How to make a stunt driving charge even worse - Mallorytown | Page 3 | GTAMotorcycle.com

How to make a stunt driving charge even worse - Mallorytown

Forum Sponsor
Face said:
I seem to recall that you also wouldn't fault the cop for stepping out in front of a motorcyclist and putting the rider's life in danger just to pull him/her over to give them a speeding ticket. Sorry, can't reference the thread as it was pulled down. Should the cop then draw his gun because he placed himself in a position that the bike was bearing down on him? In your mind, can a cop ever do any wrong? Are you sure you don't work for the SIU now?
Click to expand...

A cop stepping out at a radar trap to point a vehicle is a different thing altogether, but again, if you are driving with any sort of alertness you should be scanning ahead, you should be in control of your vehicle, and you should be prepared to come to an emergency stop at any time because emergencies or other impediments to travel do not announce themselves in advance. If you do not have that alertness and control, you are more of a danger to yourself than the cop is.

A cop has a job to do. In the case of the 401 hooligan ride that was brought to a stop, if one of those bikes was deliberately bearing down on a cop who is in a choke point and thus blocking an escape route for the bike, should the cop just do an "after you Alphonse" routine and politely just step aside if the rider looks like he is going to run right through the cop? How does that work for any deterrent value in future for that rider or any that witness it?
 
griff2 said:
A cop stepping out at a radar trap to point a vehicle is a different thing altogether, but again, if you are driving with any sort of alertness you should be scanning ahead, you should be in control of your vehicle, and you should be prepared to come to an emergency stop at any time because emergencies or other impediments to travel do not announce themselves in advance. If you do not have that alertness and control, you are more of a danger to yourself than the cop is.

A cop has a job to do. In the case of the 401 hooligan ride that was brought to a stop, if one of those bikes was deliberately bearing down on a cop who is in a choke point and thus blocking an escape route for the bike, should the cop just do an "after you Alphonse" routine and politely just step aside if the rider looks like he is going to run right through the cop? How does that work for any deterrent value in future for that rider or any that witness it?
Click to expand...

I agree a rider should be aware of their environment and be prepared to stop. Now at most speed enforcement points the officer steps out well in advance to allow the driver/rider to stop safely. If a bike is travelling that fast that they can't stop, then what if it wasn't an officer but a dog darting or a kid that broke free of it's parents?

Now having said that,

Griff I do NOT believe that this was an appropriate action. At the time the officers were advised in advance of the impending arrival of these riders they should have conducted a FULL traffic stop, blocking both shoulders as well as all lanes save one with a "staggered" exit which would have forced the riders to stop with all the other traffic. As a former supervisor, had one of my officers placed themselves in harm by standing on a highway, to the point they needed to draw their service weapon, they would have a LOT of explaining to do to me after the incident was concluded. If the riders couldn't be stopped without the need for service weapons being drawn then yes you simply permit them to proceed.

We had a saying as coppers "ok so I didn't get you today", BUT I have the plate number, and years of career left at some point we WILL meet again. So yes the officer is going to let the rider ride away. In reality if you think about it what option did the officer have? Was he going to open fire on a bike speeding towards him? What about his field of fire? A 9 mm glock round can travel some distance and do considerable damage. So if he misses the rider and takes out soccer mom in the mini van behind the rider, then that would be acceptable collateral damage?
 
hedo2002 said:
I agree a rider should be aware of their environment and be prepared to stop. Now at most speed enforcement points the officer steps out well in advance to allow the driver/rider to stop safely. If a bike is travelling that fast that they can't stop, then what if it wasn't an officer but a dog darting or a kid that broke free of it's parents?

Now having said that,

Griff I do NOT believe that this was an appropriate action. At the time the officers were advised in advance of the impending arrival of these riders they should have conducted a FULL traffic stop, blocking both shoulders as well as all lanes save one with a "staggered" exit which would have forced the riders to stop with all the other traffic. As a former supervisor, had one of my officers placed themselves in harm by standing on a highway, to the point they needed to draw their service weapon, they would have a LOT of explaining to do to me after the incident was concluded. If the riders couldn't be stopped without the need for service weapons being drawn then yes you simply permit them to proceed.

We had a saying as coppers "ok so I didn't get you today", BUT I have the plate number, and years of career left at some point we WILL meet again. So yes the officer is going to let the rider ride away. In reality if you think about it what option did the officer have? Was he going to open fire on a bike speeding towards him? What about his field of fire? A 9 mm glock round can travel some distance and do considerable damage. So if he misses the rider and takes out soccer mom in the mini van behind the rider, then that would be acceptable collateral damage?
Click to expand...

Soccer Mom in a minivan? Possibly. Only joking.
 
hedo2002 said:
Now having said that,

Griff I do NOT believe that this was an appropriate action. At the time the officers were advised in advance of the impending arrival of these riders they should have conducted a FULL traffic stop, blocking both shoulders as well as all lanes save one with a "staggered" exit which would have forced the riders to stop with all the other traffic. As a former supervisor, had one of my officers placed themselves in harm by standing on a highway, to the point they needed to draw their service weapon, they would have a LOT of explaining to do to me after the incident was concluded. If the riders couldn't be stopped without the need for service weapons being drawn then yes you simply permit them to proceed.
Click to expand...

It's easy to second guess. Well first of all, we have one poster saying that a gun was drawn. Whether that is fact or not, who knows? Second, you can do all kinds of things to set up an ideal roadblock given the luxury of time. Was that luxury available? Third, what's appropriate really depends on the situation - you were not there, I was not there, nobody even knows for sure that a gun was drawn but if such were to happen, the after-the-fact paperwork to justify the pull would serve as a disincentive to do so unless a true threat to personal safety or the public was perceived to be present based on the cop's training and experience. Same goes for any decision, were it to happen, to pull the trigger. Of course there are loose cannons out there, but a system exists to review unwarranted use of force, as more than one cop in past has learned the hard way.
 
griff2 said:
A cop stepping out at a radar trap to point a vehicle is a different thing altogether, but again, if you are driving with any sort of alertness you should be scanning ahead, you should be in control of your vehicle, and you should be prepared to come to an emergency stop at any time because emergencies or other impediments to travel do not announce themselves in advance. If you do not have that alertness and control, you are more of a danger to yourself than the cop is.
Click to expand...

Guess what, cops hide in order to earn revenue and convictions from speeders. When they actually wanted to slow them down, they park a cruiser in plain site. I have personally witnessed a situation where the officer jumped out in front of a motorcycle at the last minute not leaving enough distance for the rider to stop safely. If it wasn't for the rider's quick reaction and evasive maneuvering skills, both the rider and officer would most likely have been injured.

griff2 said:
It's easy to second guess. Well first of all, we have one poster saying that a gun was drawn. Whether that is fact or not, who knows? Second, you can do all kinds of things to set up an ideal roadblock given the luxury of time. Was that luxury available? Third, what's appropriate really depends on the situation - you were not there, I was not there, nobody even knows for sure that a gun was drawn but if such were to happen, the after-the-fact paperwork to justify the pull would serve as a disincentive to do so unless a true threat to personal safety or the public was perceived to be present based on the cop's training and experience. Same goes for any decision, were it to happen, to pull the trigger. Of course there are loose cannons out there, but a system exists to review and sweep under the rug unwarranted use of force, as more than one cop in past has faced the minor public exposure of.
Click to expand...

Fixed.
 
griff2 said:
It's easy to second guess. Well first of all, we have one poster saying that a gun was drawn. Whether that is fact or not, who knows? Second, you can do all kinds of things to set up an ideal roadblock given the luxury of time. Was that luxury available? Third, what's appropriate really depends on the situation - you were not there, I was not there, nobody even knows for sure that a gun was drawn but if such were to happen, the after-the-fact paperwork to justify the pull would serve as a disincentive to do so unless a true threat to personal safety or the public was perceived to be present based on the cop's training and experience. Same goes for any decision, were it to happen, to pull the trigger. Of course there are loose cannons out there, but a system exists to review unwarranted use of force, as more than one cop in past has learned the hard way.
Click to expand...


Difference between you and I, I have actual real world police experience both as an officer and as a supervisor. So yes The "luxury of time" did exist, there was nothing that said the traffic stop HAD to happen at that location at that time the media report said the group was observed by one officer who then radioed ahead to Whitby brock road exit where other officers were able to set up. Well that just happens to be the location of the OPP detachment. So if these officers had time to get out of the detachment and get onto the highway to begin to setup then they likely had time to do it right. I have been able to assemble VERY effective road block in less than 4 minutes using four cruisers.

If they didn't have time to do it properly then they shouldn't have done it at all. You will also note I said in my post I stated that IF one of my officers had placed themselves in a position that drawing their service weapon was required. I didn't state emphatically this was the case here, merely stated if a weapon was drawn then the officer would have a LOT of explaining to do.
 
HTA 172 is more than enough moral justification to run away from police...take a second and absorb that...if you disagree, you probably don't ride much except maybe to a cafe once in awhile...

NOW...that said...THINK about what running away from the police actually is....it's you, a lone person or persons on an open air vehicle with no protection pitting yourself against a very large very corrupt paramilitary organization that has a vested interest in stopping you (if they don't stop people from running then everyone will run).

We can debate what the law should say about chasing but do you expect them to follow it? These people can get away with pretty much anything...run if you need to but don't expect the enemy (when you run, your pursuers become your enemy) to babysit you. Sure, most of them are probably decent human beings and don't want you to die, but they want to stop you and if you need to die for that to happen then so be it.

I think some of the wannabe badasses on here maybe do successfully evade police sometimes but I think talking about it in a casual way is doing a disservice to newer riders who might not realize the full weight of such an action....the weight which the person in this news story is feeling now.
 
Face said:
Guess what, cops hide in order to earn revenue and convictions from speeders. When they actually wanted to slow them down, they park a cruiser in plain site. I have personally witnessed a situation where the officer jumped out in front of a motorcycle at the last minute not leaving enough distance for the rider to stop safely. If it wasn't for the rider's quick reaction and evasive maneuvering skills, both the rider and officer would most likely have been injured.



Fixed.
Click to expand...
In NZ things used to be like what Face says. Cops parked out in the open, people were aware of them. They slowed down. We had speed cameras, and people slowed down. It was all good then from what I understand in the past few years things changed and it became more about hiding in bushes to speed trap etc. What we called "the Nth American way." I hope cops down there haven't followed the corruption that exists here too.
All things considered, the cops there are pretty good to deal with and At least they don't are firearms on regular beat.
 
kiwi said:
In NZ things used to be like what Face says. Cops parked out in the open, people were aware of them. They slowed down. We had speed cameras, and people slowed down. It was all good then from what I understand in the past few years things changed and it became more about hiding in bushes to speed trap etc. What we called "the Nth American way." I hope cops down there haven't followed the corruption that exists here too.
All things considered, the cops there are pretty good to deal with and At least they don't are firearms on regular beat.
Click to expand...

How are the speed limits in NZ?

Can you imagine speed cameras on the 401? what a nightmare that would be.
 
confundo said:
I think some of the wannabe badasses on here maybe do successfully evade police sometimes but I think talking about it in a casual way is doing a disservice to newer riders who might not realize the full weight of such an action....the weight which the person in this news story is feeling now.
Click to expand...

Correction - these persons in these news stories, multiple, and over the course of less than a week.

And you're right - those who casually encourage others to run are the ones who should be hung out to dry.
 
Bikerider said:
How are the speed limits in NZ?

Can you imagine speed cameras on the 401? what a nightmare that would be.
Click to expand...
The equivalent 80km roads here are 100km, the national speed limit.. and in Wgtn and Auckland there are motorways (highways) where the speed limit is 100km. The speed cameras are not used on highways, but on roads like highway 10 etc here. Highway 7 to ottawa is the equivalent of our type of nation highways. You'll get passing lanes but there is no median barrier.

In Queensland, Australia they have speed cameras under bridges and you don't know if they are running or not so pretty much most people go the limit there.. And traffic flows. But kind you, they enforce minimum speeds too on highways and lane hogs.
 
My parents came back from a trip to France and they told me the limit there is 130 and they do have speed cameras but there are warnings on the road about upcoming cameras.

Wouldn't it be sweet to have warnings about opp speed traps so that everyone actually slows down? Rather than having everyone speed and just catch a few a day.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
 
Bikerider said:
My parents came back from a trip to France and they told me the limit there is 130 and they do have speed cameras but there are warnings on the road about upcoming cameras.

Wouldn't it be sweet to have warnings about opp speed traps so that everyone actually slows down? Rather than having everyone speed and just catch a few a day.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

While in France, if it wasn't for my GPS that alerted me of photo radar zones, I would have blown through most of those radar signs... some are more obvious than others and they're pretty easy to miss.
 
confundo said:
HTA 172 is more than enough moral justification to run away from police...take a second and absorb that...if you disagree, you probably don't ride much except maybe to a cafe once in awhile...

NOW...that said...THINK about what running away from the police actually is....it's you, a lone person or persons on an open air vehicle with no protection pitting yourself against a very large very corrupt paramilitary organization that has a vested interest in stopping you (if they don't stop people from running then everyone will run).

We can debate what the law should say about chasing but do you expect them to follow it? These people can get away with pretty much anything...run if you need to but don't expect the enemy (when you run, your pursuers become your enemy) to babysit you. Sure, most of them are probably decent human beings and don't want you to die, but they want to stop you and if you need to die for that to happen then so be it.

I think some of the wannabe badasses on here maybe do successfully evade police sometimes but I think talking about it in a casual way is doing a disservice to newer riders who might not realize the full weight of such an action....the weight which the person in this news story is feeling now.
Click to expand...

Couple of points: 1. are you sure you know what paramilitary really means. 2. Have you ever been to a country that actually has a real, corrupt paramilitary force?
 
griff2 said:
Correction - these persons in these news stories, multiple, and over the course of less than a week.

And you're right - those who casually encourage others to run are the ones who should be hung out to dry.
Click to expand...
I love your logic. So cops have no responsibility for a rider crashing when being chased, I agree with that. But someone that suggests their opinion to another rider is now responsible for said rider, as in hung out to dry. If I suggest to you to go jump off a bridge, am I now responsible for you doing it. People have their own brains and make their own choices. Now go back to being a sheep.
 
gsxr guy said:
I love your logic. So cops have no responsibility for a rider crashing when being chased, I agree with that. But someone that suggests their opinion to another rider is now responsible for said rider, as in hung out to dry. If I suggest to you to go jump off a bridge, am I now responsible for you doing it. People have their own brains and make their own choices. Now go back to being a sheep.
Click to expand...

While I don't agree with his comment, "be hung outto dry" his premise is actually based in fact. There are laws, (which are rarely used), which do hold one accountable in the event of death or injury caused to another if that person "counselled" them to do it. IE you enourage someone online to kill themselves when they say they are depressed, and they do kill themselves you can be held responsible for their death. There are also other instances where it can be applied.

BUT it would be a huge stretch to think the crown would proceed in that manner if someone simply posted online that riders shpuld flee the police at all costs to avoid a s172 charge. The BIGGEST hurdle would be trying to prove that the accused had ought to have known that by fleeing it would be likely result in that persons death, or injury"

So point is yes one can be held liable, but is it likely to happen? no. Just as one can be charged with speeding for going 1 km over the limit but not likely to happen either.
 
jc100 said:
Couple of points: 1. are you sure you know what paramilitary really means. 2. Have you ever been to a country that actually has a real, corrupt paramilitary force?
Click to expand...

Do you?

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

I've been to countries with worse corruption problems in the law enforcement than we have here...does that mean I should just be satisfied with mediocrity because others have it worse?
 
Bikerider said:
My parents came back from a trip to France and they told me the limit there is 130 and they do have speed cameras but there are warnings on the road about upcoming cameras.

Wouldn't it be sweet to have warnings about opp speed traps so that everyone actually slows down? Rather than having everyone speed and just catch a few a day.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's called Waze.
 
confundo said:
Do you?

A paramilitary is a semi-militarized force whose organizational structure, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military and which is not included as part of a state's formal armed forces.

I've been to countries with worse corruption problems in the law enforcement than we have here...does that mean I should just be satisfied with mediocrity because others have it worse?
Click to expand...

Yes I do and yes I have....and we don't have that here. To think so is, quite frankly, hysterical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom