3 point turn cop on trial

[BMWST?]

Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

so what if they were speeding.Speed may have been a factor in the accident,but the cause was this guy doing his three point turn.....matbe directly in front of the bikers

[idb]

He's a cop...therefore he deserves what's coming to him!!!












Don't you guys read this forum?

[98tls]

He's a cop...therefore he deserves what's coming to him!!!












Don't you guys read this forum?

No doubt but whats the bet he wont see it coming

[SS90]

Justice done? The man has been found guilty but what will his punishment be???

Too bloody right...... What ever happened to the Police officers in relation to the time that they "Escorted" Helen "man in a dress" Clark at over 120 KPH to the air port on South Canterbury roads, when she was late for a bloody Rugby game????

I am pretty certain Sweet F A happened to them.... they (the police) are supposed to make our roads safer..... one way of doing this would be to "make an example" of this guy, perhaps sentence him to 250 hours of community work, part of which can be spent filming Television ads, highlighting what a hippocrit he (and so many of his workmates) is/are.

The rest of the community service could be spent escorting school rugby teams to away games.

Don't want them to be late.

[MSTRS:Me]

...He was asked if he was speeding and he replied he was doing over the hundred K limit.
...

Perhaps he/they have already been issued infringements? Otherwise...dumb admission. And sorry, but I have to say it...perhaps he/they have an inability to see what's ahead.

Too bloody right...... What ever happened to the Police officers in relation to the time that they "Escorted" Helen "man in a dress" Clark at over 120 KPH to the air port on South Canterbury roads, when she was late for a bloody Rugby game????

...

There's speeding and then there's speeding. It is well-documented that they travelled at speeds of 'up to 180kph'. I have to get into 2nd gear to go that fast.

[Katman]

The interview.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/search?mode...=Brent+Russell

[peasea]

Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

I'm not. I was out of NZ for a few days and look what happens; a perfect opportunity for a cop bashing thread is missed by the masses.

He's been found guilty. I happen to live in Nelson and have a perfectly good stash of firewood. I say burn him. He's a witch.

[Skyryder]

Perhaps he/they have already been issued infringements? Otherwise...dumb admission. And sorry, but I have to say it...perhaps he/they have an inability to see what's ahead.

Yes not the brightest admission. But this was the defence's arguement in that if the bikers had not been speeding they would have been able to stop.

Now I don't know the road so on this I can not say but an admission of speeding after a guilty verdict that was based on no evidence of speeding other than what the cop said has top raise doubt if the verdict was the correct one.

Skyryder

[MarkH]

Yes not the brightest admission. But this was the defence's arguement in that if the bikers had not been speeding they would have been able to stop.

But the obvious counter-argument would be that if he had not being making a 3-point turn they would not have crashed.

The police could go around erecting barriers near blind corners so that anyone that exceeds the speed limit would not be able to stop in time and have a crash, tough shit if you are breaking the law. But they don't do that, it seems that it is not considered the job of police to cause accidents, even if a motorist is speeding.

Regardless of whether the injured motorcyclists in this case were squeaky clean or not, the cop acted without due regard for the safety of other road users and deserves to be punished for that. If they feel like dishing out a $120 fine and 30 demerit points (or whatever) to the 2 motorcyclists as well, then I can accept that. But I would be pissed off if the cop didn't get a suitable punishment for his idiotic manoeuvre - he should have known better considering his job at the time.

[Skyryder]

Too bloody right...... What ever happened to the Police officers in relation to the time that they "Escorted" Helen "man in a dress" Clark at over 120 KPH to the air port on South Canterbury roads, when she was late for a bloody Rugby game????

They got off when they appealed the guilty verdict.


Skyryder

[MD]

Suddenly everyone seems lost for words.

Good point. From your post #114 below in the U-Turn cop thread you might want to stick your hand up and admit you got it wrong. The Court placed no blame on the speeding Rider or the two that crashed.

If, after the legal proceedings are over, the riders receive from the judge total absolution of any responsibility for the course of events (note I didn't use the word 'blame') I will be the first to stick my hand up and say I got it wrong. However, if it transpires that there was, in fact, something they reasonably could have done to avoid or lessen the severity of the incident then I hope you will also acknowledge that what I, and others, have been saying has been perfectly reasonable.

That Radio NZ interview isn't an admission of speeding. He said he may have been over the limit by a few kph. I wouldn't call that speeding.

Maybe I can clear up a few questions that have been asked.

I was never going to receive an infringement and the two Riders are not being charged with anything.

The Court process was long and drawn out over 6 days. The Police went into extreme detail in their case and investigations. I had my day in Court and was grilled like a roast dinner.

From the Police Expert crash Investigator Report;

1. There was no where safe to pull a car onto the verge on that stretch of road where the turn was made. The verge was 290cm. The car was 5.4m long and the entire road width 5.9m
2. Three Officers re-enacted the 3-point turn with a fastest time of just over 9 seconds
3. A vehicle coming at 100kph into sight of car had 3 seconds before impact [the Press reported this as 4.4s but I clearly heard him state three seconds]
4. The Officer had 90m visibility at the start of turn and 120m when across the roadway
5.The two Riders were travelling between 104 to 109kph around the bend

Other interesting points.

The Officer told the first 2 Cops to arrive that he didn't turn his red & blues on until after the crash. And he didn't know that he had been hit by bikes until he walked to the rear of the car to fix the radio aerial [damaged by a Rider's body]. He did this before offering aid/checking on the body he saw on the roadside first. He also didn't realise there were two Riders until the other riders arrived and asked.
Days later his formal statement was that he immediately turned on lights when seeing me [I watched carefully to see if he did- he didn't]
In his statement he claimed he swung across road, then saw two bikes speeding towards him knowing he couldn't get out of their way in time.

The following Riders stopped in time because, (a) the lead Rider had his radar going off and slowed and (b) they saw red and blue reflecting off the shadows in the bush way above the scene and knew something was up.

The Nelson Mail reported my comments at Court incorrectly. They stated I weighed up whether or not to stop when I came across the Cop and his radar set my detector off. This implies that I was going to do a runner. What I said was "I weighed up the likelihood that he would bother to come after me, because I knew he couldn't turn for a while on that stretch of road.
Why on earth would I run from a $170 traffic infringement. I only had 20 demerits then (and still now)
I passed two Cops leaving the scene. One was second to arrive at the crash. One nearer Westport who was operating a radar as I approached. I gave neither any reason to stop me.

I was responsible for giving the Officer a reason to issue me with a $170 traffic infringement, nothing more. I was not responsible for how he drove, and where and how he decided to turn.
I made the statement in Court that at 125kph and assuming he would take atleast one minute to turn to pursue me I would be 2km away. How fast was he prepared to drive a heavy car through a tight gorge to close that 2km gap before I reached the Inagahua Junction?

[Katman]

That Radio NZ interview isn't an admission of speeding. He said he may have been over the limit by a few kph. I wouldn't call that speeding.

That's laughable - and you well know it.

[peasea]

Good point. From your post #114 below in the U-Turn cop thread you might want to stick your hand up and admit you got it wrong. The Court placed no blame on the speeding Rider or the two that crashed.



That Radio NZ interview isn't an admission of speeding. He said he may have been over the limit by a few kph. I wouldn't call that speeding.

Maybe I can clear up a few questions that have been asked.

I was never going to receive an infringement and the two Riders are not being charged with anything.

The Court process was long and drawn out over 6 days. The Police went into extreme detail in their case and investigations. I had my day in Court and was grilled like a roast dinner.

From the Police Expert crash Investigator Report;

1. There was no where safe to pull a car onto the verge on that stretch of road where the turn was made. The verge was 290cm. The car was 5.4m long and the entire road width 5.9m
2. Three Officers re-enacted the 3-point turn with a fastest time of just over 9 seconds
3. A vehicle coming at 100kph into sight of car had 3 seconds before impact [the Press reported this as 4.4s but I clearly heard him state three seconds]
4. The Officer had 90m visibility at the start of turn and 120m when across the roadway
5.The two Riders were travelling between 104 to 109kph around the bend

Other interesting points.

The Officer told the first 2 Cops to arrive that he didn't turn his red & blues on until after the crash. And he didn't know that he had been hit by bikes until he walked to the rear of the car to fix the radio aerial [damaged by a Rider's body]. He did this before offering aid/checking on the body he saw on the roadside first. He also didn't realise there were two Riders until the other riders arrived and asked.
Days later his formal statement was that he immediately turned on lights when seeing me [I watched carefully to see if he did- he didn't]
In his statement he claimed he swung across road, then saw two bikes speeding towards him knowing he couldn't get out of their way in time.

The following Riders stopped in time because, (a) the lead Rider had his radar going off and slowed and (b) they saw red and blue reflecting off the shadows in the bush way above the scene and knew something was up.

The Nelson Mail reported my comments at Court incorrectly. They stated I weighed up whether or not to stop when I came across the Cop and his radar set my detector off. This implies that I was going to do a runner. What I said was "I weighed up the likelihood that he would bother to come after me, because I knew he couldn't turn for a while on that stretch of road.
Why on earth would I run from a $170 traffic infringement. I only had 20 demerits then (and still now)
I passed two Cops leaving the scene. One was second to arrive at the crash. One nearer Westport who was operating a radar as I approached. I gave neither any reason to stop me.

I was responsible for giving the Officer a reason to issue me with a $170 traffic infringement, nothing more. I was not responsible for how he drove, and where and how he decided to turn.
I made the statement in Court that at 125kph and assuming he would take atleast one minute to turn to pursue me I would be 2km away. How fast was he prepared to drive a heavy car through a tight gorge to close that 2km gap before I reached the Inagahua Junction?

Mate: you have my sympathy. Your actions do not, in any way, make you accountable for the actions of others.

I know, for a fact, that cops lie. They lie at the scene of incidents, in court and anywhere else they see a need to save their arse. I've seen/heard them do it and for them to gather up any respect from me is going to take a fucking long time indeed. They have a 'holier than thou' attitude throughout.

The Nelson Mail is known for its cheap, ill-informed, sensationalist "gutter" journalism (as proven with their "gang" shite of recent times) and anything they print should should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'd take the word of a biker over some lame-arse news-rag-slag or revenue-gathering liar any day.

Fuck them. They're liars, scum and worse.

[Katman]

I know, for a fact, that cops lie. They lie at the scene of incidents, in court and anywhere else they see a need to save their arse.

I don't disagree. (Hell, I'm waiting on an appeal application based on the fact that a cop blatantly lied under oath in court).

The thing is though - the police aren't the only ones guilty of lying in court. It's human nature to lie to save your arse - motorcyclists included.

[scumdog]

one way of doing this would be to "make an example" of this guy, perhaps sentence him to 250 hours of community work, part of which can be spent filming Television ads, highlighting what a hippocrit he (and so many of his workmates) is/are.

Let me be tactful here: HE IS NO LONGER A COP.