Thank You, from The Police force

Joined: 25 Oct 2003 Location: Melbourne Australia

toaddog wrote:

And you pleaded not guilty?
Did you complain against them?

lol and did the police officer prove her accusation in open court?

Or did she just fill out a form like any other bureaucrat would?

Joined: 23 Jun 2004

She would not have had to if he didnt plead not guilty...

Joined: 08 Jul 2007 Location: bris

chimpboy wrote:

toaddog wrote:

And you pleaded not guilty?
Did you complain against them?

lol and did the police officer prove her accusation in open court?

Or did she just fill out a form like any other bureaucrat would?

Cops have to fill out shit loads of paper work and write up reports every day they dont need to spend 2 hours in court bitching about some traffic offense as well!

Joined: 25 Oct 2003 Location: Melbourne Australia

steven101 wrote:

chimpboy wrote:

toaddog wrote:

And you pleaded not guilty?
Did you complain against them?

lol and did the police officer prove her accusation in open court?

Or did she just fill out a form like any other bureaucrat would?

Cops have to fill out shit loads of paper work and write up reports every day they dont need to spend 2 hours in court bitching about some traffic offense as well!

Yeah good point. But it is also just plain stupid, or at best full of shit, to say that people should plead not guilty on minor traffic offences. The reality is that even if you are not guilty you have very little chance of an acquittal and because it is guilty-until-proven-innocent you are better advised to just cop the penalty whether you are truly guilty or not.

Go to the magistrate's court and watch someone plead not guilty to a traffic offence. The evidence will be (a) the cop say one thing and (b) the citizen says another. That will pretty much be it. The magistrate will say something polite about the defendant if the defendant has done a good job and also been polite, and then the magistrate will say, "however in view of the experience of the officer and the fact that the officer is trained in relation to traffic offences, I will accept his version of the facts." And that will be it.

BigHomo4U Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Location: Melbourne

full-boost wrote:

Quote:

If you have a minor car accident, and you swap you name and address with the other driver, and there are no injuries or traffic obstructions, you do not need the police. You need an insurance company, that's all.

it used to be that the police attended these things, and i think that they still should. if you get 1 tool driver that has 5 accidents and the police DONT attend, he is still on the road driving like a tool and possibly going to kill someone.
but.......if the police attend the scene, he gets a negligent driving ticket and loses points, lose enough points lose your license, lose your license and keep driving, got to jail. no more tool on the road.

A few years ago i was turning right out of a tyre joint close to an intersection. Lights were red, traffic was stopped and the cars kept a 'keep clear' section clear for me. As i slowly and cautiously nosed out a mad woman in a POS corolla driving on the wrong side of the road t-boned me. It was clearly her fault as she even admitted to trying to catch an amber right arrow as she'd just made a cup of coffee and was hoping to return to it with a bottle of milk before it went cold.

Some wanker rang the cops cos her car was totalled and mine was a relatively intact 4wd (alloy bullbar and front gaurd trashed). The cops felt sorry for her predicament and issued me with a fine for reckless (or careless, can't remember now) driving. WTF! That then put me at fault with insurance company meaning i had to pay excess for damage sustained.

I did get a new ARB steel winchbar and a couple of existing scratches/dents repaired out of it for $400 though.

If nobody's hurt then let insurance assessor's decide who's at fault, cops are not req'd.

Joined: 05 Feb 2005 Location: Check your six.

Agree. Section 61 of the Road Safety Act ,Victoria 1986.

If you have an motor vehicle accident and property is damaged you have to :

Give your name and adress to the other driver/property owner and the owners details of the car you are driving to the other driver/property owner.

If no one is injured then you don't have to report it to the police.

If the other property damaged owner is not present then you have to report it.

Trouble is that some insurance companies may want you to report the matter.

Joined: 05 Feb 2005 Location: Check your six.

chimpboy wrote:

steven101 wrote:

chimpboy wrote:

toaddog wrote:

And you pleaded not guilty?
Did you complain against them?

lol and did the police officer prove her accusation in open court?

Or did she just fill out a form like any other bureaucrat would?

Cops have to fill out shit loads of paper work and write up reports every day they dont need to spend 2 hours in court bitching about some traffic offense as well!

Yeah good point. But it is also just plain stupid, or at best full of shit, to say that people should plead not guilty on minor traffic offences. The reality is that even if you are not guilty you have very little chance of an acquittal and because it is guilty-until-proven-innocent you are better advised to just cop the penalty whether you are truly guilty or not.

Go to the magistrate's court and watch someone plead not guilty to a traffic offence. The evidence will be (a) the cop say one thing and (b) the citizen says another. That will pretty much be it. The magistrate will say something polite about the defendant if the defendant has done a good job and also been polite, and then the magistrate will say, "however in view of the experience of the officer and the fact that the officer is trained in relation to traffic offences, I will accept his version of the facts." And that will be it.

You been to Frankston Court lately....they tend to do the opposite.

Under the Westminster system , in most cases you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Joined: 10 Nov 2007 Location: Coffs Harbour

And regardless of what action Police do take as a result of a accident, ie give someone a ticket or whatever, the insurance companies play a completey different game. Police attempt to determine who was at fault and take whatever action accordingly but Insurance companies play a percentage game, attributing blame between both parties and thats the amount of percentage they pay.

Joined: 18 Mar 2008 Location: Perth, WA

RoadNazi wrote:

Agree. Section 61 of the Road Safety Act ,Victoria 1986.

If you have an motor vehicle accident and property is damaged you have to :

Give your name and adress to the other driver/property owner and the owners details of the car you are driving to the other driver/property owner.

If no one is injured then you don't have to report it to the police.

If the other property damaged owner is not present then you have to report it.

Trouble is that some insurance companies may want you to report the matter.

my mate got nailed when he went through a green light and a learner plate chick went through a red arrow, rang the cops they didnt care, then he found out that she had no licsence, all her passengers were drunk and he was in his skyline, the chicks dad lied and said he was the driver and got shat all over hahahaha

Joined: 04 Jan 2005 Location: Brisbane

in the case of traffic fines, most people just pay it cause it's cheaper.

I was fined for "Dazzling on coming traffic with head lights".
Truth of the storey is that the cop driving towards me left his high beam on, I flashed him once at about 500m and again at about 200m.
It was only $30 and one point. My formal complaint was dismissed as both driver and passenger in vehical said that hi beam wasn't on Confused

And I was so sure that police are ment to honest and not lie in the line of duty. My choices, I could just wear the $30, or take at least one day off work, drive to Gladstone from Brisbane,pay for accomdation and attend some kangaroo court where it's GUILTY....GUILTY.....GUILTY until proven beyond ALL resonable and a hell of alot of unresonable doubt that you are not gulty in which cause you probly did something wrong at some time so you can wear it anyway.

And on the topic of high priority police cases. In my experiance it is only high priority if a fine can be issued easily, even better if a camera can be used. If you require the police to do much more than stand around sounding important to the news reporters, it's a case of "I regrett to inform you that the officer involved has important paper work to attend to" (and yes, solitare and surfing the net does count as paper work).

With the thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations that each state create it is impossible for any one cop to know them all, yet every cop can issue fines on subjects that they have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF. yet these decisions that these untrained officers make effect the lives of people everyday who have not done anything wrong. Yet these innocent people have no recourse to claim lose of earnings agaist the police while they defend their innocences. This is the main failing of our laws, That innocent people have no recourse to claim lose's agaist imcompentant police officers.

Joined: 05 Feb 2005 Location: Check your six.

Chucky wrote:

in the case of traffic fines, most people just pay it cause it's cheaper.

I was fined for "Dazzling on coming traffic with head lights".
Truth of the storey is that the cop driving towards me left his high beam on, I flashed him once at about 500m and again at about 200m.
It was only $30 and one point. My formal complaint was dismissed as both driver and passenger in vehical said that hi beam wasn't on Confused

And I was so sure that police are ment to honest and not lie in the line of duty. My choices, I could just wear the $30, or take at least one day off work, drive to Gladstone from Brisbane,pay for accomdation and attend some kangaroo court where it's GUILTY....GUILTY.....GUILTY until proven beyond ALL resonable and a hell of alot of unresonable doubt that you are not gulty in which cause you probly did something wrong at some time so you can wear it anyway.

And on the topic of high priority police cases. In my experiance it is only high priority if a fine can be issued easily, even better if a camera can be used. If you require the police to do much more than stand around sounding important to the news reporters, it's a case of "I regrett to inform you that the officer involved has important paper work to attend to" (and yes, solitare and surfing the net does count as paper work).

With the thousands upon thousands of laws and regulations that each state create it is impossible for any one cop to know them all, yet every cop can issue fines on subjects that they have ABSOLUTELY NO KNOWLEDGE OF. yet these decisions that these untrained officers make effect the lives of people everyday who have not done anything wrong. Yet these innocent people have no recourse to claim lose of earnings agaist the police while they defend their innocences. This is the main failing of our laws, That innocent people have no recourse to claim lose's agaist imcompentant police officers.

Your full of shit

Joined: 04 Jan 2005 Location: Brisbane

Typical responce from the police force.

Does tis mean I'm banned from Outers The Finger

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

whats the story with the HP leaving their high beams on after pulling someone over? the ones on the roof AND the ones on the front bar.

or are they allowed to dazzle oncoming motorists while they are speaking to the driver they pulled over?

had one wanker do it recently and when i told him that he was blinding everyone up the road coming towards him and he should turn them off, he replies with a smartarse answer "make me" Rolling Eyes

Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Location: Townsville

j-top paj wrote:

whats the story with the HP leaving their high beams on after pulling someone over? the ones on the roof AND the ones on the front bar.

or are they allowed to dazzle oncoming motorists while they are speaking to the driver they pulled over?

had one wanker do it recently and when i told him that he was blinding everyone up the road coming towards him and he should turn them off, he replies with a smartarse answer "make me" Rolling Eyes

For the same reason you have your hazard lights on when you pull up on the side of the road, to warn oncoming motorists you are there...

Joined: 04 Jan 2005 Location: Brisbane

j-top paj wrote:

whats the story with the HP leaving their high beams on after pulling someone over? the ones on the roof AND the ones on the front bar.

or are they allowed to dazzle oncoming motorists while they are speaking to the driver they pulled over?

had one wanker do it recently and when i told him that he was blinding everyone up the road coming towards him and he should turn them off, he replies with a smartarse answer "make me" Rolling Eyes

Do as I say, not as I do

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

"CANADA" wrote:

j-top paj wrote:

whats the story with the HP leaving their high beams on after pulling someone over? the ones on the roof AND the ones on the front bar.

or are they allowed to dazzle oncoming motorists while they are speaking to the driver they pulled over?

had one wanker do it recently and when i told him that he was blinding everyone up the road coming towards him and he should turn them off, he replies with a smartarse answer "make me" Rolling Eyes

For the same reason you have your hazard lights on when you pull up on the side of the road, to warn oncoming motorists you are there...

then wouldnt the smart thing to do, be leave the disco lights on instead of blinding the fawk out of everyone coming towards them?
i mean do they really need 4 spottys AND the standard high beams on all at once?

Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Location: Townsville

j-top paj wrote:

"CANADA" wrote:

j-top paj wrote:

whats the story with the HP leaving their high beams on after pulling someone over? the ones on the roof AND the ones on the front bar.

or are they allowed to dazzle oncoming motorists while they are speaking to the driver they pulled over?

had one wanker do it recently and when i told him that he was blinding everyone up the road coming towards him and he should turn them off, he replies with a smartarse answer "make me" Rolling Eyes

For the same reason you have your hazard lights on when you pull up on the side of the road, to warn oncoming motorists you are there...

then wouldnt the smart thing to do, be leave the disco lights on instead of blinding the fawk out of everyone coming towards them?
i mean do they really need 4 spottys AND the standard high beams on all at once?

Well there is really nothing illegal about leaving them on... Same goes for not shutting off your high beams for oncoming traffic, RN can go into more detail about that one tho...

Also one would assume better visibility in the car they have pulled over, for their safety, able to see someone fleeing out of car easier... ect ect... But Ask Bruce, im sure he can correct me on it.

Joined: 18 Mar 2008 Location: Perth, WA

"CANADA" wrote:

j-top paj wrote:

"CANADA" wrote:

j-top paj wrote:

whats the story with the HP leaving their high beams on after pulling someone over? the ones on the roof AND the ones on the front bar.

or are they allowed to dazzle oncoming motorists while they are speaking to the driver they pulled over?

had one wanker do it recently and when i told him that he was blinding everyone up the road coming towards him and he should turn them off, he replies with a smartarse answer "make me" Rolling Eyes

For the same reason you have your hazard lights on when you pull up on the side of the road, to warn oncoming motorists you are there...

then wouldnt the smart thing to do, be leave the disco lights on instead of blinding the fawk out of everyone coming towards them?
i mean do they really need 4 spottys AND the standard high beams on all at once?

Well there is really nothing illegal about leaving them on... Same goes for not shutting off your high beams for oncoming traffic, RN can go into more detail about that one tho...

if its not illegal, why do u get fined for it then? The Finger

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

"CANADA" wrote:

... But Ask Bruce, im sure he can correct me on it.

waiting....

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

"CANADA" wrote:

Also one would assume better visibility in the car they have pulled over, for their safety, able to see someone fleeing out of car easier... ect ect...

that i can understand, but wouldnt the headlights be sufficient?

what if an oncoming motorist has an accident because they were "dazzled" by the high beam? is it oh well too bad?

Joined: 05 Feb 2005 Location: Check your six.

Sorry, been having a beer with my son.

Now intercept or take down lights.

Take down light are activated so that the members can see what is going on inside the intercepted car.

In Vic they are not that bright that would dazzle the oncoming, can't speak about interstate.

As the police vehicle is fairly close to the vehicle intercepted any high beam is usually masked by the intercepted vehicle.

High beams are at bumper height and provide a somewhat limited illumination of the cabin. Roof mounted lights shine down into the cabin.

Now is that an acceptable response or is someone going to see evil in that.

Joined: 11 Jan 2004 Location: Adelaide

RoadNazi wrote:

Now is that an acceptable response or is someone going to see evil in that.

Sounds far too reasonable to have come from a police officer - there must be something hidden somewhere! The Finger

Joined: 29 Nov 2004 Location: Townsville

-Scott- wrote:

RoadNazi wrote:

Now is that an acceptable response or is someone going to see evil in that.

Sounds far too reasonable to have come from a police officer - there must be something hidden somewhere! The Finger

Nah RN is just drunk The Finger

Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Location: western shitney

RoadNazi wrote:

Sorry, been having a beer with my son.

Now intercept or take down lights.

Take down light are activated so that the members can see what is going on inside the intercepted car.

In Vic they are not that bright that would dazzle the oncoming, can't speak about interstate.

As the police vehicle is fairly close to the vehicle intercepted any high beam is usually masked by the intercepted vehicle.

High beams are at bumper height and provide a somewhat limited illumination of the cabin. Roof mounted lights shine down into the cabin.

so when the police vehicle is parked not directly behind the intercepted vehicle (to give cover for the officer, and that i can understand) is there a need to still have the bumper height highbeams/spottys on? because those are the ones that arent covered by the car in front.

the take down lights on the local police cars around here seem to be aimed at the same hight as the high beam. if they were pointing downward it wouldnt be such an issue..

are police allowed to leave all these lights on whilst speaking to the driver? i mean some of them are a bit of overkill and can be quite a nuisance to oncoming traffic.

Joined: 05 Feb 2005 Location: Check your six.

Look at it this way, the whole idea of illuminating the car is that if the occupants want to do something rash, they will turn around and just see white light. Better they see that white light rather than head towards the white light. Wink

I can see it being distracting to the motorist but ...we did it last night and had no problems with on coming vehicles. Been doing that type of intercept for 15 years and have had no complaints form other motorists. Then again I have no idea what the IS vehicles have equipped.

Joined: 18 May 2007 Location: Canberra

I can't believe I read all of this ... stuff it.

RN,

I was pulled over without fine for flashing my high beam at a car (twice) who drove towards me leaving their high beam lights on. I didn't know it was a police car.. and given the stretch of road there was no reason for them to leave their lights on however they tried to make me into the bad person.

Further if you think it is appropriate to drive around with every light turned on BEFORE it is effective on the vehicle you are pursuing then you obviously enjoy the double standard of being a policeman.

For police who have light fetish here is a recent RL example..

Apparently in Canberra police vehicles have three LED levels for red and blue lights (was told this by police when LED were introduced), this is amazing is that they only seem to use them on the highest level at night which is blinding... I came back from Batemans Bay and a bus was broken down on a winding section of road with police in attendance assisting controlling traffic. The funny thing is I didn't see the person with the traffic control sign until about 5 metres away. Suffice to say he was very nervous thinking I wouldn't stop, but damn difficult when you can't see anything because some policeman has a fetish for lights.

Whilst police have lawful excuse to break the law where required to perform their duty - your explanation of illumination lights makes sense when pulling up to the vehicle as they pull in.. but not whilst driving down the road blinding everyone.

Have you considered the reality that most people won't complain? the ones who do are generally fobbed off and get the same attitude that I've had when speaking to police about their excessively bright lights -- it is quite clear they think it is a joke and have no time for petty complaints while they are saving the world.

How would someone complain to you?? first it has to get past the station staff where you work (if they think it is valuable enough to pass along and you get the right station) .... or if they complain to the general police service (again same story - and likely to say sorry .. in the duty etc).

Would you find it acceptable that they take off in pursuit of you AND the offender?? or how about they drive around stalking you?

What you've said about no complaints is BS... I can complain until I am blue in the face about the cop cars that speed past me without light or siren (and as such no lawful excuse) yet it will get me no-where other than into the sights of police who label you as a smart arse.

Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Location: South Australia

toaddog wrote:

She would not have had to if he didnt plead not guilty...

Problem is, if i plea it out in court, i need proof that the car had working power windows and door locks.

after the incident i went straight to another cop shop, where they refused to inspect it, saying that they couldn't or wouldn't call the work of their college into dispute.

and over here, the only other option is to take it to the inspection station (only one in Adelaide...), so that would be a 4 week wait, a day off work, and a couple of hundred $$$ for the inspection, and even then, the courts could rule that i installed power windows and working door locks in the 4 weeks between the defect and the inspection.

Joined: 12 Dec 2002 Location: Wangaratta

whinge whinge whinge ..

Quote:

The father of missing toddler Daniel Thomas says he can now plan a funeral for his son following the grim confirmation that remains found in a Victorian backyard are those of the two-year-old.

Kevin Ruffels said the eight weeks since the remains were found by two dogs in the north-east Victorian town of Myrtleford had been "terrible".

Homicide detectives confirmed on Tuesday that the bones found buried in the backyard of a house were those of Daniel, who disappeared on October 17, 2003.

"The last five years have been a living hell and the past eight weeks have been terrible, I thought the DNA testing would have been a lot quicker," Mr Ruffels told AAP.

"But now that we know it is definitely him, we can get some closure, we can move on and plan his funeral."

At the time the remains were discovered, Mr Ruffels said because Daniel's body had not been found, he had held on to the hope he was still alive.

Now he says the next step in the tragedy is to find out who was responsible for the little boy's death.

"Police have to put the pieces together to finally put the cuffs on who is responsible and hopefully they will be taken away in the next few weeks," Mr Ruffels said.

Police said investigations were continuing into the cause of Daniel's death and subsequent disposal of his body.

The remains had undergone extensive DNA testing at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine to confirm their identity.

Daniel and his mother Donna Thomas - Mr Ruffels' former partner - had once lived in the Lawrence St house where the skeleton was found.

They had moved to another house not far away in Standish St when Daniel went missing while in the care of babysitter Mandy Martyn.

Daniel's remains were discovered when the current occupant of the house, Jodie Simpson, found her two pet rottweilers playing with a skull and other bones dug up from the yard on March 18.

Ms Martyn was arrested last year over Daniel's disappearance but no charges were laid.

Mr Ruffels said he and Ms Thomas no longer talk to each other but police have told him they will have to sit down and plan their son's funeral arrangements.

"Since she became friends with Mandy Martyn there have been no talks between us," Mr Ruffels said.

"Homicide detectives have told us that as parents we will have to sit down and work it out together."

deal with crap like this and then you have something to whinge about.

Joined: 24 Dec 2002 Location: South Australia

love_mud wrote:

whinge whinge whinge ..
deal with crap like this and then you have something to whinge about.

choose the job, you know what your in for.

Ambo's deal with that crap. would you be happy for them to refuse to turn out to deal with one of your kids?

Firies deal with similar, would you be happy if they said "oh i cut a body out of a car today, and i don't like your attitude, so i'll let your house burn down".

how bout soldiers that have seen the horrific nature of war? would you accept them going nuts and shooting up a shopping centre?

Drs and Nurses deal with that sort of thing too... is that an excuse for when they turn you into an invalid due to a "mistake"?

of course it isn't. if a crim tried to blame his crimes on a bad childhood you'd tell him to HTFU and do his time... why is it that cops get to use the "trauma" excuse, but no one else does?

Joined: 12 Dec 2002 Location: Wangaratta

[quote="bad_religion_au"]

love_mud wrote:

whinge whinge whinge ..
deal with crap like this and then you have something to whinge about.

Quote:

choose the job, you know what your in for.

What utter bullshit .. How do they know what they are "in for" How do you describe in words or on the screen all the emotions they will feel, what the smell of fresh blood is like, what the screams of an anguished mother over the death of a loved one will be like when you walk up to the door to tell em .. that their pride and joy was being a little wanker and got himself killed doing something ... ( Ambo's etc do not have to do that )

Quote:

Ambo's deal with that crap. would you be happy for them to refuse to turn out to deal with one of your kids?

Firies deal with similar, would you be happy if they said "oh i cut a body out of a car today, and i don't like your attitude, so I'll let your house burn down".

Show me ONE cop anywhere in the country that would do similar ... totally stupid example to me.

Quote:

how bout soldiers that have seen the horrific nature of war? would you accept them going nuts and shooting up a shopping centre?

No I don't ... but post traumatic stress is real .. how many officers go on shooting rampages in this country ... I cant recall any .. again stupid example

Quote:

Drs and Nurses deal with that sort of thing too... is that an excuse for when they turn you into an invalid due to a "mistake"?

They are human .. humans are fallible .. Unnecessary maiming\death is a terrible mistake to have happen to anyone. But like most i am sure they do not set out to do it ( There are some rouges out there that need stringing up by the genitals and die death of 1000 cuts .. this is true of all professions)

Quote:

of course it isn't. if a crim tried to blame his crimes on a bad childhood you'd tell him to HTFU and do his time... why is it that cops get to use the "trauma" excuse, but no one else does?

I don't want "hard" coppers .. I want human coppers, to compare a cop who is trying to clean up someone else's mess to the person that intentionally caused it I find quite insulting to the police force in general.

The crim has a reason and a chance to seek counselling before doing their crime, as do officers Most of the time a crims issues are the result of childhood issues .. not ones that happened last week and last month that you are still digesting, Usually a crims issues stem from systematic abuse from a period of time from someone they know\knew .. not that your a target simply because of the clothes you wear .. and you never know here the next attack may come from.