Senior Police Officer let off drink/drive charge

[Ixion]

Why are drunk drivers called "drink drivers" and why is drunk driving called "drink driving"?

They're not.

Drunk driving = capability impaired by alcohol

Drink driving = over an arbitrary limit, which may be so low that it would be impossible to detect any impairment.

Remember, youth limit is very very low indeed. Walk past an open box of chocolate liquers and you'd be over. Because a youth fails the drink driving test does not at all mean that they are drunk.

Do you get drunk every time you sample the contents of that whisky cabinet of yours? I am sure you do not. But, if you were a youff, you certainly could get done for drink driving after such sampling.

[duckonin]

I shake my head in disbelief for some of what I have read here....The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit of alcohol, drunk or not your over the legal limit..The law says it is an offence to drink and drive, this person did by 'HIS OWN OMMISION' do just that so he should of had the same penalty as any of us would of received, that would of been around $600-$900 fine and loss of licence for 6-12 months...

[PirateJafa]

I shake my head in disbelief for some of what I have read here....The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit of alcohol, drunk or not your over the legal limit..The law says it is an offence to drink and drive, this person did by 'HIS OWN OMMISION' do just that so he should of had the same penalty as any of us would of received, that would of been around $600-$900 fine and loss of licence for 6-12 months...

"Judge Gittos did disqualify Mr Lamont from driving for six months and ordered him to pay court costs"

It is good to see you didn't even bother reading the thread.

Why are drunk drivers called "drink drivers" and why is drunk driving called "drink driving"?

Surely it should be "drunken driving"?

[98tls]

I shake my head in disbelief for some of what I have read here....The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit of alcohol, drunk or not your over the legal limit..The law says it is an offence to drink and drive, this person did by 'HIS OWN OMMISION' do just that so he should of had the same penalty as any of us would of received, that would of been around $600-$900 fine and loss of licence for 6-12 months...

Well he got the same as me when i was let off,nothing.Edit,upon reading the last post it seems he did indeed get more than me.

[Smifffy]

According to the hippie harold he got 6 months disqual & costs. He just didn't get a conviction recorded against his name.

I wonder how that affects his insurance risk profile?

I shake my head in disbelief for some of what I have read here....The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit of alcohol, drunk or not your over the legal limit..The law says it is an offence to drink and drive, this person did by 'HIS OWN OMMISION' do just that so he should of had the same penalty as any of us would of received, that would of been around $600-$900 fine and loss of licence for 6-12 months...

[duckonin]

"

It is good to see you didn't even bother reading the thread

.
Oh I read the thread, not the new's paper
Okay went and read the lot what a crock of shit, "Mr Bonnar said 'his client' had misjudged the amount of alcohol he drank before driving" Why should he not of been convicted as others would of been?

[meteor]

The 'police themselves' have a ZERO tolerance of those over the legal limit ...

Correct, but they caught him, charged him and took him to court.. where their jurisdiction ends

...so he should of had the same penalty as any of us.

He did, and he's got a lot more than some...

And he's got more to come because he has to go through the internal stuff (probably/possibly losing his job) which is more than [most] others get. So that said, is it fair?
How would parliament treat MPs that drink drive? And lets wait and see how the fraudsters with their credit cards get on...

My point is that I don't think there is justification to throw a whole career and countless $ in training away because of 1 bad decision.

[Smifffy]

I agree, however that should be a decision for the employer. All should be equal in the eyes of the judiciary, regardless of occupation.

Correct, but they caught him, charged him and took him to court.. where their jurisdiction ends


He did, and he's got a lot more than some...

And he's got more to come because he has to go through the internal stuff (probably/possibly losing his job) which is more than [most] others get. So that said, is it fair?
How would parliament treat MPs that drink drive? And lets wait and see how the fraudsters with their credit cards get on...

My point is that I don't think there is justification to throw a whole career and countless $ in training away because of 1 bad decision.

[p.dath]

Correct, but they caught him, charged him and took him to court.. where their jurisdiction ends


He did, and he's got a lot more than some...

And he's got more to come because he has to go through the internal stuff (probably/possibly losing his job) which is more than [most] others get. So that said, is it fair?

Yes. He should have to face the same consequences as anyone else. The punishment should not vary by choice of career.

How would parliament treat MPs that drink drive? And lets wait and see how the fraudsters with their credit cards get on...

They should be treated harsher than a private citizen because they create the laws. They have to be seen doing it better than everyone else.

Credit cards - as I understand it, most of the MPs involved paid back the funds after they finished their trips. So the issue is not so much about fraud, but that the transactions were not paid for directly in the first place. I can have some sympathy for them having done a bit of travelling. Ever stood at the Hotel counter at check out time with 5 people behind you, saying I want those three charges on this card, and these two charges on this card, and I want this meal split 50/50 between the two cards? Much easier to just clean it up afterwards.

My point is that I don't think there is justification to throw a whole career and countless $ in training away because of 1 bad decision.

You seem to imply the the money spent on his training as a Polcie officer is somehow more important than the omney spent on training a private citizen for their chosen carrer path. The cost of training the officer has no relation to the choice they made to drive drunk.

[Woodman]

I tried joining the force a few years back when it was ok to join with a dic conviction which I got when I was 18. During the recruitment process there was a lot of media shit about people joining up with such convictions and the Police changed their policy.

The explanation the recruitment officer gave me was that "the integrity of the police is paramount", he also explained to me that if ever as an officer i was called on as a witness (because police are actually professional witnesses) it would be very easy to discredit my testimony and my integrity as a witness.

Where does that leave this guy now??

[avgas]

The law is the same. It is applied differently. Judging by the cops they promote (even all the way to the top in some cases), the ones they fire must be pretty effin bad.

To answer simply - yes.
Recently heard of a ex-prison guard in USA. There is a man hunt for him after he went home and killed his wife and 2 kids.
So yes

[avgas]

Yes. He should have to face the same consequences as anyone else. The punishment should not vary by choice of career.

Very true. but sadly it does make it different. They are having a hard time getting people to join the cops - so to fire all the ones who have done wrong may end up being a double edge sword in the wound.
Imagine if Teachers were sacked due to their political views.
While I do feel he needs to be charged, if the police have no process to see that he can keep his job, it is the same as a Teacher loosing their license to teach.
If he is going to lose his career - than also charging him for it seems like a waste of time.
As they say "You'll never work in this town again"....

[Rogue Rider]

I guess he should "Always blow on the pie" hope 3 strikes rule applies lol......

[marty]

Note that is a senior constable, whereas this one is a seargent. So the higher ranked "officer" got a better result.

Also, the dangers of you not knowing the full (or any of the) story are thoroughly apparant here.

[Rogue Rider]

What about the high court judge done for drink driving, or the wellington QC lawyer, or the Mayer of Invercargil, or alot of other mayors in the past 4 years....... or the principle of a profile college, or the sports stars, Rugby, league, and even a netballer........ or the mates on Saturday nights, or your buddy?????? Drink driving is everywhere, everyone knows it's wrong, yet they still drive/ ride. People are the dumbest breed of creature, they don't learn from there mistakes, or from mistakes of others who have died pointlessly. I have had 3 close friends/ associates killed by alcohol, and I dare say alot of you do too.
I personally don't drink at all now, nor do I partake in illegal substances. I just hope no drunk but munch takes me or any member of my family out.