Nicely written. Personally I don't believe in reducing penalty - will end up with no-one caring. Huge penatlies? Maybe - you don't abuse your licence in some Euro countries as it costs so much to get in the first place and is a privelege not a right.
TBH I don't know the answer - it's a bit like cops carrying guns here. The munters that pass as bad guys here - when they get a gun pointed at them - have a habit (from experience) of saying - 'go on then pig - shoot me' - they just don't get it.
Loud and Uncouth
OK, I so haven't got an axe-murderer so far - but I have got a few drunk and disqualified drivers because they weren't wearing a seatbelt/cut a corner or some other 'minor' offence.Originally Posted by candor
Some did runners and eventually gave up but I can remember two at least that crashed doing the runner only 200 metres or so from where they decided to 'fail to stop', - well before I had finished informing Comms that I was involved in a 'failed to stop' pursuit - in fact the said pursuit had barely started.
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
Forum whore
This bun fight between Candor and Police is actually caused by both being equally correct, but standing in different places.
At least thats how I see it.
Law Enforcements view
Police, are (quite correctly) pointing out, that their ability to enforce the law would be severely handicapped if they were not able to chase and apprehend drivers who failed to stop.
Even if those drivers had only been spotted not wearing a seat belt or cutting a corner.
The point Scumdog is making is that many of those drivers fled because they had another motive to fear police - EBA, no licence, drugs in the boot etc. (So far no axe murdered bodies found this way.)
The Public safety view
Candor is looking at it (as you would expect, given her interest area) from a public safety angle.
She is saying that every day there are hundreds of thousands of episodes of drivers speeding, not wearing a seatbelt or cutting corners, that while dangerous, don't always cause injury.
For example, for each 10,000 events of a driver not wearing a seat belt, there may be one injury.
But for every 4 police chases there is an injury.
Its an easy equation from a public safety viewpoint.
- Does the drivers current activity have a one-in-four chance of causing an injury in the next 10 minutes ? If not you cant chase.
- Will your chase increase risk of an injury to one-in-four ? If so you cant chase.
So from a public safety perspective, police chases are just a bloody disaster.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
As a society we have two entirely different requirements to try and marry up.
Law enforcements Raison d'κtre is public safety.
Yet we accept that to effectively enforce the law, we may have to compromise that safety sometimes.
But if the enforcement of the law is more costly to us than its non enforcement we have destroyed our reason for the law in the first place !
And then, will abandonment of enforcement leave us with the status quo, or will the problem grow, so it is once again worth enforcing ?
In this instance its the balance that is being debated, both principles are critical parts of being civilised.
So can we please debate the subject, get off our red-rep horses and try and thrash out something useful ?
As it will be a tragedy if we abandon pursuits too early. And a tragedy if we abandon them too late.
David must play fair with the other kids, even the idiots.
In the riders seat
If they've given you permission than surely you should be allowed to?
"If you can make black marks on a straight from the time you turn out of a corner until the braking point of the next turn, then you have enough power."
Hardcore Biker
Daves input goes beyond Justice Goddards (IPCA report). And I really like the comment about how many innocents need to get caught by Police bullets before policy changes. Same same. In reality the bunfight should be between IPCA and the Commissioner, but it seems this agency we're paying 4 million a year to analyse lethal issues & to upraise or to "balance" Police standards as reqd. is merely a figure head, like the Queen. Elsewhere it also took several inquiries or reports and a critical mas of heinous cock ups before things change. Why we have to go that track before admitting that others have found better ways forward is beyond me.
Collins is probably the glitch here, received a recent speech she did to a law firm today in which she gloats over the boy racer legislation reducing noise and making tourist hotels more convivial, in complete denial of its negative SAFETY effects. A quick google on her revealed that she got a 1993 Master of Taxation Studies (M.Tax.S.) degreeand proceeded on her career pathway out of shoe sales using this special -ology, so maybe no surprises there. I can only imagine the pillow talk with her cop hubby and idea fusions.
Yaeh that'd workThere's be a line up of suicide by cop applicants if that was the case!
Hardcore Biker
No-one's losing sleep over the minor offenders that got away without even being prompted to murder.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.3567571.html
Top police brass said Tuesday they stand by the (Dallas) department's restrictive chase policy... (violent offenders only chased) ...
drastic reduction in deaths and injuries since the current policy was implemented in June 2006.
No innocent bystanders have been killed during a police pursuit since the policy was put in place.
Dallas police reported 361 pursuits in 2004 and 354 in 2005. That total dropped to 200 in 2006 and has plummeted further, to 70 in 2007, 39 in 2008, 31 last year and 24 so far this year.
SEEMS BY CHILLING OUT DALLAS COPS CHILLED THE TOLL OUT TOO. NOW A CHASE TALE REALLY MEANS SOMETHING.
Loud and Uncouth
I wonder how they tell that the person that won't stop has/has not committed a violent crime??No-one's losing sleep over the minor offenders that got away without even being prompted to murder.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.3567571.html
Top police brass said Tuesday they stand by the (Dallas) department's restrictive chase policy... (violent offenders only chased) ...
drastic reduction in deaths and injuries since the current policy was implemented in June 2006.
No innocent bystanders have been killed during a police pursuit since the policy was put in place.
Dallas police reported 361 pursuits in 2004 and 354 in 2005. That total dropped to 200 in 2006 and has plummeted further, to 70 in 2007, 39 in 2008, 31 last year and 24 so far this year.
SEEMS BY CHILLING OUT DALLAS COPS CHILLED THE TOLL OUT TOO. NOW A CHASE TALE REALLY MEANS SOMETHING.
BTW: I arrived at the Dallas Love airport on the same day and just prior to the incident quoted in the article - at least (as in this case) the Texas cops are allowed to ram/execute PIT manouvre, unlike Kiwi cops who can only follow/chase.
Winding up drongos, foil hat wearers and over sensitive KBers for over 14,000 posts...........
" Life is not a rehearsal, it's as happy or miserable as you want to make it"
troglodytam extraordinaire
Compairing us to the Dallas police department just shows what little bits of information you will try and find to try and justify your point.Daves input goes beyond Justice Goddards (IPCA report). And I really like the comment about how many innocents need to get caught by Police bullets before policy changes. Same same. In reality the bunfight should be between IPCA and the Commissioner, but it seems this agency we're paying 4 million a year to analyse lethal issues & to upraise or to "balance" Police standards as reqd. is merely a figure head, like the Queen. Elsewhere it also took several inquiries or reports and a critical mas of heinous cock ups before things change. Why we have to go that track before admitting that others have found better ways forward is beyond me.
Collins is probably the glitch here, received a recent speech she did to a law firm today in which she gloats over the boy racer legislation reducing noise and making tourist hotels more convivial, in complete denial of its negative SAFETY effects. A quick google on her revealed that she got a 1993 Master of Taxation Studies (M.Tax.S.) degree
as said above they have the ability to stop offenders by any means and have a lot more air support so this makes running not an option as the chance of getting away is reduced.
the offenders also know that if they resist they are likely to get tasered or shot therefore they are generaly more compliant.
troglodytam extraordinaire
Come on then miss high-and-mighty, what is your qualifications in this matter?Daves input goes beyond Justice Goddards (IPCA report). And I really like the comment about how many innocents need to get caught by Police bullets before policy changes. Same same. In reality the bunfight should be between IPCA and the Commissioner, but it seems this agency we're paying 4 million a year to analyse lethal issues & to upraise or to "balance" Police standards as reqd. is merely a figure head, like the Queen. Elsewhere it also took several inquiries or reports and a critical mas of heinous cock ups before things change. Why we have to go that track before admitting that others have found better ways forward is beyond me.
Collins is probably the glitch here, received a recent speech she did to a law firm today in which she gloats over the boy racer legislation reducing noise and making tourist hotels more convivial, in complete denial of its negative SAFETY effects. A quick google on her revealed that she got a 1993 Master of Taxation Studies (M.Tax.S.) degree
What masters degree do you hold??
Or are just full of hot air and BS?
Trying to be a good dog
Its pretty obvious to me going by the statistical information presented.....chases can kill innocents unnecessarily.
Up the penalties for doing a runner = less runners
Churches are monuments to self importance
troglodytam extraordinaire
Not the point of the post of mine you quoted but;
No people run because they think they can get away and with the laws that are in place they know that if they drive like a cock at high speed it (the pursuit) will be called off.
So they drive like a cock and crash, hurting and killing innocent parties along the way.
Hardcore Biker
I have a degree in health science from Victoria, but it doesn't take that to see that the current policy is a hash up - including for reasons like those given by Boris. If you want to be snobby about chat pals whats your qual for your hot air discharge BTB?
What this thread makes clear is that Police are working in an unsupported harsh operational environment, much like Mt Everest. So policy adjustments will need to include consideration of wide issues and maybe complementary advances to just changing "the rules of engagement", like tech and penalty and traffic law impact reviews. Obviously our toll stats show traffic law is not meeting objectives.
One thing is a given, if we present it to Collins that guns can supercede chases that'll work. I s'pose knowing that instant justice of a bullet ambling by might be quite a disincentive to all but the fool-hardiest. Swift, certain.... beats the Court system by a long shot.
Next protest - give the Police guns, give the police guns, give the police guns.... save their dogs from being heros.
Tornado Alley
Just a couple of obvious points missed, as above.....
Now you've lost me.....
Shooting fleeing drivers is better?
Instant justice of a bullet.... sounds like Khmer Rouge...?
Give the Police guns to save their dogs from being heros? Okaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy.....
Has left the building
Up the penalties = the more determined people will be to get away.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks