3 point turn cop on trial

[Headbanger]

Skimmed over this,but as said doing U turn,make sure all is clear,but with pursuit happening,the cop can accelerate the turn,something we can't do for losing the car with boy racer traction rules.The onus on the cop is he can do a U turn quicker than normal traffic drivers due to the no loss of traction legislation not applying to them in pursuit,so obviously he thought yep they are close,but if I accelerate I'll beat them,then he stuffed the turn up.

The onus is on the cop to not pull shit stunts and hurt people.

He should never have attempted the move, especially if he thought he just had to do it really really fast so as not to kill anyone.

[scumdog]

Skimmed over this,but as said doing U turn,make sure all is clear,but with pursuit happening,the cop can accelerate the turn,something we can't do for losing the car with boy racer traction rules.The onus on the cop is he can do a U turn quicker than normal traffic drivers due to the no loss of traction legislation not applying to them in pursuit,so obviously he thought yep they are close,but if I accelerate I'll beat them,then he stuffed the turn up.

Ah, he would have had a car with traction control I'd hazard a guess.

Sure, he could turn it off but should he lose control and bin it there would be some nasty questions why he had turned off the traction control.

Of course maybe if he HAD turned it off and biffed the arse of the car around we wouldn't be yabbering on about this fiasco...

[Headbanger]

Of course maybe if he HAD turned it off and biffed the arse of the car around we wouldn't be yabbering on about this fiasco...

Of course, If he hadn't decided to pull the cunning stunt in the first place he would still have his career, he wouldn't be in court, and the two bikers would have had an excellent day, instead of being fucked up in hospital.

[ynot slow]

Ah, he would have had a car with traction control I'd hazard a guess.

Sure, he could turn it off but should he lose control and bin it there would be some nasty questions why he had turned off the traction control.

Of course maybe if he HAD turned it off and biffed the arse of the car around we wouldn't be yabbering on about this fiasco...

Traction control or not maybe a few more car skills should be part of regular updates,pretty hard to become a rally driver with a few hour only in basic training.

Why have traction control on full time,there are times it is warranted to be discontinued and pursuit turning would be one of these times.Quick turn around is one part,but it comes back to the road,it is a narrow road.Yep he stuffed up,retired from force with full super etc I'd imagine,if he was told admit no fault fine,now he has no alliance to the force he should man up and say I made a huge error in judgement,and was told to do this or that by those in charge.

Hell it is a big thing he has to keep for his life the thought he fucked 2 guys lives,hate to be in his place for sure,but he was performing his duty and the adrenelin kicked in and we know the end results.

[Winston001]

Yep he stuffed up,retired from force with full super etc I'd imagine,if he was told admit no fault fine,now he has no alliance to the force he should man up and say I made a huge error in judgement,and was told to do this or that by those in charge.

Are you serious? He's been charged by the Police, the organisation which employed him at the time. Do you honestly think his senior officers told him to deny responsibility....??? And then face prosecution??

This is a (now retired) experienced policeman. He's probably certain in his own mind that the guys who hit him were speeding - in fact he said that to one biker as he lay on the ground. He believes he did nothing wrong - and that's why there is a trial.

Even if convicted he may still reckon he was in the right. Human nature makes us excuse our own misjudgements, trying to blame events on something else. Some people simply cannot say "I was wrong". Nobody on KB of course....

[ynot slow]

Exactly he hasn't said he was wrong.And clearly did do something wrong.He says they were speeding,they said nope who is correct?I thought reading the police public line is they never admit neglegence or being wrong until after a trial,or hearing so nothing I said changes my statement he may have been told don't admit it was your error.If he is convicted I hope he does admit he was in the wrong,after all most people on trial say it wasn't me,then when guilty don't say I did it do they.

[Winston001]

I thought reading the police public line is they never admit negligence or being wrong until after a trial,or hearing so nothing I said changes my statement he may have been told don't admit it was your error. ...

This is just basic legal advice which anyone involved with the law - both police and crims, know very well. Deny, and say nothing. Let the prosecution prove it. So he's done nothing unusual, his solicitor would have told him to say nothing from the beginning.

The thing which puzzles me is according to news reports of the evidence, none of the following bikers or cars which turned up just after, had any difficulty stopping. That begs the question, why did the two bikes hit the cop car?

[Skyryder]

This is just basic legal advice which anyone involved with the law - both police and crims, know very well. Deny, and say nothing. Let the prosecution prove it. So he's done nothing unusual, his solicitor would have told him to say nothing from the beginning.

The thing which puzzles me is according to news reports of the evidence, none of the following bikers or cars which turned up just after, had any difficulty stopping. That begs the question, why did the two bikes hit the cop car?

One issue that has not recieved any attention (as far as I am aware) if the cop was in pursuite and this is what he is essentially saying was his siren lights activated?? It may well be that after the impact the cop activated his lights and this may well have been the reason other vehicles could have stopped in time.


Does anyone have any info on this??


Skyryder

[Badjelly]

The thing which puzzles me is according to news reports of the evidence, none of the following bikers or cars which turned up just after, had any difficulty stopping. That begs the question, why did the two bikes hit the cop car?

Because he moved into their path after they first saw him? Just speculation. Can it be ruled out?

[riffer]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2301...guilty-verdict

[MSTRS:Me]

Of course he was. Glad that formality is out of the way. Now bring on the bus ticket...

[Bruiser]

One less to worry about!

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2301...guilty-verdict

A former police officer who did a three-point-turn on a bend in the Upper Buller Gorge has today been found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving causing injury. Anthony Dale Bridgman had been on trial in the Nelson District Court having denied the counts, which were laid following a crash on State Highway 6 on December 1, 2007.

Bridgman, who was a Blenheim-based highway patrol sergeant, retired last December after 33 years of service.

The jury of eight women and four men took just under an hour to deliver the verdicts.

Judge Tony Zohrab this morning summed up the case for the jury, and urged them to put aside any sympathy they felt for the accused or the seriously injured motorcyclists.

He said the Crown's case had been that Bridgman clocked a motorcyclist travelling at 125kmh towards Westport.

Bridgman decided to pursue the motorcyclist and started doing a three-point-turn, which was when the collision happened.

The crown's case had been that it was dangerous to do a three point turn on that section of road, and Bridgman's actions had presented a real risk to the public.

Judge Zohrab said the defence case had been that the two motorcyclists were speeding and so unable to stop when they saw the patrol car. They would not have crashed into the car if they had been abiding by the law.

Judge Zohrab remanded Bridgman to May 26 for sentence.

[McJim]

Of course he was. Glad that formality is out of the way. Now bring on the bus ticket...

Remember it needs to be soaked first......

[rastuscat]

Okay, so what penalty will undo the harm that he caused?

Even hanging won't fix the bikes or the riders, so what's the point in a penalty?

[MSTRS:Me]

Okay, so what penalty will undo the harm that he caused?

Even hanging won't fix the bikes or the riders, so what's the point in a penalty?

Why bother locking up rapists etc...after all, doing that won't fix the victim, will it?
Edit: - he needs to lose his licence for 1 year and 1 day. And be liable for all damages and costs suffered by the bikers. Plus a fine. He needs to have it hammered home so he won't forget. Pleading not guilty only aggravated the situation. A quick decision by the jury is a dead giveaway that he and his lawyer were 'trying it on'.
Oh - and his employer at the time (NZ Police, Traffic Division) also needs to be targetted in the fallout phase...it is partly their policy of targetting speed (at all costs?) that lead this guy to do something so stupid. Quotas are wrong!!!