Invite - 2nd protest against police pursuits today

[Laxi]

No wonder this is in Rant 'n Rave

should have been PD'd! instead it gets a 6 page disscusion? FFS

[marty]

i'm only up to page 3. change your settings to 40/page

[roy.nz]

I fully agree with police chases. And its not the police chasing that are causing the accidents its the dickheads that are doing the running.

[Genestho]

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

As it is currently, lawyers boast in advertising of getting drink drivers off or lesser sentences on procedural technicalities, they'll be rubbing their in hands in glee over that one..

Make it evading dui tests by presumption (?) and automatic higher penalty of not found to be testable within time.

So by your latest idea - you propose we sit back, do nothing, watch dangerous drivers meander across centrelines and put public at risk until they crash - or not.....?

How does an officer distinguish (and prove ) between a drunk or a murderer/armed robber/ pick a crime; running across town through redlights, into oncoming traffic - therefore a danger to public without apprehension?

Unfortunately speeding is usually the first alarm and leads to a bigger catch or can save lives ie, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10670375

If people want to speed that is at their risk, having a lifetime of Motorcycling background, I know it's extremely easy to get up to speed, but if we are to catch the worst of crimes a consequence for speeding or evasion must stay.

Even if you pick a scenario of a driver running from a booze bus, you still couldn't prove the driver over the limit (unless crashing), even if that driver ie, was a known disqualified recidivist drink driver by police.
Known is not evidence

It's hard enough as it is now to secure consistant and meaningful sentencing options, you want to make it even harder?

Sorry, I don't support ending 'trivial' pursuits, however I do support any measures that can enhance apprehension with minimal loss of innocent lives, mutual respect for both drivers and police, and accountability for actions whether it be an officer making a bad judgment call, or a fleeing driver.

I believe the benefits far outway the risks.

I believe I am done here.

[candor]

No I never proposed do nothing - avoid speed pursuits/employ the other options. As more progressive countries do with stunning results. All I'm saying is that the IPCA did not pull its recommendations from a vacuum. It put months into examining 6 years of crashes and years of scientific studies. The findings were more than interesting even if they do blow some minds - and I'm glad people have mulled them over thoroughly whatever their personal views.
TGW, even if our lot don't achieve the things we aim for, I hope that pushing on this does at least achieve what you are supporting - as in use of every tool capable of enhancing safety while apprehending where risks are high. There's a lot of things short of abandoning pursuits - some we've touched on, others not covered here that would be advances able to save many lives. I don't think the report dealt wth those things though possibly it did in the draft form or supplementary advice to Police.
I'm prolly done here too as the negativity from some is not my idea of having a good day. But if people want to carry on discussing detailed ideas for improvements I'm still in. Thx to those giving the green rep - I can't see who is giving rep.

[candor]

Pursuits for suspected impaired driving end in crashes 48% of the time (Auten 1994). One pursuit of a DUI suspect puts 100’s of lives at risk due to added speed and adrenalin experts comment. Their odds of crashing are greatly increased versus on any non pursuit trip as statistically it’s neither likely or probable that each event of driving under influence will end in a crash.

Justice Goddard

“during the five years to 19 December 2008... 24 people died in Police pursuits, 90 resulted in serious injury. Most of the pursuits were started over traffic offending, though 31 were started over known or suspected criminal offending (mostly car conversion and other property offences). Relatively few pursuits uncovered evidence of serious crimes other than those associated with the offender's driving during the pursuit.” (Justice Goddard, IPCA report 2009)

Re how do cops distinguish between fugitives who are murderers, not big fish etc - I don't think that matters or that we want Police assuming the worst on a regular basis (the hysteria monster) - most new evidence founded policies just encompass awareness it is overall better not to chase most runners based on stats like these. Stats showing no major crime is the norm until after a chase creates one. Our lawyer today called it racing - said cops speeding with other cars in a 50k zone is racing. It's about adding gasoline to the fire - or not. I'd chose maximised safety over certainty of conviction anyday. Its not like convictions under current laws save lives - given the usual wet bus ticket slap, and increasing risk to life to nab someone loony enough to think they can come out on top isn't sensible.

[marty]

Now you're quoting yourself? I thought you were done?

[BoristheBiter]

All I'm saying is that the IPCA did not pull its recommendations from a vacuum.
.

No they generally pull them out of some librial's arse like yourself.

[candor]

Did you get that info from your disaffected MoT mate?

A refusal carries the same penalties as eba - refuse a screening test, you'll be arrested on the roadside. refuse the breath test, you go straight to blood. refuse a blood test, you'll be immediately suspended, and charged with refusing, which presumes you blood level is above the limit.

3rd and subsequent refusing carries the same penalties as 3rd and subsequent eba. Impairment driving draws the same penalties.

Really.

http://legislation.knowledge-basket....05/an/046.html
Section 61 causing death over evidential breath or blood alcohol limit – max penalty 5 years and max fine 20g
Section 62 causing death where section 61 doesn’t apply (this means alcohol test evaders) – max penalty 3 years or max fine 10g + max penalties for refusing tests of 3months and of $4500

The advantage for an impaired driving killer of a test refusal is a potential saving of $5,500 and of 1 year 9 months knocked off with cumulative sentencing - more for concurrent. Though I can see the merit of keeping this secret per Martys post - I just think it needs to change, overseas a refusal gets a tougher penalty than testing guilty, as guilt is then presumed
Members of sensible sentencig have been in the position of a well informed killer repeat disqualified impaired driver refusing the test so getting a softer wet bus ticket slap.

[candor]

No they generally pull them out of some librial's arse like yourself.

Only to be criticised by post modern members of the third reich

Po po Pope humbled by findings re murder victim and striving to improve Police customer service delivery
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/ar...ectid=10644868

[DMNTD:Me]

So then...who's up for this protest?

[Number One]

So then...who's up for this protest?

Nah - weathers shite here I might ruin my hair do...

[Patrick]

....E-ml from anon long standing cop
"...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).

....... 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......".

Dennys - a restaurant????? ROFL.....

And just to put it out there... perhaps the patrol had 1) a laser, or 2) was stopping red light runners...? Two probabilities that your "long serving MOT mate" didn't seem to even consider... Definitely not cop.

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.

He is not a cop. There are spoken/typed words and phrases that are fairly easy to spot, that "dialect" you speak of. Drives my wife nuts, when cops speak about stuff....

In that, there is nothing. If he is disgruntled since the merger in 1992, he should have gone a long time ago.

..... 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]

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.”

In a nut shell.... Well spotted.

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.

No it aint... Completely wrong.

FFS - the amalgamation was in 1990 - he needs to move on or fuck off. I said it wasn't a report from a cop.

1992 mate.... 18 years ago.... and I agree. No cop.

Did you get that info from your disaffected MoT mate?

A refusal carries the same penalties as eba - refuse a screening test, you'll be arrested on the roadside. refuse the breath test, you go straight to blood. refuse a blood test, you'll be immediately suspended, and charged with refusing, which presumes you blood level is above the limit.

3rd and subsequent refusing carries the same penalties as 3rd and subsequent eba. Impairment driving draws the same penalties.

Just to rectify, Marty... one can refuse a screening test. You would then be required to accompany, that you can not refuse, do so and be arrested for refusing to accompany - penalties same as a drunk driver. You can then refuse an evidential breath test but will have to do the blood. Refuse that and you will be arrested, penalties same as a drunk driver.

.... I will shortly be meeting with the sender of the e-ml which I fail to understand why its excited anyone, and will then be able to learn their full Police or (as you'd have it) Police impersonator history. Normally when ppl e-mail I don't ask for a scan of their badge.

Someone is having someone on....

Love the "Helen" call though - ROFL

Really.

Section 61 causing death over evidential breath or blood alcohol limit – max penalty 5 years and max fine 20g
Section 62 causing death where section 61 doesn’t apply (this means alcohol test evaders)

This doesn't mean that at all.... It means, those who caused death where alcohol was not a factor.

[candor]

So you are trying to say that you can successfully convict on section 61 (killing while over the limit) with no breath or blood evidence. I've never seen that fly, I have seen section 62's (the lesser charge) fly after test refusals by people almost certainly drunk. I find your reading of the apparent loophole as not being one strange, given that having no forensic evidence would produce reasonable doubt. A 62 conviction doesn't state someone must be proved not over limit or that "alcohol was not a factor" as you say, just that they must not fit with a 61 which alternate charge specifically requires the charged person to be over limit. That would require scientific proof I'm sure.
An untested DUI would surely by default land in 61, as prosecutors would be reluctant to charge on 61 with insufficient evidence.
Will put it by a defense lawyer for clarification.

[candor]

Dennys - a restaurant????? ROFL.....


Someone is having someone on....

]

With you all doubting this character you've got me concerned, but why the heck would someone want to have me on... the person seems genuine enough, I'll make sure then to meet in a public place for my own safety in case they are not kosha .