Fast and Safe

[Clockwork]

But criminals do??? - and they seem to a lot of the time, and when things DO go wrong for them it is still the tax-payer who forks out the money to make sure they get a "fair trial" and "reasonable living" when sent to prison.
And when was the last time any honest-joe got a $40,000 debt wiped in exchange for a couple of hundred hours 'community work'? Lucky old criminals!

Best the criminals live in fear though eh?

Its a shit deal, I agree but I feel these processes are in place to protect the innocent (such as me ) and I can't think of a better way. Its kind of like the DPB debate. I don't want to see people using it as a lifestyle but without it the kids would suffer, and it's not their fault.
R

[Paul in NZ]

But criminals do??? - and they seem to a lot of the time, and when things DO go wrong for them it is still the tax-payer who forks out the money to make sure they get a "fair trial" and "reasonable living" when sent to prison.
And when was the last time any honest-joe got a $40,000 debt wiped in exchange for a couple of hundred hours 'community work'? Lucky old criminals!

Best the criminals live in fear though eh?

I think most tax payers are prepared to pay a bit more for a tough but fair police force. Most people even accept that the odds are in the favour of the criminal partly due to the 'Innocent until proven guilty' ideal. To wander any farthur to the right in terms of crime prevention is too much for a healthy society to handle. The crims know this and exploit it but that's life...

Policemen and women are human beings and they will be subject to exactly the same failings we all have in similar proportions. My feeling is that we need more Police, better trained and equiped and focussing a lot more on the small and petty crimes. Traffic enforcement is required but it's the burglery, graffiti, vandalisim, abuse and petty thuggery where a lot of the problems start.

I have not thought this through as a proper idea, it's just a feeling I have.

Paul N

[spudchucka]

Duh!. I guess putting

(PT) Just in case you tedious ill informed lot didn't work that one out

at the bottom was a bit too obvious

As for the USA analogy. I guess I was thinking more about ignoring (or bypassing) the Geneva convention with the prisoners held at Guantanemo Bay.

Sorry but I thought (PT) was indicating the poster was a prize twat.

(PT)!

[bluninja]

Oh! Yer got me though most people assume I'm a prize twat. After all I left NZ

[spudchucka]

Sorry Spud, I got lost in the interchange between you and Marty can you please restate your/his point? :confused2

"(a)Direct a person on a road (whether or not in charge of a vehicle) to give the person's name and address and date of birth, or such of those particulars as the enforcement officer may specify, and give any other particulars required as to the person's identity, and (unless the person is for the time being detained or under arrest under any enactment) give such information as is within the person's knowledge and as may lead to the identification of the driver or person in charge of a vehicle: "

The way I read the above legistlation you've posted it seems to me that she couldn't be asked any such questions if she was under arrest. Or am I missing something else? :spudwhat:

Alan made a comment about how wrong it was for police to have a power to arrest passengers in a motor vehicle if the fail or refuse to give the name and detail of the driver of that vehicle.

The point Marty and I were making is that the police do not have any such power to arrest people for that offence. It is dealt with by summons only.

The point being that Alan clearly doesn't know his legislation as well as he would like you all to think he does.

The section quoted compels people to give whatever details are known to them as to the identity of the driver. However if that person was subsequently arrested on any charge then they have the right under section 23(4)(a) to refrain from making any statement. That person therefore can not be compeled to give the details prescribed in section 113(2)(a) of the LTA 1998 as to force them to make a statement would be in breach of their section 23 rights.

I hope that makes it clearer.

[Lou Girardin]

Society should do everything in its power to stop the harmful activities of this minority group, (the criminal fraternity), that has no regard for any laws or socially accepted norms.

Hmmm. Where have I read this before.
That's right almost word for word from a speech by the most infamous politician of the '30's.
"We have a God given duty to protect our people from the evils of international jewry."
You obviously don't delve into cause and effect with regard to crime. But just think back to the major job losses of the mid-late '80's.
Consider the saying, "the devil makes work for idle hands".
We may have ended up with a more efficient economy, but we are paying the price for it.

[Lou Girardin]

But criminals do??? - and they seem to a lot of the time, and when things DO go wrong for them it is still the tax-payer who forks out the money to make sure they get a "fair trial" and "reasonable living" when sent to prison.
And when was the last time any honest-joe got a $40,000 debt wiped in exchange for a couple of hundred hours 'community work'? Lucky old criminals!

Best the criminals live in fear though eh?

This is either law or public policy. It's like speeding laws Scumdog. Just obey them, don't dare complain.

[bluninja]

Hmmm. Where have I read this before.
That's right almost word for word from a speech by the most infamous politician of the '30's.
"We have a God given duty to protect our people from the evils of international jewry."
You obviously don't delve into cause and effect with regard to crime. But just think back to the major job losses of the mid-late '80's.
Consider the saying, "the devil makes work for idle hands".
We may have ended up with a more efficient economy, but we are paying the price for it.

What fallacious crap! So people that lose their jobs turn to a life of crime huh? You obviously don't delve much into cause and effect with regard to crime. Oh sorry I missed the fine point.....oh! oh! I've got it now. The unemployed set up P labs and drug rings to replace their income. This created a whole load of addicts that then turned to crime to fund their addiction.

Shows how easy it is to take a thread starting challenging the information we currently have regarding speed and accident rates is accurate, and then hijack it to an anti police thread. Maybe the police should be using these rules from another book???

Ezra 7:26 And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed speedily upon him, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.

Oops did I just hijack this thread??

[Clockwork]

I hope that makes it clearer.

So what you're saying is that by not answering she could be charged with an offence but not arrested?

It was Indo in thread #102 that first claimed she was arrested legally....

The girlfriend obviously did not want the Police to locate her boyfriend the criminal so refused to provide any details, she then instructed her sister to also not provide any details. The girlfriend was then warned and continued to break the law by protecting her criminal boyfriend. She was then arrested by the Police who were not really interested in arresting her but had no choice as she effectively forced them too. .

[scumdog]

So what you're saying is that by not answering she could be charged with an offence but not arrested?

It was Indo in thread #102 that first claimed she was arrested legally....

Maybe it was for 'obstruction' after all she was obstructing the officer by directing her sister NOT to tell him anything. (and as is often the case she likely would have been shreiking her head off to drown out whatever was being said by the officer)..

My 2 cents worth.

[Clockwork]

Maybe it was for 'obstruction' after all she was obstructing the officer by directing her sister NOT to tell him anything. (and as is often the case she likely would have been shreiking her head off to drown out whatever was being said by the officer)..

My 2 cents worth.

Wouldn't that make every criminal lawyer guilty of obstruction?


......now there's a thought

[Indo]

Maybe it was for 'obstruction' after all she was obstructing the officer by directing her sister NOT to tell him anything. (and as is often the case she likely would have been shreiking her head off to drown out whatever was being said by the officer)..

My 2 cents worth.

It was for obstruction.

[Mongoose]

You obviously don't delve into cause and effect with regard to crime. But just think back to the major job losses of the mid-late '80's.
Consider the saying, "the devil makes work for idle hands".
We may have ended up with a more efficient economy, but we are paying the price for it.

Okie Dokie, so the crime rate has dropped in the last few years lou? The unemployment rate is at a comparitive low, so your logic tells us that there must be less crime, right?

[jrandom]

"We have a God given duty to protect our people from the evils of international jewry."...

Oops.

Godwin's Law.

Move along people, thread's over...

[Alan Wilkinson]

The point being that Alan clearly doesn't know his legislation as well as he would like you all to think he does.

Firstly, I never claimed to be a lawyer or legal beagle. I consult one or look up the stuff when I need to know. In this instance I thought the Star-Times article looked dubious so asked your mate to clarify as I assumed he would know and save me the trouble. He just said obstruction usually led to arrest. What you have just said is probably what the lawyer told the reporter who then garbled it a bit.