Our resident albeit retired Police officer fellow OLOer o sung wu always contributes sober views & analyses.
Are many other serving officers of similar caliber ? I have recently had dealings with so-called Police Officers who turned out to be mere coppers. They are so utterly inflexible in both handing out fines & judgement. Like waiting a hundred metres up the road from the Pub & bailing up workers who happen to be .5 or just over whilst the teenage louts are heard screaming & yelling & generally carrying on like rock apes another 100 metres further down the road. Now think a little further for just a moment. If one such driver leaving the Pub happens to be right under the weather & sees the Police car he might just lose his nerve & take off & a high speed chase could ensue, endangering others. Why not stand in the car park & bail up those too inebriated to drive BEFORE they get in the car. By all means hit them with a small fine instead of ruining many others' lives because they'll lose their licence & ability to work. I don't know about your mentality but mine tells me that a scare like a reasonable fine at first would make a bloke think twice next time. A full on severe hit all at once will only make a driver very resentful of the Police just because some moron copper can't think & just wants to impress his seniors by getting as many heavy fines as possible. In my way of thinking these cops cause more long-lasting damage than the drunk driver. A drunk driver being stopped up front will be a sober grateful driver. A drunk driver losing his license & getting a hefty fine will always be an angry & resentful driver & dangerous driver. All because of some moron that has to let his superiors do the thinking back in an air conditioned station.
Whatever happened to warnings at the first mistake ? If it is an offence then yes by all means impose a fine.

I am not surprised by your take on drink driving offences Individual.

At the end of the day, any drunk person driving away from the local pub is just as bad as any 'teenage lout' drink driving and misbehaving down the road.

They are all breaking the law.
And they can all cause accidents that can maim or kill innocent people, as well as themselves.

I hope the police continue to throw the book at ANYONE that drink-drives...

I hope the police continue to throw the book at ANYONE that drink-drives...
Suseonline,
Of course. As I said if an offence is committed then yes go & cop what's deserved. My point was that Police should be there to prevent people from driving drunk & not let them drive so they can book them. An offence is when people still do what they have been warned they should not do. If a Police officer sees an inebriated person get into a car he should stop them right there & read him the riot act. I guarantee that 99% of drivers would not continue. It's the Police officer who knowingly let's them drive. In my book that's entrapment & according to our Law entrapment is in itself an offence.
Don't forget a seasoned beer drinking worker is still sober after 5 drinks whilst your everyday PC brigade member is blotto after two. The word discrimination springs to mind there.

No Individual, ANY bloke who consumes 5 full strength drinks of alcohol in a short time will be over the limit, whether they 'look drunk' or not.

A drunk working class man is just as bad as a drunk 'PC member' ..... whatever that means.

I certainly wouldn't be extolling the virtues of being able to 'hold his drink'.
Those sort of guys are the ones who are more liable to die young from liver failure.

Dear individual,

Part of me has sympathy for the point you are making but in the end I think it is about personal responsibility. Essentially you are attempting to shift the responsibility of the inebriated not to get behind the wheel to the police and I don't think that is either fair or realistic.

I remember being on a road trip about 10 years ago with some mates and we hit a small one pub hamlet in SA. Having done some serious miles we got straight into it, fell in with some locals and ended up having a top night. One bloke became a little belligerent as the evening wore on but it happens to us all on occasion so we just rolled with it. Come stumps he staggered past us and pulled his keys out of his pocket and headed out the door. I was concerned enough to follow him out in time to see him climb into his car and start it up. I remember calling out to him and asking him where he lived. It was about 50 kms up the road. I walked over, reached in turned the engine off and took the keys out.

To cut a long story short it took about an hour before things settled down but not before he got sat on his backside more than once and his threats about hot-wiring his car were dealt with by the promise I would drop into the nearest station to report him if he did.

Cont...

cont...

The next morning I handed him his keys back and he shook my hand, apologising for being an idiot. So why did I do it? Why put myself through an hour of aggravation at 2 in the morning when all I really wanted to do is hit the sack? Well it wasn't out of any concern for him rather it was purely selfish reasons, I did not want to read the next morning that this bloke had wiped out a family driving home. If that had happened and I had foregone the chance to stop it then it would have killed me.

I'm guessing that might be the same thing that would haunt any policeman being asked to let some bloke who is just a bit over the limit to drive away, much more so in fact because most experienced officers have seen their fair share of fatal accidents.

Have I ever in my many years driven when I shouldn't have? Of course, just as most of us probably have, but if I had been caught I hope I would have copped it sweet. Anyone who goes over the limit does it on their own volition. They are adults and ultimately responsible for their actions, end of story.

more liable to die young from liver failure.
Suseonline,
that's fine by me, as long as they're not hurting an innocent family like a drunk driver would after the coppers let him get into the car so they could get a fine out of him.

shift the responsibility of the inebriated not to get behind the wheel to the police.
csteele,
I don't think it is unfair considering that many criminals get off by claiming to have been under the influence of whatever as in temporary insanity.
If a drunk is not considered to be temporarily insane then should he not be considered as able/capable ? Anyhow, my argument is with Coppers posing as Police & entrapping someone under the influence by watching them get into a vehicle to catch them. It is my view that in such a case the Copper is more guilty than the drunk.

It seems to me Indi that drink-driving is one thing that the police deal with pretty well… at least compared to many other aspects of road safety.

I have expressed some concern on OLO, that as a prolific driver in all states in the country over the last few years, I have only very rarely been random breath tested. Hence it all seems to me like a more of a token effort than a realistic attempt to deal with the problem of drink-driving.

However, there are numerous other aspects which are at least as important which just get NO attention from the police.

The biggest one which again I have mentioned numerous times on this forum is the disempowerment of the public to do their bit.

We see signs imploring us to report litterers, or suspicious vehicles and people as part of neighbourhood watch. But when it comes to reporting tailgaters, speeders or drivers who are demonstrating risky driving practices, well just forget it. The cops don’t want to know!

It is crazy. The result of this absurdity is that we have the very thin blue line out there on the roads, and only they can deal with these sorts of offences, if they witness them, and then feel inclined to act. Whereas if every driver was a potential police officer by way of being enabled to make complaints and have them treated seriously, then I would think road safety would improve markedly and very quickly.

We badly need this sort of community policing. It would help greatly with many aspects of road safety, including drink-driving.

Not all cops are good people.
I am convinced o sung wo would agree.
Some wear the uniform like a vandal.
But we can not pay the true value a good cop is worth.
Individual, you throw stones from a glass house.
To find ten cops who think as you often do would be impossible.
It is impossible to please every one, and even harder to do so with some
Mentality?
For a very long time YOU challenge my mentality and just about every ones, including, and we have swapped barbs over it, all Australians.
I am unable to find merit in your use of the word.
But just as your opinion of o sung wo is good because you have spoken here with him, try being friendly with any cop, few will not be just average blokes/women in a job bringing dislike.

The academic component on these threads thinks I am condoning driving under the influence. Get into your head I AM NOT! What I am getting at is the fact that Coppers aren't doing their job at PREVENTION but resort to ENTRAPMENT. I can't make any clearer. What is the story with three strikes & you're out ? Why aren't first-time caught given a stern warning in that case ? Why the hit straight away ? I drove away from a store in a 200 soul village in 2nd gear on a dirt road to drive to the pub 200 metres away. I had forgotten to grab my seat belt & the copper whacked me for $125.00. I saw in the rear vision mirror that he bailed up a young indigenous chap too. When I got to the Pub the young indigenous chap arrived also & I said to him "He got you too eh ? The chap said yeah, he told me to wear a seat belt in future. When I asked how much his fine was he said "No fine, just a warning ".
My point for those who still don't get it is, why aren't people getting a warning at the first offence which in most cases is not an offence at all just a mere mistake.
I think it really is simply revenue based. That's why cops don't bother chasing up on break-ins because there's no revenue.

"I had forgotten to grab my seat belt & the copper whacked me for $125.00."
Individual, what is the point, you broke the law and you paid the penalty. If the police had let the next 10 people off for the same offense, it might not be fair but in no way does it diminish your criminality. Go to court and try and use "the real criminals are getting away with it, why pick on me" defense and see where it gets you, answer, nowhere. That is the way the system operates.

Indi, I can’t really appreciate this as an example of entrapment.

Here’s what I would call entrapment:

The police allow the general public to get into a certain practice of driving, such as getting away with doing 10kmh over the speed limit and only getting booked if you are doing 11 or more over, and then change the policing regime and booking people for doing five or more over, without any warning.

This sort of thing is absolutely accentuated in roadworks zones, where general behaviour has been allowed to get completely out of whack with the temporary speed limits signs. The signs are treated as only a crude indication to slow down somewhat, especially in the lead-up and outgoing parts of the slow zone, outside of the actual work area!

It is now very possible for a driver to be both booked for doing more than 20kmh over the temporary slow limit, AND have a line of traffic concertinaed up behind him/her, showing gross impatience because he is driving far too slowly for their liking!!

I HATE roadworks because of this schizoid situation I am so often placed in, between wanting to get my speed down to something close to the temporary slow speed limit, while copping tailgating and belligerent driving going on behind me… and very often being angry overtaking in the roadworks zone!

The safest thing to do is to roll with the flow. But this very often means infringing the law and putting yourself into the bookable zone!

We absolutely need to know what the REAL speed limit is in all cases, instead of the police simply saying that there is a little bit of leeway while never defining just what it is!

Entrapment is when you have a good driver who is very conscious of driving as safely as possible and as harmoniously as possible with other road-users. But has to infringe the UNDEFINED speed law or the normally UNPOLICED speed limit (as per roadworks) in order to do so, and then gets booked for their GOOD DRIVING!

Give up individual, you're wasting your time. It does get worse with this stupidity.

When my son was last home, a couple of his old school mates had a party for him. They planned to have a few drinks, so most stayed the night.

However, one was there, a stripling, on a small & weedy beast, [opps sorry wrong story]. He was a tradie, in his ute, with tools, to go to a job in the morning. Due to this he stopped at 10 PM.

Now this bloke has a poor sense of direction, he gets lost a lot. He can get on the expressway, going in the wrong direction, & go 50Km before realising it. To overcome this, they took him, & his ute to the nearest expressway entrance, parked him in the nearest legal parking spot, where he could not get it wrong in the morning, & he went to sleep.

He was going to head off at 6.00 AM, but the cops woke him at 1.30AM, breathalysed him at 0.056, & booked him as a drunk driver. They carted him off to a cop station 25Km away, & held him over night, leaving his ute, & tools where they were.

6.00 AM he managed to raise my son, who went & got him, returning to his ute, luckily still there.

For sleeping in his car he was fined $400 & lost his licence for 4 months. He is now probably driving unlicensed, that or loose his house, like so many others.

Paul if you respect these fool laws, so badly enforced, you're an idiot. You wouldn't be a control freak bureaucrat would you?

Luddy old mate, we nearly agree.

Fortunately I don't drink, so don't have a personal problem with that one, but your idea could be good.

By that reasoning, all those brought up with the original 0.08 alcohol limit, should be able to to continue to drive by that law. Johny come lately types could live by the 0.05

Better still, all us old blokes, brought up with the old, "60 miles/hour, or any speed you deem safe" speed limits, should still be driving by that one. Obviously if we could drive 1950s cars, on 1950s roads at 100 MILES per hour, we must be as safe as houses at similar speeds in modern cars on modern roads.

Perhaps for Paul we could have "advanced driver" tattooed in green on our foreheads, just so he could easily recognise we superior beings.

"Paul if you respect these fool laws, so badly enforced, you're an idiot."
Hasbeen. The only idiot here is you. Typical type who wants the full force of the law applied to others when it comes to that, what you perceive as wrong, but when it comes to you and/or your mates braking what you term 'fool laws' like drink driving its a different matter.
The mate story:
"He can get on the expressway, going in the wrong direction," Entered through the off ramp instead of the on ramp, driving his 1956 Holden ute. Not his fault he only had 6 tinnes for morning tea, besides he's old school with a "poor sense of direction" besides no alcohol limit applies to old blokes, because such laws are for fools only, "He is now probably driving unlicensed" no problem is it just another fool law.
"For sleeping in his car he was fined $400 & lost his licence for 4 months." Gee, that is a stiff penalty for as you put it breaking the "sleeping in his car" law, 0.056, $400 and 4 months come off it Hasbeen, tell us about his previous!

Yes a total idiot, just as I thought.

Indy, coppers are coppers what can you do. Re the .05 in NSW, it was .08 when first instituted. I believe it should go back to .08, that would cut out most low range PCA's which are shams. You don’t find people on .05 or .08 swerving all over the road, they are still in control.

You don’t find people on .05 or .08 swerving all over the road, they are still in control.
sonofgloin,
my point exactly. Just because the Paul1405's are one pot screamers the rest of us gets thrown into the same basket. I recall on Cape York when we had pot-holed roads from ar$ehole to breakfast & we did pub crawls with five people in the back of the ute plus an esky for the road. In twenty years of my being there I can't recall a single accident with the drivers being a minimum of .5. Then, when we had to have all these good roads & of course we also had to have better cars as well, the accidents started. Now the so-called better conditions were forced upon us by southern short-term career public servants who were worried about their Toorak tractors losing resale value. Well, most of them have gone again but we are stuck with all these idiotic academic regulations. Did you know that if you want to get a few cartons of beer because you're camped 30 miles down the coast you have to make one trip per carton. You cop a hefty fine if you get caught with more than one carton in your car even if you just want to top up your supplies on a boat. I suppose if you pay Carbon Tax then the extra travelling brings even more revenue.
Yes the Law must be obeyed but when the Law is ludicrous the average copper can't distinguish between Law & some sense & unfortunately we have a real shortage of Police up in the Bush.

Try helping police put body parts in a plastic bag at 3 am.
Or watching a police officer leave yet another fatal site, with one of your workmates .
To help in breaking the news to a past workmate his wife mother of two is dead.
No one ever has the right to drink and drive.

It appears Paul has not noticed that there are on ramps to go south, & on ramps to go north, at most express way entrance points. I suppose it is a bit much to understand this.

It is also a fact, although my son & his mates didn't know this, you are still charged with drink driving, [or drunk in charge of a motor vehicle I think was his charge] if you are sleeping in your vehicle, over the .05, & have the keys in your position. With this sort of stupidity, is it any wonder people stop trying to do the right thing, & sober up before driving.

Just for you Paul, I once got a call from this bloke, asking me where the PA hospital was. He had dropped someone at Beenleigh railway station, then was heading for an appointment at Tweed Heads. He was by then, only about 130Km in the wrong direction.

No one ever has the right to drink and drive.
Belly,
You're not getting the point. You're right no-one has the right to drink and drive. My argument is why the Coppers let drunk people drive first & then book them.
0.5 is not drink driving for a blue collar worker ! I know many who drive better at 0.8 than most sober drivers. I am not advocating drink driving I'm arguing about revenue chasing by way of entrapment.
An upset driver is a dangerous driver as is an incompetent one, so if we can at least get the upset driver off the road then we only have the incompetent ones to worry about because they'll never get better but someone at 0.7 just needs a half hour break & a coffee. I suggest coppers should focus on being Police first & then suggest to an inebriated person not to get behind the wheel instead of instantly hammering them. How do they deal with incompetent drivers then ? They've got nothing to charge them with so they'll get off !

individual,

Do you suggest we station a copper behind every car in the pub car park - just in case the inebriated person requires a late-stage directive that they shouldn't drive while boozed.

People know what the law is. They don't need a policeman to tell them when they are at the late stage of sitting behind the wheel with key in the ignition after downing a skinful.

We have to face the fact that we inhabit a society that condones and encourages alcohol for fun and relaxation. The fact that our lifestyle also relies on car use makes the two somewhat incompatible, given the increasing centralisation of amenities away from localised neighbourhood affairs.

People know the deal with drinking and driving....you can't have one rule for some and not for others.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-25/baby-killed-after-car-crashes-into-house/4483812

<< …all those brought up with the original 0.08 alcohol limit, should be able to to continue to drive by that law. Johny come lately types could live by the 0.05. Better still, all us old blokes, brought up with the old, "60 miles/hour, or any speed you deem safe" speed limits, should still be driving by that one. >>

That’s a doozy Hazza!

Are you sure you don’t drink?? ( :>/

Some Yobbo's see drink driving as some kind of badge to skite about down at the pub as they skull 10 schooners before they drive home pissed!
"my son & his mates didn't know this, you are still charged with drink driving, [or drunk in charge of a motor vehicle I think was his charge] if you are sleeping in your vehicle, over the .05, & have the keys in your position." Well Hasbeen, I knew that, only a total idiot would put a drunk behind the wheel with the keys in his position.
"He was by then, only about 130Km in the wrong direction." this bloke should never be in charge of a motor vehicle, seems cars and "mate" don't mix, he can't even point the thing in the right direction. Come on Hasbeen answer the question What is "Mates" previous form? No one, but no one, will get $400 and 4 months for 0.056. Come on, pull the other leg.
Comrade Belly I agree with you 100%. Spot on Bro. Just giving a couple of mugs a bit of stick over this.
"I know many who drive better at 0.8 than most sober drivers" Individual got any facts to back that up. "just needs a half hour break & a coffee." Is that so, where did you get that one from.
"Just because the Paul1405's are one pot screamers" Individual you know it all. Then there is the Crock Dundee type story about Cape York, pot-holed roads, with five in the back of the ute plus an esky for the road. you have to make one trip per carton (of booze) etc etc, I ask wher's the Red Kelpie? Who destroys this alcoholic paradise, the usual suspects, evil public servants, southern do gooders in their Toorak tractor's. Toorak to Cape York must be Hasbeen's mate getting lost again.
What were you doing in Cape York,(besides drinking and riding around in the back of a ute) checking out the non-military national service (I call them boot) camps.

Hasbeen any cop who did not book your sons mate, given the condition he was in, history of how he got there and reason he was asleep, should be imprisoned.
I found only two drivers on the wrong side of divided roads, both over eighty.
A well known tail , driver calls on CB Radio, be careful there is an idiot driving in the wrong lanes towards traffic.
Answer? not just one mate millions of them, I am barely missing them.
Many die in contra flow incidents like your lost mates unhappy effort.
If one of yours died by his hand you would clearly see how bad it is.

we station a copper behind every car in the pub car park
Poirot et al,
You really are a sign of our times. What a stupid thing to state just because you don't get it.
If & I say IF a copper can STOP AN INEBRIATED person FROM GETTING INTO THE DRIVER"S SEAT then he should do so NOT LET HIM GET IN IN THE FIRST PLACE. I hope you got some of that now. Of course a drunk driver should be stopped on the road only an idiot will tell you otherwise. That wasn't the Point ! If he is deemed too drunk then organise for him to get home at his expense, give him a fine & be done with it. Next time he get's hit severely with another fine & loss of license for out of work hours. This business of preventing family providers from earning a living is no less bad than driving under the influence. It can destroy other's lives for no logic reason.
If we had a one size fits all attitude to Law then why the need to waste so much money on Lawyers ?
Some of you people really don't have a grasp of reality but that's what happens with indoctrination.

Belly,
When I advocated speed governors on all cars I was treated like a lunatic by the indoctrinated.
If we have maximum speed limits then BUILT CARS WHICH DON"T GO FASTER ! Which part of speed don't people understand ?

individual,

Of course I got the gist of your initial point.

But tell me the percentage of drink drivers who could be benefactors of a policeman waddling up to him and suggesting that they blow into the bag before they get behind the wheel? And why should police be out there nannying these people?

I'm sure you'd be thrilled to have the constabulary hassling you as you walk up to your car after a couple of beers, when you're still below the limit. Are they supposed to offer you a bag then. And if you're under, would you consider it harassment to be asked to blow - "before" you get into your car? How else are they to know whether you're under or over?

Or are you saying that the police should be on the lookout for people who are staggering and obviously blind drunk who get into their cars. Well, I'm sure we have heaps of coppers standing around doing nothing who could be on call to monitor alcohol outlets to save the drink drivers from copping a fine.

As I said, people know the deal with boozing and driving. If they drink over the limit and get into their cars ready to drive - who's fault is that?

Get real....

<< No one ever has the right to drink and drive. >>

Well…. that’s not quite true. There can be a good reason for driving over the legal limit; if you’ve had a few with no intention of driving and then need to rush down to the 24-hour chemist to get some particular medication for your partner, or you need to take your friend to the doctors or hospital… That sort of thing.

<< I believe it should go back to .08 >>

I agree.

Hey, the cops could and should do what Indi is suggesting as part of the overall policing regime of drink-driving. But they’d still need to be out there doing RBTs all over the place.

I think the much bigger issue here is to make the policing regime a whole lot more effective so that even the dumbest idiots feel as though there is more than a one-in-a-hundred chance of getting caught!

This is the critical issue. Lots of people drink-drive because they feel that the there is only a very small likelihood of them getting sprung, even on the main roads at the end of the evening when the pubs close.

Some attempt has been made to do this by imploring people to watch their mates and do what you can to see that they don’t drive when inebriated.

Apart from that it is a little bit difficult.

Empowering the public to do their bit to assist in dealing with tailgating, speeding and general risky driving practices would be a key point in reducing accidents. But it is not so easy with drink-driving.

So it begs the question: does anyone participating in this thread have a good idea of how to change the perception in the minds of those who feel that they have an extremely small likelihood of getting caught if they drink and drive?

a good idea of how to change the perception in the minds of those who feel that they have an extremely small likelihood of getting caught if they drink and drive?
Ludwig,
How about Non Military national service for a start ? The problem with our young & their parents is that they grew up at a time when Media, Sport & left wing politics, sprouted the me.me,me message for decades ever since big Goaf.
Our society has gone soft in the head & that's what's been realised by the so-called boat people single male adult army for quite a few years now.
It's all interlinked from promoting lack of responsibility to lack of self respect to selfish behaviour on the roads. Thank you Goaf & your mindless deciples.

Yes a total idiot, just as I thought.
Hasbeen summed it up nicely Paul 1404¼.

I think you all miss the point. If you chase, arrest and charge the individuals that have no financial substance then that is an on cost in the financial bottom line of any patrol.
However if you confine you interventions and arrests to the non violent drunks the revenue achieved pleases the patrol commander, the commissioner, the lawyers and the para legals even the infrastructure providers. Work cover giggles and general insurance has afield day voiding policy claims.
I'm sorry Individual but it is all about the financial bottom line.
We even have a Sergent who sits in his purpose built air conditioned dark windowed Merc van with his radar and camera on fixed stands capturing the unsuspecting while he watched TV on his own set in his own recliner.
Oh he does put the legally required warning sign out.....In front of the vehicle where you only see it after you have passed his vantage point.
chrisgaff

Belly do you ever read a post, before you reply to it? From many of your posts, I have some doubts.

My son's mate was parked legally, on the side of the road, just before the on ramp that would put him on the expressway, on the correct side of the expressway, to go to the job he had the next day.

He was sleeping, with his phone set to wake him in 4 1/2 hours, when he would be well under the 0.05 limit. He & his vehicle were transported there by some sober young ladies from the party.

He was parked there as with the standing joke of his sense of direction, every one knew, if he slept at the party he would never be able to find the expressway the next day.

For trying to do everything right, he lost his licence. No wonder the cops & the magistrates are well loathed by many. They bring it on themselves with this type of stupidity.

Hasbeen yes indeed I read every word.
Do you understand what you post?
Are you aware being in charge of a motor car while under the influence remains drunken driving?
What kind of cop would have said ok old mate go back to sleep.
You told of the fellow driving the wrong way!
Gee bloke you must under stand the law is the law *for every one*!
Individual, this is not a cheap swipe at you.
Please, after so many insults you issue, on so many weird grounds, *NEVER INSULT OTHERS MENTALITY*
It is mate in your self defense not to.

That reminds of a chef in North Cairns quite a few years ago. The restaurant he worked in had it's last night of business & yes everyone had a few drinks. I happened to show up just a few minutes before this chef went to his car to get his valuables out as he didn't want to drive home. Instantly the two coppers for want of a more apt description bounced on him, breathalyzed him & took him straight to the Cairns watch house. They wouldn't even let him tell his boss that all the meals on the oven needed attention. Needless to say, many meals were spoiled & the Police in general went down several grades in peoples opinion. We only found out about half an hour later when his boss enquired with Cairns Police if they'd heard anything about the chap.
In a Cape York settlement it was the sergeant people went to see if they needed marijuana.
I suppose there would be at least there policemen in any group ten. The rest being coppers.

Belly,
Just because you don't understand something doesn't instantly make it an insult.

hassling you as you walk up to your car after a couple of beers, when you're still below the limit
Poirot,
Explain the difference between breathalyzing before driving & after commencement of driving & you're still under ? I accept that doing it before driving if you're over the limit there wouldn't be any fine money as chrisgaff1000 so correctly stated.

Firstly Hasbeen said in relation to his SON takeing 'Mate' to the expressway.
"they took him, & his ute to the nearest expressway entrance, although my son & his mates didn't know this, you are still charged with drink driving, [or drunk in charge of a motor vehicle I think was his charge] if you are sleeping in your vehicle,"

In a later post the story changes, son and his mates becomes 'sober young ladies'.
"He & his vehicle were transported there by some sober young ladies"

The only possibility is son is a transvestite who mates are sober young ladies.

Hasbeen please explain? ALSO HOW ABOUT POSTING 'WRONG WAY MATES' DRIVING HISTORY? Silent on that one.

Individual you like Hasbeen try to insult with; "Yes a total idiot, just as I thought.
Hasbeen summed it up nicely Paul 1404¼." water off a ducks dack, pal!
An idiot to me is someone who wants to ship 2.2 million Australians to some crazy boot camp in North Queensland, without the slightest idea of cost or the ramifications for the country. The only ones who should be packed off to the North Queensland boot camp are a bunch of yobbo's in a ute full of booze doing doughtnuts around Cape York. YES YOU!

Hasbeen I place your posts far above Individuals efforts.
But be fair dinkum mate.
You post, often, anti police stuff, do I have the right to a different opinion?
I remember your defense of your son and mates before, something about being booked for over the speed limit.
LAW has a reason.
I can take it, know for sure I am not always right, often wrong, but you seem unaware, you share that,with me and the world, the perfect human has not yet been born.
Indy Sir, I think you should read your own post history.
Those cops if true, are those you should target not ever those getting drunks of the road, ever where ever however.
Now consider this, are your sons mates hasbeen, by your own words, not the very hoon,s indy wants removed from our roads.

Paul1405,
To me an idiot is someone who expects others to pay for 2.2 million young people to become senseless & irrational adults demanding everyone else puts up the effort to support them in their lazy life.
Belly,
I come to only one conclusion when reading your posts, that is that you just don't know what caring is. You appear to believe that caring is all about having a Labor Government. You say you care about Australia yet you fight tooth & nail to keep Labor who are Australia's worst & most dangerous enemy.
I tell why you are wrong. The Labor you are supporting has died 40 years ago. All these years your blinded support has helped to facilitate the ruin of this great country pre-1972 Labor. The founders of the Labor Party must be so dizzy by now from turning in their graves.
You say you don't like Gillard. Don't you realise that the whole of post 1972 Labor is a Gillard-kind Labor ?

individual,

We have a lot of laws - one of them is to desist from driving a car if you think you're over the alcohol limit.

People are charged with making a judgment on that before they get behind the wheel.

Once they're driving, they may be breathalysed - because they have make the decision that they are sober enough to do so.

You seem to be suggesting that there be police stationed outside every alcohol vender with the power to breathalyse anyone who walks toward their car.

How do you reckon that would work?

How do you think people might feel about that sort of police intervention?

And how are you planning conjure up police manpower for conducting these breathalyser tests?

Individual posts "You (Paul) say you care about Australia yet you fight tooth & nail to keep Labor who are Australia's worst & most dangerous enemy."
From that statement its obvious you can't read (my posts). Where do I post that I support the ALP. I don't, in fact I am looking forward to 3 years of "Abbottism", will do the country the world of good.
You are full of pie in the sky idea's which have no backing and no substance, I'm sure it takes you all of 1 minute to think up these impractical trillion dollar notions of yours. And you think The Greens are off with the fairies, I don't think so.

Poirot & Paul1405,
Both of you are just a waste of time & effort to reply to. Not so much because you're way too indoctrinated & conformist but because your only interest in having a "win" with words rather than working on solutions to get Australia out of the mess it is in thanks to many voters with your mentality. Save your time because you are merely wasting it.
it is painfully clear why you are so against a national service because you'd need to actually do something rather than just hold out your hand.

Individual, Its easy to come up with a notion like 'National Service' but where is the detail, all you have ever posted about it is 19 to 21 year old's, camp in North Queensland, 2 years. I asked you for a simple explanation how do you put 2.2 million Australians into North Queensland?
I want a molecular transporter built to transport all 'undesirables' to the plant Mars. Don't ask me the how's and why's, I just want it done. Rightly if I can not supply details others have the right to pick my idea to pieces. If I'm critical of your ideas its because they lack substance, you never supply any kind of detail.
HERE IS YOUR GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLY THOSE DETAILS. If your do I and others should take your idea seriously and not simply make fun of it as I have been doing.

I asked you for a simple explanation
Paul1405,
I have no alternative but to remind & refer you back to Hasbeen's conclusion.
A National Service means National not confined to Queensland for a start. Every State should & can accommodate such a service backed by the same funding as presently comes out of Social security. All the funding presently wasted can be channelled towards transport , accommodation & food for the recruits. Young people need a sense of adventure & belonging. A national service caters for that. They can work on flood damaged infrastructure,
Do manual digging so they not only get work experience but experience work as well. There are fences to be mended, there are dead live stock to be disposed of, there a road sides to be maintained, the list is as endless as anyone's imagination. All up & running my prediction is a saving to the taxpayer within the first two years & a healthier mentality all round. Young people if exposed to the realities of daily life will feel better themselves & will be eager to pass on their new-found pride.

The thread's original topic re the mentality of our Police has been derailed. Are Police supposed to be enforcers of the Law without intelligent judgement or are they supposed to protect the citizens of the country.
The Law as I understand it is a guide for all to go by in their daily life. If individuals are seeking exemption then they have the opportunity to consult a lawyer.
Why do Police go by the exact letter of the Law when it's to bounce on someone for making an honest mistake yet when a serious crime has been committed they drag out all excuses under sun before they go & attend. They require warrants, they require a JP, they require the ok of a senior etc. yet when they can take a family man's license & therefore his ability to continue work they can do that on the spot.
I have always been a supporter of Law & Order but when I see how so many Police officers shy away from doing their job in some instances & get overzealous on others I wonder about the intelligence & mentality that is asked of them.
I have been told by a friend who when heading home from work jumped into his dinghy at the jetty & headed to his island. When pulled over by water Police he found that most of his safety equipment had been stolen & he was booked on the spot for $400,-. The Police did not accept that he had no possible way of getting home & complying with the Law in that situation. They were utterly unforgivable & inflexible. You never see them patrolling the jetty area where most wilful damage & theft occurs.

Gee, I'm glad I was only a humble detective, very glad indeed !

o sung wu,
There is a huge difference when you can't find a parking space because of a festival & you ask the driver of a Police car "is it ok to park here ?" & the Officer glares back at you saying No, f..k off or the other officer a few minutes later in a very similar spot close to an intersection says with a sympathetic tone I suppose there's nowhere else, yeah just park it here.
Two mentalities dealing with the same problem. I know which one I'd put my money on.

Individual it is time to come clean, I have grave doubts you are the owner of a mind than can grasp others views.
IF you are the other OLO poster who shares a house with my mate Ludwig he should keep solid doors .
You have no idea, not a bit, from what deep dark hole did you get the view 2.2 million of our youth are as you describe?
20% of our entire population?
Sir on the evidence I prefer to think we must look to you to find the problem.
YOU start a thread to complain about police catching one group of drunken drivers, not letting them get out on the road and kill.
And apparently side with Hasbeen who tells of a drunk driving on the wrong side of the road!
And sleeping, by law in control off , his car while, remember he had been there a while, still drunk on testing!~
How can you expect any one to agree with you.

o sung wo, you and I get on, we would have still when you wore the uniform.
We differ in politics and some things.
I lack your ability to not lash out, yet too had it once.
Any one dealing with the public must have it, just stopping to help a motorist change a wheel, can lead to its your fault screaming.
I feel however little is to be gained by pandering to such as indy.
Some very deep thinkers have tried so very hard, a once mate, green C J Morgan, now dead, tried in the most civil way, for about two weeks of posting, to find out why he thinks our youth should be out cleaning roadsides.
Not in university learning to be Doctors or lawyers, not in the Army or air force.
He and I never got an answer.
Contemplate this.
Like the ALP or not would this country be better of if it was a one party one?
Indy would at least get his national service, only dictatorships do things like that.
The man is unable to express his reasons he thinks, or does not, like that.
My faith is in Australian youth this country's future.

Belly,
I already had to refer Paul1405 back to Hasbeen's apt assessment & now you too. As Hasbeen said you're not reading are you ? It was Paul1405 give or take a ¼ who came up with the 2.2 million not I.
If you can't see the positives of a national service then you're not really looking for a solution. Just saying so is pointless.
Re not letting them get out on the road and kill. you're suggesting I am complaining about drunk drivers being bailed up. A sane observer will tell you that my complaint was that Coppers let drunk drivers get into a car. Read !

re Indy would at least get his national service, only dictatorships do things like that.

To be a responsible citizen requires more than hanging off some unions apron. It requires common sense & integrity and, yes some give & 2 years of give is nothing in comparison to the gain. Only a unionist or academic hanger-on would object to that. I am talking to decent working people about a national service all the time and you know what, 99% agree even many Labor supporters.
Imagine the responsible driver behaviour after a national service. Even the drinking culture would change. why do I think so ? Because I have experienced it first hand in Europe & in Australia before big Goaf.

Self confidence can be a good thing, properly.
It too can be informative for those looking on.
Indy no way around it RUOK are you in need of some form of help.
I see in your posts a very grumpy uninformed man sitting in a rocking chair on the veranda of a Queenslander throwing rocks at passers by.
I blame me, you never once put some thing pointing to an open mind in print, why do I constantly think you may one day under stand a subject?
IF you need to recycle hasbeens insults, and you do, but ignore your own words, re read your posts here in your thread!
Common sense never visited even briefly that Queenslander Veranda mate.

Individual, I am not totally opposed to your idea, does that shock you? I am in fact a firm believer, as most Green I known are, in self reliance and self help, with a lending hand from the state where need. We also believe in having positive programs in place that do help people. For young people like school leavers rather than just a bit of a 'hand out' I would like to see positive programs that give young people not just employment skills but also life skill which help them make the right kind of choices and also help with character building and instills a degree of self worth.
I would like to see programs in place that are geared to help all welfare recipients, from the young to the old. For older Australian, we can do more than the old age pension, I would like to see those that can and want to participate more in society ,do so, and I want to see them rewarded for doing just that. The hand out mentality is not good for the individual and its not good for the country in the long term. having said that where I differ from conservatives I believe the State has a vital roll to play in all this and it should not be seen as an exercise in exploration of cheap labour.
Recently at a candidates forum I attended one conservative candidate thought he had the 'winner' for youth unemployment. Have kids follow the garbage truck around and wash and clean 'wheele bins' his included of course. I was not impressed as many I spoke to after were equally unimpressed with this business owner. I could discuss this topic with you for hours. However it has little to do with the cops, although I can see the police having an input more with young offenders, more than simply arresting them. That;s another john dory.

'afterneen folks...and BELLY and HASBEEN.

I realise I'm completely off Topic here, however I'm firmly of the belief, that one of the major federal political parties are going to have to embrace, sooner rather than later ?

I noted someone herein mentioned one of my favourite topics, the re-introduction (a form) of National Service.

BELLY old mate, I don't think you're all that enamoured with the concept of re-introducing any form of National Service, or perhaps I'm mistaken ?

I don't think an issue as evocative or topical as National Service, has entered our collective perspectives for some considerable time. Probably not since the days of Vietnam, I believe ?

The National Service I have in mind, would not necessarily be of the Military kind (certainly military discipline wouldn't go too far awry), I was thinking more as some structured 'civil service'

Most of the ol' blokes would say (including me possibly?) '...put 'em all in the Army...' ? Though, today the Army is in many cases far too technical and advanced for some young blokes, who are not quite as well endowed academically ?

In the days of 'square bashing' the 'bull ring' and hours of Rifle and foot drill, and days on the range with your good ol' .303 SMLE, Rifle, are now gone (SADLY ?).

Therefore, the Armed Forces are all very fine, provided the young person who's been drafted in for his or her year or two, has the sufficient 'wherewithal' between the ears ?

However, I'll defer this one to HASBEEN. Who was a former Naval Aviator, and who'd understand far better than I, as to whether or not some young people would find 'the Military per se' far too technically challenging today, than back in the fifties, sixties and seventies.

Whatever happens, we've got to do something with 'SOME' of our young people. Otherwise they'll just develop into straight out, hardened intractable criminals, and they'll be lost to society forever !

Yes OSW, apart from foot sloggers, the services have little where a 2 year service would be any use. The training takes too long, & many are rejected for lack of scholastic ability.

However I don’t think we are talking about military service, but some form of civilian employment.

I would agree with a form of national park ranger work for those unemployed. A much bigger workforce is required to clean up our vermin infested parks, & training involving some hard work would help many to get a grip on life.

If such a system could improve the fire prone problem in the parks, it would be a win for every one.

My main worry with any such program is those who run them. When I offered a unemployed bloke a months work, while a storeman went on holidays, he couldn’t take it. He was on a training course, & was told if he dropped out of it, for any reason, he would loose his benefits for 2 months. Bureaucracy can destroy any good idea.

o sung wo I agree, and from experience, my date of birth came out of the barrel for that war, I was knocked back, but tried to pass medical.
But after many years of debate, it seems clear indy wants it for all?
Do we want to send, as we did in that war, national ser4vice men to die in say Afghanistan?
I do not.
I read Pauls last post, have not bothered of late, and agree with most of what he said.
The washing wheely bin is tipicule of hard headed conservatives, useless making a job, offensive and dangerous one without reason.
If, as I propose over and again, we got kids in trouble and unemployed a job, of service to us all.
Say building and maintaining a national back packers/campers trail in rest areas around our country?
o sung wo, in 2007 I wrote here about Australians ability to stand in line, vote quite differently, and still have a beer or coffee together.
I fear that has gone, and openly say my party played a roll in that.
But are we seeing the birth of hate such as Ireland?
Read the words of indy and a few, now be honest, when did you see such hate from me.
Or words of unhappiness with their party I DISPLAY WITH MINE
Indy used words directed at me here or in another thread, saying I was ruining our country.
No Man any age would getaway with that face to face, yet I am no thug.
Mirrors exist to maybe see our selves as we are, not as we think we are.
80% of Australians think alike on any subject, be on the wrong side, if I am, does not make me bad indy.

Dear Individual,

You ask "What Mentality are our Police?"
And that's not an easy question to answer.
As far as I'm aware the role of a police officer
is to uphold the law. No exceptions, no iffs and
butts. So if a person is over the limit when
breath-tested - it is the duty of the police
officer to apply the full letter of the law.
Exceptions according to the law cannot be made
and officers are obliged to comply with that.

I've watched the RBT program on television and
seen examples that made me cringe. Examples like
a truck-driver who'd gone through a very bad
divorce, and needed to keep his licence in order
to keep his job. He was just a little over the limit
(the low end of the scale), and the officer was not
lenient at all. The truckie almost broke down and
cried. He said he would lose his job, his livelihood,
and he'd already lost so much. The officer could have
let the truckie off with a warning. But no such luck.

I get the point that you're trying to make - however,
I'm not sure how much (if any) leniency is allowed at present.
Perhaps the rules should be changed to allow for
judgement calls by the police officers - depending
on the circumstances? Especially if people are not all
that much over the limit - and there are extenuating
circumstances. I understand that rules are there for a
purpose - however as with all rules, I personally feel
that other factors may come into play and should be
considered.

Forget about the police, what about the judiciary?

<QUEENSLAND'S premier and attorney-general say they will fight to keep a serial sex offender behind bars, even if they lose their initial appeal.

Twice-convicted rapist Robert John Fardon, 64, was scheduled to be freed on Thursday afternoon.

But the government won a last-ditch legal attempt to keep him temporarily behind bars until February 27, when a full appeal will be heard.

Premier Campbell Newman says the government couldn't ignore the public outcry over his release.

He said the government would "pull out all stops" to protect the community.

........

Justice Debbie Mullins ruled on Wednesday that Fardon, who has spent most of his adult life in jail, should be released, as any risks to the community could be overcome.

She imposed a supervision order, with 34 conditions.

In the Supreme Court on Thursday, Solicitor-General Walter Sofronoff, QC, argued the stay on Fardon's release was necessary to ensure the safety of the community.

He said two psychiatrists found Fardon had displayed some rehabilitative growth in the last year, but they were still of the opinion he was a moderately high to high risk of reoffending.

Mr Sofronoff said there was little evidence to challenge this risk assessment, and that Justice Mullins erred in failing to adequately consider these risk levels.>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/breaking-news/fardon-to-stay-behind-bars-during-appeal/story-fn3dxiwe-1226577967381

Google for this criminal's long history of serious sex crimes. Honestly, who would want to be a cop?

Good evening to LEXI, BELLY, ONTHEBEACH and the many others...

LEXI...

I fully understand, I really do.........But ! As tough as it seems, and appears to be, the copper MUST comply strictly with the rules, apropos RBT. I realize it doesn't seem fair. Neither is it fair that someone else needlessly loses another close to them, as a consequence of a fatality involving an inebriated driver ? I also accept this is a typical, political 'obsequious' or 'urbane' response, however unfortunately it's true.

The community screams '...what are the police doing not locking up drunk drivers...' ? As they say LEXI, damned if they do, and damned if they don't ?

I will agree, there's no real reason a copper can't cut loose someone for some minor, trifling traffic offence ? Provided the alleged offender has that large 'A' sitting above their head.

BELLY old friend, it's all just a bit of fun, we have such a broad divergence of opinion herein, and occasionally discussion can become a little heated, but that's all part of it ? Remember when I had a real head of steam on board, over some forgettable slight someone levelled at me ? You said, just take it easy and let it go through to the keeper, or similar words. At the end of the day, nobody's right, nor is anybody wrong !

Yes ONTHEBEACH...

The Judiciary can make things quite hard for the coppers, as well as for governments too ? The so called independence of our Courts can occasionally clash with the public interest. And when it comes to trying to keep certain individuals locked away, up pops the Parole Board, or the CCA or similar, preaching loudly to all and sundry the 'rights' of this criminal.

OK, what are the 'rights' of society. Is there not an expectation of being able to live, as well as their children live safely in the community, and not fear being assailed by some twisted killer ? Problem being too, often these 'Boards' are heavily laden with stuffy academics also.

Lexi, a question.
Had that cop let the bloke of, with a warning.
And the next day, that driver, while drunk killed kids in a school bus.
Would the cop be praised or condemned.
o sung wo, yes for some.
But try this.
For just a minute pout your self in a Labor voters shoes, one that both names and shames the wrong in his team.
And knows defeat is approaching, without change.
And consider how many times a few, individual has made his double century , tell me I am less of a human, so is my party and its followers.
O sung wo, even in defeat we represent near half of this country, proudly, I reserve my right to defend us all.

"Examples like a truck-driver who'd gone through a very bad
divorce, and needed to keep his licence in order
to keep his job. He was just a little over the limit
(the low end of the scale), and the officer was not
lenient at all."

Lexi,
I do not think it is the roll of police to hand out sentences at the road side. In this case that is what the police officer would be doing; we have a court system where this truck driver can argue his case. If found guilty and there are extenuating circumstances a magistrate does have the flexibility to consider the circumstances before imposing a penalty.

o sung wu, "OK, what are the 'rights' of society"

You ask a very good question and one that should go with discovering our civic responsibilities too.

The first right is that we can defend ourselves and our property, and for those we are reponsible for. That extends to protecting others in the community.

So often the very interests who have diminished that right of ordinary law-abiding citizens are staunch advocates of rights for offenders, including the most vicious and violent grubs imaginable.

There are signs that the Left leaning UK is slowly seeing the light after public condemnation of police who have been more interested in charging citizens who have tried to defend themselves from criminal thugs, than in chasing and apprehending the offenders.

In Australia, it is only NSW that recognises the right of citizens to defend themselves against home invasion. NSW's Home Invasion (Occupants' Protection) Act 1998, which states that it is public policy that NSW citizens "have a right to enjoy absolute safety from attack within dwelling houses from intruders".

Dear Paul,

The truck driver lost his licence there and then.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about. He rang
a friend to come and get him as he wasn't allowed to
drive home. And as for going to court and contesting
anything. The poor bloke probably wouldn't be able
to afford to do that. Courts and lawyers are expensive
and this guy had already lost just about everything in
his divorce.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

The defence of ourselves and our property ? You've entered upon one of the most controversial legal arguements in this country ?

There's never been a situation where an individual cannot defend themselves, or another, against a violent attack. However, that attack must be real and impending, not doubtful or remote. Furthermore, the violence must be of a kind that can cause serious injury, or death.

The notion that an individual who breaks into your dwelling house, for the purpose or robbery, and as a consequence, you can shoot him, is false - I again refer you to my second paragraph. Nor is it lawful, after your presence is made known to the offender, and he then decamps from your house, you can shoot him in order to prevent him from making good his escape, is another erroneous proposition.

The High Court, some years ago brought down several judgements pursuant to, employing lawful force ('Viro', was one that comes to mind)

The defence of your property is also clear. Of course you may defend that which is yours, or under your care, custody or control. However, the force used in order to defend that property, MUST be kept to a minimum - should you, in the course of defending your property, meet physical resistance, your physical response MUST be no more than reasonably necessary, and proportional to the force offered.

I'm sincerely sorry if you peceive me to be somewhat arrogant, with my responses to you, I don't mean to be, I'm simply quoting law on this occasion, is all.

o sung wu, "I'm sincerely sorry if you peceive me to be somewhat arrogant, with my responses to you"

Why say that? I don't think that at all.

However you may have some strawman arguments going that have no bearing on what I wrote.

There is a clear distinction between NSW and the other States and Territories in the provisions relating to home invasion. What about taking this recent case that occurred in NSW and compare it with another jurisdiction, say Queensland? What is the obvious difference in legislation that impacts very negatively on this elderly gent if he was in Qld instead? [Although the NSW police put him through the wringer and had him dangling on possible charges until public protest saw the available legislation applied correctly.]

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/piersakerman/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/no_charges_for_brave_home_defender

And the next day, that driver, while drunk killed kids in a school bus.
Belly,
firstly it is so grand to see there's a gradual backing for some form of national service.
re the drunk driver above. Well, I can only go by what I feel & what those I speak with say they feel about a national service. If this driver had the privilege & benefit of a national service he'd more than likely think twice about getting drunk into the car again in a hurry. I would think that if the Police officer took his details & made him a promise that this first time was a warning & there won't be any warnings after that the driver would take heed. It's all about mentality & a national service can deliver a healthy, less selfish mentality.
We can never guarantee absolute safety & drivers not getting into cars drunk but it sure as hell does improve mentality having experienced what a sense of responsibility is all about. The reason why so many young are out of control because no-one told them to cut it out when they misbehaved. I think a police officer's duty is to uphold the law via judgement on the spot but to just go & entrap people is just not on. isn't providing sound advise part of a police officer's job ?

individual,

If a police officer books a drunk driver who has seen fit to get behind the wheel....that isn't entrapment.

If the police officer had encouraged or enticed the drunken person to drive and then booked him - "that" would be entrapment.

Poirot,
For a Police officer to watch a person under the influence of alcohol go to the car & open the car door & then bounce on them & take them to the watch house IS ENTRAPMENT. The chap who thought himself too drunk to drive went to his car to secure his valuables only put the keys in the door when the coppers bounced on him. That is entrapment. Where I live drivers have a few beers & then slowly drive home, a distance of about 2 km at most. All of them would be quite happy to leave the car in the car park & walk. The dilemma is that the Police do not patrol the car park & cars invariably get smashed by 10 15 year olds whom the Police are too timid to send home. At times the Law really is a Catch22. There is no public transport & if people walk they run the gauntlet of the teenage hoods. In this situation I would expect an officer to either do his job but they don't. They rather go for the sure bet of writing some tickets whilst the hoods run a muck.

Interesting story...I thought the keys had to be in the ignition.

That "particular" episode does sound a bit hardhearted and dodgy.....but it ain't "entrapment".

o sung wu,

Just to answer the question I posed to you. NSW laws give immunity against civil and criminal liability for a person acting in defence of himself or another person. The Prosecution has to prove that the defender, in taking whatever action s/he did, did not believe in her/his own mind, that the action was really necessary.

In Queensland the onus of proof is on the unfortunate victim, the homeowner, to defend his/her actions, and s/he would almost certainly be charged with every offence the police can use. On the other hand the real villain of the piece, the criminal who invaded the home, enjoyes the right that police have to prove a case against him.

The State of Queensland (and other States and Territory save NSW) puts ordinary citizens at substantial risk of a serious charges and expensive law proceedings for defending himself and his loved ones in his own home.

However even though NSW citizens have the legal protection as stated, the poor elderly chap in the case cited had to wait four plus months and suffer invasion of privacy and public humiliation by the sensationalist tabloid media before being cleared. Still, had it happened in another jurisdiction, he could have lost everything defending humself and even then be convicted of an offence. How to be a victim twice! The Nanny States protect criminals, not law abiding citizens.

HI there ONTHEBEACH...

Whatever you say ?

Hi there INDIVIDUAL...

I'm afraid your assertion of 'entrapment' is substantially flawed.

I reckon for me at least, this topic has waned somewhat.

Hello o sung wu

Would you care to comment on my views on entrapment?:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5627#155376

Why are we avoiding the threads subject.
Why do we constantly do just that?
In face to face verbal confrontation , it signals one side has lost, changes tack.
What has shooting a home invader got to do with this.
And with nothing but respect, why are we blaming the police, and defending the truck driver, because he was haveing a rough time?
The scales of justice are we are told, blind to class and stick to law.
In truth however, it is the court house, not the roadside, that has room to move.
Avoid it if you want, but once that man got behind the wheel, he broke the law.
Police out side pubs , waiting for VICTIMS?/OFFENDERS to get in the car?
Would we have the police go some place else?, and see those under the influence drive out on to our roads?
Lets remind our selves, of the great numbers world wide, of innocents killed by drivers under the influence.
Too of those left behind, trying desperately to see and end to drunk driving.
Who would want to be a cop.
Who would want to live in a world without them.
And if crying, and reporting how bad life had treated us was an alibi?
Rumor has it every criminal in prison is not guilty, if only they had cried!

Lexi,

The system is not perfect and there are guanine cases that do deserve leniency. However I do not think it is the job of the police to determine the facts at the roadside. If that was the case the police would be passing judgement after hearing all sorts of stories, well want can I say.
You said "The truck driver lost his licence there and then." I do not know what the alternative could be. let drunks drive off?

"The poor bloke probably wouldn't be able
to afford to do that. Courts and lawyers are expensive
and this guy had already lost just about everything in
his divorce."
At the very least speak for himself before the court, no lawyer required. Plead guilty with mitigating circumstances, a magistrate might listen. But most likely a magistrate would take the view lots of people get divorced but that in itself is no excuse for drink driving.
We all suffer up and downs in our life but to use personal problems or troubles as an excuse to drink and drive does not cut it with me. That may sound harsh and judgmental on my part, but when it comes to drink driving that is my opinion.

HI there ONTHEBEACH...

Whatever you say ?

o sung wu,
now we're getting somewhere re Police mentality.

I mainly question how individual Coppers interpret the laws they are entrusted to uphold. Many Police officers don't have that problem.
One just has to look up forums re expired registration fines etc to see how varied the approach to enforcing one law can be.
Coppers just book you depending on the mood they are in. Police Officers will look at the situation & make a judgement of either giving you a warning or if that hasn't helped will serve you with a fine & then let you continue or make other, relevant to the situation decisions.
If you've overlooked your registration renewal you should not be hit with any fine other than late lodgement. This happened to a few weeks ago & I am fine by that. What I am not fine with is that the coppers will not ensure that you can safely do something like leaving your car in the carpark overnight yet when you try to prevent having your car smashed & slowly drive home they book you.
One Police officer actually asked me once to just drive behind him because I would have been over 0.5 but he could judge that I was still very much in control.
Thumbs up to Police, thumbs down to Coppers.

This from Individual; "The academic component on these threads thinks I am condoning driving under the influence. Get into your head I AM NOT!"

Then this; "One Police officer actually asked me once to just drive behind him because I would have been over 0.5"

I DON'T CONDONE DRUNK DRIVERS DRIVERS, I ADMIT I AM ONE.
Elsewhere Individual posts that he don't drink. What were you pissed on? ginger ale.

Then this; "One Police officer actually asked me once to just drive behind him because I would have been over 0.5"
Paul1405,
That is atypical academic reasoning with selective quoting. Why did you leave out the bit where the PO so sensibly judged me still being in control i.e. a situation where the one size fits all of the Law shows it's inadequacy. Fyi, I very much like a beer, the drink of the thinking working man unlike the strange warm wines of the pseudo academic.
I know drivers who are three times worse drivers sober than many who are at .5. If we are so worried about drink driving then why not have public transport ? Simple !

o sung wo should you vist this thread again you may now see why I get in trouble.
I wounder why that truck driver lost his license on the roadside?
Had he previous convictions.
Was he well over the limit.
Just how did that nasty cop, doing what he is paid and trusted to do, get in so much trouble.
See you all in another thread.

"the PO so sensibly judged me still being in control" Individual was that based on the fact you had not as vet run somebody over, or had not hit a tree? Was it after this; "I recall on Cape York when we had pot-holed roads from ar$ehole to breakfast & we did pub crawls with five people in the back of the ute plus an esky for the road." etc etc.
How did the PO determine that you were still 'in control'. Did you have to walk a straight line with your finger on your nose? Or did you just say to the officer "I vote for Joh!" so did he.

Paul1405,
Most people with no retort resort to ridicule. Those too indoctrinated by conformism can't even do that, instead they openly display the degree of stupidity they're capable of.

Individual, no PO at the side of the road can determine your mental state or driving ability, when it comes to alcohol. That office erred in not taking the appropriate steps required as laid down by the law. If as you say you were over 0.05 you have every right to make your case before the court, that is the appropriate place to determine guilt or innocence, not at the roadside.

If as you say you were over 0.05 you have every right to make your case before the court, that is the appropriate place to determine guilt or innocence, not at the roadside.
Paul1405,
Have you ever heard of common sense & logic ? The PO did the sensible thing all round. He made a judgement based on his experience.
No text book has any paragraph dealing with sense. If common sense were common the authors of text books would be looking for other things to write about. Your argument reminds of an airline pilot being interrogated for days on end by experts whilst he only had a split second to make a decision. Same goes for Police officers, they too have to make decisions within very short time. Coppers don't have that problem because they don't think, they just obey without intelligent judgement.

to determine guilt or innocence,
Paul1405,
Therein lies the problem. At 0.5 you are deemed drunk even though you are not. I can say that at 0.5 I am in full control of my senses unlike many who aren't at 0.0 yet they are ALLOWED to drive. I can drive a vehicle responsibly & safe even though it has less than perfect brakes or tyres & is full of rust yet some moron with no sense can drive a perfectly safe car & be a danger to others.
Like registration. Why do I have to pay full registration for a vehicle I need to use 2 or 3 times a year for less than an hour each time. Why can't we have short term rego for situations like this. The reason we have so many accidents is because policies/regulations become too costly to adhere to & people, instead of concentrating on being safe on the road use all their concentration on avoiding to get booked. To observe the countless speed signs takes more concentration than driving at 0.5. If we want safe roads we need safer bureaucrats first.