NZ Police public image

[scumdog]

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.

Yeah, the guy did a skid take off right across from the Police station as he left the petrol station, he fishtailed his car, I heard it and another officer about to leave the station saw him as did a member of the public.

As we (cops) are honest we told the judge the tyres were spinning for two to three seconds, the judge gave him the benefit of the doubt and said "o k, I'll say you spun the wheels for only two seconds, I don't think that is enough for 'sustained' so I'll let you off, I almost convicted you for Careless Use but have decided to be lenient and let you go"

BTW The guy denied spinning his tyres AT ALL! But obviously the judge believed he did.

[scumdog]

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.

I think you mean the civilian camera van operators?

[spudchucka]

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.

I do see your point and agree to a certain extent. The role of police as law enforcers automatically puts them into an adversarial relationship with any person who is being dealt with over an offence. Traffic enforcement is what gets moaned about most often and because most people use the roads in some way, then most people experience some form of traffic enforcement, (even if its just a compulsary breath test checkpoint).

But as I said in my last post - most folk generally accept the system as necessary.

You are correct again. Most people can see and accept the need for law enforcement and the powers accorded those acting as law enforcement officers. Everbody has the right to expect that those powers will not be abused and in the whole they are not being abused except by the absolute minority. However, the general anti police cry is simply generic moaning about traffic tickets being issued for offences that are perceived to be trivial in nature.

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?

Again, I agree and I thank you for your input. You have displayed a level of wisdom and maturity that is by and large non-existant in this this and other anti police threads.

[spudchucka]

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.

That is absolute rubbish. The purpose of the Act is clear and any cop that put your good lady before the Court for a hill start squeally would be shat on by the Court. It isn't a new law anymore and the Courts have ruled as to what is a sustained loss of traction and your scenario just would not fit the offence.

[spudchucka]

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.

As explained in the last post, two seconds is not what is considered "sustained".

[Funkyfly]

You have displayed a level of wisdom and maturity that is by and large non-existant in this this and other anti police threads.

Like giving the big finger to peoples comments aye mate.

[Funkyfly]

I think you mean the civilian camera van operators?

I have seen uniformed officers doing this, my comments were also reffering to HP officers sitting in the car sleeping, or reading the paper, or generally maxing out. Might be their break, smoko, granted, but i certainly wouldnt call it a busy job being a HP cop.

So the whole "far to busy to bug the public" comment doesnt sit really, in fact i would venture to say some even get bored!

On any given morning between Hawera and New PLymouth there is up to 6 cop cars on this 45min stretch or road.

Out of interest how many cars would they stop in an hour on average do you think?

[spudchucka]

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"

Like it or not, that is your option.

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.

I assume you are talking about traffic stops here? The relevant section is below for your purusal.

114.Power to require driver to stop and give name and address, etc—

(1)An enforcement officer who is in uniform, or wearing a distinctive cap, hat, or helmet, with a badge of authority affixed to it, may signal or request the driver of a vehicle to stop the vehicle as soon as is practicable.

(2)An enforcement officer in a vehicle following another vehicle may, by displaying flashing blue, or blue and red, lights or sounding a siren, require the driver of the other vehicle to stop.

(3)An enforcement officer may require the driver of a vehicle that is stopped under this Act to—

(a)Remain stopped for as long as is reasonably necessary for an enforcement officer to obtain the particulars referred to in paragraph (b), or to complete the exercise of any other power conferred on an enforcement officer by this Act; and

(b)On demand by an enforcement officer,—

(i)Give his or her name and address and date of birth, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify; and

(ii)State whether or not he or she is the owner of the vehicle; and

(iii)If the driver is not the owner of the vehicle, give the name and address of the owner or such particulars within the driver's knowledge as may lead to the identification of the owner.

(4)The driver of a vehicle that is stopped under subsection (2) is not obliged to remain stopped if the vehicle with flashing lights and siren does not itself stop in the near vicinity of the place where the driver has stopped.

(5)An enforcement officer may require a driver to remain stopped on a road for as long as is reasonably necessary to enable the officer to establish the identity of the driver, but not for longer than 15 minutes if the requirement to remain stopped is made under this subsection only.

(6)An enforcement officer may arrest a person without warrant if the officer has good cause to suspect the person of having—

(a)Failed to comply with this section or a signal or request or requirement under this section; or

(b)Given false or misleading information under this section.

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.

The camera operators are non-sworn civilian members. They aren't cops!

[spudchucka]

Like giving the big finger to peoples comments aye mate.

When its deserved you will receive it. Here's another for good measure.

[denill]

Hey, you are all being sucked in.
The 'cops' who post here aren't really cops.

How could they be. The time spent here precludes them having any sort of a job......

They are just 'trolls'............

Cheers
Bill

[scumdog]

Hey, you are all being sucked in.
The 'cops' who post here aren't really cops.

How could they be. The time spent here precludes them having any sort of a job......

They are just 'trolls'............

Cheers
Bill

Hey! I might be ugly but I'm not a troll!

[Lou Girardin]

maybe he just can't be fucked listening to a couple of bleaters, especially while he's not working.

Uuuh, Marty it's not listening, it's reading. We all have the choice to not read the posts. I have to say I enjoy this thread though.

[marty]

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"



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.



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.

1. your choice. don't complain if you're gonna pay up. just roll over and take it where it hurts the least.

2. actually, there HAS to be a reason. even if it's for a WOF/licence check. if it ends up talking about your bike, then so be it. and i can't think how many 'shady' stops i have done that have ended in arrest/chase/scrap/impound/other. probably more than not.

3. the van sitters are not cops. they are (almost exclusively) non sworn civillians. and i don't think that you would.

[Lou Girardin]

Some of the examples given here of traffic stops, if true, are appalling and point to real issues with recruitment and training. The bottom line for the cop should always be "if in doubt, don't write a live ticket".
My biggest issue though, is with roadside licence suspension. This is really giving the Police the power of summary punishment without trial. If the driving is dangerous enough to warrant this it should be dealt with by arrest. What happens if you're suspended and subsequently aquitted of the charge? Do you get your 28 days back? Or do you get a credit for next time?
If anyone doubts that it happens. It actually did happened to several drivers when the cops set up a speed trap at an illegal 30 km'h roadworks restriction on the Waipu straights in 2003.

[Ixion]

1. your choice. don't complain if you're gonna pay up. just roll over and take it where it hurts the least.
..

Not exactly what most people would call "just" though , is it ? I'd say that if the choices are rollover and pay an unjust fine; or contest it but end up paying more than the fine anyway, then the person involved is perfectly entitled to complain. In either case they've been mulcted of hundreds of dollars without having done anything wrong. That's hardly just.

Think about it. The allegation is that a person has been wrongfully , and wilfully, accused of a crime they didn't commit. And the police officer making the allegation knew it was false. Sure, in this case the "crime" is a minor one. But what if the alleged crime was, say, rape ? Should they still "roll over" ? No, I don't think so either. And if we accept that spurious allegations are OK in "minor" crimes, where do you start drawing lines?

Which is really what this whole sub thread is about. The potential for injustice by the police . The reality is, that if a cop decides he doesn't like you he can hit you with at least several hundred dollars of fines even if you are totally lawabiding. Which is arbitrary punishment, in theory banned for nearly a thousand years.

Now I'm not saying that does happen. It's never happened to me. I've heard other people tell tales that suggest that now and again it does. But, we only ever hear one side of these stories and I imagine that in most cases the cop's story would be different. So we have to take them with a grain of salt.

Certainly, it is possible to contest unjust allegations. And our system is honest enough that I think it would be very rare for an unjust charge to get through the courts (but not impossible). As Mr Spudchucka has commented, judges will throw out overly imaginative interpretations of the law. But - and it is a realistic but, invoking this right will often cost more than the cost of "rolling over"

And there are sufficent BIG scandels at the moment involving misuse of police power (in some cases gross misuse) to make people suspicious. And nervous.

Like Mrs Ixion, who has taken on board that spinning your wheels is illegal and is scared that she'll be ticketed for doing it accidentally. Sure, a judge would throw it out. Sure, it's very unlikely that a cop would ticket her for it in the first place because she is so obviously not a boi racer. Would she contest the ticket if it did happen ? Maybe if it involved impoundment. Otherwise probably not. Would she be so sure of immunity to such a dubious charge if she was a 20 year old in a customised car ? I doubt it.

It must be pretty obvious to anyone that if (that's an "if" there guys so don't splode) there are cops abusing their power, they are a VERY small minority. After all, with about 9000 cops (is that right ? Or does that include non-sworn), if 99% of them are as decent and honest as can be, you'll still have 1%, that's 90 bastards. I think any organisation that could say that it only had 1% bad eggs would be doing pretty good.

But it's still 90 cops some where in the country off on a power trip. And every time they arsehole (sorry Mr Hitcher, I mean asshole) a person, that person tells all his mates, who tell theirs , who post the info on bulletin boards.

And the public hear, and at least semi believe and get nervous. Does it happen ? I suspect so. Is it comon ? No, obviously not. Should it happen? Obviously not. Is there any way to prevent it happening on rare occasion ? I doubt it.

And when it does and the victims of it recount their angst, the honest cops who hear will silently moan and curl up a bit inside. And , publicly, defend the system and the force, because they're proud of it, and they know that the bad eggs that occasion all the noise are a tiny tiny proportion of the total. And that it is not wise to throw babies out with bathwater.

And the good cops will be the ones who will (in private) come down hardest of all on any of their team who let the side down.

All of which leaves the poor sod who did run into a duff copper still smarting.

Not just because he's a few hundred bucks out of pocket. But also because he perceives that the Rule of Law has failed.

I'd also suggest that the volume of indignation is because people DO have a respect for the law. Consider parking tickets. I've had parking tickets I thought were unfair. But I just shrugged and paid them, as do most people. Life's too short to fight a parking ticket. So if we regarded speeding (etc) tickets like parking tickets , I doubt anyone would complain about the odd dud one. But that goes against all the messages about speeding ('.. be prepared to kill') etc.