Cop loses job for giving small fines

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Yeah, yeah, if I question the law or government or dont follow it to the letter then I am selfish and ignorant. Lets all play together nicely and follow our perfect government who knows whats best. How dare we scrutinise and critique laws which affect our and our childrens' lives - what a pathetic attitude to have.

I know of some people in Germany who didnt follow the government in the 40s, were they selfish or ignorant..?

People who stand up for their rights and what they believe in truly undertand and appreciate how fortunate they are to live in democracy, they are not ignorant or selfish troublemakers.

Here. here, brother. I feel like putting on my old flares, platform shoes, paisley shirt and marching in the streets against "the man". The devolution has to stop, it's time we regained what we have lost over the last 30 years, or those tie dyed Tshirts would have died in vain.

[just_pazz]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Yeah, yeah, if I question the law or government or dont follow it to the letter then I am selfish and ignorant. Lets all play together nicely and follow our perfect government who knows whats best. How dare we scrutinise and critique laws which affect our and our childrens' lives - what a pathetic attitude to have.

I know of some people in Germany who didnt follow the government in the 40s, were they selfish or ignorant..?

People who stand up for their rights and what they believe in truly undertand and appreciate how fortunate they are to live in democracy, they are not ignorant or selfish troublemakers.

Best post I've read yet in this thread....

[joolz]

Originally Posted by outback_ute

I think the bold bit is where he went wrong - if he reduced the motorists speed that is what police are entitled to do as per their discretion. I must say it is a pretty heavy penalty however.

I dont think they can reduce the speed detected as the readings are recorded.

[MO]

Originally Posted by joolz

I dont think they can reduce the speed detected as the readings are recorded.

Depends on whether it was off his car speedo or a detector.

[SB076]

Originally Posted by joolz

I dont think they can reduce the speed detected as the readings are recorded.

Good point and if he was using a detector (and the recordings are recorded) how can he show discretion? Only reason I ask is that on the news someone stated (forget who) that they encourage police officers to use their discretion, however in this instance the officer had provided falsified information. Makes you wonder how they could use discretion if the recordings are recorded and the zones are known technically they cant use any discretion.

Driving used to be so much more enjoyable, you used to be able to occasionally go a little over the limit without having to worry about getting a fine or having a photo taken. These days it seems the worse thing you could do on our roads is drive at 5 - 10k's over the limit.

[Keepleft]

Brazen,

Sympathy - but tell that to friggen Turnbull.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Yellow Fire

I'm only going off what the media report said.

Problem is you only read what the OP posted, in another report I have read it also stated that of the 500 odd tickets issued that only 2 or maybe 3 of those people have re offended.

This is what the discretionary law is about, if you show people that you can be their "friend" then they might just respect you more for it and actually do as they have asked by the local government issued speed limits.

Also to your earlier post about discretion and falsifying data, officers are actually allowed to, as has been noted by another poster, lower the alleged speed. That is part of their discretionary power, so how then is this any different, sure he should have lowered the detected speed rather than raise the speed limit but how about you explain to me and everyone else here what the difference is.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by BOSHOG

i dont think he got sacked for using discretion, he got sacked for raising the legal speed limit on his tickets, theres a big difference.

its fraud, and he left a pretty good paper trail

as myself others have said, there is a better way, just write down a slower speed for the driver as has happened for me

Again can you please explain how one is any different to the other??

Is one of a lesser fraudulent nature??

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Yellow Fire

This is exactly my point. Your punishment depends on the cop not the law.

Sorry dude but you've just contradicted your earlier statement about the copper being wrong in his way of dealing with the fines.

Could people please take a stance and stop jumping the fence.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Sorry dude but you've just contradicted your earlier statement about the copper being wrong in his way of dealing with the fines.

Could people please take a stance and stop jumping the fence.

i already told him this, he's not a very good listener.

[Yellow Fire]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Sorry dude but you've just contradicted your earlier statement about the copper being wrong in his way of dealing with the fines.

Could people please take a stance and stop jumping the fence.

LOL.

You're late to the conversation mate. You can keep quoting my one off posts until you get the main one. You might get it by then, but if not thats cool too

[XRQTR]

Ye I was posting as I was reading along, I tend to forget so need to say or post as things come to me LOL, mildly ADHD haha, kinda mild, I think, hmmm why is that bird looking at me through the window.

He was good for a laugh though, his sarcasm failed, and if you need to explain it then you really need to work on it LOL

Folks just for future reference the emoticons are a great tool when trying to convey sarcasm on a forum, this one goes out to you Yellow, love songs and dedications with Kacey Kaysem, AAAmerican Top 40eeeeeee

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by XRQTR

this one goes out to you Yellow, love songs and dedications with Kacey Kaysem, AAAmerican Top 40eeeeeee

haha

Originally Posted by XRQTR

mildly ADHD

i think so!

anyway, back on topic, enough fun at yellow fires expense(although we did coin a new terminology, the "yellow fire" rule.)

i think "questioning" current laws and their fairness is something we, as citizens, have a right to do. we are the country, not the government. the governing of certain laws also should come under scrutiny. i am being broad here; it could be anything. the right to question things like the alcopop tax increase, a badly veiled attempt to quell the "teen drinking epidemic". the locations of speed cameras(fixed) in areas with few to nil accidents or fatalities....am i getting a point across? it is our right as citizens to do this, but, unfortunatly, it can be hard to rally the numbers. the SA motorplex meeting(yes, i was there my voice was heard!) was a good turnout. a few hundred showing up to support drag racing in a state where they are spit on(just about) is better than 5 people showing up..

[Yellow Fire]

I was pointing out that the cops are the victims of stupid road rules as much as motorists. Officers are using their discretion to protect motorists from stupid laws when they shouldn't have to.

This poor officer has had his name dragged through the mud while the government responsible for the laws sits back without criticism. If the local cop thought the limit should be 70 not 60 then just maybe he was right.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by Yellow Fire

I was pointing out that the cops are the victims of stupid road rules as much as motorists. Officers are using their discretion to protect motorists from stupid laws when they shouldn't have to.

This poor officer has had his name dragged through the mud while the government responsible for the laws sits back without criticism. If the local cop thought the limit should be 70 not 60 then just maybe he was right.

a few things; if you dont like the speed limits, go out and do something about it.
the police officer didn't use discretion to protect the motorist from a stupid law, he just lied on the ticket. discretion can only be used to determine initial punishment, not to alter the crime to reduce the punishment.

the government, really, hasn't done anything wrong(in this situation; sure, the speed limits in some areas might be ludicrous-this is not the topic at hand, the police officers actions are, and as such that's the point of my reply) the local cop thinks the limit should be 70 not 60? thats great but the limit is still, legally, 60, so until it changes the police officer broke the law.

[Yellow Fire]

Originally Posted by 76txcoupe

a few things; if you dont like the speed limits, go out and do something about it.
the police officer didn't use discretion to protect the motorist from a stupid law, he just lied on the ticket. discretion can only be used to determine initial punishment, not to alter the crime to reduce the punishment.

the government, really, hasn't done anything wrong(in this situation; sure, the speed limits in some areas might be ludicrous-this is not the topic at hand, the police officers actions are, and as such that's the point of my reply) the local cop thinks the limit should be 70 not 60? thats great but the limit is still, legally, 60, so until it changes the police officer broke the law.

I know he broke the law. He was wrong 100% in his actions. I am more interested in his motivation for doing so. Did he do it just for a laugh or did he do it because he thought that booking people for those speeds was unfair? If he did it for a laugh then lets throw the book at him. If he did it because people travelling at those speeds were not in any danger and booking them at the higher speed would be unfair then the law makers should have some explaining to do as to why the limit was too low.

In the wider context of "discretion" that we have already been through (see the dirty number plate topic : ) it could be argued that police are letting drivers off for minor offenses because they themselves think the laws may be unfair or incorrect. If this is true, then why not just have the discretion built into the law so guys like this cop have no motivation to break it.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by 76txcoupe

i think "questioning" current laws and their fairness is something we, as citizens, have a right to do. ..

This is the saddest thing that has come out of "democracy" your right to disobey has been slowly eroded, as a democratic state/country you have the right to disagree and also the right to gather in numbers to show strength in your argument.

Recently removed, as good as, with the introduction of "Anti Bikey Laws".

That's just one, democracy is dieing a slow and painful death, and all we can do is sit and watch.

[MO]

Seeing as this topic has taken a turn to democracy perhaps you all should read the thread...Church of climatology.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by 76txcoupe

the local cop thinks the limit should be 70 not 60? thats great but the limit is still, legally, 60, so until it changes the police officer broke the law.

Ok, but can the government and police command show us statistics please of the officers who fine people at the actual speed in the correct zone and show what percentage of them re offend??

Doubt it : and they wouldn't because it would most certainly go to strengthen his argument that he did the right thing with regard to "educating" drivers, which is essentially the biggest single detail lost in this entire argument.

This guy had a 99.4% success rate (yes I worked it out : ) what is the average success rate of the officers who fine correctly??

Vicpol seem to go on ad nauseum about trying to "educate drivers" well this guys strategy is working, well for the public but not for the Vic government, and that my friend is where the problem lies. When revenue is lost then it's not working, not how it's meant to by their reckoning anyway.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by MO

Seeing as this topic has taken a turn to democracy perhaps you all should read the thread...Church of climatology.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by Yellow Fire

I know he broke the law. He was wrong 100% in his actions. I am more interested in his motivation for doing so. Did he do it just for a laugh or did he do it because he thought that booking people for those speeds was unfair? If he did it for a laugh then lets throw the book at him. If he did it because people travelling at those speeds were not in any danger and booking them at the higher speed would be unfair then the law makers should have some explaining to do as to why the limit was too low.

In the wider context of "discretion" that we have already been through (see the dirty number plate topic : ) it could be argued that police are letting drivers off for minor offenses because they themselves think the laws may be unfair or incorrect. If this is true, then why not just have the discretion built into the law so guys like this cop have no motivation to break it.

everything you have said is pretty much just you saying "then why this" and "why that". you ask why he did what he did....how on earth would i know?? go and ask him for yourself. he booked those people speeding, yet for some reason he didn't use his discretion and decide to just issue a caution. go figure. the law makers have no explaining to do....because whose going to make them. that police officer raised set speed limits, for some reason known only to himself, and got found out. you're trying to speculate as to why. no worries, but no matter how much you bleat about it, it won't change the fact that we don't know.

[Iggypoppin']

Originally Posted by XRQTR

Vicpol seem to go on ad nauseum about trying to "educate drivers" well this guys strategy is working, well for the public but not for the Vic government, and that my friend is where the problem lies. When revenue is lost then it's not working, not how it's meant to by their reckoning anyway.

too true...how can this be, when a policeman breaks a law, drivers drive safer...and he gets fired :

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by Brazen

Yeah, yeah, if I question the law or government or dont follow it to the letter then I am selfish and ignorant. Lets all play together nicely and follow our perfect government who knows whats best. How dare we scrutinise and critique laws which affect our and our childrens' lives - what a pathetic attitude to have.

I know of some people in Germany who didnt follow the government in the 40s, were they selfish or ignorant..?

People who stand up for their rights and what they believe in truly undertand and appreciate how fortunate they are to live in democracy, they are not ignorant or selfish troublemakers.

Well, in general (and I do mean in the overall scheme of things) terms...yes...

But, you may have misunderstood the point of my post; I'm not talking about people who have a genuine beef to be heard against the 'tide of oppression' regarding rights to vote, land rights for gay whales, or genuine idiocy from beureaucratic incompetence (steady Flappist)...or people against the local roundabout, or the new speed sign, or the new $2.20 bastard tax when you pay at the post office, or the right to defend yourself from genocide or invasion from a hostile agressor...or whatever may be the case...you seem to be reading too much into what I had posted, I'm talking about common decency and courtesy.

The point I was trying to make is that there actually are, believe it or not; people that live in our society that just don't care about the safety, comfort, property and consideration of others. regardless of how politically motivated or singleminded they are.

Secondly, and most importantly and I am guessing the reason you got so upset before your post is that I am not defending what this guy did: he did the wrong thing in the fact that he lied and falsified documents. There may very well be a genuine case for the speed zones being incorrectly marked or whatever but there are other more constructive and more intelligent ways of demonstrating this or getting them changed or revoked.

[Mainlube]

A copper humanly passionate about is job (even though his method was a little miss guided)

Makes a change from a coppers that are revenue passionate about their job.

We can't have this, might be catching, quick, sack him be fore he infects the others.

Not as if his miss guided methods didn't work, 500 tickets and only a few re-offending. Wounder what the meanies statistics are?

( then again, if all coppers had those statistics maybe half would be out of a job, they need more re-offenders )

Maybe they should take a better look at what he was doing rather than throwing him out.

(not saying he was right, just a point)

Cheers

Steve

[OLDFORDNUT]

Originally Posted by flappist

So as soon as it is noticed that your car has been modded it should be put off the road until it can be confirmed to comply with all ADRs.

And if your modded car is found not to comply or is not roadworthy even by the smallest margin like dirty windscreen or lights or maybe 1db too loud or whatever it should be confiscated and towed at your expense.

EVERY TIME you are random breath tested or licensed checked.

Well that is the law..........

great post.
Do Gooders are the reason our country is almost a Police State that we all feared 20 years ago.
A Fair and reasonable copper gone and all other cops scared into submission.
do gooders beware what you wish for and try forcing down others throats, you will regret it when it effects you later at some time.

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

do gooders beware what you wish for and try forcing down others throats, you will regret it when it effects you later at some time.

Correct, there needs to be a ballance maintained.

[prydey]

it seems to me that the chief of police slightly contradicts himself. apparently cops are allowed to use their own discretion but they are not allowed to change the speed of the infringement due to it being recorded on the instrument, and they are not allowed to change the speed zone as that is falsifying documents.

begs the question, what discretion are they allowed to show?? to me it seems like the only discretion is to either book you, or let you go with a warning.

i've been a good boy now for the past 15yrs but before that, i'd had my share of run ins with the police and not all of them resulted in fines. surely it would be better for the force to allow some middle ground as well. at least then there is still revenue coming in. you can bet your life that going back a few years, the sort of discretionary methods used by the cop in question would have been used all the time.