Police killing us again!

**scumdog** · 28th April 2010, 21:03

Originally Posted by Jonno.

But the ute didn't cause the accident did he? He wasn't even running.

I think you'll find in the USA if you pull a fucking stupid U turn that kills someone, you'll get sued.

Possilby they would get sued.

But the ute driver still goes to jail for 15 to 20 for involuntary manslaughter.....

**bogan** · 28th April 2010, 21:09

Originally Posted by Spearfish

I reckon super troopers is a cool movie, especially the opening scene with the bogans... should be a police training requirement!

you got that right, and bogans FTW!

**peasea** · 28th April 2010, 21:16

Originally Posted by red mermaid

Lets have that law here.....gee, would that mean Mr Ute driver would be held accountable and be charged for the resulting death?

I like that idea.

Anything to avoid bringing a guilty (not specific to this case) cop to justice eh?

**peasea** · 28th April 2010, 21:17

Originally Posted by scumdog

Possilby they would get sued.

But the ute driver still goes to jail for 15 to 20 for involuntary manslaughter.....

But he was oblivious to the cop's intentions. If he'd failed to stop, different matter.

**Smifffy** · 28th April 2010, 21:20

Originally Posted by scumdog

Ahh..nothing like dropping a brick onto the wasps nest...

Troll much?

**MarkH** · 29th April 2010, 00:16

Originally Posted by scumdog

But the ute driver still goes to jail for 15 to 20 for involuntary manslaughter.....

I think this countries laws are fairer where the turning cop has to take responsibility for his actions instead of passing the blame to someone else. Though I have serious doubts about the ute driver facing any charges under the US laws - the police would lack evidence of him playing any part in this accident. Maybe if he was poor & black though . . .

**Lucy** · 29th April 2010, 00:52

Originally Posted by peasea

But he was oblivious to the cop's intentions. If he'd failed to stop, different matter.

Going 154 past a cop in Waikato? Perhaps too late to do anything about it, but I seriously doubt he'd be oblivious to the cops intentions.

**peasea** · 29th April 2010, 06:34

Originally Posted by Lucy

Going 154 past a cop in Waikato? Perhaps too late to do anything about it, but I seriously doubt he'd be oblivious to the cops intentions.

I apparently passed a cop on Sunday, didn't see him, others did but I didn't. If I'd been speeding and he'd done a u-turn and killed someone would I have been aware of his intentions? Also, that 154kph has yet to be proven.

Many moons ago I was hurtling through the Wairarapa and passed a cop on the side of the road. He just watched me fly by (at about 100mph/160kph) and did nothing. I thought I was for the high jump, but I never heard anything about it. So, you don't always know what a cop's intentions are, do you?

**Patrick** · 30th April 2010, 15:14

Originally Posted by Skinon

I hope they are reading, and they actually decide to make a change to there pursuit tactics. Although i personally reckon that it wouldn't make much difference because like i said before cops are just humans in blue suits, they are just as supsceptible to corruption and making stupid fuck ups as the rest of us are.

And who said that we are innocent until proven guilty?? thats the biggest load of shit they feed you. i have actually asked the filth that question and have been told, No thats what the bail systems for. Thats why before you are charged with anything you get curfews or drinking bans etc etc... Unfortunately it's very much guilty until proven innocent.

These "changes" some are calling for... are what exactly? No U turns on blind hill crests or bends? They have been there for... ummm... ever?

If it is a danger to any person? Yep, already exists. Sometimes this "danger" just springs out of nowhere - a car pulling out of a drive, a breakdown around the bend, a kid running out, whatever.....

In this case, the bike wasn't seen.... and if I had a dollar for every time I heard this when dealing with a bike versus whatever crash, I wouldn't need to buy Lotto most weeks.

If some actually read the Pursuits Policy, one would see things are in place. If anyone thinks this cop didn't know about the policy, then that is just impossible. If he is driving a police vehicle, he knows the Policy. And all cops drive police vehicles.

Instead, there will be a knee jerk reaction and Police will be further prevented from chasing anything.

"Car rams Motorcyclist and flees - Police seen waving goodbye" headline, coming soon to a Newspaper near you.......

But silliness aside, like so much in this thread, some would try have readers believe the cop did it on purpose, just because he is a biker.....

Innocent until proven guilty is often banded around here. Just pointing out how it is different, in this case, only because it is a cop......

BUt yeah, innocent until proven guilty - it is a load of shit. But that is the courts and the lawyers. If I am not convinced they are guilty, I don't lock em up. Simple.

**Max Preload** · 30th April 2010, 16:00

Originally Posted by Patrick

"Car rams Motorcyclist and flees - Police seen waving goodbye" headline, coming soon to a Newspaper near you.......

That's just a ridiculous extension. All anyone is saying is that they should no longer be trying to justify the "pursue at any or all costs" mentality which is clearly rife.

**Ixion** · 30th April 2010, 16:25

Originally Posted by Patrick

These "changes" some are calling for... are what exactly? No U turns on blind hill crests or bends? They have been there for... ummm... ever?

If it is a danger to any person? Yep, already exists. Sometimes this "danger" just springs out of nowhere - a car pulling out of a drive, a breakdown around the bend, a kid running out, whatever.....

In this case, the bike wasn't seen.... and if I had a dollar for every time I heard this when dealing with a bike versus whatever crash, I wouldn't need to buy Lotto most weeks.

Not really quite the case , though is it? Of course the bike wasn't seen. But it didn't 'spring out of nowhere'. That's the whole point. The cop did a U turn at a place where any experienced driver should have said 'No way, this is too dangerous'.

I'm sure there is a policy about 'Don't be dangerous'. And I'm sure the driver was very experienced. So, he, an experienced driver, ignored the policy. He must have known that a U turn there was dangerous, because traffic might come over the crest. But he did it anyway. Because, although the policy says 'Don't be dangerous', there's also one that says , in effect, 'Speeding tickets at all costs'. And the cop knew that if he went back and said "I didn't chase a speeding ute because it would have been too dangerous to turn where I was", he'd have been bollocked. And that is the bit that has to change.

**Smifffy** · 30th April 2010, 17:07

Originally Posted by Patrick

These "changes" some are calling for... are what exactly? No U turns on blind hill crests or bends? They have been there for... ummm... ever?

If it is a danger to any person? Yep, already exists. Sometimes this "danger" just springs out of nowhere - a car pulling out of a drive, a breakdown around the bend, a kid running out, whatever.....

In this case, the bike wasn't seen.... and if I had a dollar for every time I heard this when dealing with a bike versus whatever crash, I wouldn't need to buy Lotto most weeks.

If some actually read the Pursuits Policy, one would see things are in place. If anyone thinks this cop didn't know about the policy, then that is just impossible. If he is driving a police vehicle, he knows the Policy. And all cops drive police vehicles.

Instead, there will be a knee jerk reaction and Police will be further prevented from chasing anything.

"Car rams Motorcyclist and flees - Police seen waving goodbye" headline, coming soon to a Newspaper near you.......

But silliness aside, like so much in this thread, some would try have readers believe the cop did it on purpose, just because he is a biker.....

Innocent until proven guilty is often banded around here. Just pointing out how it is different, in this case, only because it is a cop......

BUt yeah, innocent until proven guilty - it is a load of shit. But that is the courts and the lawyers. If I am not convinced they are guilty, I don't lock em up. Simple.

Yeah, I think one of the things that has to change is the kind of attitude expressed by Tooman in his statements to the press. In your post, you recognised that policies and procedures are in place, and that there is little to no chance that the officer involved was unaware of said policies.

Tooman said effectively "He's a great cop, speed kills, and sometimes there's collateral damage" That's not what he said, but that's the message I got.

He could well have said something similar to your post:

"This is a tragedy, we do have policies and procedures in place to try to prevent this kind of thing happening, and obviously something has gone horribly wrong in this case. We are serious about road safety, and as such will conduct several inquiries looking at all aspects of the event, and address any issues that may arise from the investigations. I would like to extend our deepest condolences to the family of the deceased."

But he didn't, did he? What were his actual words again?

If I drove anything like most of the cops I see on the road do, I would have a much larger collection of infringements than I do now. I don't mean in pursuit, either, just the regular A to B stuff I see around.

**red mermaid** · 30th April 2010, 18:46

If you knew anything at all about the pursuit policy you would know that it does not apply in this case.

The driver of the patrol car was not in pursuit (as defined by the pursuit policy) of the driver of the ute.

**bogan** · 30th April 2010, 18:49

Originally Posted by red mermaid

If you knew anything at all about the pursuit policy you would know that it does not apply in this case.

The driver of the patrol car was not in pursuit (as defined by the pursuit policy) of the driver of the ute.

hmmm, keep digging, you must be getting close to china!