Whangarei Police chase

[wkid_one]

I 110% agree with Mangell - how can you absolve someone of breaking the law.

At the end of the day - NONE of these tragic events would have happened if he had pulled over and 'slept in his bed' - instead he chose the chickens way and did a runner.

The police were within their rights to chase and the girl was certainly within her rights.

A bike is difficult to assess speed at the best of times - so the car pulling out - would not have expected the bike to be closing ground so rapidly - how many of us pull out based on how far a car/vehicle is away - and assumed their speed due to the local speed limit??  I know I do.

To blame the car pulling out or the cops is a moot point - at the end of the day - all of these actions would have never occurred if he had shut his throttle and pulled left.  He is solely to blame as his actions triggered the whole chain of events - and his action was ILLEGAL

[SPman]

Originally posted by wkid_one
how many of us pull out based on how far a car/vehicle is away - and assumed their speed due to the local speed limit??  I know I do.

If so, youre a f**kin idiot. NEVER assume. And in the case of the cop car pulling out in front of the bike, he knew he was speeding!

To blame the car pulling out or the cops is a moot point - at the end of the day - all of these actions would have never occurred if he had shut his throttle and pulled left.  He is solely to blame as his actions triggered the whole chain of events - and his action was ILLEGAL

So whats that got to do with basic lack of common sense - by both parties. SFA!

[Lou Girardin]

In Chicago, I think, they banned police pursuits. At least for minor offences. This has resulted in such anarchic actions as popping wheelies in front of cops, knowing that they can't chase you. But fewer people are being killed in chases now.
You cannot leave the decision to pursue up to the Police Officers involved, they are too close to the action. Likewise, the comms centre is too remote from the situation. There nust be a blanket rule as above. Bear in mind though, that I'm referring to minor offences, not armed robbers, etc.
I was an MOT Motorway cop in the 80's and was involved in chases that make the Whangarei one look like a Sunday drive, in terms of risk. At the time I thought nothing of it, now I realise that we were on borrowed time. Sheer bloody stupidity on my part, just to catch a speeder. The chase was immeasurably more dnagerous than the original offence. Traffic density, speeds and other risk factors are now too high to allow chases of this type.
If the offender doesn't stop in 5 or 10 km's, forget it. It's not worth killing for.
Lou

[Sharkey]

I gotta say that I agree with big dog and wkid. One major problem with blanket rules, Lou, is that they are blanket, and they are still just rules. You say that if the chase is still going after 5 or 10 km's it should be called off. Well, what's it going to be? 5km's or 10km's? Why? If the same scenario had occured but the crash occurred just 8km's after the pursuit began, well does that then mean the the 10km rule needs changing?

"The other side" in this debate are of course correct in saying that the actions of the authorities can hinder the safe conclusion of the chase, but the person who most significantly hindered safety was the motorcyclist.

In this site there is alot of talk about personal choice, and assessing the risk - I am especially thinking of the helmet discussion. Well, if we demand the right to personal choice, we need to take personal responsibility too.

[wkid_one]

Bollocks - the riders actions were still illegal - he then started the chain of events.  Yes the cops judgement may have been poor - however it was triggered by the rider running - and they employed judgement based on road conditions and traffic I suppose.

The morale is - if the rider hadn't have run - no one would have died.

[bikerboy]

IF the car pulling out had been joe public then the my opinion would be different. That it was a cop is precisely the point, he knew what the situation was, and still went ahead.

If I were the cop I 'd be trying desperately too rationalize my actions per many of the arguments here, but I know that deep down I wouldn't really believe them and I certainly wouldn't be sleeping well either.

[Big Dog]

If I held up a bank at gunpoint how easy would you sleep if;
A) You let me get away but shot someone in the next one?
B) You shot me dead no one else was hurt?
C) You shot me dead and I was only armed with a water pistol?
D) You shot me dead and in my death spasms I shot dead 12 bystanders?

None of those situations would have me sleeping well if I was the cop but that is their job.

To make the best judgement possible in the given situation and availible information and leave the rest up to what you believe in god fate etc.

God knows this will get the $#!% well and truly stirred!

In the above situations any civilian casualtys are called colateral damage and considered the price of democracy why is this different?

[wkid_one]

I am somewhat confused (not difficult some would say - especially seeing as I am on painkillers).

In my mind (again - no smart comments about size, vacancy, age etc) - I think your point is slighty different - in that your scenario has an automatic pronpensity for voilence by the very nature of the crime.  In this case - it was just someone speeding who the cops were pulling over - this happens every single day (100 times in Eketahuna) without people dying.  The onus lies with the rider who escalated this in to a tragedy by fleeing.

Even if the cops had pulled over - there is no accounting for the riders speed beyond this point - in all likelihood he would have continued to speed illegally.

I ask you this - had the rider killed the girl just purely due to speeding (147kph is not that quick - shit I do in excess of the that regularly) - he is at fault yes?  This is even worse as he committed a crime PRIOR to doing this also.

Your scenario is not an apt comparison as the initial crime is automatically going to illicit a turse action from the police - and panic from the general public - thereby inciting a precarious circumstance immediately.  The worst stopping someone for speeding occurs is general curiosity and humour for passerby's.

Yes the Constabulary had a part to play - but only after the rider had chosen his course of action.  The Police didn't MAKE him run, nor did they MAKE him keep going.  Nor did they MAKE him cross the centre line - the choice was always his.

[mangell6]

Sharkey wrote

Well, if we demand the right to personal choice, we need to take personal responsibility too.

This sums up the attitude that is lacking in this "gimme, I am entitled . ., its your fault " society.

With life goes responsibility - Where can I get on of those "rant" emoticons from!

Sorry but everyone is responsibile for their own actions, they make the decision, no-one else.

And here endeth the lesson.

Apologies for the rant but this is one of my hobby horses.

Mike

PS No-one told you to take offence, you could have walked through the gate.

PPS Dan I'm off for a ride now, will take some pictures when I get back

[wkid_one]

BASTARD!! No pics please - that is sadistic - can I come watch (nooo that would be worse actually).  I am going to try and ride again this weekend - hopefully my shoulder miraculously heals.

I agree Mike - how can anyone other than the rider be responsible?  What would you defence in court be?  I am sorry I was speeding, and I am sorry I ran - but they made me do it?

[marty]

Originally posted by Lou Girardin
.
If the offender doesn't stop in 5 or 10 km's, forget it. It's not worth killing for.
Lou

in a recent fatal crash involving young kids in a car that was being 'tailed' by police they crashed and one of them died after 4.8kms.

what should the cut off be? there is no blanket answer. some dangerous pursuits last for 100's of kms. in another chase with highway pursuing a tricked hsv even the police helicopter eagle couldn't keep up on the southern motorway - yes close to 275km/h. - squirrel top speed only 210km/h. no cars were even getting close, and i'm pretty sure no-one was brave enough to put out the spikes. no-one died in that one though, and ANYONE could have innocently pulled out in front of a car closing 170km/h faster than expected.

[bluninja]

Why not blame Eve...if she'd not bitten from the forbidden fruit then we'd all still be living in Eden....though I don't know if we'd have had bikes

Don't like the analogy to armed robbery. The law broken was a technical law, with no victim, or intended victim. Speeding of itself doesn't cause death. I would hate to be chased and put at risk because I'd littered by dropping a banana skin that could cause injury if someone stepped on it and slipped.

For me the issue is not the culpability of the rider(he was responsible for his own choices and actions); but the manner in which the vehicle was chased and the actions leading to the double death. Just because the police have a hard job, doesn't mean they should be able to make mistakes (that cost lives) with (apparent) impunity. They could have made a choice to identify the bike/rider and then prosecute later, but they didn't.

IT would be nice to think that someone in the police is actively thinking (and rehearsing) policies and systems that allow them to do their job in the safest possible way. The appearance is that policies and systems get changed only after a coroners report or investigation into a death.

TTFN

[scumdog]

Glad to see most of you guys have some common sense and logic.
The fact is the guy doing the runner screwed up - he chose to speed in the forst place, he chose to run and he chose not to slow down after the first cop-car pulled out of the chase.
It's all very well to say "he was only speeding for Gods sake" but thats with 20-20 hindsight, how did the cops know that? how did they know the bike was not stolen or he was not running from a bank robbery/homicide etc etc?
Would you be happy if your bike was stolen and riden past cops at speed and they said "he was speeding too fast so we didn't bother to follow him?
If I was the cop in the car that pulled out on front of the motorbike I would have (a) not expected the bike to still be travelling quite so fast and (b) not known if in fact it was the same bike that was being chased - how do you I.D an approaching bike with certainty? - and judge its speed to assess if it's "excessive"?
My rant and rave and next time one of you heros out there decide to do a runner, just think how flash YOU would look embedded in the side of a car, I bet the drongo on the Triumph was too thick to have such an imagination!!!

[Kwaka-Kid]

well put scumdog i agree fully...

If he had of just raped 10 women and killed all 10 of their husbands and stole your bike... would you be saying "Yeah the police did the right thing in watching him fly passed.. because at least they got that worthless numberplate he stole off a scooter"

[Lou Girardin]

My comment about giving up after 5 or 10 km's is meant as a generality rather than a rule. Most offenders either give up before that or have disappeared. I'm argueing for a ban on high speed chases for minor offences, which speeding is.
We have been so brow-beaten by Police and LTSA propaganda that many people think 140km/h is certain death. On the Waipu straights, where this chase started, you could add 50 or 100 km/h
to that without excessive risk. Most of us exceed 140 every time we overtake on the open road.
If the rider had sped past a camera, he would've got a ticket in the post. Why didn't the cop do the same?
Because, the offence changed from excess speed to driving at a dangerous speed during the chase and the cop wasn't going to flag that away. The rider continued to flee for the same reason.
The actions of three idiots, the rider and two cops, caused the death of an innocent girl, anyone of the three could have prevented this.
Lou