Australian Politics Forum - The coppers havent gat a smacking clue on PR

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: The coppers havent gat a smacking clue on PR
Reply #15 - Aug 11^th, 2014 at 7:14pm

Kat wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 6:59pm:

George_Orhell wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

He's doing his job, and you lot would whine like hell if you needed his help and he didn't give it eh?

Funny how so many of these sayings are nothing but bullsh1t cop-outs.

Like this one.

Another is the old, 'If you've nothing to hide...' etc.

And strangely....still perfectly true.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Kytro Gold Member Offline Blasphemy: a victimless crime Posts: 3409 Adelaide Gender:	Re: The coppers havent gat a smacking clue on PR Reply #16 - Aug 11^th, 2014 at 7:20pm Setanta wrote on Aug 10^th, 2014 at 8:46pm: It's never just an RBT, especially if you are young. I have never had a problem beyond one cop complaining that I made him walk too far to my car.
Back to top	IP Logged

Lionel Edriess

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1932
Gender: male

Re: The coppers havent gat a smacking clue on PR
Reply #17 - Aug 11^th, 2014 at 7:28pm

They can request your name and address if:

[b]POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2000 - SECT 41[/b]

41 Prescribed circumstances for requiring name and address
The prescribed circumstances for requiring a person to state the person's name and address are as follows—

(a) a police officer finds the person committing an offence;
(b) a police officer reasonably suspects the person has committed an offence, including an extradition offence;
(ba) a police officer—
(i) reasonably suspects the person is a participant in a criminal organisation; or
(ii) finds the person at a prescribed place as defined under the Criminal Code, section 60B; or
(iii) finds the person at a prescribed event as defined under the Criminal Code, section 60B;
(c) a police officer is about to take—
(i) the person's identifying particulars under an identifying particulars notice or an order of a court made under section 471 or 514; or
(ii) a DNA sample from the person under a DNA sample notice or an order made under section 484, 485, 488 or 514;
(d) an authorised examiner is about to perform a non-medical examination under a non-medical examination notice or under section 514;
(e) a police officer is about to give, is giving, or has given someone a noise abatement direction, an initial nuisance direction or a final nuisance direction;
(f) a police officer is attempting to enforce a warrant, forensic procedure order or registered corresponding forensic procedure order or serve on a person—
(i) a forensic procedure order or registered corresponding forensic procedure order; or
(ii) a summons; or
(iii) another court document;
(g) a police officer reasonably believes obtaining the person's name and address is necessary for the administration or enforcement of an Act prescribed under a regulation for this section;
(h) a police officer reasonably suspects the person has been or is about to be involved in domestic violence or associated domestic violence;
(i) a police officer reasonably suspects the person may be able to help in the investigation of—
(i) domestic violence or associated domestic violence; or
(ii) a relevant vehicle incident;
(j) a police officer reasonably suspects the person may be able to help in the investigation of an alleged indictable offence because the person was near the place where the alleged offence happened before, when, or soon after it happened;
(k) the person is the person in control of a vehicle that is stationary on a road or has been stopped under section 60;
(l) under chapter 17, a qualified person for performing a forensic procedure is about to perform the forensic procedure on the person.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ppara2000365/s41.html

POLICE POWERS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ACT 2000 - SECT 60

60 Stopping vehicles for prescribed purposes

1) A police officer may require the person in control of a vehicle, other than a train or a vehicle being pulled by an animal, to stop the vehicle for a prescribed purpose.

(2) The person must comply with the requirement, unless the person has a reasonable excuse.

Maximum penalty—

(a) for a private vehicle—60 penalty units; or
(b) for a heavy vehicle, if the purpose for stopping the vehicle is HVNL(Q) compliance or enforcement—the corresponding HVNL(Q) penalty amount; or
Note—
On the commencement of this note, the corresponding HVNL(Q) penalty amount was $6000. Generally, see section 53C.
(c) otherwise—90 penalty units.
Example of a reasonable excuse for subsection (2)—
It is a reasonable excuse for a person not to comply with a requirement if—
(a) the person reasonably believes that to immediately comply would endanger the person or someone else; and
(b) the person complies with the requirement at the first reasonable opportunity.
(3) The prescribed purposes are as follows—

(a) for enforcing a transport Act or the Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland);
(b) to check whether the vehicle complies, or the person is complying, with a transport Act or the Heavy Vehicle National Law (Queensland);
(c) for monitoring or enforcing a liquor provision;
(d) for enforcing a contravention of law involving putting, dropping and leaving litter on a public place from a vehicle;
(e) to conduct a breath test or saliva test; ...........

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ppara2000365/s60.html

Still, never a wise move to argue with a copper. Smart-arses or perceived 'clever dicks' get short shrift.

Back to top

Toughen up, Australia!

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 84818
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The coppers havent gat a smacking clue on PR
Reply #18 - Aug 11^th, 2014 at 8:31pm

George_Orhell wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

He's doing his job, and you lot would whine like hell if you needed his help and he didn't give it eh?

Yeah! The poor bastards take an oath to 'uphold the law as written'*** just like any good Nazi! Can't be blamed if Granny Jo Bloggs gets raped and murdered while they're out rousting some young gallant on the streets committing no offence.

*** the conflict of interest comes from their dual service to the Crown, yet with the simultaneous demand that they serve the current government. No servant of two masters can ever fulfill the role properly.

The reference to Nazism is apt - in serving the State and the incumbent government of it - without question - they run the risk of abrogating Law itself.

The same situation arises with the courts when they mistakenly view themselves as components of government and not guardians of Law (not law, legislation, regulation or policy). With the sworn duty to ensure that Law itself is upheld, it is the courts which bear the primary responsibility for police misbehaviour, since it is they who should firstly be rejecting legislation that does not accord with Law, and secondly, they should not be upholding the interests of any group above those of any other, as occurs when they 'prefer the version of events of police'.

The law stipulates that all must be treated equally and within the Rule of Law.... and the lowest court in the land - in accordance with its oath of office to "deal justly with all equally under Law" has the clear opportunity to reject any unjust or illegal legislation when it is placed before it for consideration.

It should never be incumbent upon a member of the public to spend a quarter of a million dollars contesting a piece of legislation, regulation or policy before the highest and most costly courts in the land.

That is precisely why the magistracy needs to be cleaned out and then properly trained and instructed in its operations.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Laugh till you cry

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 16619
In your happy place
Gender: male

Re: The coppers havent gat a smacking clue on PR
Reply #19 - Aug 12^th, 2014 at 6:32pm

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 8:31pm:

George_Orhell wrote on Aug 11^th, 2014 at 11:54am:

He's doing his job, and you lot would whine like hell if you needed his help and he didn't give it eh?

Yeah! The poor bastards take an oath to 'uphold the law as written'*** just like any good Nazi! Can't be blamed if Granny Jo Bloggs gets raped and murdered while they're out rousting some young gallant on the streets committing no offence.

*** the conflict of interest comes from their dual service to the Crown, yet with the simultaneous demand that they serve the current government. No servant of two masters can ever fulfill the role properly.

The reference to Nazism is apt - in serving the State and the incumbent government of it - without question - they run the risk of abrogating Law itself.

The same situation arises with the courts when they mistakenly view themselves as components of government and not guardians of Law (not law, legislation, regulation or policy). With the sworn duty to ensure that Law itself is upheld, it is the courts which bear the primary responsibility for police misbehaviour, since it is they who should firstly be rejecting legislation that does not accord with Law, and secondly, they should not be upholding the interests of any group above those of any other, as occurs when they 'prefer the version of events of police'.

The law stipulates that all must be treated equally and within the Rule of Law.... and the lowest court in the land - in accordance with its oath of office to "deal justly with all equally under Law" has the clear opportunity to reject any unjust or illegal legislation when it is placed before it for consideration.

It should never be incumbent upon a member of the public to spend a quarter of a million dollars contesting a piece of legislation, regulation or policy before the highest and most costly courts in the land.

That is precisely why the magistracy needs to be cleaned out and then properly trained and instructed in its operations.

Magistrates should resign if they are overruled by higher courts several times. It is a point about delivering quality of service. Being wrong is not quality.

Back to top

Please don't thank me. Effusive fawning and obeisance of disciples, mendicants, and foot-kissers embarrass me.

IP Logged

Grappler Truth Teller Feller

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 84818
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male

Re: The coppers havent gat a smacking clue on PR
Reply #20 - Aug 12^th, 2014 at 6:51pm

Yews - but if you dig into this world of snakes and adders, you will find that the judiciary are reluctant to find against their mates downstairs. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

In NSW they have an absolute cop-put (cop pout) in that thjey onloy look at an appeal on what was presented in the lower court, and far too often, just like the lower court, they 'prefer the version of events of police' - which is almost universally false and deliberrate perjury to gain a conviction like some sort of game.

An indigent defendant in NSW will receive the bare minimum of a legal aid lawyer who will blithely say that he/she is not paid to do any work for you outside the court - so HTF does the defendant get a fair shot? That lawyer then goes ahead and presents nothing on behalf of the defendant, thus making an appeal impossibler to win.

It is deliberately done this way to prevent what is called a 'Dietrich Decision' in which the Court of Criminal Appeal (I think) found that a defendant who was not accorded legal defence assistance had all charges placed on permanent hold, thus vacating them forever.

So - if you ever find yourself in that position, always make sure you have a lawyer who will actually DO something... otherwise you will lose any ap-peal and any chance of a 'Dietrich Decision'.

As head of Australia's Wrongfully Convicted, I'm currently working on an extension of the Dietrich Decision to cover 'inadequate legal assistance', and for a full appeal and full re-hearing on appeal.

The courts whine that they are overloaded - well tough - they are overloaded for the simple reason that they offer to the prosecution unwarranted and illegal advantages by doing such thing as 'preferring the version of events of police'. Without that, many cases would never come to court for lack of substantial evidence.

I'm also working for a mandated primary evidence supported by verifiable and substantial fact.

Simple - corroboration is NOT someone else saying the same thing - corroboration is substantial fact that supports what is said. e.g. - If I say you struck my car.. I must be able to show damage - ergo, a cop who claims to have been assaulted must show damage, not jsut say so and expect to be believed.

I have on the books a case of a man convicted for assaulting a cop - the man was hospitalised as a result of being assaulted by police, and was escorted in ambulance and in emergency by the same cop - who made no complaint, including in writing to the police department, of injury until months later at 'trial' when he said he was punched so hard his jaw ached for three days.

This was accepted without question.

There, my lords and ladies - there is your enemy! Or one of many!

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged