Senior Police Officer let off drink/drive charge

**peasea** · 15th June 2010, 22:19

He broke the law.
The law applies to us all.

Unless you're a cop, obviously.

**Smifffy** · 15th June 2010, 22:23

And after your hypothetical conviction, how would you respond to any legally binding document that asks if you have ever been convicted of an offence, and to provide details?

How will Lamont be required to answer?

Originally Posted by Ixion

Dunno. I don't know anything of him personally, so I can't say if he's good or ad. And the definition that judges and senior cops apply to "good cop" might be quite different to mine .

But his superiors obviously thought he was good, because they stuck by him instead of throwing him to the wolves as they usually do. And a judge went along with them. So I'd have to think that , as a cop, he had respect within the trade, so to speak.

Sure, he did everything he could to avoid a conviction , and save his career. I would too. He still got the same effective penalty as anyone else - disqualification , fine. But he saved his job. That's what would happen to me if I got done for drink driving (FTR I never have) . Fine, disqualification. I wouldn't lose my job. He got treated the same as me. I'm willing to take his bosses word, and the judge's opinion that he deserved to keep his job.

**scumdog** · 15th June 2010, 22:26

Originally Posted by Smifffy

If training expense can be a consideration, how come Air NZ pilots get convicted?

'Cos they don't lose their job forever? I dunno...

**scumdog** · 15th June 2010, 22:27

Originally Posted by peasea

He broke the law.
The law applies to us all.

Unless you're a cop, obviously.

Or anybody else that gets off a charge...

**Woodman** · 15th June 2010, 22:33

Originally Posted by Smifffy

If training expense can be a consideration, how come Air NZ pilots get convicted?

because Policeman do not find it necessary to get personalised numberplates telling everyone what job they do.

**peasea** · 15th June 2010, 22:34

Originally Posted by scumdog

Or anybody else that gets off a charge...

No; wrong. If someone is charged and 'gets off' as you put it, I assume you mean 'found not guilty' than that is quite different to being discharged because of your position.

The guy might (might) be an ok copper, good at his job etc. I might be good at my job, Joe over the road might be good at his job. Who is to say that any one of us is worth more or less to the community? The cop was gulity, no argument. He did a dumb thing; drank then drove. The law should apply. It didn't, that sucks and the judge should have his head split open with a meat cleaver. (Just like Jantar and Virago)

**scumdog** · 15th June 2010, 22:36

Originally Posted by peasea

No; wrong. If someone is charged and 'gets off' as you put it, I assume you mean 'found not guilty' than that is quite different to being discharged because of your position.

Had a couple of 'discharged without conviction' efforts today, they were guily alright..

You and I would probably have convicted if we were the judge.

**Woodman** · 15th June 2010, 22:37

Are the Police and the courts seperate identities???

**peasea** · 15th June 2010, 22:38

Originally Posted by scumdog

Had a couple of 'discharged without conviction' efforts today, they were guily alright..

You and I would probably have convicted if we were the judge.

Maybe we're not doing our jobs right; like greasing the right palms.........

**scumdog** · 15th June 2010, 22:38

Originally Posted by woodman

are the police and the courts seperate identities???

yoobet.!!!

**peasea** · 15th June 2010, 22:41

Originally Posted by Woodman

Are the Police and the courts seperate identities???

They frequently appear to be so. Often the aims are at odds, or so it seems. Also, I'd have to say I do not know of any judge telling porkies in court (although I suppose it's possible) but I HAVE seen cops do it. Is that seperate enough for you?

**peasea** · 15th June 2010, 22:42

Originally Posted by scumdog

yoobet.!!!

See post #101

**SS90** · 16th June 2010, 01:55

Originally Posted by BoristheBiter

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.

Ok, in my case, it was fairly clear that the case should never have come before the courts, so, the Judge exercised his discrectionary power to "give me a chance" (as like, I say, ordinarily it would hve never progressedthat far), sure in the case of the Police officer, it simply had to go in front of a Judge, but I really feel we don't know the whole story.

**Smifffy** · 16th June 2010, 06:53

Originally Posted by scumdog

'Cos they don't lose their job forever? I dunno...

Then that has nothing to do with training expense, and everything to do with potential consequence. A consequence that Sergeant Watkins told the northland court was not inevitable.