Biker runs from cops

[madboy]

Failing to stop is pretty much a wet bus ticket. I last got charged with that in 2001 when I flew past a cop at 110 in a 50. Long story short, they didn't have enough evidence to charge me with anything else (didn't get a radar lock for speed, didn't see me do anything "dangerous" aside from fly past and disappear) so they went for failing to stop. I pled guilty.

Standing in court, the judge looks at me with a very stern look on her face... "Mr Smith, I'm very troubled to see you had your license back for only two weeks when this offence took place, and this is the second time you've committed this offence." She really f***ed me hard up the arse too... a $350 fine!

Beats a disq or the fines/sentence you'd get for dangerous or speeding.

[Bass]

Gotcha. Understand now...

But there is still the right of a hearing.

No, not really.
As Ix points out, by the time your hearing comes up, you have done your summarily awarded 28 days well and truly.
My son is awaiting a hearing. He's finally got a date - 3 years after the event!

(and let's not get started on the costs of defending absolutely ridiculous charges - like the depositions judge asking the prosecuting sergeant why he was bothering)



Sometimes the cops do get it wrong.

I know of a guy who was given a ticket because he was the front one of the bunch. The cop frankly admitted that he didn't know which one of the group that he got a lock on - so he gave it to the man in front - and no, they weren't all travelling at the same speed, they were overtaking a truck one by one at the time. IMHO a pretty clear cut case with plenty of potential witnesses for the defence, but just not worth defending.
Another man soured and unlikely to be a friend of the police in future though.

[Divot]

Can't think of any other legal matter where the prosecution doesn't have to provide a burden of evidence, where the defendant is guilty until proven innocent and there's no need for judge or jury.

Blow over 650 and your are walking for 28 day instantly.

[Divot]

Anarchy does not reign crime or road safety wise where Police adopt sensible (restrictive) chase policies. More young idiots just get the chance to grow up and to not be idiots, they arrive home after a sensible cop decides not to play cat and mouse... making the situation immeasurably more dangerous 4 all.

They arrive home after a sensible person decides not to play cat and mouse with the cops!

[scumdog]

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.

And I'm sure all Police involved in chases just KNOW that the driver hasn't killed anybody or is on the way to kill somebody when they do the runner - let alone is drunk/disqualified/stolen the car or whatever.
20/20 hindsight is great eh!

Fuck this 21st century approach where "Bwaaa, it's always somebody elses fault" - don't do a runner, don't crash and you won't have to find this 'somebody else' to blame.

I've got NO sympathy for anybody who gets killed dong a runner or who kills some innocent party doing it.

[Patrick]

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.

For about 10 to 15 minutes....

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?

"An impaired driver hurting two innocents..." hang on... If they did nothing and he hurt more, or worse, killed others... what would the outcry be then?

Headline - "Cops did nothing to prevent death/carnage..."

Failing to stop is pretty much a wet bus ticket.... She really f***ed me hard up the arse too... a $350 fine!

Beats a disq or the fines/sentence you'd get for dangerous or speeding.

She did!!! That has to be the biggest fine I have ever seen for that offence. Lucky she wasn't aware she could in fact disqualify you, once convicted of an offence under the Land Transport Act. Section 80(??? I think???)

[candor]

I've got NO sympathy for anybody who gets killed dong a runner or who kills some innocent party doing it.

The argument is circular & in tune with Patricks. The courts have plenty sympathy for road killers so your lack of it isn't of extreme comfort. Point is what about the innocent parties.

Sure no-one can predict perfectly the outcome of the "to chase or not to chase" dilemna. And thats why arrestees must buckle up when along for the ride?! But plenty of stats can give a fair idea, when the known circumstances are taken in to account. Isn't that why certain factors are supposed to be considered.... though this isn't really "policed".

Maybe or prolly most cops make good calls. What about those who don't - should they be given a free reign to risk innocents lives, or to learn from experience ... only occasionally get prosecuted for dangerous driving if the spin Drs fail and this is unfortunately teamed with a hua of an outcry?

Or can a more directive police policy and criminal code take care of the idiot factor, where it exists on either side? Surely fewer cockups would be better for Police image and create less internal friction. In my book one cock up is too many when lives are at stake. People cover - have seen rank closing in my job too. Yes nurses bash patients.

even so most professionals have tight standards round safety issues - not sure why our Govt thinks that a rape subculture a la Rickards is more worth scrutinising than a chase problem - seen in certain times / places and I'd say indulged in by a certain type of alpha male cop. Is it the feminist element or that only one (or was it 3 on the cop side) tangoed. I'd prefer rape to death or GBH of myself or any community member anytime. Like the Rickard racket, bad chases can breed ill feeling. I'm not seeking to blame cops for outcomes in a general way - only to say there seems to be room for improvement.

Drs and bad accountants get ostracised or struck off, there just seems to be a lot more slack cut for cops and moronic Judges when they diverge from sane activity. At least the cops can say "yes but I put my life on the line" which partly makes up for any isolated incidents - Judges - they just put ours on the line as sport.

[candor]

"An impaired driver hurting two innocents..." hang on... If they did nothing and he hurt more, or worse, killed others... what would the outcry be then?

???)

I believe (from reliable source within an involved local service) that in said case it was fairly obvious the impaired driver would have toddled home a short distance, or to a mates, trying to be inconspicuous, at a speed far less than the 140 k they got up to and persisted with on the wrong side of a high risk highway for quite a considerable distance... due to the prolly fired up knucklehead crowding him on the tail. This is qualified by fact it remains hearsay, but nothing in the media reports would make me doubt the assessment.

The impaired driver had hurt no-one before the chase - you got that I hope.Then it became a likelihood per chase m.o.

[wbks]

And I'm sure all Police involved in chases just KNOW that the driver hasn't killed anybody or is on the way to kill somebody when they do the runner - let alone is drunk/disqualified/stolen the car or whatever.
20/20 hindsight is great eh!

Fuck this 21st century approach where "Bwaaa, it's always somebody elses fault" - don't do a runner, don't crash and you won't have to find this 'somebody else' to blame.

I've got NO sympathy for anybody who gets killed dong a runner or who kills some innocent party doing it.

Fine, no one cares if you have no sympathy for people who kill themselves running. But many of the chases end in an innocent third party dieing e.g another motorist. If it only ever harmed the offender, there would be no issue. But yes, most runners must be on their way to bomb the pentagon and should be stopped because we're too pc nowadays, right? btw whats the point of chasing them? They don't force them off the road like in the states, they just follow them on the runners ass which makes them run harder and they dont do a thing anyway exept wait for the runner to decide to stop (not likely after they've already ran), crash or what?

[mdnzz]

btw whats the point of chasing them? They don't force them off the road like in the states, they just follow them on the runners ass which makes them run harder and they dont do a thing anyway exept wait for the runner to decide to stop (not likely after they've already ran), crash or what?

A good point however civil libertarians/ tree huggers would have a feild day in the media arena over this, court cases would abound and the cost to the taxpayer exhuasting.
Any injuries the perp received would be covered by current ACC laws and there is still the possibility of an innocent person being injured as the fleeing vehicle/bike is pushed off its course.

[karla]

Fine, no one cares if you have no sympathy for people who kill themselves running.

I care if you have no sympathy.

It's a sorry world that we live in, when people start to lose their compassion.

I care about the people who run, for whatever reason they run for (that we are not privy too but can only guess at using our own insignificant life experiences).

I care about the people left who are going through the grieving process, questioning and trying to understand why these things (it's life) happen.

I care about the people who are trying to do their job, whether it is done "wrong" or "right" doesn't change anything.

I care about those of us who witness this kind of thing over and over again, just because they have been around for a few years, and seem to get hardened to it all. I'm new here and I listen to the older ones, who are wise in my eyes because of their experiences, and feel sad and fearful that I too will start to 'not care'. Then I will know that the bastards have got me ~

but not today, when the sun is shining and there is still a flame of love for all fellow men left in me.

[madbikeboy]

even so most professionals have tight standards round safety issues - not sure why our Govt thinks that a rape subculture a la Rickards is more worth scrutinising than a chase problem - seen in certain times / places and I'd say indulged in by a certain type of alpha male cop. Is it the feminist element or that only one (or was it 3 on the cop side) tangoed. I'd prefer rape to death or GBH of myself or any community member anytime. Like the Rickard racket, bad chases can breed ill feeling. I'm not seeking to blame cops for outcomes in a general way - only to say there seems to be room for improvement.

I disagree, while I think chases and the "rape subculture" are both important, there is deeper meaning to a culture of sleeze and rape when that same culture is supposed to police and protect. Further, as a male (and therefore not a feminist) I can't really understand how you could make that statement, if it were your wife, your sister, your daughter, you might take it a little more seriously.

[Mikkel]

Blow over 650 and your are walking for 28 day instantly.

If you blow 650 you still have the right to have taken a blood test by a qualified person in the presence of other witnesses. When that happens a strong burden of evidence will have been collected, witnessed by several people.

Compare that to the hypothetical case of a crooked cop who say he has measured your speed at 141 km/h and that you'll be walking home. No witnesses, no burden of evidence. You could have been doing 80 km/h and you're still in the shit.

Surely anyone can see how the two situations are different.

If the speeding enforcement was to be credible there would always have to be two cops in the patrol car. One driving, the other operating the radar equipment. All measured data would be logged by the equipment and thorough equipment calibration schedules would be enforced. Some places everything a policecar "sees" is recorded by video. Not very many people choose to fight a ticket when they have been invited to sit down and watch their own offense - and neither do you have many opportunities to take someone down for something they didn't do.

[scumdog]

If you blow 650 you still have the right to have taken a blood test by a qualified person in the presence of other witnesses. .

And you STILL lose your licence for 28 days while waiting for the blood result to come back.

[scumdog]

I believe (from reliable source within an involved local service) that in said case it was fairly obvious the impaired driver would have toddled home a short distance, or to a mates, trying to be inconspicuous, at a speed far less than the 140 k they got up to and persisted with on the wrong side of a high risk highway for quite a considerable distance... due to the prolly fired up knucklehead crowding him on the tail. This is qualified by fact it remains hearsay, but nothing in the media reports would make me doubt the assessment.

The impaired driver had hurt no-one before the chase - you got that I hope.Then it became a likelihood per chase m.o.

In a lot of cases the chased driver will carry on trying to escape in their vehicle regardless to the damage they have caused or their vehicle has sustained, - as long as the engine still runs and the wheels still turn they will try to flee.