So, a rozza enters my home...

**Max Preload** · 4th March 2009, 10:31

Originally Posted by Winston001

Oxford Dictionary:

Integrity • noun 1: the quality of being honest and morally upright

So what you're saying is integrity shouldn't be in there either?

**Winston001** · 4th March 2009, 12:28

Originally Posted by Max Preload

So what you're saying is integrity shouldn't be in there either?

LOL you win

**Winston001** · 4th March 2009, 12:28

Aaarrgg double post......doh

**Patrick** · 4th March 2009, 17:02

Originally Posted by Blackshear

And they go absolutely APE SHIT on the throttle to catch whoever just 'evaded' the block, a HUNDRED miles an hour up the road! No pedestrian would stand a chance! Course the sirens and all...
Slow traffic, probably blocked up a few meters... 'Oh i'll cross h- WHABAAAAM'

Just they way they rip off the line really gets to me. It's justified, but to add another speeding vehicle in with a supposed drunken speeding vehicle...

Like pedestrians get run over often, or at all....

Same can be said about bikes at the front of the traffic lights at times...

Originally Posted by Oscar

If I don't know my rights, I suppose I can trust a copper to respect them, eh? A compliant, ignorant population is gut, Ja?

Yep. Breach your rights = no case. Kinda pointless then, dontcha think?

The point was, if you don't know your rights, the bush lawyer advice given at times is putting you in greater jeopardy..... We are trying to point out that some of the bush lawyer advice given, all too often, is very dangerous to your liberty. Ya follow????

**Ixion** · 4th March 2009, 17:05

Well, there was a young lad seriously injured not long ago, just standing on the footpath when a cop lost it at warp speed.

**Patrick** · 4th March 2009, 17:18

Originally Posted by Ixion

Well, there was a young lad seriously injured not long ago, just standing on the footpath when a cop lost it at warp speed.

From a checkpoint?

Thought he was chasing a stolen car full of burglars. (Or summit like that...)

And that fella was hit by the traffic light pole ...

Fairly sure the car never touched him...

**Oscar** · 4th March 2009, 18:08

Originally Posted by Patrick

The point was, if you don't know your rights, the bush lawyer advice given at times is putting you in greater jeopardy..... We are trying to point out that some of the bush lawyer advice given, all too often, is very dangerous to your liberty. Ya follow????

I follow alright.
Anything said here that you and yer fellow Gendarmes consider uppity is bush lawyering...

I know my rights and I've seen Police infringe them on numerous occasions - the first being outside Eden Park on a winters day in 1981 when cops weren't wearing numbers and refused to give them when requested..

**rwh** · 4th March 2009, 20:47

Originally Posted by scumdog

Oh, I can respect them alright - but try and tell me 'I know my rights' when you're misinformed and know jack-shit (bush-lawyer?) then it's a different story.

Seems to me that the problem is that people don't know their rights well enough. We have this 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', yet there's so much of it that it's impossible to know. IMHO we need a major overhaul and simplification of our laws. This would be a great money spinner for current lawyers, so hopefully they'd be in favour, despite there being much less work for future lawyers ...

Richard

**Winston001** · 4th March 2009, 21:04

Originally Posted by Oscar

I follow alright.
Anything said here that you and yer fellow Gendarmes consider uppity is bush lawyering...

I know my rights and I've seen Police infringe them on numerous occasions - the first being outside Eden Park on a winters day in 1981 when cops weren't wearing numbers and refused to give them when requested..

Know what you mean about the '81 Tour but that was tough on the cops too. Many privately sympathised but others were very pro-rugby. So they were caught between two factions and there were officers who went too far. You will also remember that police officers were prosecuted afterwards. One of them was a friend of mine.

As for the cops on here, almost without exception they are good-humoured and take the rough and nasty stuff dished out. I've been here 3 years and never seen a cop diss correct legal points. They actually know the criminal law better than most lawyers. Its their job.

I'll speculate Oscar and suggest what upsets some people here is police methodology. The cops don't tell people their rights until they get to the point where they have to. That is entirely lawful.

To be clear, once an officer believes the person being questioned has committed a crime, he should stop, issue a caution, and arrest/advise of the charge. Until that point, he can chat all day. I'll say it on this forum again - the police largely succeed because of what suspects tell them.

The rule is - do not talk to the police. Name, address, DOB. (Unless its serious fraud, tax or some exotic type charge). But it doesn't matter cos people always do.

**Oscar** · 5th March 2009, 07:50

Originally Posted by Winston001

Know what you mean about the '81 Tour but that was tough on the cops too. Many privately sympathised but others were very pro-rugby. So they were caught between two factions and there were officers who went too far. You will also remember that police officers were prosecuted afterwards. One of them was a friend of mine.

As for the cops on here, almost without exception they are good-humoured and take the rough and nasty stuff dished out. I've been here 3 years and never seen a cop diss correct legal points. They actually know the criminal law better than most lawyers. Its their job.

I'll speculate Oscar and suggest what upsets some people here is police methodology. The cops don't tell people their rights until they get to the point where they have to. That is entirely lawful.

To be clear, once an officer believes the person being questioned has committed a crime, he should stop, issue a caution, and arrest/advise of the charge. Until that point, he can chat all day. I'll say it on this forum again - the police largely succeed because of what suspects tell them.

The rule is - do not talk to the police. Name, address, DOB. (Unless its serious fraud, tax or some exotic type charge). But it doesn't matter cos people always do.

It is the methodology of an arrogant few (read: most Highway Patrol Bastids) that winds me up. If any are reading this, some points to note:

Yes, as a matter of fact I do know how fast I was going, but you don't think I'd be stupid enough to tell you, do you?
Don't gimme the road toll or accident backspot sermons. We both know you have a quota to fill.
If I wanted someone to talk to me like a naughty teenager, I'd go home and see my wife. Just gimme the ticket, OK?
No, I haven't been drinking. It's 11am on a Tuesday for fucks sakes and we're in Leamington, 10 miles from the nearest pub (which isn't open). So tell me why you have five cops and booze bus here?
No one ever said "Driving's in the blood.".
Dave is a cahnt and no-one's mate.
We get it Knackstead, now do something constructive for road safety like fixing the road surfaces or actually training drivers before you license them.

**Pixie** · 5th March 2009, 08:06

Originally Posted by Patrick

Like pedestrians get run over often, or at all....

The odd school kid may get hit by a falling sign post and suffer brain damage when a cop loses it at speed and runs off the road.

but that's ok

And it was reported as a car avoiding a check point,but then I know the area and 50% of traffic take that side road to avoid the major intersection,so avoidance was debatable

**MadDuck** · 5th March 2009, 19:25

Police 10-7 right now for yous

**Max Preload** · 5th March 2009, 19:57

Originally Posted by MadDuck

Police 10-7 right now for yous

Saw that, but the scenario was different. A witness reported a suspected drink driver and followed the vehicle to an address. Cops turned up, spoke to the nark on the street, then the cops went to the door of the address. A woman at the address answered the door and admitted she was driving the vehicle. Police requested she undergo a breath screening test. She asked what would happen if she said no - the cops said she'd be arrested - probably because she'd already admitted she was the driver.

The fact she takes legal advice from cops should have been evidence enough of intoxication to arrest her!

**warewolf** · 5th March 2009, 23:21

Originally Posted by Winston001

The cops don't tell people their rights until they get to the point where they have to. That is entirely lawful.

To be clear, once an officer believes the person being questioned has committed a crime, he should stop, issue a caution, and arrest/advise of the charge. Until that point, he can chat all day. I'll say it on this forum again - the police largely succeed because of what suspects tell them.

The rule is - do not talk to the police. Name, address, DOB. (Unless its serious fraud, tax or some exotic type charge). But it doesn't matter cos people always do.

This is all very true. The cops will never admit the truth of the process unless you first demonstrate you know it, then they'll usually back off and try for a softer target elsewhere that they can coerce into rolling over.

In recent years I've been kicking around with some lawyers. Their clients who try to co-operate - mistakenly believing it will help their defence - only incriminate themselves, making the defence much more difficult. In comparison those that shut up, say & do nothing until the lawyer arrives to supervise are rarely found guilty. The prosecutors know this, so try to surprise the clients and bully them into co-operating and self-incriminating as much as possible until the lawyer arrives and forces them to back off and play by the rules.

**scumdog** · 6th March 2009, 07:33

Originally Posted by warewolf

This is all very true. The cops will never admit the truth of the process unless you first demonstrate you know it, then they'll usually back off and try for a softer target elsewhere that they can coerce into rolling over.

In recent years I've been kicking around with some lawyers. Their clients who try to co-operate - mistakenly believing it will help their defence - only incriminate themselves, making the defence much more difficult. In comparison those that shut up, say & do nothing until the lawyer arrives to supervise are rarely found guilty. The prosecutors know this, so try to surprise the clients and bully them into co-operating and self-incriminating as much as possible until the lawyer arrives and forces them to back off and play by the rules.

Faark, some great generalisations and assumptions there dude

- if you believe what you posted 100% then you come from a different planet than me...