Officer charged over motorcycle crash

**Mikkel** · 26th December 2007, 11:50

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Section 35(2)(b) is highlighted. The word "must" means that the court does not have discretion to not disqualify on a dangerous conviction.

The only discretionary offence is careless in regards to disqualification. The only exception to this is where the defendant can prove that there were special circumstances and then it will almost always result in a discount on the disqualification period.

If I knew how to collate or could be bothered finding out how to I would, but I can't be stuffed so I won't.

Well, I can only say that then either the court wasn't following the law or my friend has been lying to me about it. I think I'll trust my mate since he hasn't so far managed to get caught at being dishonest!

Well, as long as it's laziness I can kinda relate to it

**Pixie** · 26th December 2007, 12:09

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

I don't understand why people always assume Police try and protect their own - it's kinda like "well if they are a Police Force of course they will protect their own...human nature and all that" - but its not true. They simply don't.

Partly because you guys ( KB cops) tend to defend your colleagues to the hilt.

**scumdog** · 27th December 2007, 17:27

Originally Posted by Pixie

Partly because you guys ( KB cops) tend to defend your colleagues to the hilt.

Could you quote all my posts where I've defended my colleagues??

**Conquiztador** · 27th December 2007, 20:37

Why does the offending cop not walk in to the hospital and see the guys, tell them he is soo farking sorry he phucked up. And then the police provide both guys with new bikes? Personally I recon that would go a looooong way towards helping the situation in all ways.

**The Pastor** · 27th December 2007, 20:46

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

Why does the offending cop not walk in to the hospital and see the guys, tell them he is soo farking sorry he phucked up. And then the police provide both guys with new bikes? Personally I recon that would go a looooong way towards helping the situation in all ways.

well you see dear conquiztador, that would be comon sence, somthing the police/nz/insert group here lack.

**Grahameeboy** · 27th December 2007, 20:50

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

Why does the offending cop not walk in to the hospital and see the guys, tell them he is soo farking sorry he phucked up. And then the police provide both guys with new bikes? Personally I recon that would go a looooong way towards helping the situation in all ways.

Because case under investigation...mmmm.....may be embarrassed...worried about flack he may get.

As to hus speeding comment, this is a common response following an accident and in his own mind as far as he was concerned, they were not in view etc.....like a lot of drivers' responses..

**Winston001** · 27th December 2007, 20:55

Originally Posted by Conquiztador

Why does the offending cop not walk in to the hospital and see the guys, tell them he is soo farking sorry he phucked up. And then the police provide both guys with new bikes? Personally I recon that would go a looooong way towards helping the situation in all ways.

I'm sure we are all saying that and I agree. However, assuming the officer pleads Not Guilty, he creates a problem for himself - saying sorry can sound like an admission of guilt. The Crown solicitor would grab that with both hands.

Even so, he could enquire about them through other officers and show a human interest in their welfare without saying sorry.

Don't forget, this officer probably genuinely believes the guys were speeding and should have been able to stop. If you genuinely believed something - would you admit guilt?

**Conquiztador** · 27th December 2007, 21:10

Originally Posted by Winston001

Don't forget, this officer probably genuinely believes the guys were speeding and should have been able to stop.

A Tui anyone??

**Nonbeliever** · 27th December 2007, 21:11

Originally Posted by Winston001

I'm sure we are all saying that and I agree. However, assuming the officer pleads Not Guilty, he creates a problem for himself - saying sorry can sound like an admission of guilt. The Crown solicitor would grab that with both hands.

Even so, he could enquire about them through other officers and show a human interest in their welfare without saying sorry.

Don't forget, this officer probably genuinely believes the guys were speeding and should have been able to stop. If you genuinely believed something - would you admit guilt?

Genuinely believes they were speeding?? LOL gimme a break he's only trying to cover his donut eating arse by trying to make it look like this accident was caused by the riders when it was his own fault by doing a Uturn in a stupid place.

**Conquiztador** · 27th December 2007, 21:14

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

Because case under investigation...mmmm.....may be embarrassed...worried about flack he may get.

Brilliant! 2 guys are in hospital as a result of his actions and he is embarrassed.

Originally Posted by Grahameeboy

As to hus speeding comment, this is a common response following an accident and in his own mind as far as he was concerned, they were not in view etc.....like a lot of drivers' responses..

I see, the old: "I did not see you". But he even got that wrong, as it is: "Sorry, I did not see you"

**mstriumph** · 27th December 2007, 21:31

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

I don't understand why people always assume Police try and protect their own - it's kinda like "well if they are a Police Force of course they will protect their own...human nature and all that" - but its not true. They simply don't.

it is human nature for people to 'protect their own'
it does happen in most groups where an 'us and them' culture is the norm
it's therefore not really suprising that us civilians expect the police to act that way too

please don't take it personally
no disrespect is intended

**homer** · 27th December 2007, 21:38

Originally Posted by Renegade

i dont think cop school has any thing to do with it, being that he is a sergeant he is likely to have been around for at least the last 10 years, yeah he made a mistake, dosnt mean that he should get treated more hasrhly than any one else would have, so careless causing injury will no doubt be the outcome.

No true and also dosnt mean should get special treatment either

**homer** · 27th December 2007, 21:40

Originally Posted by 98tls

No doubt this thread would be just as long if the guy that did the u-turn wasnt a cop.

I think not.

Very true to
But there trained to know better ?
You know it should be harsher if your trained to know

**Mekk** · 27th December 2007, 23:14

Originally Posted by mstriumph

it is human nature for people to 'protect their own'
it does happen in most groups where an 'us and them' culture is the norm
it's therefore not really suprising that us civilians expect the police to act that way too

please don't take it personally
no disrespect is intended

Even if it is "human nature" to protect our own, that can certainly be cancelled out by any number of different circumstances. The mentality you're implying could be on any number of scales as well.

This "human nature" you are referring to is by no means a rule.

You can spin it any way you like with that. I mean the police can be the "us" and the complaints authority, lawyers or whoever is prosecuting can be the "them". Or the police can be the "them" and the civilians can be the "us" as you've mentioned.

The thing that's overlooking all of this is the law. The fact that the officer is being charged at all is testament to the fact that this "human nature" aspect of it is being overridden. That is at least how I see it.

**EDIT: As a follow up note to that, this article gives an example of cops vs cops and suggests that they do NOT stand up for each other just because they're wearing the same uniform.

**Winston001** · 27th December 2007, 23:33

Originally Posted by Nonbeliever

Genuinely believes they were speeding?? LOL gimme a break he's only trying to cover his donut eating arse by trying to make it look like this accident was caused by the riders when it was his own fault by doing a Uturn in a stupid place.

You won't get any argument from me. It was a stupid stupid place to do a three point turn - especially for a law enforcement officer. I expect him to be convicted.

However that has nothing to do with his point of view. What's the bet his defence is the guys were speeding and contributed to the accident??!! There is every chance he genuinely believes that - doesn't mean his belief is reasonable, but it does explain his lack of sorry or interest in the riders.

Or alternatively as you say, he made it up on the spot and is sticking to it. He might be an officer who views all motorcyclists as speeders (er...with a tad of justification...

).

For the sake of clarity the guy interviewed in hospital said he'd heard nothing from the officer.