Senior Police Officer let off drink/drive charge

[Max Preload]

If he is a good cop then it is probably for the greater good for him to stay on the force...

The mere fact he did it shows he isn't a good cop. I don't give a fuck how much experience he brings to the job - he's a hypocrite first and foremost.

[Smifffy]

The mere fact he did it shows he isn't a good cop. I don't give a fuck how much experience he brings to the job - he's a hypocrite first and foremost.

Ain't we all?

Which is why the courts should treat us all the same.... IMO

AFAIK there is no law, nor written policy that states he would have to lose his job if convicted.

That decision would still ultimately be up to the numb nuts officers in charge to decide.

[meteor]

Yes. He should have to face the same consequences as anyone else. The punishment should not vary by choice of career.... The cost of training the officer has no relation to the choice they made to drive drunk.

We agree, the double jeopardy of the employment tribunal should be negated by the action of taking him to court.... ie he shouldn't get done twice for the same act.
And regarding training, correct insofar as the choice goes... but regarding training, you and I [and most others on here] paid for all that training, that's how it's different to the quals of a mechanic or a lawyer. I wouldn't want that investment thrown away if in all other respects he's a good cop and the judge reckoned he was.

[SS90]

I suspect this is going to be unpopular, but, oh well......

I have benefited from a "disharge with-out conviction" some years ago, in my case, wilfull damage.

I had never been before the courts, never committed a crime, and, ben a good citizen.

The officer responsible for the case (investigating officer) was a complete tit, and simply looking for a conviction to bolster his career.


Oh, they had no witnesses, I was only a suspect, and they could not even arrest me.

After talking things over with a good friend, I decided to come clean, and I was advised by my Lawyer that I was eligible for "diversion", which I asked for (with-out admitting guilt), and this was deinied by the investigating officer (out to bolster his career), so I went to court.

The first thing the Judge said was
" Why is this man here, why has he not been offered diversion?" (this was after the clark of the court asked me "are you sure this is you", (when he saw my conviction record was blank)

After my Lawyer plead guilty on my behaf, then presented the Judge with the facts of the situation, the Judge looked at me (I was the most sheepish person in the room), and read a short letter of recomendation from a fellow business owner and friend, he discharged me (I had to pay 500 bucks court costs), again stated that I should not be here (Oh, and that I would never get this opportunity again regarding the discharge), "what did the complainant expect would happen", and sent me on my way.

The discharge was conditional on my paying for repair of my willful damage, and, I was done.

Basically, the concept of "discharge with-out conviction" is subject to different rules than an aquittal (although they are treated as the same thing), and, the Judge is often presented with more evidence than they seem to let on.

Basically, my experience is that there is more to this story than meets the eye.... because we have not heard the whole story, of that I am sure.

Discharge with-out conviction is a rare thing indeed, and reserved for special cases.

[Max Preload]

Reported as 1 1/2 times over the legal limit FFS....POTENTIAL KILLER......

Wrong. He was about 1½ times the legal limit of 80mcg/mL at 113mcg/mL not 1½ times OVER the legal - a critical distinction. He was ½ or 50% over the limit. If he was 1½ times OVER the legal limit he'd have to be 2½ times the legal limit (200mcg/mL).

Ain't we all?

Sure. But the difference is I didn't swear any oath and I admit I'm a hypocrite.

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

It was a rebranding done in the 90s to put across the fact that you don't have to be drunk per se - people seem unable to admit that they're drunk, but they're only too happy to acknowledge they've been drinking.

[p.dath]

... but regarding training, you and I [and most others on here] paid for all that training, that's how it's different to the quals of a mechanic or a lawyer. I wouldn't want that investment thrown away if in all other respects he's a good cop and the judge reckoned he was.

Negative. You pay for Police Officer training directly via your taxes. You pay for the training of your lawyer or mechanically indirectly every time you use them - it's effectively built into their hourly wage. Make no mistake, no matter what, you are paying for someone's training every time you use them.

[BoristheBiter]

"discharge with-out conviction". What a pile of shite that is, thats the same as not guilty due on mental grounds.
You did the crime why should it not go on the record.
Thats the problem in the country, there is too big a gap between minium and maxium sentinces, for everyone.
Everyone should be the same, if you get caught then you pay the consequence otherwise why should we be good.
"oo i was silly just let me off" don't make me laugh.

[SS90]

"discharge with-out conviction". What a pile of shite that is, thats the same as not guilty due on mental grounds.
You did the crime why should it not go on the record.
Thats the problem in the country, there is too big a gap between minium and maxium sentinces, for everyone.
Everyone should be the same, if you get caught then you pay the consequence otherwise why should we be good.
"oo i was silly just let me off" don't make me laugh.

I think you are missing the point of the whole thing. The justice system is more complex than most people seem able to grasp.

Essentially, the Police are (in most cases, but certainly not all) legally required to bring charges.....drink driving is one of these cases.

The correct thing was done in bringing this Copper to a Judge, but you have to be convicted of Drink Driving to be fired from the Police force.

The "Discharge with-out conviction" conept excists so that people (like me for example) are not unfairly disadvantaged in the future for one foolish, uncalculated reaction to a situation, that they where put in.

Like my story, you don't know all the facts that where presented to the Judge in the case of the Police officer, just consider this (in no way am I claiming this is what happened)

Let's say, some one who had a grudge against him spiked his 2 Beers with, say, Gin, then, when he left, called the feds, telling them that he just saw a drunk guy getting into his car heading South on "blah blah" street, knowing there is every chance he was over the limit.......

Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction.

[avgas]

The mere fact he did it shows he isn't a good cop. I don't give a fuck how much experience he brings to the job - he's a hypocrite first and foremost.

So are you.
So am I.
Your a Hypocrite if you don't think your a Hypocrite.
Perspective is a motherfucker

[BoristheBiter]

I think you are missing the point of the whole thing. The justice system is more complex than most people seem able to grasp.

Essentially, the Police are (in most cases, but certainly not all) legally required to bring charges.....drink driving is one of these cases.

The correct thing was done in bringing this Copper to a Judge, but you have to be convicted of Drink Driving to be fired from the Police force.

The "Discharge with-out conviction" conept excists so that people (like me for example) are not unfairly disadvantaged in the future for one foolish, uncalculated reaction to a situation, that they where put in.

Like my story, you don't know all the facts that where presented to the Judge in the case of the Police officer, just consider this (in no way am I claiming this is what happened)

Let's say, some one who had a grudge against him spiked his 2 Beers with, say, Gin, then, when he left, called the feds, telling them that he just saw a drunk guy getting into his car heading South on "blah blah" street, knowing there is every chance he was over the limit.......

Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction.

No i grasped the point correctly.
You think (i was not refereing to your case but as you brought it up) you should get off with what you did? Ok it was your first offence (i'm guessing) and you owned up to it, good for you (not many would do the same), But, and here is the point, why should you get put in the same category as those that have never done anything wrong in the first place?
Same goes for that cop, he should have known better, he knew what the outcome would be, he chose to drive after drinking.

It makes a complete farse of the justice system if you get away with something that somone else gets convicted for, just ask that cop in Northland. He will be thinking why didn't i get that.

The lack of Consequence of ones actions will, IMHO has, been the downfall of NZ.

[Max Preload]

So are you.
So am I.
Your a Hypocrite if you don't think your a Hypocrite.
Perspective is a motherfucker

Like I said...

Sure. But the difference is I didn't swear any oath and I admit I'm a hypocrite.

[oldrider]

Judges have to have some discretion. I guess it depends n how good a cop he is, and how "good" is defined. My definition might be different to the learned judge's, but he's the man sitting on the bench, not me. There have been cases of civilians discharged without conviction where the weight of a conviction would be disproportionate.

The law should be there to serve the public. In which case "public good" should always be an option the judge should consider.

Personally, I don't have a problem with it, and I'm happy to take the learned judge's assessment of how the public good be best served.

I am "not" happy about it!

This is a typical example (IMHO) of why there is a falling level of respect for the Police and the Judiciary in this country!

I am not at home on my own computer so can't read everything but I would love to know how TGW has reacted to this BS!

I will be surprised if she is not feeling "gutted" right now!

I saw a boy, first offence, a little over, just like this cop, go to jail for six months just so that the judge could "make an example" of him!

Do as I say, not as I do, if he was such a good cop, so essential to the community, he would not be in this (bloody mess) situation!

The bloody judge should get his arse kicked well and truly over this too, no accountability at all for them though, is there! Bastards!

[bogan]

The mere fact he did it shows he isn't a good cop. I don't give a fuck how much experience he brings to the job - he's a hypocrite first and foremost.

yeh, but if he's a good cop he will learn from this and be far less likely to do it in the future than many cops who would likely replace him!

Kinda like the toyota accelerator pedal debacle, they were shit before, but I bet they make em real good on all the new cars now

[duckonin]

you and I and most others on here paid for all that training[QUOTE] I wouldn't want that investment thrown away if in all other respects he's a good cop and the judge reckoned he was.[QUOTE
Yes we did pay for his training and more than likely he has repaid us for that.it ends there with me.

As for the investment side yep I would throw that away, he cannot follow the system plus he is not he only person in the world,we are all indispensable. 'He's a good cop the judge reckoned' well bully for the judge, that is his own subjective opinion...

[mashman]

I thought the whole point of the law was to create baselines for sentencing when "trying" people... This isn't the first time a cop has been caught, yet mitigating/special circumstances seem to be trumping the letter of the law in regards to sentencing, quite spuriously by the looks of things... baselines have already been set... Why are we moving away from them?

imho the conviction should have stood, same as anyone else found DUI. I believe that cops should be as beholden to the law as every other citizen in NZ (we're not always at work), losing his job would be counter productive, a waste of everyones time, money and effort...