NZ Police public image

[spudchucka]

Cops have power, control, whateva you you want to call it or dont want to call it, they have it!

What you fail to realise is that you have control over whether any power is imposed upon you in the first place.

[idb]

What you fail to realise is that you have control over whether any power is imposed upon you in the first place.

Can you explain this?
You're not referring to something like "you voted them in" are you?

[spudchucka]

Travelling to Tekuiti I passed two cars up a long hill. One of the cars was a plain cop car who proceeded to pull me over and ticket me for passing on double yellow lines. He had a rather large smirk on his face (unless he was deformed) and what looked to be his wife and kids in the cop car were laughing. I stated I had passed on white lines and that I had pulled in on the broken yellow lines, the officer stated "there are no white lines, its double yellow all the way up the hill" I sad no, there is a strip of white you can pass on, at this stage he seemed to get bored, gave me a ticket and took off with his kids in the back laughing and pointing as they passed. I went back and measured the length of the white lines and the broken yellow and proceeded to write a letter explaining there had been a mistake, I get a letter back telling my my case had been considered and that my argument was rejected, Shocked I tracked down the person who had rejected my letter, Here is how the conversation played out.......

Me - "why did you reject it?"
Rejecter -"Well I considered your word against the officers, I believed the officer"
Me - "did you send him out to check the bit of road in question?"
Rejecter - "nope"
Me - "well how can you reject my application if you haven't checked the evidence"
rejecter - "I believe the officer, you can take it to court in Tekuiti"

Sheesh, this is that the public are dealing with, and I have a few other personal experiences where I did go to court and win, but never once did the officer say "sorry".

Take it to Court. Thats your right.

[spudchucka]

Can you explain this?
You're not referring to something like "you voted them in" are you?

How do people come to the attention of the police in the first place? Contrary to what FunkFly would have us believe cops are far too busy to simply make peoples lives a misery because they have nothing better to do. The person on the receiving end of "The Power" has undoubtedly done some act or otherwise to come to the atention of the cops in the first place. In that sense the public control "The Power" as much as the police do.

[idb]

How do people come to the attention of the police in the first place? Contrary to what FunkFly would have us believe cops are far too busy to simply make peoples lives a misery because they have nothing better to do. The person on the receiving end of "The Power" has undoubtedly done some act or otherwise to come to the atention of the cops in the first place. In that sense the public control "The Power" as much as the police do.

I accept that in the main but the act or otherwise could simply be looking a bit out of place in some manner to the cop's eye.
The cop does have "The Power" to detain that person to check them out. I'm sure that you can see how irritating that must be if the detainee is going about his lawful business.

[spudchucka]

I accept that in the main but the act or otherwise could simply be looking a bit out of place in some manner to the cop's eye.
The cop does have "The Power" to detain that person to check them out. I'm sure that you can see how irritating that must be if the detainee is going about his lawful business.

Cops can detain a driver at the roadside under the Land Transport Act. There are also other enactments that allow police to detain people for specific purposes, (Misuse of Drugs Act for example). However they can't just go around detaining people willy nilly just because they don't like the look of them. Cops can stop and talk to anyone, that is a common law right. Equally, the person being spoken to does not have to remain to answer any question unless required to do so under an enactment. That also is a common law right.

[Brian d marge]

Take it to Court. Thats your right.

With court cost being a min of 90 last time I checked ,,,,and who is the judge going to believe ,,,the great unwashed or a fine upstanding member of the force ....
even with photo evidence to insert that litlle bit of doubt....or even evidence from the person sitting next to u ..probably your wife.....
90 dollar gamble the judge will call it in favour ..off .......

set up a separate bank account... put the 90 dollars on the Gee Gees for a win and a place and if you win you use the money to pay the fine ..if not a dollar down a dollar a week or as slow as poss ...( my money does more good in my bank account than Helens,,and I had a lot of fun at the gee gees with that 90 dollars!!!)
better yet go slow ride an enfield or drive a robin reliant ............What made the policeman stop u un the first place!!!??

Stephen
Who Doesnt have to deal with mr ticket,,,,,, mr ticket

[idb]

Cops can detain a driver at the roadside under the Land Transport Act. There are also other enactments that allow police to detain people for specific purposes, (Misuse of Drugs Act for example). However they can't just go around detaining people willy nilly just because they don't like the look of them. Cops can stop and talk to anyone, that is a common law right. Equally, the person being spoken to does not have to remain to answer any question unless required to do so under an enactment. That also is a common law right.

Fair enough.
The occasions that most people are going to come into contact with cops however is on the road, and unfortunately that is in essence a matter of 'your word against mine'.
Now, if the cop uses his experience and judgement to decide that an offence has been committed he simply fills out a form and sticks it in his 'IN' tray. If he is wrong or the poor unfortunate disagrees (and he could be genuine, it does happen you know), it is a long and torturous process to prove it.
Sure, there is a process that the person can follow but there is a power imbalance (for want of a better term) there.
Simply pointing out that everyone has a right to contest a notice doesn't acknowledge the effort and cost involved.

[idb]

Just a small example that I know of;
A friend of mine was driving his Capri at night last winter when he struck a small patch of frost which caused his rear wheels to kick out slightly.
The car behind immediately turned on his red n blues and pulled him over.
As he came up to the driver's window he accused him of 'causing his vehicle to break traction' or whatever the term is and was in the process of describing how he could impound the car when he finally caught sight of the driver. He is about 55 and balding.
He changed tack and accused the driver of speeding through a posted road-works area and issued a fine accordingly.
This was incorrect as the signs had been shifted that afternoon but the driver had to go back to the site the next day, take photos of the area showing the sign locations, interviewed some of the workers on site and then go into the station and present his case.
The sergeant accepted it and tore up the notice.
Now it's good that he got off, but he is self-employed and had to take almost a full day away from his business to prove his innocence while the cop in question was still earning his pay untroubled by all of this (excepting that his sergeant may have had a word or two).

I am not going to join the throng that dredges up examples to show what pricks the cops are, my point is that there is an imbalance there which the public understands and mostly accepts as a consequence of having a functioning police force.

[spudchucka]

I agree that the system is at times unfair. But, we all sign up to it when we apply for drivers licences and in doing so accept the terms & conditions of using the roads. The justice system and the resolution processes involved are part and parcel to that accpetance.

Sure, some people undoubtedly get issued tickets who either didn't commit the offence or have a reasonable excuse for doing what they did. Cops make mistakes sometimes, they are human afterall, despite what some on here would suggest. Should we stop policing the roads because occasionally cops make mistakes? Why don't we stop locking up burglars for the same reason?

Anybody that has been wrongly charged with any offence has every right to feel agreived. I feel terribly sorry for those people and appreciate the hardship this puts them in.

I personally refuse to issue traffic tickets unless I am 110% certain the person involved has committed the offence, if there is any doubt in my mind I will not get out the ticket book. I don't give a stuff about so called quotas, I'll decide for myself when, where and who I write a ticket to.

[spudchucka]

I am not going to join the throng that dredges up examples to show what pricks the cops are, my point is that there is an imbalance there which the public understands and mostly accepts as a consequence of having a functioning police force.

Good point and very reasonably put. It was unfortunate for that chap but again there is an example of how the persons actions have brought them to the attention of the polcie. If the vehicle had not broken traction momentarily then the cop in all likelihood wouldn't have stopped the driver at all. The cop may have genuinely believed the driver had commited that offence and in his mind was totally justified in writing the ticket, who knows really? Only that cop I guess. There are ticket crazy cops out there and they piss me off as much as they piss you off, but for different reasons I would suggest.

[idb]

I agree that the system is at times unfair. But, we all sign up to it when we apply for drivers licences and in doing so accept the terms & conditions of using the roads. The justice system and the resolution processes involved are part and parcel to that accpetance.

Sure, some people undoubtedly get issued tickets who either didn't commit the offence or have a reasonable excuse for doing what they did. Cops make mistakes sometimes, they are human afterall, despite what some on here would suggest. Should we stop policing the roads because occasionally cops make mistakes? Why don't we stop locking up burglars for the same reason?

Anybody that has been wrongly charged with any offence has every right to feel agreived. I feel terribly sorry for those people and appreciate the hardship this puts them in.

I personally refuse to issue traffic tickets unless I am 110% certain the person involved has committed the offence, if there is any doubt in my mind I will not get out the ticket book. I don't give a stuff about so called quotas, I'll decide for myself when, where and who I write a ticket to.

Sure, I don't dispute any of that, this discussion started when I disputed your point that the police have powers unavailable to the general public except when a person has done something to deserve attention.
I concede that that is mainly true but unfortunately from the cops' PR point of view the most sweeping powers seem to be in the area that is going to bring them into conflict with the most people.
But as I said in my last post - most folk generally accept the system as necessary.

I'm rambling now of course, I need to go to bed. I think we raised the tone of this thread a bit - whaddaya reckon?

[Ixion]

..
As he came up to the driver's window he accused him of 'causing his vehicle to break traction' or whatever the term is and was in the process of describing how he could impound the car when he finally caught sight of the driver. He is about 55 and balding...

That section of law has to be one of the most badly drafted on record. And there is anecdotal evidence (hasn't happened to me) that is abused. With front wheel drive cars it is often very difficult, when starting off on a steep hill, NOT to have a bit of wheelspin. There is a steep hill near us with a give way at the top , and whenever Mrs Ixion has to start off on the hill in the wet she ALWAYS spins her wheels . This is a respectable middle aged matron driving a Nissan Sunny 1300cc sedan! But if an officious plod decided to build his quota she could get done for it. The purpose of the act was obvious. It's application seems to be more as a clobbering machine. I wonder if it has actually ever been used against the intended target, the boi racers doing burnouts.

This (Mr Idb's tale) is probably also an example of the misuse of power that posters have complained of. In the event the cop decided not to proceed with the "breaking traction" because the driver could obviously not be labelled as a boy racer. But what if the driver had been 25 instead of 55 ? The act actually says "sustained loss of traction", and it must be "without reasonable excuse". So I would imagine that the driver in the tale, even if only 25, would be able to dispute the charge, and probably get it fropped . BUT ----- in the mean time his car has been impounded ! That could be a serious problem to many people. In some cases people could lose their jobs. And there is no provision for any redress. So that would be a case of power being abused.

Though I think the whole boy-racer law is throughly bad law, and an excellent example of what happens when politicians react emotively Bad laws tend to invite abuse.

[idb]

That section of law has to be one of the most badly drafted on record. And there is anecdotal evidence (hasn't happened to me) that is abused. With front wheel drive cars it is often very difficult, when starting off on a steep hill, NOT to have a bit of wheelspin. There is a steep hill near us with a give way at the top , and whenever Mrs Ixion has to start off on the hill in the wet she ALWAYS spins her wheels . This is a respectable middle aged matron driving a Nissan Sunny 1300cc sedan! But if an officious plod decided to build his quota she could get done for it. The purpose of the act was obvious. It's application seems to be more as a clobbering machine. I wonder if it has actually ever been used against the intended target, the boi racers doing burnouts.

This (Mr Idb's tale) is probably also an example of the misuse of power that posters have complained of. In the event the cop decided not to proceed with the "breaking traction" because the driver could obviously not be labelled as a boy racer. But what if the driver had been 25 instead of 55 ? The act actually says "sustained loss of traction", and it must be "without reasonable excuse". So I would imagine that the driver in the tale, even if only 25, would be able to dispute the charge, and probably get it fropped . BUT ----- in the mean time his car has been impounded ! That could be a serious problem to many people. In some cases people could lose their jobs. And there is no provision for any redress. So that would be a case of power being abused.

Though I think the whole boy-racer law is throughly bad law, and an excellent example of what happens when politicians react emotively Bad laws tend to invite abuse.

I read in yesterday's paper of a fellow having to go to court to clear himself of a charge brought under this law.
There were witnesses from all sides but he was finally acquitted because the judge decided that if there was any loss of traction, it was probably for less than two seconds.
I don't know if the two second thing is significant but Scumdog might have an opinion on this.

[Funkyfly]

Take it to Court. Thats your right.

Yes i could, lets see, a $150 fine or take it to court.

Court would entail a day off work $250, plus travelling and gas $100.

so $150 vs $350? My wife made the decision easy. "Just pay the man"

What you fail to realise is that you have control over whether any power is imposed upon you in the first place..

Cops can stop whoever they want when ever they want, the public must stop. They dont need any reason at all, i.e cops stopping you to talk about your bike. Or if they think you "Look" shady.

cops are far too busy to simply make peoples lives a misery .

LOL, yea right mate, man i wish i could sit around in a van reading the news paper all day long, or sit in the sun on the side of the road sleeping, seen it far to many times.