Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

11 Comments

  1. The police know that they are not meant to be using drink/drive checkpoints to collect data for other operations or purposes.

    This is exactly what they did in Lower Hutt one Sunday afternoon, to dear old citizens attending an End of Life Choice meeting in a private home. Threat to security ? Not at all. I think the officer in charge of that operation was a Catholic, and therefore possibly more likely to be opposed to euthanasia, and some cops may have expressed unease about performing under false pretences, but there has to be another back story when tax payer funding was being diverted to an issue which posed no threat to the general public, and when it was an area of public debate at the time.

    Like the busting of dear little old ladies hoping to sign off with dignity, the misuse of drink/drive checkpoints is unlikely to be police policy, but probably handy for cops wanting to improve their stats, and needing to impress their superiors whose knees tremble at a query from the Minister, so I’d start with the National Office and HQ officers – change the way they think – recycle them elsewhere or somewhere – but Kitteridge shouldn’t be asking the public to do her job for her when the outcome is fairly predictable.

    1. That’s how they knew Lundy was guilty – they caught him in a speed camera, but speed cameras cannot be used as evidence in a trial for anything other than a speeding offence.

      1. That would have been admissable, that would have clinched it at the first trial forever, game over. No way they’d walk from that. In that case you’re going to have to explain why they repudiated their own evidence from the first trial at the second trial and had Lundy going in the middle of the night instead of the evening rush hour when they were sitting on a photo of him from the evening. No matter how low one’s view of the police, there’s no world where they would make a case for a different time than speed camera evidence they had.

      2. Andrew- Interesting about Lundy. Perhaps the regulation/law restricting speed camera evidence to speeding offences needs to be revisited if it means that major criminals might otherwise escape conviction and punishment for crimes they’ve committed.

  2. Nothing to hide and nothing to fear. That’s part of the rationale some Remuera-ites probably had when they wanted the police to do over the houses of Mongel Mob members while they were at a funeral last week.

    That’s why they were happy about South Auckland houses being done over at dawn for overstayers.

    For the purposes of having a good clean, bad behaviour free society those same people will welcome dawn raids, house to house in the streets of Remuera, St Heliers, Fendalton and Khandallah on a “just-in-case” basis. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

    1. It is the Millennial understanding of life as normal…having grown up revealing every private detail to all and sundry, forever on social media. It has set a new non-privacy social paradigm. Scary.

  3. The cops photograph and video gang/bike activities and afterwards review the evidence and arrest them. They did that for the BOP and Hawkes Bay incidents a month or two back.

    I didnt see any cyclists get arrested for resisting the cops and refusing to stop when they trespassed over the Harbour Bridge. They may have reviewed their videos later.

    I wouldnt expect the cops to carry out large scale arrests at a gathering and cause a risk to them and public. Next we’ll see the Natz/Act bring in the army/SAS/helicopters/Tanks to quell a riot.

Comments are closed.