Invite - 2nd protest against police pursuits today

[candor]

Vote Blair for Mayor - backing repeal of boy racer laws.

[Lil_Byte]

Alot of these do not even get to be chases as they are over in a very few minutes.

What you some are you uggesting is that the police will never stop anyone.

That would be great - let the criminals rule I say.

In fact just shoot the bleeding hearts on this thread

[Patrick]

4. The latest fatal wouldn't have happened in many countries

Utter bollocks. Car doing 89, cop sees this, and does his job by turning around (thankfully not in front of an oncoming motorbike.... and activates his lights, as one would expect. Driver takes off. 30 seconds later, its all over... and this is the cops fault? Driver was already doing 89. What else was one suppoosed to do?

PS - it is cops feedingus info who are very discontent with how policy has gone so all is not as it seems.

Not this fella..... Or is this just another outragous claim...???

Vote Blair for Mayor - backing repeal of boy racer laws.

He can repeal the speeding laws too, and the keeping left rules, and the WOF rules and the stopping for red lights and stop signs, and.....

[Patrick]

So, how many protesters turned up? Nothing in the news....

Should have had a "Protest against the protesters" day....

[Lurch]

I think at this time we need a summary,

candor, you are a gullible cock living in some kind of dream world.

[candor]

It wouldn't have happened with a chase on tail in many places so the odds of intersection running would lower. 30 seconds is a long time in a chase, I'd rather wait for the coroners and other reports to hear details before judging. Regardless if the cop acted within rules if a chase was on that would not have been sanctioned as the wisest move in many places. If he just turned then quit when the guy ran that's ok in my book, also ok if he chased because the policy or work environment not the individual is wrong.

E-ml from anon long standing cop visiting CHCH received by me 2 August. I have others similar, a wee collection I'd really like to turn over to an inquiry. Its not my 6th sense why I've been screaming about chases for years - I represent good cops who can't shout out.

Subject - pursuit crash;

"...around 2am on Sun 28 Feb I went to a 24 x 7 restaurant called "Dennys" in the city, on the corner of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street (where the media release says the above crash occurred).

I sat in the restaurant for over an hour eating my "supper" and drinking tea, and I noticed that a Police car must have been parked up somewhere near the Manchester Street/Moorhouse Ave traffic lights. The Police car pulled out onto Manchester Street just before these traffic lights, would switch on the siren and speed off after turning West into Moorhouse Ave on each occasion. In the time I sat there, it pulled out from the same area near these same lights possibly three times, but at least twice (which is why it was memorable).

On each occasion it headed West up Moorhouse Ave and my belief and interpretation at that time, was that this Police Car was waiting to chase cars it wanted to stop by 1. watching out for "suspicious"? cars crossing that junction (ie: cars driving along Moorhouse from East to West) and then 2. Turning onto Moorhouse with siren blazing and accelerating off at speed. Let's just say it appeared to be a "strategic" position to enact this kind of targeting and chasing. Moorhouse Ave is a wide road, with a number of lanes and is a straight road with many sets of lights.

One reason I thought this Police action even more dangerous than other places, was because of the many sets of lights all along Moorhouse Ave.

I was not exactly "monitoring the traffic" of course, but I hadn't noticed any particularly loud / fast driving on Moorhouse preceding these events. It would be interesting to see the logs showing where drivers are physically stopped by the Police on ("Saturday nights") Sunday morning between say 1am and 4am in Christchurch. I believe the vicinity of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street will focus strongly.

In the situation above, if the actual crash occurred at the junction of Moorhouse Ave and Manchester Street, that would suggest the chase started further away than the area I observed on 28 February".

[Lurch]

You really are a fucking muppet.

The plural of anecdote is not data

[marty]

i call bullshit. I know long standing cop language when writing reports/job sheets etc, and that ain't it by a long shot.

[candor]

You're welcome to call it - but that is from a cop. Maybe they change dialect talking to civvys. Its an e-ml not a report... by an MoT who is unhappy about amalgamation.

No need to scream Lurch - you want empirical evidence sources - see post 60. You don't want, find a sand-pit.

[Genestho]

I found this Coroners Reccomendation from Queensland, which makes for interesting reading:
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Police-...ts20100331.pdf

Whether policy is under review in Qland I couldn't find it, pursuit policy looks to be the same with no ammendments that I could spot since 09.


Here's a link to our latest pursuits policy review released in June, which refers to quite a few jurisdictions and GPS systems are mentioned - from page 62 are reccomendations for those lacking the stamina .

http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/defa...une%202010.pdf

Interesting to note frustation of the courts system in pg 49 of the report:

" This group of offenders are endangering public safety, yet are often charged with minor offences.
There are no real consequences or incentives to encourage offenders to change their behaviour. It could be argued that if the punishment was more severe, for example imprisonment, this may provide some deterrence for those determined to engage Police in pursuits at any opportunity: provided of course, Police can apprehend them.
This lack of deterrence is backed by figures provided by the Police Prosecution Service.

For the period January 2006 to December 2008, the average number of failing to stop offences per year was 2,521.

However, the number of these that went through the court process yet had no sentence imposed was very high: 2006, 73.5%; 2007, 74.2%; and 2008, 73.8%.

A court disqualification was imposed on average over the three years, for only 5.4% of convictions.
This is incredibly low for an offence that can have such serious consequences."

I also note in the IPCA link, the last line is:

"It is also important to acknowledge that pursuits start when drivers fail to respect the law and stop for Police.
When pursuits end badly, it is those drivers who must bear the responsibility.”

[Indoo]

However, the number of these that went through the court process yet had no sentence imposed was very high: 2006, 73.5%; 2007, 74.2%; and 2008, 73.8%.
]

And therein lies the problem, the courts and legislation make it almost a rational decision for these muppets. Why not run, the penalty is unlikely to be that much greater and there is a chance you might get away and avoid any penalty whatsoever.

Its good to see Candor addressing the real problem, the recidivist drivers themselves and the system that allows people with 17+ drink driving convictions to still roamfree, untreated, unrepetenant and if Candor has there way also unstoppable on the road.

I love the claim that the pursuit policy must also be racist because more fugitives are Maori and more innocent victims are also Maori. Does this mean that the Police are delibrately targetting Maori drivers who then inturn themselves are delibrately targeting innocent Maori in other vehicles to crash into and kill?

[candor]

Ridiculous. We have long advocated hard for car seizures of recidivists (only 1 in 60 drink drivers loses the wheels), alongside others for IIDs (TGW led the charge), and many other things like a good dose of home d for DUI teens first pop (oh dear no parties). A sole sweep up of chronics by enforcement over and over as the prime approach sucks. You guys are asked to play ground hog day and set up to fail. So checkpoints can be Treasuries wee ATMs - they really are checkbook points - but thx to the Judges too. They need some whippin.

Not chasing impaired drivers who don't initially stop but using other methods to contain their risk is only part of a best evidence approach. Its pure simple math - their crash risk is phenomenally increased by chases. A no brainer is that one, once one is familiar with the odds and evidence. What seems an obvious thing to do intuitively is actually the worst thing to do.

Re deterrence via more of a penalty thats tricky. Most countries seem to offer a bit higher a tarrif, but it also doesn't seem to make much difference, Goddards report whilst protecting Polices feathers also has as its main thrust advice for Police to cut back on their chase threshold. A higher penalty may be feel fgood stuff, it might discourage a few and equally could encourage a few. The real gains though would seem to come from slashing pursuit indications as per the global body of evidence.
We proposed a while age to do both, a representative charge that defined it more so than failing to stop (Police Assn then argued against I think), + cutting chase numbers + providing an absolute immunity from legal wrangles if policy followed. The danger we're worried about at Candor is that the real solutions will be set aside while the focus of MPs goes solely on penalty non solutions.

[Indoo]

Sorry I must have missed your protests asking for those sensible measures.

Obviously using other means to stop impaired drivers is preferable, just not all that practical with the budgets, technology and legislation we currently have. Banning pursuits outright will just encourage more drunks to run in the first place, endangering more innocent people and turning up at their home address a few hours later or the next day to breath test them isn't exactly legal or effective.

I'd be interested to see the figures of pursuit fatalities broken down so that they show offender deaths and injurys and truly innocent people seperately - ie not associated with the offender in anyway, because thats the figure that is most important .

[candor]

Not protests - submissions and begging and blabbing these things to media any opportunity. But theres no priority on advances as they think we have the answers as is. State of the Art we're told ROFL. So your view comes from coalface and will have a prejudice or bias as will any view but all need to feed in. We think a taskforce on DUI that steers new initiatives with wide community and stakeholder representation is the way to break out of the bureaucrats fumbling - the best solutions will like elsewhere come from a multi disciplinary approach. Dream, dream, dream...

2002-8 About 500 fugitives hurt somehow, 293 others (non drivers) - I have more detail somewhere but its basicly 40% bystanders harmed if I add right at this hour. See post 60 which gives just deaths and serious but not minor injuries - but not with the bystander breakdown. Presumably its still 60/40. Gets into large numbers of innocents somewhere like the US with larger population which got the pursuit watch movement away.

Huh - why only worry over those not associated with offender. Passengers aren't in control but are victims... there again in Japan it's an offence to passenger with a dui. Gah thud we need to Nationalise vehicles and give Police an remote off button. The end.

[candor]

Sorry I must have missed your protests asking for those sensible measures.

turning up at their home address a few hours later or the next day to breath test them isn't exactly legal or effective.

Make it evading dui tests by presumption (?) and automatic higher penalty of not found to be testable within time. Right now the max fine is thousands lower if you decline a test and just get the refusal charge. Reverse that situation. These sorts of things are why heads need to get together.