Espiner calls for ban on police pursuits

September 11th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

writes at Stuff:

In the past eight years alone pursuit policy has been reviewed five times, including a major overhaul in 2007 that led to stricter controls being placed around chasing offenders, including overall responsibility for a pursuit handed over to comms rather than officers in the pursuing vehicle.

Yet the carnage has continued unabated, chiefly because the police bottom line has always been there is “insufficient evidence” to support banning pursuits and that the public itself would not support police allowing offenders to flee without giving chase.

The rationale seems to be that if police did not chase suspects they would get away, and therefore the end – catching the bad guys – justifies the means, even if that leads to the deaths of either the offenders or worse, an innocent member of the public.’

The problem is incentives do matter, and if bad guys know they an get away simply by speeding up, then you’d be an idiot to actually stop when the Police ask you to!

Not everyone agrees with this. Both Tasmania and Queensland have banned in all but the most serious of circumstances after suffering a spate of deaths from crashes during pursuits.

It’s too soon to say if crime is up or accidents are down in those states. But as Queensland Police Commissioner Ross Barrett put it recently, “the key question is whether the death of an innocent motorist is a price the community is prepared to pay for the unfettered right of the police to pursue.”

Who is arguing for an unfettered right? The NZ Police don’t have such a right. There is a policy on when they pursue, and for how long. But remember that if you don’t catch the drunk driver, he may end up killing anyway.

Around half of pursuits in NZ are abandoned by the Police because they are too dangerous. So that is far from unfettered.

In 2013 there are more ways for police to apprehend suspects than a high-speed chase; helicopters, state-of-the-art communications, information sharing, computer and mobile phone tracking, electronic facial recognition software, and much more. It’s less dramatic, and it might take a little longer but I suspect most times the police would still get their man.

I’m not so sure. You can identify a vehicle and even who was in the vehicle, but you need to prove who the actual driver was for most offences.

What I’d back is far stronger penalties for those who fail to stop and flee, such as automatic destruction of their car.

There are some stats about what has happened in Victoria with limited pursuits:

In 2006 when pursuit guidelines were tightened, there were 186 reports of drivers evading police. Seventy-seven drivers or 41 per cent weren’t caught.

The following year the crime rate more than tripled with 589 drivers refusing to stop. 39 per cent were never found.

By 2010, 972 attempted to evade police with 45 per cent of those succeeding for good.

Last year evade police reports exploded to 1508 reported offences, 989 drivers or almost 60 per cent, are still on the run.

Totally predictable, if you make it effectively voluntary to stop for the Police.

Tags: , ,

55 Responses to “Espiner calls for ban on police pursuits”

  1. Super Guest (16 comments) says:

    Ridiculous. These things aren’t the fault of the police, they’re the fault of the criminals. Yet the media and the left love beating up on the cops, so they keep at it.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wikiriwhis business (4,127 comments) says:

    Police bosses will not rethink safety procedures around lone officers on patrol following the latest violent attack on a sergeant that left him barely recognisable. What do you think? http://ow.ly/oIHth

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    This is more “progressive” thinking and I think comes from the UK where a police pursuit has been defined as a use of force.

    There has also been a general move away from “leadership” in the senior ranks of the police “service”(it is no longer a force) and a move towards managerialism.

    All this results in the feminisation of police work and the giving over of our streets to the criminals and their fellow travellers ,progressives who would rather hug a crim than a hairy arsed genuine old time Bobby.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. duggledog (1,589 comments) says:

    So basically Colin Espiner is a complete fool with no experience of New Zealand and its darker corners

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. wikiriwhis business (4,127 comments) says:

    This is the result of police politics. Police keep sending out individual officers, even females, into dangerous situations to get govt attention and finance at the cost of individual officers

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Nick R (513 comments) says:

    I was with you until you said that around half of NZ pursuits are abandoned for safety reasons. In far too many cases we hear that a pursuit was “abandoned” seconds before a fatal crash occurred. I find that hard to believe, to be honest…

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. kowtow (8,776 comments) says:

    “……even females…..”

    Sorry bud,equal pay,equal risks.

    “Equality” has it’s down sides too.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Akaroa (588 comments) says:

    “……you need to prove who the actual driver was for most offences…”

    And that, my friends, is the crux of this issue. For a successful prosecution continuity of contact/sight between speedster and Police is essential.

    Unless, of course, society is prepared to hold the owner of a vehicle responsible for the actions of others who may drive it?. This in cases where a speedster – who is not the owner – escapes, and the identity of the actual driver is in doubt.

    And then there’s the old chestnut where a driver/owner who has killed someone and has driven off, immediately – or at first opportunity – repots the vehicle stolen.

    No!. Sorry Mr Espiner, But there’s no alternative to pursuing the speedster if a positive identification is to be made..

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    I can’t wait for somebody to be injured running from the police on foot – The calls for police to freeze like statues when in pursuit will be interesting.

    This reminds me of an American comedian I watched once discussing the difference between US Police and UK Police. His said something along the lines of;

    In the US it’s “Stop or I’ll shoot” – in the UK it’s “Stop or I’ll say STOP again”….

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Redbaiter (9,626 comments) says:

    What a curse it is upon the country to have these idiot left wing propagandists posing as mainstream journalists.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Espinier is a tool.
    Who cares if these clowns kill themselves,? Unfortunately there might be a civilan casulaty but if we listen to fools like this the rule of law no longer applies and for criminals to escape all they have to do is put the foot down.

    And please lets hear no wank regarding electric shocking the cars and having governers on cars so they can’t go more than 100 kmph. blah blah blah.

    Run from the police hit a tree and kill yourself , mint.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Ian McK (237 comments) says:

    Another of these left-wing losers masquerading as a journo. They are intent on discrediting police every time they get near a keyboard, and I sure hope one of them needs a policeman one day, and they take their time. The surname Espiner says it all, his brother is worse. Fairfax must dross the bottom of the sewer to find most of these losers.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. rouppe (982 comments) says:

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: Many crashes will be occurring because the pursuit is halted.

    If you’re being pursued it is natural to be checking where the pursuit vehicle is, whether you’re outrunning it, is it gaining etc. Then all of a sudden the blue and reds go out and the headlights disappear.

    What is the natural response? To check where the pursuit car has gone. Has it stopped? Or has it taken a shortcut? Has it crashed? During this heightened period of inattention, crashes occur because the driver is spending more time looking behind than in front.

    Keep pursuing, reinforce the pursuit cars and shove runners off the road.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Ashley Schaeffer (513 comments) says:

    But as Queensland Police Commissioner Ross Barrett put it recently, “the key question is whether the death of an innocent motorist pedestrian is a price the community is prepared to pay for the unfettered right of the police to pursue carry guns.”

    Criminals are dangerous. Police work is dangerous. Apprehending criminals will never be a hazard free activity. It’s not the fault of the Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Sean (301 comments) says:

    @ Akaroa is correct – continuity is essential for successful prosecution. This is even more important in the case of driving under the influence of drink or drugs. If the pursuit is abandoned, it may well be that the police are able to eventually find the driver – by which time it is impossible to legally obtain the evidence required (breath/blood tests) for a successful prosecution. Eliminating the right for police to pursue will give every drink driver in New Zealand the incentive to run. How many lives will be lost then Mr Espiner?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    Criminals are dangerous. Police work is dangerous. Apprehending criminals will never be a hazard free activity. It’s not the fault of the Police.

    We live in a time where saying things that are perfectly true and yet politically inconvenient has consequences.

    Until people stand up and say “no”, common sense will be trampled on. But that’s not looking likely to happen any time soon.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. peterwn (3,308 comments) says:

    Some are not even pursuits. The offender takes off and crashes at the mere sight of the police car with lights on.

    Arguably there would be more deaths/ injuries if there was a total pursuits ban because these drivers would know they can get away with ‘murder’.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. lilman (967 comments) says:

    Espiners an arse.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    Espiner has just confirmed his status as an idiot.

    All crashes that occur when a moron is fleeing from the Police, are 100% the fault of the moron doing the runner. To suggest these morons should just be allowed to flee from a lawful instruction by Police to stop, is total lunacy.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    The logic is pretty simple. It goes like this.

    1. At a high speed, there is a much higher chance of an accident involving an innocent person coming the other way. Both the fleeing thief and the pursuing policeman have their attention elsewhere (getting away / catching the thief), are hyped on adrenalin (and thus feeling invincible) and probably on one of our many inadequate roads that are barely built for the legal limit.

    2. Is the life (or sometimes lives) of those innocent people worth less than the cost of somebody’s (probably insured) clunker? Clearly not.

    3. Therefore unless risk of not pursuing > risk of pursuing, don’t pursue. And the only time the risk of not pursuing is greater is when the criminal has committed a violent crime in the immediate past (and that is why they are fleeing) and there is a danger that, if not caught, they will commit a further violent offences.

    I know a family devastated when the wife and daughter were “t-boned” at an intersection by a fleeing driver. All he’d done up till that point was steal a car, which was easily replaceable. By engaging in a pursuit he and the pursuing officers became responsible for two deaths.

    We can argue about how much of the blame for those deaths belongs where, but I can tell you that the family members left behind don’t give a damn about that. They just wish there hadn’t been a pursuit that day, in that place.

    By all means make fleeing from the police automatic jail, as has been done in most states in Australia. And make it a good long time. But if the reason for those laws are to deter thieves from placing innocent lives at risk, then we must take every other measure to ensure that doesn’t happen – including not pursuing non-violent offenders.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ed Snack (1,927 comments) says:

    I’ve got a better idea Rex, let’s make sure that when the cops spot a car behaving illegally they STOP DEAD, no lights, nothing. That way the “illegal” vehicle is even less likely to speed off as they know that by just toodling along they’ll get away quite happily. And that is a lot safer, so surely you can agree with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    I recall a chase in the US where a guy ran from the police. They were mystified why he was running until they finally pulled the guy over and discovered the abducted woman in the boot.

    I guess it’ll be rare for that to happen, but that woman would have died had the police not chased.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    None of this would be an issue if we increased benefits to $300/hour and added special benefit top-ups for people found to have recently committed crime. If we are going to make the Police responsible for fleeing drivers then lets go the whole hog and make all of us responsible for the drivers of crime – nip it in the bud I say …. Tax the working people without any criminal history hard to fund the criminals who are not responsible for the poor outcomes they have had pursuing a life of crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    I’ve got a better idea Rex, let’s make sure that when the cops spot a car behaving illegally they STOP DEAD, no lights, nothing. That way the “illegal” vehicle is even less likely to speed off as they know that by just toodling along they’ll get away quite happily. And that is a lot safer, so surely you can agree with it.

    How about the police just phone people up they think might have committed a crime the day before and ask them not to do it again?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    scrubone

    That might work – but we will need to make sure WINZ offer land-line grants (or pre-paid top-ups) to anyone who identifies themselves as likely to be called by Police.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nookin (3,467 comments) says:

    “And this would help how Mr Farrar? What is the point if destroying the vehicle…..”
    I suppose it depends on whether the errant driver is still in the car at the time of destruction

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. lolitasbrother (749 comments) says:

    heres Mr Farrar on road chasing

    “What I’d back is far stronger penalties for those who fail to stop and flee, such as automatic destruction of their car.”
    And this would help how Mr Farrar? What is the point if destroying the vehicle. If you must what about selling the car.
    I agree with Espiner, road chasing is a proven failure. May be there is some call for the owner of car to know who is driving.
    But it would have to be a lesser charge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. lolitasbrother (749 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,686) Says:
    September 11th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
    “And this would help how Mr Farrar? What is the point if destroying the vehicle…..”
    I suppose it depends on whether the errant driver is still in the car at the time of destruction

    Nookin you are an example of how redneck this column has become.
    Many Nat supporters are aware of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. MT_Tinman (3,257 comments) says:

    Wrong Rex, and probably the silliest thing I’ve ever seen you type.

    The “T bone” incident was entirely the fault of the runner, they set the speed and route, not the police.

    I have no time for the police cowboys, their driving standards and consideration of road users is nothing short of disgraceful but I’d rather they pursued (and caught) idiot runners than let the scum do what they like, when they like with total immunity.

    The roads are far safer with pursuits than they would be without.

    Most of Espiner’s examples are nutters killing themselves, the Darwin principle working well for all of us.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. MT_Tinman (3,257 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,686) Says:
    September 11th, 2013 at 2:58 pm
    “And this would help how Mr Farrar? What is the point if destroying the vehicle…..”
    I suppose it depends on whether the errant driver is still in the car at the time of destruction

    And then only if they sell tickets.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    I agree with Espiner, road chasing is a proven failure.

    The current policy is better describe as “chase and give up if it continues”.

    That is most certainly a proven failure. Not chasing at all is beyond absurd – it comes close to declaring the end of policing.

    So we go back to the previous policy, where police chase until they catch. That way, people know that they’re better off just giving up since they’re unlikely to get away and they don’t run in the first place.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    3. Therefore unless risk of not pursuing > risk of pursuing, don’t pursue. And the only time the risk of not pursuing is greater is when the criminal has committed a violent crime in the immediate past (and that is why they are fleeing) and there is a danger that, if not caught, they will commit a further violent offences.

    That’s not the way risk assessment should work. For one thing, there’s usually no way of knowing whether the fleeing offender is a violent criminal or not.

    For another, the risk of not pursuing depends on what the offender was doing to draw attention in the first place – ie, if the cops are pulling Munter over for driving like a lunatic, the risk of not pursuing is that Munter continues to drive like a lunatic, so the public is endangered either way.

    Last but not least, the individual pursuit isn’t the only thing to take into account. A no-pursuit policy is, as DPF points out, a policy of making stopping for Police voluntary. From that, we could expect incidents of failing to stop to increase rapidly (ie, the Victoria experience quoted above). Worse, it would make offences like car theft, drunk driving, or driving an unsafe vehicle a lot more attractive, and we’d have to try and put a figure on how many people killed by the committers of those offences would not have been if there’d been a pursuits policy in place. Working out the cost-benefit of that wouldn’t be easy, but my money would be on more deaths resulting from a no-pursuit policy.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    What is the point if[sic] destroying the vehicle

    If it’s a stolen car, there is no point.

    However, if the car belongs to the driver, it means that the driver loses his car. If it’s his pride and joy (and many of these young fellows are quite attached to their cars) they have to factor in losing it when they decide to run.

    If it’s stolen, it can be stolen back. If it’s crushed, it’s gone.

    (I’m not saying this because I support the policy, rather because I can’t believe you can’t work out the logic.)

    Oh, and anyone who calls a blog a column has no business calling others rednecks.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @MT_Tinman (2,436) Says:

    The “T bone” incident was entirely the fault of the runner, they set the speed and route, not the police.

    The police were in active pursuit at the time. They came upon the mess seconds later. If I were pinching your car, with the intent of “rebirthing” it etc., I’d want to drive as sedately as possible, a few kms under the limit, stopping at signs and lights and generally not calling attention to myself. If your call to report it stolen resulted in the police racing up behind me with lights and sirens on then absolutely I bear responsibility for the decision to hit the accelerator rather than the brake, but so do they.

    If on the other hand I’ve stolen it because I’m as high as a kite and am driving it at breakneck speed the wrong way down the freeway (as happened here in WA not so long ago) then no one’s going to argue the risk of letting me continue outweighs the risk of stopping me. Ironically, the police handled that very well, putting cars in front of the idiot and tracking him with a helicopter rather than racing up behind him and making him go even faster. So if they recognise the risk of chasing the wrong way up a freeway, why is it any different on a suburban road? After all, crossing the centre line is even easier.

    @Ed Snack

    let’s make sure that when the cops spot a car behaving illegally they STOP DEAD, no lights, nothing

    Actually, yes. As people have pointed out above, once a pursuit starts it’s almost as dangerous to stop it. It’s going to take a long time for the crim to accept he’s no longer being chased, and in the meantime he’s going to be more focused on the road behind than ahead. Nice try at sarcasm though.

    @scrubone

    …they finally pulled the guy over and discovered the abducted woman in the boot.

    Yes, and my partner was just last week screwing the number plate back on to her clunker in a car park… someone saw her, assumed she’d nicked it and was changing plates, and nek minnit two cop cars screech into the car park. Presumably if they’d been a few minutes later they’d have chased after her with lights and sirens on when she was entirely innocent. Outlying events can and do occur. We need to do what’s safest for the greatest number of innocents, not legislate for exceptions.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Nookin (3,467 comments) says:

    lolitasbrother

    And you, lolitasbrother , are an example of somebody coming in making snap judgements. If you cannot appreciate some black humour then you are a sad case.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Presumably if they’d been a few minutes later they’d have chased after her with lights and sirens on when she was entirely innocent.

    Oddly enough, the cops have never had to chase me with lights and sirens on, because when they put the lights and sirens on I pull over. Is your partner some kind of desperado?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt (1,468) Says:

    For one thing, there’s usually no way of knowing whether the fleeing offender is a violent criminal or not.

    Police hardly chase people at random. They’re informed a car has been stolen, a bank robbed or whatever, and give chase. If they’re simply pulling someone over because their tail light is broken and the driver speeds off then I agree there’s no way of knowing whether that’s because the car is stolen or because there are a half dozen kidnapped orphans trussed up in the back seat.

    Some statistics on how many pursuits are as a result of a car being spotted that’s known to be stolen versus the latter scenario would be helpful, but I suspect the former outweighs the latter.

    What’s the difference between stealing your car and stealing your flat screen? Yet most burglars aren’t caught in the act, they’re caught later, by prints and DNA, or fencing the stolen property – just as car thieves can be, and frequently are.

    A partial answer is also harsh penalties for failing to stop. If I’m going to get, at worst, six months for stealing a car but know it’ll be a year with no parole for running (and unless I’ve been very careful not to leave my prints or DNA anywhere in the car… and how many car thieves are that smart?) I’m then motivated to stop.

    If on the other hand I have the orphans in the back seat and know I’m facing a life sentence I’m not going to care about the year that’ll be served concurrently.

    Thus harsh penalties for failing to stop actually help in determining the risk profile of the offender.

    if the cops are pulling Munter over for driving like a lunatic, the risk of not pursuing is that Munter continues to drive like a lunatic, so the public is endangered either way.

    I quite agree. I’d like them to make better use of helicopters, spikes etc but agree that the appropriate course when the drive is already driving dangerously is to do what needs to be done to stop them.

    A no-pursuit policy is, as DPF points out, a policy of making stopping for Police voluntary.

    I’d expect better logic from you, Milt, and from DPF. When the burglar is arrested and asked by police whether or not he did it, he can opt to lie through his teeth. We’ve made “admitting guilt to the police” voluntary… but if it’s then reported to the judge at sentencing that the offender lied, he’s given no credit for an early admission (some jurisdictions even legislate to ensure judges give a “discount” for an early guilty plea).

    Lots of things in the sequence of police solving a crime are voluntary at the time, but have consequences later. Failing to stop can be one of them.

    edit: Don’t police switch on lights and sirens when they want you to pull over, before they’ve ascertained whether you’ll do so if they merely signal you to? They always have done to me. Perhaps I too am a desperado… certainly some in the Police force seem to think so :-/

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Oops, sorry Psycho Milt I see I’ve caused some confusion in imprecisely describing the scenario.

    I meant they’d have sped with their lights and sirens on across the distance between the carpark and wherever she’d got to when they came up behind her, endangering other road users, all over a clunky old Hyundai Excel that she owned in any case. Not that she’d have sped off when they caught up. Mind you, if they’d come upon her when she needed her entire concentration, such as crossing an intersection, then the distraction might have been enough to cause her to have an accident.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. scrubone (3,105 comments) says:

    I meant they’d have sped with their lights and sirens on across the distance between the carpark and wherever she’d got to when they came up behind her, endangering other road users, all over a clunky old Hyundai Excel that she owned in any case

    Uh, why?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @scrubone: See above. Someone saw her making sure her plates weren’t about to fall off, assumed she was switching plates on a stolen vehicle, and called the cops. She ended up spending some time in a police station while they sorted it out… even when the computer told them she owned the car they wanted to know why she’d been “changing the plates” :-/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. burt (8,316 comments) says:

    Rex

    Perhaps she was actually changing to put on a “LABOUR” plate on so police would just say it’s not in the public interest to pursue her.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. wreck1080 (3,966 comments) says:

    I hope they do this — then i can speed around willy nilly. If a cop tries to pull me over, I’ll just go really fast and they are no allowed to keep up.

    Then i can just say later that i was not driving .

    Woohoo. Consequence free crime. Bought to you by Colin Espiner.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Sorry, I read it carelessly and thought “chase her,” not “chase after her.”

    I’d expect better logic from you, Milt, and from DPF. When the burglar is arrested and asked by police whether or not he did it, he can opt to lie through his teeth. We’ve made “admitting guilt to the police” voluntary…

    The logic is that when the cops catch the burglar exiting the premises carrying the stolen goods, they don’t ask him to stop and then give up in dismay when he makes a run for it. Instead, Mr breaker-and-enterer gets chased down and carted off to the nick, where they can take their sweet time thinking up all the different things they might charge him with. Things like drunk driving, joyriding in a stolen car or driving an unsafe vehicle are offences that police only have a chance of holding you accountable for if they stop you while you’re doing it – if they can’t stop you while you’re doing it, how is that not an incentive to indulge?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. big bruv (14,156 comments) says:

    Seems like another good to give all cops guns. Instead of chasing the cops in cars and hoping that the scum crash into a tree or a bridge and kill themselves the cops could save a lot of time and effort and just shoot the bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Psycho Milt

    The logic is that when the cops catch the burglar exiting the premises carrying the stolen goods, they don’t ask him to stop and then give up in dismay when he makes a run for it. Instead, Mr breaker-and-enterer gets chased down and carted off to the nick

    That’s not an equivalent analogy. There is no danger to the public in a foot chase.

    Things like drunk driving, joyriding in a stolen car or driving an unsafe vehicle are offences that police only have a chance of holding you accountable for if they stop you while you’re doing it

    Which is precisely why I say I agree with you that if someone’s driving is already dangerous then the scales tilt in favour of stopping them, though I’d hope police would do their best to get ahead of them and use blocking methods. Things like the “PIT” manoeuvre might be great on US freeways where there’s a barrier for the fleeing vehicle to bounce off of, but not so great on a busy road in suburban NZ, so they really need to get in front of it anyway.

    The people I am talking about not pursuing are those driving normally in a stolen car, or in their own car with stolen goods, or anything else in the way of a non-violent, property-based offence. There’s nothing to stop police following them, and radioing ahead so they’re pounced on when they stop at home, the hock shop, the gas station, the pub etc.

    Perhaps we could catch more thieves in such a way if we had more police vehicles on the road. I’d suggest a zero-cost option would to deploy all those which spend most of their time sitting parked in the bushes babysitting a speed camera onto real police work, patrolling our streets and catching not only the real hoons, but also a few more burglars, car thieves etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    The ”scum” could be your bro , bro..
    At last someone is speaking sense..Awhile back a young man and his car were wrapped around tree in AK for going 10ks over..On one CHCH road I am on five days a week almost every car goes at least 10 ks or 15 ks over . On another main road in South CHCh I am on less frequently , almost all the cars go about 30 /40 over the limit..When I am trying to slow down to go 50 , some codge is usually giving a fair attempt at going 120 behind me..Do all these blessed souls deserve to be wrapped around the nearest tree?? Think of the costs , hospital , ACC etc..Why do 4/5 cop cars have to join in the chase? Again a huge waste of OP money.
    As far as I know other countries do not have this many fatalities? What are they doing differently? Do they have higher entry age for their forces?like 25??

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Duxton (657 comments) says:

    Dear Mr Tui Man

    Herewith, for your consideration, is my entry for your next Tui board:

    “I really could give a flying fuck about Colin Espiner’s opinion about anything.”

    Please send my year’s supply of beer to the usual place.

    Yours, etc…..

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. OneTrack (3,229 comments) says:

    “What are they doing differently?”

    They don’t tell the crims that if they drive crazy, the police “have” to let them go. And the faster/crazier they drive, the quicker the police will give up. And if anything goes wrong, it is the polices fault.

    And then we have wailing and screeching as why we have so many accidents from crooks speeding away from police. It seems simple cause and effect to me – the country has told them that if they speed away they will not be apprehended. So they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    Awhile back a young man and his car were wrapped around tree in AK for going 10ks over..

    I think we can say with a high degree of confidence that your car doesn’t get “wrapped around a tree” if you hit said tree at 60 kph.

    That’s not an equivalent analogy. There is no danger to the public in a foot chase.

    And if a burglar running did somehow endanger the public, what would we expect of the Police? That they sit back and watch, or that they take some measures to end the endangering activity?

    The people I am talking about not pursuing are those driving normally in a stolen car, or in their own car with stolen goods, or anything else in the way of a non-violent, property-based offence. There’s nothing to stop police following them, and radioing ahead so they’re pounced on when they stop at home, the hock shop, the gas station, the pub etc.

    I suspect you’re seriously over-estimating the cops’ ability to estimate the location and destination of a vehicle they’ve lost sight of (unless you’re picturing the offender not caring whether cops are keeping him in sight).

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Elaycee (4,410 comments) says:

    What are they doing differently

    Probably taking Police pursuits of morons more seriously than some commenters here would want!

    For example, in Dubai the Police have recently added some serious vehicles to their fleet – including the latest Lamborghini and even a Bugatti Veyron. No chance of outrunning the Police there!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/photos/8696954/Bugatti-Veyron-latest-Dubai-police-car

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    MIlt..When the police started the pursuit , the guy was ten over. You are now keeping him ….probably for some years to come.. How many of you people have ever worked in hospitals or gone to the funerals of young people?? I am betting that quite some time ago , some of you were young and foolish..perhaps you were foolish on a motor bike? Perhaps you are sitting there footless as a result..Way back in your day , young men did not have such easy access to cars…
    All I am asking for is more solutions and less labelling of young people as morons..If you really go back and be honest with yourself, you were probably a moron at least once..Go on admit it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Longknives (4,884 comments) says:

    Joana- Anybody who speeds away from the Police when lawfully asked to stop IS a fucking moron. They are gravely endangering the lives of any innocent person (maybe even you and your loved ones) who may be using or crossing that road.
    I actually hope more of these Criminal morons wrap themselves around trees..makes the roads safer for me and my family.

    It absolutely fucking astounds me that the ‘hug a crim’ brigade want to give Murderers/Rapists/Home Invaders a free pass to speed away from the scene of a crime (in a stolen car that they will soon set on fire and thus never be traced)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Psycho Milt (2,419 comments) says:

    When the police started the pursuit , the guy was ten over.

    So, he didn’t get wrapped round a tree for being 10 over the limit, he got wrapped round a tree for flooring the accelerator and driving ridiculously too fast on suburban streets. There’s nothing particularly complicated about it – he went in for the kind of foolishness that tends to end badly, and it ended badly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Nostalgia-NZ (5,281 comments) says:

    joana

    ‘All I am asking for is more solutions and less labelling of young people as morons..If you really go back and be honest with yourself, you were probably a moron at least once..Go on admit it.’

    Yes we wouldn’t want any statistics as to ‘who’ the ‘fleeing’ driver is and what their ultimate danger to the public might be, we need to be hysterical and ‘manly.’ I like the images invoked, the emotive language – but it remains a rapist is caught by dna samples not by chasing drunk or hyped up teenagers when their ‘driver’ panics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    Anybody who speeds away from the Police when lawfully asked to stop IS a fucking moron.

    Before you start painting people as morons you should consider that the corrupt nature of NZ’s judicial system supports the police policy of not recognizing the natural rights of road users. Obviously the police cannot demand that someone cease from exercising a right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote