Invite - 2nd protest against police pursuits today

[davereid]

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 .

A good idea. You passionately support your cause, which may (certainly does) mean you are not universally popular.

[Patrick]

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.

On reading what you've supplied, you might be on to something there... it just doesn't read right though.... I might be wrong with what I originally thought.... but will have to look it up later at work... not now...

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 .

Only looking out for your best interests....

Your approach blaming the Police is wrong. If I read what you are saying correctly, you're blaming the tools we don't have....? Is this a better approach?

[marty]

Really.

http://legislation.knowledge-basket....05/an/046.html
.

when I posted you had not discussed the refusal causing death situation. I was already well aware of the penalty differences for the causing death situations, having been involved in multiple investigations of this nature. I have unfortunately been involved pretty closely in a couple of pursuits that have resulted in fatals so believe me - I have a reasonably deep knowledge of the consequences.

I would like to know how you would have dealt with the pursuit in Dunedin last night.

[marty]

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'm pretty sure that's what I said. You CAN refuse everything, there's just consequences.

And yeah - 1992. Just seemed longer than that

[candor]

Your approach blaming the Police is wrong. If I read what you are saying correctly, you're blaming the tools we don't have....? Is this a better approach?

It may be offensive but it could be effective... who knows. Trust me I have no blaming or animosity, it upsets me every time a preventable toll death happens as I well know it does most cops.
I do blame backward policy and tools and see cops as victims of it - not helped by what appears to be a deep conservatism that is suspicious of change. If it has to be packaged as cop blaming (en masse not as individuals) to draw attention to it because that is how most people will most easily latch on to the subject - rather than talking about policy which requires long drawn out jargon and powerpoints etc which turns most audiences off (thread case in point), then so be that one of the tactics. Trust me it is a scary tactic - it's not like I really crave 10,000 badged up ticket book toting enemies. I come from a union background so my specialty is noise Childhood nick - sirenmouth

I do note the screwing round over other modern tools including vests so if Govt doesn't care about cops lives it is surely a strtetch to ask them to give cops tools and guidelines to preserve road users lives.

[candor]

when I posted you had not discussed the refusal causing death situation. I was already well aware of the penalty differences for the causing death situations,

I would like to know how you would have dealt with the pursuit in Dunedin last night.

So if that is the case maybe it'll need raising when the current penalty increase is going through select committee. Not familiar with that one in Dun. and that is probably a complex question as so much enters into weighting risks in any chase. I wouldn't like to venture an opinion on just one case as I think the law of averages needs to be considered, in policy, as is the thrust of our "jumping up and down". There may be exceptions to rules but I believe the general rule is to avoid high speed pursuits over infringements - so without knowing case details I hope that answers your Q. If not addressing the matter well pls throw me some more details.

Such Q's though are really better addressed to experts like Dr Geoff Alpert, as I'd only consider myself a well informed fan of such luminaries who sees bulk room for improvements....

Your prior post on "ways and means" to get tests donelike the hospital based provision had me thinking cops should insist with cuffs that all killer drivers get a medical checkup - for their own good of course (cuff rash).

[Brian d marge]

Rednecks in a position of power ...bound to end in tears

Stephen

BTW how much we got in the general tax collection kitty now , has to be enough for Stickup Morgan to buy a new pair of underpants again

Stephen

[marty]

So if that is the case maybe it'll need raising when the current penalty increase is going through select committee. Not familiar with that one in Dun. and that is probably a complex question as so much enters into weighting risks in any chase. I wouldn't like to venture an opinion on just one case as I think the law of averages needs to be considered, in policy, as is the thrust of our "jumping up and down". There may be exceptions to rules but I believe the general rule is to avoid high speed pursuits over infringements - so without knowing case details I hope that answers your Q. If not addressing the matter well pls throw me some more details.

Such Q's though are really better addressed to experts like Dr Geoff Alpert, as I'd only consider myself a well informed fan of such luminaries who sees bulk room for improvements....

Your prior post on "ways and means" to get tests donelike the hospital based provision had me thinking cops should insist with cuffs that all killer drivers get a medical checkup - for their own good of course (cuff rash).

You have a split second to decide whether to give chase or not: http://www.odt.co.nz/your-town/mosgi...ce-chase-drama

Now your last paragraph - gee what a good idea

[candor]

It wouldn't take me so long as a split sec to decide that "person" needed chasin'
Per prior posts our protest excludes chases of violent offenders - still, proceed with care until you catch up with the guy anyway.

[BoristheBiter]

It wouldn't take me so long as a split sec to decide that "person" needed chasin'
Per prior posts our protest excludes chases of violent offenders - still, proceed with care until you catch up with the guy anyway.

you still have no idea do you? i guess thats your union background for ya.

Could you see the headlines the next day, "Cops let druck driver get away after killing wife". the media would have a field day with that, and the public for that matter.

the reason for or against can only be made by the people on the ground at that time. (or coms)
the reasons are just the same for why people run.

You have come up with no sound reason to stop pursuits, just more interferance by people making comments on subjects they have no idea about.

[candor]

Did u get that I said I supported that chase? You sound like a close minded cop to me.

[BoristheBiter]

Did u get that I said I supported that chase? You sound like a close minded cop to me.

How do you choose? that is the point.
Its allright for armchair lawyers to crawl all over something after the fact, try being there.

if you take the pursuits away from police no one will stop, why would they? to get a ticket maybe over the limit, just put your foot down, hide at home for awhile.

in a nice world we would not have ay need for cops but this is the real world, there are bad people and shit happens.
In your long winded rant at the begining did you talk about all the pursuits that don't end badly? no, that doesn't make for good telly does it?

[Patrick]

... If it has to be packaged as cop blaming (en masse not as individuals) to draw attention to it because that is how most people will most easily latch on to the subject - rather than talking about policy which requires long drawn out jargon and powerpoints etc which turns most audiences off ....

But that is what occurred here.... How many were turned off?

Blame the fleeing driver. He was the cause in the beginning, and still is in the end, the cause of the deaths. Solely and sigularly.

[marty]

It wouldn't take me so long as a split sec to decide that "person" needed chasin'
Per prior posts our protest excludes chases of violent offenders - still, proceed with care until you catch up with the guy anyway.

so how long after the violence event should the chase still be allowed to occur? 1 hour? 1 day? 1 week? What if the offender had kicked a kid to death, then 3 weeks later a vehicle was caught speeding on SH1 at Cambridge, but the cop didn't know that the bad guy was in it, but the cop got the rego and found it was registered to a person of interest, and the driver did a runner, but the driver wasn't the killer - the killer was just a passenger - but the cop wasn't 100% sure the bad guy was even in the car?

again, you have a very short time frame in which to make what could be a life changing decision.

[candor]

I dunno. I'd trust the cops to make that call on how long after the violent event, 30 years may be pushing it.
Gawd thats inventive - it would stuill seem reasonable to me to chase in that scenario as it is in good faith one would be thinking the driver was a person of interest. But are persons of interest able to be formally distinguished by the seriousness of the catch ie violent offense suspect versus non traffic ticket payer... is there like a red flag code for serious offenders in the system? Or is it just in verbal handovers or wanted posters etc that you are made aware of who current "most wanteds" are.