Biker runs from cops

[candor]

Nats are drafting legislation but not sure it is offence specific - more like an aggravated dangerous driving charge for runners I gather. I'd favour something that pinpoints the issue as more likely to send a message. Police Assn also seems to be lobbying for changes. We just need the community to be represented now - and I'll post more on this angle later.

Ixion - I think you'll find the best info and much of what I relayed here
http://www.pursuitwatch.org/ A thought provoking site.

It's foreign, but relevant, because the 2004 pursuit policy - apparently lately reviewed by PCA and some "Justice so and so" to no good effect (pursuits up 50% to 2000 yearly over the last 3 yrs) is about as lax as they get. In the sense that Officers have carte blanche in so far as that commencement of a chase is discretionary. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even brownness or the wearing of a black jersey (under profiling criteria) is enough to qualify you for a command to pull over... which could strike fear into some with prior bad experience, enough to skedaddle.

Pepper spray for resisting arrest - what about for failing to make it click, I lately heard of such trigger happiness!

[Ixion]

Soooo...you know of a better system??

That is just yet allows immediate action??

Yes. It's called "inncocent until proven guilty" It worked well for quite a few centuries. And why is "immediate action" necessary? By definition the rider/driver has stopped. What necessitates any "immediate" action. What is wrong with issuing a summons ? As is done for the more serious offence of dangerous driving. A driver charged with dangerous driving does NOT automatically lose his licence at the roadside (unless he also exceeds 140kph) . Whereas one charged with exceeding 140kph but NOT dangerously does. So how come the non dangerous driver requires "immediate action" but the dangerous one doesn't.

[Ixion]

If that is the case they then they must have been a give away in weetbix boxs then because I recently sat my full, what a bloody joke. I even said to the guy (after he passed me he he)

"do you think this test makes me capable of riding what's currently in my garage"

And of course the answer was no, shit even the testers knows its a bloody joke.

Yes, I guess it must have been.

[Mikkel]

Read the back of the documents that you get given. You have rights to due process, all in writing on the back....

That is not due process...

Which is why wrongful arrest is a serious offence. Not just an administrative inconvenience. There is no corresponding offence of "wrongful licence confiscation". And due process is meaningless in this case since by the time the confiscation is deemed unlawful the 28 days will have expired anyway. Like the boy racer laws , it is a law that in practice amounts to summary (in)justice , and is used by the police to "punish" at will.

This is at the very heart of the issue.

There is no reason at all why you couldn't just be given a notice stating that you had to hand in your license inside 14 days. Unless you are deemed unfit to drive there is absolutely no argument for "immediate action". If going more than 140 was so bloody dangerous the police should quite simply never exceed 140 in a chase - simple eh?

Failing to stop should be a mandatory 3 months jail.

Why waste jailspace and resources on these bottom feeders - a 9 mm lead injection will take care of the problem right then and there!
Too bad for you the nazis didn't win the war and we like to maintain an illusion that we have civil liberties.

Failing to stop is a bogus charge anyway - after all, it's pretty damn hard to hand out the charge if the person in question hasn't pulled over.

Yes. It's called "inncocent until proven guilty" It worked well for quite a few centuries. And why is "immediate action" necessary? By definition the rider/driver has stopped. What necessitates any "immediate" action. What is wrong with issuing a summons ? As is done for the more serious offence of dangerous driving. A driver charged with dangerous driving does NOT automatically lose his licence at the roadside (unless he also exceeds 140kph) . Whereas one charged with exceeding 140kph but NOT dangerously does. So how come the non dangerous driver requires "immediate action" but the dangerous one doesn't.

Yes, it just makes no sense at all.

[Bass]

I agree with Katman

Unfknbelievable!!!
Armageddon is at hand!!

[snuffles]

Long story short.....
The guy was a twat.....ran from police.......lost control........died.....removed from gene pool.....end of story....

[Divot]

yes but if he wasent chased he would of most likely survived as well

So you want all fleeing drivers to be let go, be it that they are speeding, just robbed someone or just killed someone???????????????????????

[Boob Johnson]

Unfknbelievable!!!
Armageddon is at hand!!

Some people think I am biased, one sided on this subject, not so, never have been, if you had your facts straight you would see I have always agreed with the road safety message (made it this far )

I just think he comes across as a Neanderthal in his approach.

See when you have someone like KM who attempts at every given moment to spout on about road safety in all manner of subjects (off topic) it gets old & tiresome quick. Especially when it is so unnecessarily over the top.

The delivery has always been an issue as has his attitude toward others in general. A quick scoot through his posting history will show a history of not finishing or even backing up wide unsubstantiated claims that suit his argument. He won't ever debate an issue like an adult, many have attempted a rational, mature debate with him but he very quickly reverts to a potty mouthed little boy with statements like "suck my cock, homo".



Yeah what a winner, fantastic mentor material that is. He has lost his ":ME" symbol due to too many infractions as well

[Bass]

Some people think I am biased,.............too many infractions as well

I bet that feels better.

[Patrick]

... And due process is meaningless in this case since by the time the confiscation is deemed unlawful the 28 days will have expired anyway. Like the boy racer laws , it is a law that in practice amounts to summary (in)justice , and is used by the police to "punish" at will.

Wrong. "Errors" rectified with one phone call, followed up by an email. I saw it happen once. This week.

So..... the boy racer stuff.... Here is my take on it....

If we see someone smack someone else in the head - you must surely be saying that we can not arrest him because he is innocent until proven guilty. Have I got your logic right here?

But surely any chase is risky...at what point does it start "safe"...

Sure - chases can be risky. They often start safe... when they are on the correct side of the road, not travelling too fast, but not stopping either...

Nats are drafting legislation....

Good to hear, but know nothing of it...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but even brownness or the wearing of a black jersey (under profiling criteria) is enough to qualify you for a command to pull over... which could strike fear into some with prior bad experience, enough to skedaddle.

Yep - you are corrected. You are wrong.

Pepper spray for resisting arrest - what about for failing to make it click, I lately heard of such trigger happiness!

Yeah.... riiiiigggghhhhhtttttt...... And where did this trigger happiness actually take place for not wearing a seatbelt? What a load of bollocks. Funny, but.....

Yes. It's called "inncocent until proven guilty" It worked well for quite a few centuries. And why is "immediate action" necessary?

To revent further offending perhaps? They were left to continue on, and slam into a happy family. Imagine the headlines now. Police stop hoon, let him go and carnage happens...

By definition the rider/driver has stopped. What necessitates any "immediate" action. What is wrong with issuing a summons ?

Is that what those traffic summons books we carry 24/7 are for? I had no idea.......................

A driver charged with dangerous driving does NOT automatically lose his licence at the roadside (unless he also exceeds 140kph) .

This is true. The law says so.......

Whereas one charged with exceeding 140kph but NOT dangerously does. So how come the non dangerous driver requires "immediate action" but the dangerous one doesn't.

This is also true. But a dangerous driver will lose his licence for 6 months. Not just 28 days...

That is not due process...

The right to a hearing? The right to challenge the licence suspension in court and have it overturned? OK then...

There is no reason at all why you couldn't just be given a notice stating that you had to hand in your license inside 14 days. Unless you are deemed unfit to drive there is absolutely no argument for "immediate action". If going more than 140 was so bloody dangerous the police should quite simply never exceed 140 in a chase - simple eh?

[B][I]See above - 28 days compared to dangerous - 6 months loss of licence...[B][I]

Why waste jailspace and resources on these bottom feeders - a 9 mm lead injection will take care of the problem right then and there!
Too bad for you the nazis didn't win the war and we like to maintain an illusion that we have civil liberties.

Read the back of any notice - you have due processes available. Use it if you want, don't use it if you don't want...

Failing to stop is a bogus charge anyway - after all, it's pretty damn hard to hand out the charge if the person in question hasn't pulled over.

Which is why he gets locked up for doing so.

[Ixion]

So..... the boy racer stuff.... Here is my take on it....

If we see someone smack someone else in the head - you must surely be saying that we can not arrest him because he is innocent until proven guilty. Have I got your logic right here?

No. You may arrest him (if the offence be an arrestable one) , but neither you nor anyone else may punish him for the alleged offence until he is found guilty according to law.

And so it is with all alleged offences , and has been since time immemorial , except exceeding 140kph. The perpetrator of that you may punish summarily upon your own total discretion.

[mctshirt]

If that is the case they then they must have been a give away in weetbix boxs then

They were...and you could get a WOF over the phone

[jrandom]

Which is why he gets locked up for doing so.

Heh. Yeah, rightio.

Funny story: following a multi-bike pinged-at-120 situation where I ended up taking the fall and letting the other rider fuck off up the road (actually, the incident immortalised in my current avatar, come to think of it) I asked the copper what he'd have done if neither of us had stopped.

"Well, I would have arrested you both!"

I boggled at the assumptions embodied in that statement.

[Patrick]

No. You may arrest him (if the offence be an arrestable one) , but neither you nor anyone else may punish him for the alleged offence until he is found guilty according to law.

And so it is with all alleged offences , and has been since time immemorial , except exceeding 140kph. The perpetrator of that you may punish summarily upon your own total discretion.

Gotcha. Understand now...

But there is still the right of a hearing. There is still the option of not doing over 40ks over the limit too....

Heh. Yeah, rightio.

Funny story: following a multi-bike pinged-at-120 situation where I ended up taking the fall and letting the other rider fuck off up the road (actually, the incident immortalised in my current avatar, come to think of it) I asked the copper what he'd have done if neither of us had stopped.

"Well, I would have arrested you both!"

I boggled at the assumptions embodied in that statement.

Funny.... Hard to do, but possible... unlikely, but possible.... but funny....

[candor]

Yeah.... riiiiigggghhhhhtttttt...... And where did this trigger happiness actually take place for not wearing a seatbelt? What a load of bollocks. Funny, but.....

Well it wasn't a really reliable source (from Lower Hutt way) and one sided version, but just thought I'd check if anyone put their hand up. Apparently arrestee did not belt up in quiktime. I actually cracked a few jokes after being regaled with the story. But I'm sure it would increase compliance - justcould cause a few visual deficits.

From a more impeccable source, a recent wrong side of road chase of an impaired driver that hurt two innocents, in an area strangely experiencing a few too many dicey such chases... was apparently conducted against a someone who stole their family members car, whom Police knew their name, address and prolly cellphone contact. What was the hurry, what was the rush?

Time to reflect on other places that need to catch up with the modern world and get beyond acting out Western movies.

East Cleveland police chase raises questions about policies
Tuesday, November 04, 2008 Damian G. Guevara, Plain Dealer Reporter

A police officer's decision to chase a suspected motorcycle thief cost him his job last month after he broadsided another motorist.

The crash sparked an emphatic reaction from the city's mayor, who fired the officer and called for more restraint from his officers and police across Cuyahoga County when it comes to police chases.

"I don't agree with high-speed police pursuits when there is no immediate threat to life or officer safety," Mayor Eric Brewer said. "Stolen cars, burglaries, [or] robberies where no one was killed or seriously injured are not worth the risk of one of my residents or children losing their lives."

Brewer said he wants the city to revise its chase policy to establish clear rules for when officers should pursue suspects. Police chases continue to be debated by safety officials nationwide as departments try to balance safety with law and order.

A crash during a police pursuit can result in fatal or severe consequences for fleeing suspects, police and bystanders. City governments can be exposed to lawsuits.

At least 18 people have been killed in Northeast Ohio and scores more injured since 2003 in accidents involving police cruisers giving chase, according to Plain Dealer archives. Six of those killed were not involved in the chase; they were either in other cars or pedestrians. The 12 others were suspects.

While Brewer said the issue deserves attention from area safety officials, local leaders have already tried to create a countywide pursuit policy to foster cooperation and communication among departments, since chases frequently cross borders and jurisdictions.

The goal of the countywide policy was to establish some rules for officers involved in chases and increase safety for police and the public, said Warrensville Heights Police Chief Frank Bova, a proponent of the policy. But not all departments were eager to accept it, Bova said.

When officials unveiled the plan in late 2007, only 29 agencies - less than half of those asked to join - agreed to incorporate the policy into their rulebooks. A list of which cities agreed was not made available. East Cleveland did not adopt the plan because it had no representative at the meeting, Brewer said.