U-turn cop to stand trial

[Conquiztador]

You were brought up in a world of fairy tales and Disney, right?

Jesus H Christ! I fear for this nation where souls on the one side excuse their own every imperfection with ...not my fault....nobody told me... its was the Devil made me do it...I was...it was...things were, etc.

On the one hand such souls hold the cops out to be perfect, yet on the other they slag them whenever a cop takes exception to an action of the aggrieved.

Bastard-cops and perfect cops is he world's originally oxymoron.

And here we see the product of successful social engineering which asserts, "I have no mind, no will. I do as I am told."

Jesus, but Hitler would have loved to have met you, sony.

Not really sure what all this is about. But then again I am just a simple guy that has his own opinions.

Nobody ever said that cops are expected to be perfect. Not many humans are (are there any??). If I remember right this thread was about if what the judge decided was too harsh. That is what I have discussed in my posts. I say no, it was not. As a police officer he should have known better. That is what he is employed to do, to know better then Joe Average. If not, then we might as well have anybody as police. Just give them the badge and they are up to it. Surely that makes sense? If you are employed to do a job you are expected to do it w/o fuckups. If not, then we might as well take in our bikes to MacD for the service.

[The Stranger:Me]

August is the time. Got a contingent of four. Should be a good day.

Wicked, what date please?
I should like to keep that day free and come along if I may.

[dpex]

Wicked, what date please?
I should like to keep that day free and come along if I may.

August 30th. Pukekohe.

[Grahameeboy]

Perhaps it is draconian. But it also comes down to trust and respect. I want to be able to trust that the police makes the right decisions. Every time! If they are only expected to make same decisions and mistakes as we would in same situation, then the respect goes away.

Just because he has made 1000's of good ones does not give him the right to make a bad decision. Each decision is measured on its own merit not on what has happened in the past.

You are a tough bastard....but to you still

[Grahameeboy]

You were brought up in a world of fairy tales and Disney, right?

Jesus H Christ! I fear for this nation where souls on the one side excuse their own every imperfection with ...not my fault....nobody told me... its was the Devil made me do it...I was...it was...things were, etc.

On the one hand such souls hold the cops out to be perfect, yet on the other they slag them whenever a cop takes exception to an action of the aggrieved.

Bastard-cops and perfect cops is he world's originally oxymoron.

Ssscchhh...he is onto Hannah Montana now.......

[Winston001]

But, I still reckon the anti-speeding crusading zealotry of the police high command should take some of the blame. If the attitude from the top was more sensible, maybe he'd have thought "Shall I turn round and chase him - Nah , not here too dangerous, let him go"

Agreed, although I have the impression plenty of police officers - probably the traffic ones believe it too. Besides, he had a radio. He could have had the bike stopped.

Overall if I was a policeman I'd be a bit worried. Doing your job is fine, allowing for mistakes knowing the boss will back you up, all good. But being left swinging in the wind for $60,000......??

[terbang]

Agreed, although I have the impression plenty of police officers - probably the traffic ones believe it too. Besides, he had a radio. He could have had the bike stopped.

Overall if I was a policeman I'd be a bit worried. Doing your job is fine, allowing for mistakes knowing the boss will back you up, all good. But being left swinging in the wind for $60,000......??

Try being dismembered on a mountainside. Its all about personal responsibility that we don't see too much of here in NZ's ACC stupefied society.

[Winston001]

Try being dismembered on a mountainside. Its all about personal responsibility that we don't see too much of here in NZ's ACC stupefied society.

Erebus?? Think I'm missing something.

ACC - its a good system despite the faults. But you are right - we don't have a concept of personal responsibility hitting us in the pocket. In most countries a $60,000 award to a victim would be a yawn.

[ynot slow]

Agreed, although I have the impression plenty of police officers - probably the traffic ones believe it too. Besides, he had a radio. He could have had the bike stopped.

Overall if I was a policeman I'd be a bit worried. Doing your job is fine, allowing for mistakes knowing the boss will back you up, all good. But being left swinging in the wind for $60,000......??

A point lost on some people is why can't they radio ahead,the network is such a call takes a second to action.

But the hierachy did leave him out to dry,mind you maybe he was a prick,so an easy way to get him off the force maybe.My boss' always said we'll back you up,tell the client we(company)will fix the damage.Not good when a guy from the opposition knocked a plasma tv off a shelf($15000 tv at time)after he tripped on the carpet and stumbled onto tv cabinet.

[Fatjim]

The 60k is simply fixing his mistake, that is NOT punishment.
The loss of license and community work is the punishment/penalty.

Some punishment.

[elle-f]

I remember seeing the police officer concerned on television and he took zero responsibility for what he had done instead blaming the bikers. I wasn't impressed.

[Jizah]

I remember seeing the police officer concerned on television and he took zero responsibility for what he had done instead blaming the bikers. I wasn't impressed.

Another one today, this time it was a car that was hit. Little bit of information in this link about the bike riders though. They're saying the same thing, completely unapologetic.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2462...e-U-turn-crash

[cheshirecat]

Exactly

:

re RC30 yummy

And this is not bad too

[more_fasterer]

The law quire clearly states that one must travel at a speed enabling one to stop within 'half' of the clear road ahead.

A very important omission from your above statement is that this only applies for unlaned roads. For laned roads, the required stopping distance is equal to the visible clear road ahead.


With all the talk in this thread that Bridgeman's penalty was too harsh compared to what "joe public" would have received, how come all of the discussion has been that he should have received an easier sentence? Shouldn't the opposite apply? i.e. "joe public" should be receiving a harsher sentence?

[ynot slow]

Shouldn't the opposite apply? i.e. "joe public" should be receiving a harsher sentence?

I think the word is "consistant" penalties for all convicted.