Wannabe Police Nazi Bikers

**Ixion** · 29th October 2006, 23:03

Originally Posted by scumdog

Nice troll!!

But for those that DON'T know:

Not all disqualified/drunk etc drivers drive badly all the time.
So if you have a better way than random stops to detect these people be sure and let me know.

In 'the old days' you had to have committed a driving error before the Traffic Cop could pull you over and discover you were sozzled.

Of course more than a few times that 'driving error' was a head-on crash or a flying trip with a car load of mates over a high bank into a river etc.

So random stops are good, a minor inconvenience for the innocent but a way of getting a potentially lethal drunk off the road

End of unreasonable rant.

Hm. But there are other criminals, and some no less dangerous to the innocent. And not all of them drive, or not all the time anyway.

So, by logical extension, do you suport random stopping and search of pedestrians? After all, that innocent looking guy may have a pocket full of P.

Likewise, not all folk carrying out illicit acticities in their houses give external evidence of their wrongdoing. So , you would support random searches of peoples homes, too? After all any one of those houses could be harbouring a clan lab?

And what about those crimes that have no physical evidence, or the evidence is ephemeral. So, the guy has nothing in his car . Or his pockets. Or at his house. But, he COULD still be, say, a pedophile. So, by extension, should you not select random people for extensive interrogation. Or monitoring, surveillance. Think of all the innocent kiddies that could be protected , just by eliminating that archaic nonsense about presumption of innocence and freedom from arbitrary this and that.

Why should anyone object? After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. right? Just a minor inconvenience.

**limbimtimwim** · 30th October 2006, 05:11

Originally Posted by scumdog

Nice troll!!
But for those that DON'T know:

End of unreasonable rant.

If any police officer pulls me over for 'no reason' then that officer should expect a letter to their commanding officer demanding an explanation. Pull me over to check my rego and warrant if you like, but not 'no reason'. Otherwise I'll start sending in letters every time I see a mufti go 50km/h through roadworks.

**Fatjim** · 30th October 2006, 07:30

Originally Posted by scumdog

So random stops are good, a minor inconvenience for the innocent but a way of getting a potentially lethal drunk off the road

End of unreasonable rant.

Got no problem with booze busses, it's the "picking someone out for no reason" that I have a problem. this is just begging cops to harass people they don't like, like say......motorcyclists! See, we've come full circle know, did it click?

Is it strange that more motorcycle runners are being reported in the press than I can ever remeber, is it because they are reported more, or are the numbers actually increasing?

One, and only one of the reasons, is that the justice system in this coiuntry sucks and the HP are losing the respect of more and more segments of the populace. (is that 2 reasons?)

To maintain the respect they should deserve, coppers need to be above reproach, not going around harassing people, flaunting the law by speeding, swaring at people, or just being plain arseholes. The public, and us lesser criminals (I mean motorcyclists) just want to be fairly treated by the coppers.

End of reasonable rant

**Fatjim** · 30th October 2006, 07:32

Originally Posted by limbimtimwim

If any police officer pulls me over for 'no reason' then that officer should expect a letter to their commanding officer demanding an explanation. Pull me over to check my rego and warrant if you like, but not 'no reason'. Otherwise I'll start sending in letters every time I see a mufti go 50km/h through roadworks.

Being a gixer rider, you're more likely to helped up by a copper, than stopped by one.

**MSTRS:Me** · 30th October 2006, 08:06

Originally Posted by Ixion

Hm. But there are other criminals, and some no less dangerous to the innocent. And not all of them drive, or not all the time anyway.

So, by logical extension, do you suport random stopping and search of pedestrians? After all, that innocent looking guy may have a pocket full of P.

Likewise, not all folk carrying out illicit acticities in their houses give external evidence of their wrongdoing. So , you would support random searches of peoples homes, too? After all any one of those houses could be harbouring a clan lab?

And what about those crimes that have no physical evidence, or the evidence is ephemeral. So, the guy has nothing in his car . Or his pockets. Or at his house. But, he COULD still be, say, a pedophile. So, by extension, should you not select random people for extensive interrogation. Or monitoring, surveillance. Think of all the innocent kiddies that could be protected , just by eliminating that archaic nonsense about presumption of innocence and freedom from arbitrary this and that.

Why should anyone object? After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. right? Just a minor inconvenience.

"Your papers are not in order. Down the salt mines with you. Next...."

**ManDownUnder** · 30th October 2006, 08:56

Originally Posted by Ixion

So, by logical extension, do you suport random stopping and search of pedestrians? After all, that innocent looking guy may have a pocket full of P.

You're right on both counts.

They could find they have pockets full of P...

And it is an extension albeit quite a generous one. Drunk in charge of a pair of feet increases your chances of attracting police attention - just like drunk in charge of a car. I'm more than happy for those drunk in charge of a car to be taken off the roads though (by the police, as opposed to an innocent, a tree or something else equally permanent).

There are a number of things to check on a car to make sure it (and the driver) are not actually a 4 wheeled 911 looking for a target. If a pedestrian chooses to run into a car, or building (or another person) the outcome is most likely to be funy rather than fatal.

The suggestion of entrapment is a overboard too. You'll find that people stop following you as soon as you give up the paranoia. It works really well.

Last - closing comment.. Nodman. I've met him a couple of times on duty and off. Nice guy - no problems there... end of story

**Ixion** · 30th October 2006, 09:32

Originally Posted by ManDownUnder

,,. Drunk in charge of a pair of feet increases your chances of attracting police attention - just like drunk in charge of a car. I'm more than happy for those drunk in charge of a car to be taken off the roads though (by the police, as opposed to an innocent, a tree or something else equally permanent).

,,

So do I . So does everybody. The question wasn't "do you support drunken driving". The question was "should police have the right to arbitrarily detain and search".

Wasn't about drunk drivers, or pedestrians. It was about drivers, or pedestrians, who are NOT drunk. Who have committed NO crime. Who have NOT attracted attention. Who have in fact done absolutely nothing wrong.

How do you logically jump from "should police be able to detain and interrogate people without grounds for suspicion" to supporting drink driving?

**ManDownUnder** · 30th October 2006, 10:11

Originally Posted by Ixion

Wasn't about drunk drivers, or pedestrians. It was about drivers, or pedestrians, who are NOT drunk. Who have committed NO crime. Who have NOT attracted attention. Who have in fact done absolutely nothing wrong.

How do you logically jump from "should police be able to detain and interrogate people without grounds for suspicion" to supporting drink driving?

The leap was via scumdogs post who mentioned that police were (historically) unable to pull over a drunk driver unless they'd done something wrong.

Which raises the question of potential for disaster which went (in turn) to my point of having the cops being able to pull over drivers just to check them.

Sorry - wasn't explained well enough obviously.

I have no problems with cops pulling people over any time they like. In the end it keepsthe streets safer for me and mine.

As I've always argued though - there needs to be accountability. If you believe the cops are using their position to harrass or intimidate then there needs to be a mechanism by which they are held immediately responsible (and I understand that mechanism isn't adequate at the moment) - but that's a whole other issue.

**R6_kid:Me** · 30th October 2006, 11:10

Onehunga is the area that "bykey cop" (yes he's a member here under that name) patrols on his BMW cop bike. He's the least likely to be a nazi with regards to bikes... how do i know, i've met him. The kinda guy that thinks if your not doing anything excessively stupid or dangerous then he'll let you on your way no questions asked.

**Motig** · 30th October 2006, 11:35

So the first post was about what? Paranoia? Shouldnt you guys be reccomending a shrink instead of going into the Good Cop/Bad Cop routine. This guy could be dangerous if he gets access to a weaponed and thinks "their" after him.Innocent people are at risk here.God knows what would have happened if he'd actually been pulled over.

**scumdog** · 30th October 2006, 15:56

Originally Posted by limbimtimwim

If any police officer pulls me over for 'no reason' then that officer should expect a letter to their commanding officer demanding an explanation. Pull me over to check my rego and warrant if you like, but not 'no reason'. Otherwise I'll start sending in letters every time I see a mufti go 50km/h through roadworks.

So when he pulls you over and you ask him why and he says 'no reason' does that mean you'll run ranting and sobbing to his commanding officer?

But if he says "to check your licence" you would shrug your shoulders and say 'o.k. good-as man"???

I always say 'no reason' when some wannabe bush-lawyer starts into me about "why have you stopped me? I haven't done anything wrong, why are you picking on me? Haven't you anything better to do?" at the side of the road before I even get out of the car.

Decent folk get a courtious explanation as to why I stopped them and are most accepting and we part in good spirit.

Which catagory are you??