I stand by my call: fatal chase officer

[Ryzz]

A Sydney police officer has told an inquest he was only doing his job when he pursued a speeding driver who later crashed into another car, killing himself and a three-year-old girl.

Senior Constable Gerd Schmahl told Westmead Coroner's Court he was "shattered" by the deaths, but said: "I made a call on the night and I stand by that.

"In hindsight, if I knew it was going to end in an accident, I would have let (the car) go by."

The officer was giving evidence at the inquest into the deaths of Tabatha Berg and 53-year-old Peter James.

They died on January 15, 2004, when James' Holden slammed head-on into the Berg family's Ford in the north-west Sydney suburb of McGraths Hill.

Coroner Carl Milovanovich has heard that James was driving at around 160kmh, with a blood-alcohol level of 0.135, when he failed to negotiate lane changes at roadworks.

He crossed to the wrong side of Windsor Road and crashed into the car driven by Renee Pron, killing her daughter Tabatha.

James, a father of seven, had earlier drunk up to eight schooners of beer.

Sen Const Schmahl told the court he had noticed James speeding and, after clocking his car at 98kph in a 60kph zone, began a pursuit.

The officer, who said he had been involved in about a dozen pursuits during his seven years with the Windsor Highway Patrol, told the court he "probably got up to 140kph" while chasing James.

He estimated the pursuit, which covered 2.3km, lasted less than 30 seconds.

Sen Const Schmahl told the court that until James crashed, he had not considered the pursuit unsafe and would have terminated it if he had.

"I believe if we had terminated the pursuit once I realised we were on the wrong side of the road, the end result would have still been the same," he said.

Cross-examined by counsel for the Berg family, Mark Higgins, Sen Const Schmahl agreed that it had been dark, and difficult to see all the features of the road because of the roadworks.

The officer said he had considered alternatives to a pursuit but had only seconds to make a decision and "before I knew it, it was basically over".

Mr Higgins asked: "You commenced a pursuit for someone who was a speeding driver?"

"That's correct, that's my job," Sen Const Schmahl replied.

When Mr Higgins asked if speeding on its own was serious enough to warrant a pursuit, the officer said: "Well, that's what the Highway Patrol do."

Mr Higgins suggested he had decided to pursue the Holden "in the dark, through a construction zone that you know is signposted for 60kmh ... approaching a commercial business district on a Thursday night at 10 o'clock, where you have an expectation of cars coming out of carparks and onto the road".

But Sen Const Schmahl disagreed.

"I'd made an assessment and I thought the risk was minimal," he said.

The inquest continues tomorrow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does anyone here think that it is unfair that a HWP Officer is being hauled over the coals here for the deaths, when the guy he prused for less than 30 second had a BAC of 0.135 was the one that crashed. Yes the drunk driver died, but why should the HWP officer be responsible for the drunk driver. Whats the point of having the HWP division if they dont "give pursuit", is that just a free ticket for more people to speed away from cops!??!

Once again, this thread is NOT an attack on the Police or the HWP Officer mentioned.

[Brendan]

You have to look at who's doing the grilling - whilst the death of the little girl is horrible, the lawyer for the family is not after the facts, he's after a result. HWP = negligent = cheque. Drunk = negligent = no cash at all.

[Myydral]

If I see a Police car, I don't suddenly feel an urge to plant my foot and take off, nor have I ever felt the need to cross over lanes onto the wrong side of the road.

The people who crash whilst being pursued, have absolutely no right to slander, defame or generally bad mouth cops. All it takes is to stop, pull over, and sort out the situation.

:soap:

This is my opinion only......

[Glenn@Autowerks]

The inquest continues tomorrow.

Time to wait till it finishes before commenting.......

[Wonky]

Agree with you Ryzz and posts #2 and #3. Terrible what happened but if police don't chase offenders (at least until the point where it obviously becomes unsafe) what happens? Do we just let offenders drive off and escape penalty, especially if they are in stolen cars?

[boofhead]

I agree with what the HWP officer has stated - and if he had not started the pursuit and accident had occured anyway he still would have also been criticised.

I think it is clear where the responsibility for this accident is

[10sec_rx7]

i drive up and down that bit of road all the time, every time you go down it there are changes to the roads layout,

driving after 8 beers should say what this driver thought of the law, but instead his money hungry family want compensation for his own stupid actions,

this is not right at all, i have a few mates that are police and have been dragged through court on a few occasions for stupid matters, the force will only protect them so much, if this guy looses he will have to pay out of his own pocket...

[The Warden]

NOT[/b] an attack on the Police or the HWP Officer mentioned.

The HWP is being "hauled over the coals" by the lawyer for the little girls family, nothing to do with the drunk driver, there is no connection with any responsibility, or other wise, the HWP had relating to the drunk driver. And yes, I believe it is approprieate, the exact circumstances of the pursuit need to come out.....

Now I accept the HWP are potentially in a no win situation in these situations, damned if they don't pursue and the drunk crashes, damned if they do and he crashes anyway. But you're got to look at why it's illegal to speed and/or drive drunk in the first place.

It's not really a law and order issue, it's more a public health issue, keeping people out of graves and/or hospital and/or wheelchairs, etc.... Therefore, the HWP have to be aware of other innocent road users and the increased risks a pursuit causes to them. This is a dynamic situation, it changes by the second, dependant on circumstances and the actions of others over which the HWP may not have any control, at some point the HWP have to make the call to continue or abandon....

Other here in NZ there have been many fatal pursuits over the last few years where the actions of the police have been called into question by the the coroner and others, resulting in police retraining, only advanced trained police drivers being able to engage in pursuits, the control room (or who ever they report to during the event) being able to instruct them to abandon the chase and so on....

A well known case was a pursuit by police in a V6 commie verses a sports bike in heavy traffic north of Auckland, they had the guys rego number, continued in traffic where they had zero chance of stopping the bike, he crashed head on into a teenage girl driving home, killing them both. The coroner recommended that the police should have abandoned the chase and arrested the guy later, they had all the evidence they needed to convict long before the crash occured. I accept he may have continued and crashed anyway, but the inference was that police actions made the crash almost inevitable.....

As I said, not easy these things......

[seldo]

It's a tough call. The poor coppers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they let the guy go they are basically condoning his drink driving and could be taken to task for letting him drive on and maybe crashing into someone else... Unfortunately, our increasingly litigious society is forcing a situation where the copper has to just let them go... Not good, and not right. His job is to uphold the law. If he sees someone breaking the law they are required to apprehend that person... and as soon as he does there's some money-grubbing lawyer who wants to sue his arse for it.

[HRT 8]

Vic Police are governed by categorising the pursuits into two types.
Elective pursuits and Imperative pursuits.

Elective pursuits nowadays will rarely last longer than the time it takes for a pursuit controller (Sergeant) to take charge. Why because the end result (court) for the offending driver rarely matches that of the offence and the repercussions should it go pear shaped.

[seedyrom]

wait till you have a child.
you will change your stance.

[Tron2004]

If I see a Police car, I don't suddenly feel an urge to plant my foot and take off, nor have I ever felt the need to cross over lanes onto the wrong side of the road.

The people who crash whilst being pursued, have absolutely no right to slander, defame or generally bad mouth cops. All it takes is to stop, pull over, and sort out the situation.

:soap:

This is my opinion only......
I couldn't have said it better myself.
All that idiot had to do was to stop and take the responsibility for his own actions. Had he done so, no-one would have died!!!

[stockhorse]

The HWP is being "hauled over the coals" by the lawyer for the little girls family, nothing to do with the drunk driver, there is no connection with any responsibility, or other wise, the HWP had relating to the drunk driver.

I bet that if the HWP officer had not entered the pursuit and the accident occurred that the lawyer for the little girls family would be argueing the exact opposite.........i.e. that he had a resposobility to pursue to protect them.

I also think that if there is a finding against the officer that the drunk drivers family will also jump on the wagon for compensation.

The answer to chase or not to chase.............just thankful it is not my decision.

[slash]

Nothing wrong with doing your job.

[ACT_Cross8]

It's always hard to justify "collateral damage" as the US would put it. We all make decisions in the heat of the moment that we regret due to the outcome later. Unfortunately for some, the outcomes can be tragic, but they should not have to defend their decisions to such a degree if things go pear shaped.

Think of it this way, if the other car wasn't coming the opposite way, the guy might have been caught and now be locked up. The copper would then be a hero for his split second decision, not the case as it turned out.

In other words, what slash said!

[pagey]

A. The coroner recommended that the police should have abandoned the chase and arrested the guy later, they had all the evidence they needed to convict long before the crash occured. I accept he may have continued and crashed anyway, but the inference was that police actions made the crash almost inevitable.....

As I said, not easy these things......

It would be a tad hard to arrest him at home if it was a stolen bike though would it not?

I don't know how they could assume the owner and the rider were one and the same.

[gavinx8]

Every one has good points and the way I see it is all he had to do was stop, the driver that is.

[craig2510]

The HWP guy has a few seconds to make his decision yet others can take weeks or months disecting it. I am confident that the HWP would have terminated the pursuit if he thought it would endanger life, and he stated he was terminating pusuit when the guy crossed over to the other side of the road.
End result is you would attempt to catch up to the offender and occasionally things will go pair shaped.
Police do have to pursue as was stated earlier or all criminals have to do is speed and they know they can get away.

It all boils down to risk vs reward, thats why the HWP was going to terminate pursuit as it was getting dangerous and he was only speeding as far as the police knew at the time.

[nicholasjoe]

I reckon one of the main problem is the court room and how much money is trying to be dragged out for compensation.

Unfortunetly all the money in the world can not bring back a loved one.

[10sec_rx7]

Nothing wrong with doing your job.

hit the nail on the head, he was doing his job,

[SSBarney]

wait till you have a child.
you will change your stance.

u will have a lot more smashes if people know police wont chase them past a certain speed. As sson as u r getting pulled over, just take off, they aren't allowed to follow:doh:
Sort of like having a law saying police cant shoot back if fired upon?

[IMTORQINGSS]

Few things to think about.

1 If police start a pursuit and then terminate it will he slow down. Not a chance in hell.

2 If police stop chasing then what are they going to think. It worked once I will try it again.

3 Queensland is getting that way. Pursuits are lasting on average about a minute if that because everyone is worried about litigation etc and I cant blame them as we are becoming more and more like America. The family are entitled to compensation as victims of crime which will be a fair bit, although as a father myself no price replaces your children.

There was statistics released about a year ago in Qld where pursuits occurred and it was about 14 deaths as a result of pursuits over a period of 12 months. Nil police fatalities, Nil public fatalities and the 14 were all from the offenders in the vehicle being pursued(Thats a shame!!!!).

My suggestions:soap:

1# They need to remove any civil liability to the officers who are chasing as they are doing their job and keep going till their caught.
2# They need to make it a minimum mandatory jail sentence(12 months would be great) to any person who runs from police in a vehicle(I dont care if they stop and leg it.GAME ON).
3# They need to come up with a cost effective(Trust me it comes down to the dollar) mobile vehicle disabling system. From what I have heard from a mate at work the yanks have come up with one(No No not 2Fast 2Furious the movie lol).

:flamin: ALL IDIOTS WHO RUN FROM POLICE AND KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL BURN IN HELL :flamin:

Well thats my rant for 2006.

Cheers
Imtorqing

[seedyrom]

hit the nail on the head, he was doing his job,
so were the gas chamber operators in Auschwitz.

I don't think that cops $55K a year job is worth the life of the little girl. If he's unable to predict a crash killing an innocent, pull out or don't start.
Most people get fired when their bad at their jobs, this guy contributes to two deaths and we want to shake his hand?


sorry, im a bit biased after my old mans black wrx was run off the road and rested against a barrier by 3 plain clothes detectives 2 weeks ago. 4:30 in the morning they force him off the road, storm his car, interogate him like he's a hoodlum, breath test him, then bail the scene leaving him shaken. too shaken to catch the license of the unmarked carand too scared to lodge a complaint. He's not even worried about damage to his car, as he'd have "no chance against their word", and doesn't want to cause any trouble for himself. NSW cops are lovely little piggies, who now have an enemy for life.

[SSBarney]

sorry, im a bit biased after my old mans black wrx was run off the road and rested against a barrier by 3 plain clothes detectives 2 weeks ago. 4:30 in the morning they force him off the road, storm his car, interogate him like he's a hoodlum, breath test him, then bail the scene leaving him shaken. too shaken to catch the license of the unmarked carand too scared to lodge a complaint. He's not even worried about damage to his car, as he'd have "no chance against their word", and doesn't want to cause any trouble for himself. NSW cops are lovely little piggies, who now have an enemy for life.

And so every cop is the same? Whilst i can sympathise with ur view, IMHO it just distorts the discussion to start bringing in OT police events.

[seedyrom]

And so every cop is the same? Whilst i can sympathise with ur view, IMHO it just distorts the discussion to start bringing in OT police events.

ummm dude, does that mean every cop is good cause no one says anything bad? sorry for spoiling the love-fest under the rainbow.

Why not deploy choppers, to follow with infrared vision? or having more cops on beat patrol in high visibility cars, rather than unmarked cars, or better tactical coordination by a more highly trained officer, communicating with surrounding suburb stations.
no, you're right. speed up behind an agressivedrunk driver ... that'll end happily

[SSBarney]

ummm dude, does that mean every cop is good cause no one says anything bad? sorry for spoiling the love-fest under the rainbow.

Why not deploy choppers, to follow with infrared vision? or having more cops on beat patrol in high visibility cars, rather than unmarked cars, or better tactical coordination by a more highly trained officer, communicating with surrounding suburb stations.
no, you're right. speed up behind an agressivedrunk driver ... that'll end happily

The solutions u offer are out of the control of the police who you are bagging,
more choppers with infrared vision, more cops on beat (to chase cars on foot?), more marked cars, more highly trained officers...
I actually think you wouldnt have a single copper in Australia disagreeing with your wish list. In the mean time they are trying to do what they can with what they've got,... until the pollies want to direct some more revenue away from they're BS and into real resources for teh community.

[Febs]

Does anyone here think that it is unfair that a HWP Officer is being hauled over the coals here for the deaths, when the guy he prused for less than 30 second had a BAC of 0.135 was the one that crashed.

Yes, Yes I do.

0.135?? The outcome probably would've been the same, pursuit or no pursuit.

Granted it's a lose-lose situation, but bloody hell - if the official police line is "no pursuits", imagine the number of drunk drivers/ram raiders/car thieves we'll see hitting the streets.

[v8 ute]

The officer, who said he had been involved in about a dozen pursuits during his seven years with the Windsor Highway Patrol, told the court he "probably got up to 140kph" while chasing James.

He estimated the pursuit, which covered 2.3km, lasted less than 30 seconds.




That doesn't add up. 2.3 km in 30 secs means an average speed of 276km/h

[Febs]

Nice list, can I add a gold-plated toilet seat to it too? ;)


Why not deploy choppers, to follow with infrared vision?

Sounds cheap.


or having more cops on beat patrol in high visibility cars, rather than unmarked cars

Isn't that something they're slowly doing anyway? Less unmarked cars?


communicating with surrounding suburb stations.

By which time, Drunky McF*ck has rammed through the wall of a pre-school and taken out the playground.

Don't get me wrong - everything you've proposed sounds excellent in theory, and with unlimited funds would no doubt be the way to go. As said though - that's hardly under the control of this particular officer....and I'd say he did what he thought was best, and what he was trained to do, at the time.

[seedyrom]

all my original posts are trying to highlight is:
Someone, in the course of their job, contributed to the death of a 3yo. If i dropped something at work, causing a driver to swerve and kill a child and themselves, i'd be facing a court regardless if they were drunk or not. its a certainty.

To dismiss it as 'collateral damage' is impossible, if you have had a child, and love it. That's what i am saying.
I'd put my life before my sons, and if someone took him away from me, rest assured they wouldn't make it to see their own trial.

Parental love is indescribable, and for a child to die, without any inquest into the death, would not allow for closure for the parents.

Aaawww ... you've gone and made me turn it into a love fest, ya bastard :D

better get myself back on track ....
Sniff sniff bacon on the grill yum


that's better

[RedCV8R]

The HWP guy has a few seconds to make his decision yet others can take weeks or months disecting it. I am confident that the HWP would have terminated the pursuit if he thought it would endanger life, and he stated he was terminating pusuit when the guy crossed over to the other side of the road.
End result is you would attempt to catch up to the offender and occasionally things will go pair shaped.
Police do have to pursue as was stated earlier or all criminals have to do is speed and they know they can get away.

It all boils down to risk vs reward, thats why the HWP was going to terminate pursuit as it was getting dangerous and he was only speeding as far as the police knew at the time.

My reading of the article is that he did not terminate the chase when the guy crossed over the road, he said he didn't believe it would have ended differently had they terminated when they crossed over to the other side of the road, to me this implies both the offender and the police crossed over to the other side of the road.

Also, I don't know how good his recollection of speed and time are; a 2.3km chase in 30 seconds calculates out to an average speed of 276km/hr, this from a guy that is trained to estimate speed. Do you notice he was very precise about the other cars speed 98km/hr but vague with his own about 140km/hr.

As others have said he is probably dammed if he does and dammed if he doesn't. But remember both sides have a bias, the policeman's bias would be due to him trying to cover his own but and the lawyers would be trying to lay blame.

A high-speed chase in a poorly lit area with poor road conditions. In hide sight probably wasn't one of his best decisions.

[Ryzz]

A high-speed chase in a poorly lit area with poor road conditions. In hide sight probably wasn't one of his best decisions.
So what, he sits there, puts his finger up his arse and just watching some dick head, who has no control of his vechicle go screaming past well over the speed limit???

[seedyrom]

As said though - that's hardly under the control of this particular officer....and I'd say he did what he thought was best, and what he was trained to do, at the time.
and two people died - "under the control of this particular officer"

If that's him doing what he thought was best, god help us.

then again, being the only surviving witness will increase his chances of a rosey outcome, so everyone will be happy.

[Ryzz]

and two people died - "under the control of this particular officer"

If that's him doing what he thought was best, god help us.
So he turned his sirens on, accelerated after a speeding drunk idiot, he doesnt pull over, and 30 seconds later crashes. Explain to me how that is his fault and not the fault of the driver for being DRUNK behind the wheel, Speeding and driving beyond his control (Drunk) and failing to stop for the cop.

[SSBarney]

and two people died - "under the control of this particular officer"

If that's him doing what he thought was best, god help us.

then again, being the only surviving witness will increase his chances of a rosey outcome, so everyone will be happy.

Hmmm similar mindset, guy goes in and robs a bank, if police try and arrest him, then the robber takes a hostage and shoots them. Must be the police's fault.
Isnt it about time the people doing the wrong thing is to blame, rather than the the person trying to protect others.

[Febs]

If that's him doing what he thought was best, god help us.

Of course, I'm sure we could all make a MUCH better split-second decision if we were all faced with the same situation....

How about this scenario then:

- Policeman is driving his HWP car, sees an (obviously) drunk driver flying along.
- Decides not to chase (for fear of exactly what's happened in this situation).
- Drunk driver mounts the footpath 30 seconds later and hits 3 small children.
- Family of 3 small children witness the whole event, and decide to sue because the police officer didn't pursue the drunk driver.

While I don't agree with everything the police do, you've gotta admit they have a SHIT job at times. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(Of course there has to be accountability - no question there.)

[RedCV8R]

So what, he sits there, puts his finger up his arse and just watching some dick head, who has no control of his vechicle go screaming past well over the speed limit???

So you think he made the right decision?

Thats up to you. Personally, I don't think he did, but that’s easy for me to say from the comfort of my computer. Also, there was no mention of the car being out of control before the chase commenced, only that he was speeding.

Like I stated in my original post he is dammed if he did and dammed if he didn't.

[Ryzz]

So you think he made the right decision?
read Febs post, i think that sums it up perfectly

[STATIE]

EXACTLY
Chase em all - no matter the consequences - and give em all the death penalty.
There'll be none left after a few generations.
And neuter thier direct relatives so that the gene pool dosn't reproduce any more somewhere down the line.

F@#k letting the pricks go.
Chase em, catch em - kill em.
They'll learn or they'll die.

[seedyrom]

take a look at some overseas "police state" countries (former republic of Iraq, bolivia, iran...) if you want to see police without accountability.


That's what makes this country great. Everyone gets cut down to size ... unless your surname is Packer or Murdoch.

In my opinion, no inquest over this is crazy, but that's my 2c, so i'll have to disagree with everyone here, who are clamoring to stick "cops are tops" stickers on their bumpers in the belief they'll be left alone. Well atleast we can all agree parking inspectors are sh!t .. oh wait, that gets me even further offside with Ryzzmond :D
:cheers:

[seedyrom]

read Febs post, i think that sums it up perfectly
here's a hypothetical ... he continued driving at 98kms in a 60 zone, slowed down at the road works, got home and porked his missus.

hypothetical's are great

[RedCV8R]

read Febs post, i think that sums it up perfectly

Agreed. But it doesn't change my mind.

[SteveK]

...told the court he "probably got up to 140kph" while chasing James.

He estimated the pursuit, which covered 2.3km, lasted less than 30 seconds.

Sen Const Schmahl told the court that until James crashed, he had not considered the pursuit unsafe and would have terminated it if he had.

Hmm, so a police officer states doing 140kph is considered safe. Why do we still need to stick to 60? If he wiped off 5 and was doing 135 then that's a different story.

Sorry, hate to bring up the speed thread again but these statements obviously come down to individual drivers as opposed to common denominator speed limits. Or am I just reading too much into this.

Steve.

[SteveK]

(Of course there has to be accountability - no question there.)
Isn't that when lawyers try to find cause and effect? In this case, guy drinking and driving started off the whole chain of events. If he wasn't doing that, it would have triggered the chase. Knowing the lawyers, they'd sue the barman for selling him the beers, or even the beer company for supplying that particular bar with beer.

Rant off for tonight.

Steve.

[crewiess]

There are more issues here than just the drunk fwit and the copper chasing. I think we need to wonder why someone thinks that it is ok to try to do the bolt. I think that the real problem is that when these idots go up before a beak they get a slap on the wrist and a pi sss ant fine so they think there are no consequences. If the beaks slammed them then we might have a different environment and less people pulling this crap. Pull a gun and shoot someone and cop 10 yrs, run someone over in a car and get 2 years if you are unlucky! Says it all!!!!!!

[Maddogg]

0.135?? The outcome probably would've been the same, pursuit or no pursuit.

Granted it's a lose-lose situation, but bloody hell - if the official police line is "no pursuits", imagine the number of drunk drivers/ram raiders/car thieves we'll see hitting the streets.

Indeed you are correct... However HWP officer said that he gave chase when he noticed the car ALREADY doing 98kmh in a 60kmh zone?

If you ask me... it probably would have taken 30 secs for the HWP to catch him let alone "engage in a pursuit" in which time the drunk had already crashed hadnt he?

Not particularly hard to point the blame in this case... chase or no chase.. it was only a matter of chane as to WHEN this drunk driver was going to kill someone not IF.

[smoke]

A drunk doing 98 in a 60 zone, 30 seconds away from road works = he was already dead, just didnt know it! Just a pity others have to suffer because of this dead sh6t!!!!!!

[GRiT]

.....no, you're right. speed up behind an agressivedrunk driver ... that'll end happily

How would the officer at the time know he was aggressive and drunk....psychic maybe? His blood alcohol level would have been obtained from a blood test most-mortem.
The pursuit started because he attempted to intercept someone doing 39km/h over the speed limit and they refused to stop. So the police officer catches up to the driver of the speeding vehicle, puts on his lights and sirens to pull them over but they fail to do so, would you expect the officer to just turn his lights and sirens off and let the person drive along at that speed?



and two people died - "under the control of this particular officer"

If that's him doing what he thought was best, god help us.

then again, being the only surviving witness will increase his chances of a rosey outcome, so everyone will be happy.

Do you think the Police officer is happy about the outcome? Do you think he is happy that a 3 year old girl was killed?

I don't know what you do for a job, nor do I care, but I hope it is not in a position where peoples lives depend on your split second decisions. I would hate you to be coming to protect my family with the short sighted cynical mentality you have.




......Sniff sniff bacon on the grill yum
that's better

I hope you never require police to assist you or your family in an emergency to highlight the positive things they do in the community. We wouldn't want to taint your so easily biased, lack of respect or understanding for a job that you obviously couldn't do.

[seedyrom]

I hope you never require police to assist you or your family in an emergency to highlight the positive things they do in the community. We wouldn't want to taint your so easily biased, lack of respect or understanding for a job that you obviously couldn't do.

They'll do whatever the hell i want, welcome to life Einstein, im a taxpayer. I've given my personal example of police ramming my father off the road then fleeing (can you read?). Why would i/should i respect police?

Oh, they aren't all bad right? Well sorry, but i've now had 3 personal experiences of police abuse of power in my short life, and i'm not even out on the road that much. Power corrupts absolutely.

You need to earn my respect, you aren't entitled to it.

as you mature, you'll realise that even police are human. You make a mistake, you need to be questioned. To say that two lives aren't even worth asking what happened is nuts. I think HSV had the right idea by waiting for judgment before passing comment.


Oh, and you asked how he would have known he was drunk? a 2.3 km persuit would have definitely revealed it. Not sure if you've ever seen a HWP/TOG catch up to a speeding car, but lets just say they don't exceed the posted speed limit by 5kmh till they reach the target. He would have been on the guys cloaka very quickly, and 7 years HWP experience, he'd know exactly what he was dealing with - but im sure the chase is better than the catch.

[The Warden]

It would be a tad hard to arrest him at home if it was a stolen bike though would it not?

I don't know how they could assume the owner and the rider were one and the same.

Quite right pagey, in my example, the police can't assume the owner and the rider was the same person.

But on the other hand, the police are very good at finding the real facts in this type of situation. EG: if the police have the rego number of a vehicle seen leaving the scene of a crime (say from a witness) they have a very good record at tracking down the offender....

Ryzz's original question was regarding the "right" for the police officer to be questioned about his actions at an inquest. I still say this is acceptable, nothing more than that....

If there was no inquest, nothing would be learned from the outcome that resulted in an innocent childs death. Think about it.... If the policeman followed the set procedures he has nothing to fear, he personally wouldn't pay any fine or compensation. The state would and procedures would be changed. Alternatively his name is cleared at a court inquest and no one could use this event against him in the future.

[Ryzz]

Ryzz's original question was regarding the "right" for the police officer to be questioned about his actions at an inquest. I still say this is acceptable, nothing more than that.... That was sort of my point. My point it not why the inquest, but why should the officer be blamed when odds are they this guy being a drunk as a skunk was gonna crash anyway somewhere along the line. Dont forget people, this isnt like having 1 beer to many at a party, this is like skulling a 6 pack of beer in 15 minutes the getting in the car. He was totaled big time!

[surfmaster59]

They'll do whatever the hell i want, welcome to life Einstein, im a taxpayer. I've given my personal example of police ramming my father off the road then fleeing (can you read?). Why would i/should i respect police?

Oh, they aren't all bad right? Well sorry, but i've now had 3 personal experiences of police abuse of power in my short life, and i'm not even out on the road that much. Power corrupts absolutely.



Maybe your attitude is what brings you grief? Why don't you complain to Police and give them your eyewitness account of what happened to your father?

[seedyrom]

Maybe your attitude is what brings you grief? Why don't you complain to Police and give them your eyewitness account of what happened to your father?
nah, My attitude stems from having my dads car run off the road by police WITHOUT using a siren, then 2 officers jumping into the passenger side of the car, and a third one shouting at him through the drivers window, when he couldnt even open his door as it was jammed against a barricade. Then leaving the scene.

I have never had an attitude against police until then.

As I have explained, no report will be made, as my father fears reprisal attacks, for if they do this to a stranger, what would they do to someone with charges against them ? :weirdo: :outlaw:

anyway ... this is OT

[Ryzz]

nah, My attitude stems from having my dads car run off the road by police WITHOUT using a siren, then 2 officers jumping into the passenger side of the car, and a third one shouting at him through the drivers window, when he couldnt even open his door as it was jammed against a barricade. Then leaving the scene.

I have never had an attitude against police until then.

As I have explained, no report will be made, as my father fears reprisal attacks, for if they do this to a stranger, what would they do to someone with charges against them ? :weirdo: :outlaw:

anyway ... this is OT
Fine you have a problem with the Cops, but what does that have to do with this Cop and the decission he made in a split second. You are comparing apples with oranges here.

[seedyrom]

No ... all i have ever tried to say is that this guy needs to be questioned for his actions. You have NOW come round to admitting that. Not in your original posts. Nor anyone else. I arc up, and suddenly I have to:
1: Justify my comments relating to the death of an innocent child.
2: Explain simple operating procedures to do with work place accidents.
3: Explain why Im not some pansy arse who has respect for all cops, everywhere all of the time - Did the Fitzgerald inquiry, and the Wood Royal Commission not highlight the fact that there are some bad apples out there?

Its like someone saying that we should all respect system admins, cause they keep email flowing and this site going.
Thats crap.
Its a job, as is being a cop. If you stuff up, you get "hauled over the coals". End of story.

If a decision has to be made "in a split second" which could result in a 3 year old dying, is a police officer who may or may not have had a hard day the best person to make it?

My original post is still valid.
Wait till you have children Ryzz. I dont think you are capable of making an acurate comment until you can truly imagine what the thought of losing a child is like.

[YCV8]

here's a hypothetical ... he continued driving at 98kms in a 60 zone, slowed down at the road works, got home and porked his missus.

hypothetical's are great

hypothetical's are great

So is hindsight.

I do agree with Seedy that there should always be a coronial, they are important to determine causes and preventive measures, not necessarily to find someone to blame.

The issue of DO pursuit and DON'T pursuit is more complicated than our society can handle. IMO. To not pursue (of course if there are other means of apprehending then the pursuit should be avoided) will open up a can of worms - everyone that is in the wrong will just do the runner, especially those who are drunk or in stolen motor vehicles. You might as well legalise those offences cause there will be nothing the police will be able to do about it. Even if someone does get caught through later enquiries, they wear a disobey police direction ticket rather than PCA, theft etc... and that's if identity can be established beyond all reasonable doubt. Unfortunately without 'consequences' the majority would not adhere to mnay of our laws (drink driving for example). IMO the majority that choose not to drink drive do so because they are afraid of getting caught by the police, rather than the greater consequences of pranging and voiding your insurance (including the car you hit) or worse, killing yourself or killing someone else (even if you were not at fault, still culpable if you are drunk).

Of those who believe that drunk drivers shouldn't be pursued (using this example), how loud did you protest in the past when you heard stories of police pursuits where they drunk has been stopped/apprehended by police without incident or death. I hope loudly because nothing is different in that example and this one up until the collision and the unfortunate death. Something that couldn't be foreseen except in hindsight. If things were that forseeable there would never be accidents or deaths, but life ain't that simple. If the police decided not to pursue this drunk driver based on the risk and the drunk continued on speeding, lost control and killed YOUR child, would be praising the police for not pursuing or would you be crying POLICE INACTION... police let a drunk run free on the raod and did nothing to stop him.

The police and the rest of us are damned if they DO and damned if they DON'T.

IMO the courts need to be alot tougher on those that do attempt to do the runner on police and make the consequence far greater. That is, align the penalty with culpable driving, make it a minimum 5 years gaol or something as equally deterrent, that way idiots might think twice and take the loss of licence (PCA) over a stink in the 'come and suck mommy's **** holiday home'.

It is only my opinion but I think the police can't NOT PURSUE rather than should PURSUE but understand that everyone still needs to be accountable, and in the case that Society decides that pursuits are an evil necessity and the officer acts within the set boundaries, then society should be on trial, not the officer.

[surfmaster59]

nah, My attitude stems from having my dads car run off the road by police WITHOUT using a siren, then 2 officers jumping into the passenger side of the car, and a third one shouting at him through the drivers window, when he couldnt even open his door as it was jammed against a barricade. Then leaving the scene.

I have never had an attitude against police until then.

As I have explained, no report will be made, as my father fears reprisal attacks, for if they do this to a stranger, what would they do to someone with charges against them ? :weirdo: :outlaw:

anyway ... this is OT


This topic is about making Police accountable for their actions (IMO), thats the way our society works. It should not be a witch hunt however to blame a third party for some drunken fools bad decision making.

It does worry me that a completely innocent motorist can be treated in the manner you describe. If the Police have acted unlawfully in that matter their actions should be reviewed in the appropriate forum. An investigation into the matter would certainly shed light onto all aspects of the incident?

[alexcs]

The HWP is being "hauled over the coals" by the lawyer for the little girls family, nothing to do with the drunk driver, there is no connection with any responsibility, or other wise, the HWP had relating to the drunk driver. And yes, I believe it is approprieate, the exact circumstances of the pursuit need to come out.....

Now I accept the HWP are potentially in a no win situation in these situations, damned if they don't pursue and the drunk crashes, damned if they do and he crashes anyway. But you're got to look at why it's illegal to speed and/or drive drunk in the first place.

It's not really a law and order issue, it's more a public health issue, keeping people out of graves and/or hospital and/or wheelchairs, etc.... Therefore, the HWP have to be aware of other innocent road users and the increased risks a pursuit causes to them. This is a dynamic situation, it changes by the second, dependant on circumstances and the actions of others over which the HWP may not have any control, at some point the HWP have to make the call to continue or abandon....

Other here in NZ there have been many fatal pursuits over the last few years where the actions of the police have been called into question by the the coroner and others, resulting in police retraining, only advanced trained police drivers being able to engage in pursuits, the control room (or who ever they report to during the event) being able to instruct them to abandon the chase and so on....


a lot of this is moot. HWP turn and follow up speeding drivers on the street. if what the driver says is true and it lasted less than thirty seconds and it can be proven he wasnt an inch off the bumper pushing him to do stupid things (far more likely he was 50-100m back with the angry lights on like they all do, you remember this was only 98 in a 60) (the police video will have captured the entire thing, and likely be the evidence that puts him in the clear.)

HWP already have VERY stringent policies for pursuit, they already get axed by the complaints line and internal affairs all the time. its time to realise that police CANNOT be examined under a microscope all the time, it does hinder and has hindered in the major way the capability of the police to do their job. look at the nsw police service now...what a ****ing joke. and the worst part is the grunts have nothing to do with making it that way. these guys fill out more papaerwork than they do policing these days, and all in the name of 100% transparency.

all i can say is, i hope the bureaucratic imbeciles and derelict PC brigade are well proud of themselves. ****wits.

[alexcs]

No ... all i have ever tried to say is that this guy needs to be questioned for his actions. You have NOW come round to admitting that. Not in your original posts. Nor anyone else. I arc up, and suddenly I have to:
1: Justify my comments relating to the death of an innocent child.
2: Explain simple operating procedures to do with work place accidents.
3: Explain why Im not some pansy arse who has respect for all cops, everywhere all of the time - Did the Fitzgerald inquiry, and the Wood Royal Commission not highlight the fact that there are some bad apples out there?

Its like someone saying that we should all respect system admins, cause they keep email flowing and this site going.
Thats crap.
Its a job, as is being a cop. If you stuff up, you get "hauled over the coals". End of story.

If a decision has to be made "in a split second" which could result in a 3 year old dying, is a police officer who may or may not have had a hard day the best person to make it?

My original post is still valid.
Wait till you have children Ryzz. I dont think you are capable of making an acurate comment until you can truly imagine what the thought of losing a child is like.

have the wherewithal to separate your own sour experience with the realities of the entire police force. what you have described is highly extreme and unusual behavior, but if it happened it happened. all police are not like that.

understandably that incident has made you want every police officers "hauled over the coals" who has been seen to have done something wrong, which is a fine attitude to have. until you being to take in the realities of the situaiton and realise you cannot have a functional and efficient police service (force) that is constantly being required to fill out paperwork, attend IA hearings, be subjected to rumor and insinuation etc. and that is exactly why our current service is so substandard. fear of being investigated prevents a lot of action being taken, becuase they see reprisals come in the form of accusations, court action, internal punishment.

in no way am i condoning what those police did to your father, nor am i saying they sohuld have carte blanche, but there needs to be a hard decision taken to draw the line at a point where investigation does not hamper actual policework, a line that was crossed a hell of a long time ago in many areas of policing. this decision will leave some wanting like your father, who get thoroughly dudded.

but remember this, back 20-30 years ago, police didnt pick on obviously innocent people. they picked on known perps and got results again and again, becuase they had the power to do so without fear of losing their jobs/positions of power. anyone holding that fear achieves nothing, look at any politician you care to name.

i dont have respect for all cops, far from it, but i do recognise the need for a powerful police force that has the power to play a little dirty in order to get results, becuase if you dont have that, people know they can rise against the force in certian circumstances and get away with it.

unfortunately sometimes, to have a functioning anything there is often a tradeoff between 100% accountability and a valuable service being achieved, this is never more true in policing. the more checks and balances, paperwork investigation you have, the less is achieved. innocent people can get arrested or harrassed yes. but id rather a functional police force with a small amount of that, than a weak and impotent service that achieves very little and makes sure NOONE gets harrassed. thats a tough call i guess.

a powerful police force can be backed by appropriate law, and you can reduce the chances of harrassment even further. when police and people in general are achieving something in their lifes, they are less prone to indulge in their baser instincts.

anyway, i guess i should declare that i have several police as friends, and several police as people id rather avoid. i dont have kids, couldnt begin to imagine how losing a child would destroy your life nor would i want to, and have never lost anyone to police action.

but at the end of the day, efficient and funcitonal systems need to be in place in our society so that we can continue to live properly. the current police, health, public transport, workcover/oh&s, rta/road systems are all in dire need of proper attention and some intelligent and hard decisions coming down. when you treat a society like idiots and molly coddle them (as most of the western world and especially in the US and Australia are doing at the moment) you end up with a society of walking yogurts incapable of orignal thought, frightened of everything, and against anything that steps to the side of status quo. you end up with selfishness and greed becuase everything has been tailored to help YOU, to make YOU feel good, not help others, or make others feel good. everything is targeted at reducing any risk, any slight oddity, out of the ordinary, stay within guidelines and you wont be affected.

so rant off i guess, im not sure what point i was trying to make.