Lying pig, scumbag filth

[peasea]

If the cop/witness is proven to lie in court, on the smallest issue or point, anything he has said in court is deemed to be untrue.

Quite right, I was involved in a case in Wellington years ago, two cops on the scene, one "was mistaken" while the other got it right, Case dismissed coz the testimonies had to match for a conviction.

I also have a witness who will testify as to the cops driving, ie; u-turn in the middle of a saddle and flying past said witness at high speed through 60kph road works. She thought his driving was over the top. (Read; cowboy.)

[peasea]

And what will be achieved. Can you put your hand on your heart and say you were not exceeding the speed limit? If not then nuff said.

I have admitted earlier (in another thread) that I WAS exceeding 80k, no argument. I don't believe that I was doing 111k however. I reckon the cop saw me, knew I was doing over 80k and had 111k from a previous bust on his machine, so even if I'd asked to view it he'd have had a figure to show me. I didn't ask to see his machine but would it make any difference? The point here is; he didn't offer a viewing, now he claims he did. He's a lying fuck.

[TheFilth]

Im guessing you were caught on radar.

You can ask to see the radar calibration test. This is a requirement to operate the radar. If one cannot be provided to you you should contest the fine on the basis that the radar was not calibrated to do the job. It's a slim outside chance the unit wasn't calibrated, but an almost guaranteed out if you do not sight one.

Otherwise its your word versus his in court and your chances of getting one up are next to zero.

If you do have a genuine beef against what you perceived to be unprofessional conduct, go through the PCA.

This is real "hand on heart" stuff so you better be sure about your facts, and not just puffing up your chest in the quiet obscurity of the internet.

[The Pastor]

Who cares, if the cop said he was the queen of england, and somone got a ticket for doing lower than what they actually were doing, you can get off the ticket becuase the cop lied about him being the queen of england when if fact he is not.

Its how it works. Now shut the hell up and get off my screen.

[McJim]

Regardless of the truth of the matter the problem remains that the public perception of traffic police remains that they are unscrupulous, will lie and will cheat in order to get a collar or to gain revenue.

The 'close ranks, we're holier than thou' attitude adds to the general perception of collusion and conspiracy that the public have.

I reseved judgement on NZ police until I witnessed something in taranaki that has changed my opinion for good.

D50 you'd do better to ignore these threads rather than comment. I have no doubt that you are an honest fella and that you mean well. However the current salaries being offered to police are not exactly going to attract the brightest and best.

We need to pay our cops more to get better cops - pay peanuts and get monkeys.

Yeah - there are some genuine fellas in uniform out there but some are not so pure....

[peasea]

I really don't care about the money or the demerits, that's not the issue. The issues are

a; his attitude on the day and b; now he's lying in his paperwork.

This IS hand on heart, I was speeding through the 80k zone, no argument.

This cop is a liar when he says he (twice) offered me a viewing. He did not.

I'll make the prediction that I'll lose in court and the PCA will run my complaint through the shredder..............it's just another day at the office.

The police will lie, they'll cash up, I'll plead poverty and put it all on the drip.

Or am I being too cynical?

[Big Dan]

You mean "beat".

+1 Ironic.

Dave

I love irony and that was funny

[Jantar]

Funny, I remember paying them.

Then I would suggest you claim them back. According to http://www.fines.govt.nz/ court costs are payable in addition to the fine on being found guilty. Where the defendant is found not guilty the costs are paid the party bringing the case, (Usually the police). There are some circumstance where costs are apportioned, eg where the defendant has a degree of responsibility.

I have defended traffic offences successfully on a number of occassions, and have never had to pay costs when found not guilty. I have had to pay costs when found guilty.

[peasea]

[QUOTE=Dynamytus50;1063957]

Dude thats a pretty big accusation to say that you reckon he had a previous lock and did you for that. I dont know any cops who would do such a thing even the most harsh nazi traffic cop's would not stoop to that.

I wouldn't put it past any of them...........it's easy money, easy to reach required 'performance expectations'.

[The Pastor]

Then I would suggest you claim them back. According to http://www.fines.govt.nz/ court costs are payable in addition to the fine on being found guilty. Where the defendant is found not guilty the costs are paid the party bringing the case, (Usually the police). There are some circumstance where costs are apportioned, eg where the defendant has a degree of responsibility.

I have defended traffic offences successfully on a number of occassions, and have never had to pay costs when found not guilty. I have had to pay costs when found guilty.

The judge said I had to pay? Wouldnt he know the law better than anyone else?

Maybe I got the case thorwen out due to lack of evidence not a "not guilty" charge??

He used big words, I didnt understand them... I was too nervous lol.

[Jantar]

The judge said I had to pay? Wouldnt he know the law better than anyone else?

Maybe I got the case thorwen out due to lack of evidence not a "not guilty" charge??

He used big words, I didnt understand them... I was too nervous lol.

You may have found guilty, but discharged. This can happen when the judge believes you are guilty, but it would be a miscarriage of justice to have the offence recorded against your name. In these circumstances you may still have to pay a penalty and/or costs, but you do not have the offence recorded as guilty.

[The Pastor]

Maybe, All I had to pay were costs and lawyers fees...

[Toaster]

[QUOTE=peasea;1064022]

I wouldn't put it past any of them...........it's easy money, easy to reach required 'performance expectations'.

Mate, I am horrified, disgusted and ashamed that this sort of thing is happening. I loved policing and always did everything by the book - if I didn't catch someone - too bad, you just don't lie. Catching crims was always more fun anyway.... and just wave as bikers past me by.... wishing I was out riding too.

[peasea]

[QUOTE=Toaster;1064069]

Mate, I am horrified, disgusted and ashamed that this sort of thing is happening. I loved policing and always did everything by the book - if I didn't catch someone - too bad, you just don't lie. Catching crims was always more fun anyway.... and just wave as bikers past me by.... wishing I was out riding too.

So why'd ya get out?

[Toaster]

So why'd ya get out?

More time for social life, more money, more challenging work - my old employer made a good offer! But I do miss the action.... and the great people I worked with.