 110% of that cake - there will be none left for your brother"!

My failure rate in dating is 100%. It would be a pretty sad outlook if it got to 110%. I probably wouldn't even talk to myself any more....

[scumdog]

I have to admire you.

You always come back with an answer - even if it is just a diatribe that does not address the topic with any logical reasoning. That pretty much makes sure no resolution is ever reached but just results in perpetuation of the thread. Until every body gets sick of it - or dies of old age.

I think I will settle for the former (rather than the latter).

Cheers
Bill

Re your comment on Spuds comment:

They were actually intending to have an offence of "Crashing Due to Speed in Excess for Road Conditions" - but thought as a lot of the offenders in this catagory would end up dead and unable to pay the ticket fee, that it might be best to just have 'speeding tickets' and say speed is dangerous

[Indoo]

(and yes, I do know I took a cheap shot in reference to indoo earlier, which I almost immediately regretted)

You did? I didn't notice so don't worry about it.

I say again. It is dangerous to give a cop the power of a judge and jury......

By that measure Police shouldn't be inflicting any instant punishments on anyone. Including taking people into custody, impounding racing cars, suspending the licenses of drunk drivers etc.

The law incorporates instant punishments to stop people from continuing to commit what it considers dangerous offences immediately. Its basically aimed to stop these people committing the same offences until they can be brought before the court. You would'nt really want a system whereby every recidivist drunk driver was allowed to keep on driving until a court appearence some 10 months down the track.

[marty]

The law incorporates instant punishments to stop people from continuing to commit what it considers dangerous offences immediately. Its basically aimed to stop these people committing the same offences until they can be brought before the court. You would'nt really want a system whereby every recidivist drunk driver was allowed to keep on driving until a court appearence some 10 months down the track.

well made point indoo.

obviously some people do want that though. or maybe only for the really serious stuff.

[drummer]

I don't always slow to 30kph either when there is no actual road workers present or if it is late at night. However I always make sure my speed is very well below licence snatching levels.

OK.. so you admit to speeding at times... so it must follow that you show descretion... again a no-brainer I would hope. However... what is YOUR criteria for deciding descretion... do you have hard and fast rules... are you likely to act different if you have just had a hard time with the missus?

[drummer]

If the offence happened, what difference does it make whether the cop is an arsehole or not? The outcome is the same regardless.

What? hang on... you just said that you don't always slow down for roadworks... so an offence happens. Are you saying therefore that descretion doesn't exist..? Are you saying that YOU would be fined everytime in that situation if caught?

[drummer]

Thats the job of your supervisor. He / She checks all your paper work for detail and accuracy. Sometimes they ride along with you but generally you'll only get serious performance audits after you stuff up and they put the cop on a performance management plan.

Now this is where I believe the NZ police is not serving the public well. Internal audits have historically (look at Aussie for examples) been ineffective. There needs to be an independent body looking continuously at the performance of the Police department.

[drummer]

Its dangerous to travel at high speeds. Thats why laws were passed to deal with the worst offenders quickly and efficiently. Retaining your drivers licence is your responsibility.

crikey spud... I agree with you... on this post...

[Ixion]

You did? I didn't notice so don't worry about it.



By that measure Police shouldn't be inflicting any instant punishments on anyone. Including taking people into custody, impounding racing cars, suspending the licenses of drunk drivers etc.

The law incorporates instant punishments to stop people from continuing to commit what it considers dangerous offences immediately. Its basically aimed to stop these people committing the same offences until they can be brought before the court. You would'nt really want a system whereby every recidivist drunk driver was allowed to keep on driving until a court appearence some 10 months down the track.

Not logical argument. Wouldn't affect right to arrest at all . Arrested person is either police bailed - so there is no major harm if they are later found not guilty. Or they go before a judge next day to argue bail. And accused then has right to representation , to state his case etc.

Think about it. You arrest someone, you have to tell them their rights. You have to ensure they have access to a lawyer. They have a chance to state their case to a judge the next day. But when you do a roadside suspension , none of this occurs. They don't get told their rights. They have no opportunity to speak to a lawyer. There is no review by a third party. You are judge, jury, prosecuting counsel and bailiff.

OK, so we'll accept that you never make a mistake. Can you say the same for every copper, always ? (this isn't a hit on you, incidentally, or any individual - it's an argument against a bad law). Can you be absolutely 100% certain that every copper, everytime is going to be totally correct about whether someone is "racing" or not ? Absolutely certain that every copper everytime is going to make the right call on how long "sustained" loss of traction is ?

So here you have someone losing their license, but without any of the safeguards that accompany an arrest. What happens if you are wrong ? (As was the case with the speed trap that wasn't). The damage is done, someone has been punished, unjustly, for something they never did, with no chance for redress.

As to the recidivist argument, that is irrelevant because there is nothing in the law that says it applies only to recidivists. The guy you've just suspended may have no record at all - its the first time he ever exceeded the limit.

As for the "get dangerous people off the road quickly" argument, if that were the objective of the law it could have been much better addressed by giving the officer the right to arrest (if he didn't already have it ). Then the judge at the bail hearing next day would have the ability to make bail conditional on surrendering license (or car etc). No surrender, he gets locked up anyway, no danger to anyone.

Same result, but with safeguards. The accused gets told his rights. He gets to consult a lawyer. He gets to make his explanation, point out the error , whatever. The decision is made by an objective third party (the judge/magistrate)