Worth a look - Pissed but not in charge?
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: Clocky on 17 Jul 2010 21:05 D Walford wrote: > On 17/07/2010 4:49 PM, Clocky wrote: >> D Walford wrote: >>> On 17/07/2010 10:20 AM, Clocky wrote: >>>> Noddy wrote: >>>>> "D Walford"<dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:4c400d74$0$28652$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>>>> >>>>>> Using common sense isn't something cops these days seem to be >>>>>> trained to do. >>>>>> In the "good old days" they would have just taken his keys but >>>>>> these days they must get brownie points for the number of charges >>>>>> they write so common sense is abandoned. >>>>> >>>>> Seems that way. >>>> >>>> Either he posed a risk in which case he needed to be booked or >>>> he didn't in which case taking his keys isn't justifiable. >>>> >>>> It has nothing to do with common sense and everything to do with >>>> proper procedure and liability, it's a sign of the times and the >>>> litigation society (one where a drunk driver can get let off by a >>>> minor procedural error or loophole) and the cops are stuck between >>>> a rock and a hard place. >>> So you would be happy to be fined for speeding next time you get in >>> your car just in case you did speed because we are all told that >>> speed kills so prevention is better than cure. >> >> There is no evidence that I'm going to speed when I step into a car, > > Yes there is, you are a driver therefore you will speed, just ask any > cop, like you they think we are all criminals unless proven otherwise. > > there >> is no *intent* that you could prove. When a drunk is sitting behind >> the steering wheel of a running car, there is some pretty damning >> evidence of intent to drive.. > > Utter bullshit. > > . well to most rational people who remember the sort of >> decisions they think are rational whilst they are under the >> influence that is. >> >>> If you don't speed this time think of it as a down payment on next >>> time you do speed and I know you will so you deserve your fine >>> sooner or later. Welcome to the police state, don't forget to pay >>> up on time and have a nice day:-) >>> >> >> Pity speeding has nothing to do with what was being discussed. > > It has everything to do with it, its about the assumption that a > person will break the law despite there being no evidence. > Being drunk behind the wheel of a running car shows intent and that is enough evidence to arrest someone on. Without the ability to be able to do that, police hands are completely tied and there is no longer any way to prevent any crime.
From: Clocky on 17 Jul 2010 21:13 Noddy wrote: > "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message > news:4c40f51c$0$11111$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> They may also have saved the lives of my family or yours, and I know >> which is more important to me. > > That's an *incredibly* long bow you're drawing there Clocky. There's > just as much chance that nothing at all would have happend. > Drunk drivers crashing is nothing new, it's very likely in fact and I'm not willing to take that chance. We both know the drunk would have driven away at some point, so did the officers. >> The cops did the right thing and the only thing they could do if >> they were doing their job properly which is to protect the public. > > They could have done any number of things that would have removed any > chance of the guy driving drunk, such as taking his keys, disabling > the car, driving him home or calling someone to pick him up. > The drunk is responsible for his own actions, it's not up to the police to babysit every pisshead - the drunk should have organised that for himself before he went out drinking or when he realised he was going to be too drunk to drive. > They elected to charge him with an offence. Presumably because that > was easier, and that it added a few thousandths of an inch to their > appendages. He deserved to be charged, and that's what happened.
From: Noddy on 18 Jul 2010 03:05 "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4c4252e1$0$11115$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > A person is innocent until proven guilty, but showing intent is enough of > a basis to arrest someone on. Your definition of "intent" would be at odds to most it would seem. > It happens every day, it's completely neccessary if you want to prevent > crime. Uh-huh. So, You're walking down the street minding your own business and happen to find a nice new screwdriver on the side of the road that's obviously fallen off the back of some tradie's ute. You pick it up and continue walking when you're stopped by PC Plod and asked to turn out your pockets for a random check. You have no intention of doing anything with said screwdriver other than taking it home to plonk into your toolbox, but PC Plod isn't buying that bullshit. He considers your story to be an "unlikely" explanation as to why you have a screwdriver in your pocket and decides to book you with either (a) being equipped to steal, or (b) carrying a weapon (or possibly both). He has absolutely no indication whatsoever that your intention is to do anything *other* that what you say, but decides that isn't the case for no reason other than it doesn't fit with him. Sound unrealistic to you? It probably does, but then this is *exactly* the same situation as the guy sitting in his car found himself in. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 18 Jul 2010 03:07 "Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4c425378$0$11115$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Being drunk behind the wheel of a running car shows intent and that is > enough evidence to arrest someone on. Intent to do *what*? Intent to sit in the seat? Sound the horn? Play with the blinkers? Listen to the radio? > Without the ability to be able to do that, police hands are completely > tied and there is no longer any way to prevent any crime. If the coppers *really* thought the guy was going to drive, all they needed to do was wait five minutes where the guy couldn't see them and then actually catch him in the act. Problem solved. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 18 Jul 2010 03:10
"Clocky" <notgonn(a)happen.com> wrote in message news:4c425536$0$11123$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > Drunk drivers crashing is nothing new, it's very likely in fact and I'm > not willing to take that chance. We both know the drunk would have driven > away at some point, so did the officers. Excuse me for just a minute.... *You* might like to make assumptions like that but I certainly don't have any idea if that was his intention or not, and I'll thank you not to speak for me. > The drunk is responsible for his own actions, it's not up to the police to > babysit every pisshead - the drunk should have organised that for himself > before he went out drinking or when he realised he was going to be too > drunk to drive. He probably should have, but then just because he didn't doesn't mean he was going to do anything wrong. It's entirely possible that he was doing exactly as he said he was. > He deserved to be charged, and that's what happened. Presumably then, you have no problem with any other charge that might be laid based on likelihood rather than an actual offence having been committed? Bizarre. -- Regards, Noddy. |