South Australian police officer convicted over dangerous chase

[Knackers]

Not sure where to put this but here will do:


If you have not already heard about this case/seen it in the media here is a link

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24766855-5006301,00.html


Convicted of dangerous driving for giving pursuit. Opens a can of worms and sets a precedent hey. First time I heard of anything like this in SA.

[misterteddy]

already a source of discussion in at least 2 emergency services that I know of. Might be an interesting response from them

Standby for a response from the Police Union I would think that says, basically.... we will stick to the speed limits in future and Joe Public - complain to your politicians

[rescue5271]

Is there not also a case with in CFS or has that case already been to court???

[RescueHazmat]

Yep, I can see it having big repurcussions!..

Personal opinion;- Its rediculous!.. Quite frankly, the guy shouldn't have run from the Police!

[rescue5271]

MMMMMMM, But the officer was in a unmarked car and was well over the speed in a built up area, I am not 100% sure and someone will correct me but dont SAPOL have a policy that unmarked cars should not engage in high speed chases??

[Pipster]

Not quite Bill....... there are circumstances where unmarked vehicles can be involved in a chase.  This case had nothing to do with internal police procedures

The whole issue with this case is not so much what the person involved did or didn't do, but the implications the judgement may have on emergency services, responding to emergencies, utilising exemptions specified under the Australian Road Rules.

I am not fully aware of the whole case, nor read the judgement, and with an appeal going to be lodged, I won't say alot on this case for the time being.

Pip

[Alan J]

Not the first time an officer has been charged with dangerous driving.
There was that chap who T-boned an elderly person who pulled out of a
side street up Port Wakefield Rd about 10 years ago.

Might be the first conviction though.

Issue seems to be certain actions taken by the officer during the pursuit,
rather than the pursuit itself.  Chief amongst them being overtaking at a
pedestrian crossing, at night & at speed.  The ARRs give us permission to
break most of them +++provided it is safe to do so+++.  I think the court
looked at the video evidence & decided that the officer was driving in an
unsafe manner that went beyond the intent of the ARR exemptions.  Possibly
not that big a can of worms in the Big Scheme Of Things ?  Possibly even a
timely reminder to all of us that the exemptions have limits.

However, I have sympathy for the officer - hard to make the call on the fly
of what is & is not ok.

I have no sympathy for the motorcyclist.

cheers

[Firey9119]

lookin at the whole issue this is my 2c

first the officer was in a 20km/hour zone and lookin at the video was not driving with due care in my opinion that is
 over taking a bus approching a crossing with people on the crossing!!! did i mention in a 20km zone!!

the bike was doing 87km/h due to the copper chasing him creating a dangerous situation !!!


dont get me wrong, we all do things in the heat of the moment, but we all must be accountable for our actions,

i beleave this judgement is based on was the officer acting without due care??

just like if a cfs/samfs truck was doing even 60-70km/h in a 25km/h zone do you think we would get out filtered kicked!! and should face the full force of the law even my self

i think this should be a warning to us all be carefull and do it right SAFELY


mental not to self dont watch tv and post at same time!!!

[6739264]

just like if a cfs/samfs truck was doing even 60-70km/h in a 25km/h zone do you think we would get out filtered kicked!! and should face the full force of the law even my self

And then again, depending on the situation, I would happily have the hammer down through a 25km/h zone, be it legal or not.

[Hazmat206]

That's the problem we face these days, the legal system is so out of order. A police officer was doing his job, and because some one was breaking the law (for the second time that day) and got killed they bring it back on the police. All this is going to do is lower the confidence of the police in chases, i mean, if they're going to be so weak on this rule, there are going to be more people getting away because they'll think "if i go a bit faster, they'll call the chase off and i won't get caught". I understand some one died but seriously, if you're going to try and be a hero, we'll bad luck of the out come, the police are doing their job. Idiots get away with too much these days and people who commit small crimes get away with nothing. The worse the crime, the less punishment you get!

[misterteddy]

lookin at the whole issue this is my 2c

first the officer was in a 20km/hour zone and lookin at the video was not driving with due care in my opinion that is
 over taking a bus approching a crossing with people on the crossing!!! did i mention in a 20km zone!!

the bike was doing 87km/h due to the copper chasing him creating a dangerous situation !!!


dont get me wrong, we all do things in the heat of the moment, but we all must be accountable for our actions,

i beleave this judgement is based on was the officer acting without due care??

just like if a cfs/samfs truck was doing even 60-70km/h in a 25km/h zone do you think we would get out filtered kicked!! and should face the full force of the law even my self

i think this should be a warning to us all be carefull and do it right SAFELY


mental not to self dont watch tv and post at same time!!!

please remember this when your ambulance (or first responder) arrives outside of the desired 4-5 minutes to your cardiac arrest.....even by 30seconds....and u die. Like others I am happy at 70kph past roadworkers modelling new leaning posts in a 25kph zone.....so long as its clear...and i can see them looking at me

For my part on this call.....the area is leading up to the crossing is clear...he could see the people on the crossing who were exiting the crossing...in that part of the centre, the siren would have been booming so everyone would of heard it....safe, no....aceptable risk....yes.....copper stiched up by doo-gooders (or someone he has pissed of in IA)....definitely

[RescueHazmat]

lookin at the whole issue this is my 2c

first the officer was in a 20km/hour zone and lookin at the video was not driving with due care in my opinion that is
 over taking a bus approching a crossing with people on the crossing!!! did i mention in a 20km zone!!

the bike was doing 87km/h due to the copper chasing him creating a dangerous situation !!!


dont get me wrong, we all do things in the heat of the moment, but we all must be accountable for our actions,

i beleave this judgement is based on was the officer acting without due care??

just like if a cfs/samfs truck was doing even 60-70km/h in a 25km/h zone do you think we would get out filtered kicked!! and should face the full force of the law even my self

i think this should be a warning to us all be carefull and do it right SAFELY


mental not to self dont watch tv and post at same time!!!

Extract from Firey9119: the bike was doing 87km/h due to the copper chasing him creating a dangerous situation !!! /extract.


- What a ludicrous statement!!!  Ohhh of course, its the Police Officers fault that the MORON on the bike took off.. No one told him to be an idiot! If he had pulled OVER, like most other LAW ABIDING citizens, NONE of this would have occured..


- On another note, 25km/h zone I believe (just to be technical)..

I would like the judges and lawyers and civvies to sit in the lives of Police Officers / Ambo's and Fireys for a day, with the realisation that every second CAN count, I think you would find decisions like this one might be quite different..

Sure, bash me about how you *always* come to a complete stop at red lights, and *always* give way and *always* do 25 through a signed zone while Code 1... I think anyone who is willing to admit to the truth, can all say they may have stretched a rule to save a life!

[calspec]

My 2c as well, actually more like 10c

No doubt the officers charge has opened a can of worms within Sapol - it certainly got the tongues wagging here.  I have not closely observed the circumstances of this case, however have spoken regularly with a close relative who is regularly in this situation.

Most of us aren't Cops, and haven't had the approriate Urgent Duty Driving training, so is hard to present an impartial argument.  My take is that as an officer he has to make a judgment call every time he decides to persue.

He has to measure up the risk that the speeding bike presents against the risk that two speeding vehicles creates.  Does the level of offence warrant the chase.  Would it be better to simply get close enough to take down a rego number and follow it up later.  Overtaking a bus in a speed restriction zone - well that puts him in a very precarious position.  To choose to chase in that situation was very brave (and foolish, you may suggest in hind sight).

I think he may have paid the ultimate penalty for making the wrong choice under probably quite strong pressure.  To have UDD licence is not a licence to just go for it any time you think the need is there.

As far as firies speeding through speed zones.  Well, the same thing applies - Are you going to place the safety of anybody at risk to attend burnt toast alarms, or even a going fire.  The time delay created by slowing down at a school zone or roadworks is not going to make any difference at the pointy end.  Weigh up the risks against what you realistically expect to achieve.  You would never ever forgive yourself if you caused injury (or worse) to a roadworker or child in your haste to get to a grassy that burnt 10 acres of grass and a few fence posts. The legal ramifications is another matter altogether - the rules are only there to keep everybody safe, duty of care etc etc.

[RescueHazmat]

My 2c as well, actually more like 10c

No doubt the officers charge has opened a can of worms within Sapol - it certainly got the tongues wagging here.  I have not closely observed the circumstances of this case, however have spoken regularly with a close relative who is regularly in this situation.

Most of us aren't Cops, and haven't had the approriate Urgent Duty Driving training, so is hard to present an impartial argument.  My take is that as an officer he has to make a judgment call every time he decides to persue.

He has to measure up the risk that the speeding bike presents against the risk that two speeding vehicles creates.  Does the level of offence warrant the chase.  Would it be better to simply get close enough to take down a rego number and follow it up later.  Overtaking a bus in a speed restriction zone - well that puts him in a very precarious position.  To choose to chase in that situation was very brave (and foolish, you may suggest in hind sight).

I think he may have paid the ultimate penalty for making the wrong choice under probably quite strong pressure.  To have UDD licence is not a licence to just go for it any time you think the need is there.

As far as firies speeding through speed zones.  Well, the same thing applies - Are you going to place the safety of anybody at risk to attend burnt toast alarms, or even a going fire.  The time delay created by slowing down at a school zone or roadworks is not going to make any difference at the pointy end.  Weigh up the risks against what you realistically expect to achieve.  You would never ever forgive yourself if you caused injury (or worse) to a roadworker or child in your haste to get to a grassy that burnt 10 acres of grass and a few fence posts. The legal ramifications is another matter altogether - the rules are only there to keep everybody safe, duty of care etc etc.

Do a successful 'grab' and resus, then talk about how time makes no difference!..


-So much for impartial judgement, you have already decided the cop was in the wrong.. You make that clear in your statement.



I am not going to say any more on the matter.. - I think we are going to see more Offenders getting away with Criminal acts in the future.. - Or at least they will try and evade capture, knowing of the stigma that this ruling will create.


Again.. - If only the twit had pulled over!!! We wouldn't be having this discussion!

My 20c !

[6739264]

As far as firies speeding through speed zones.  Well, the same thing applies - Are you going to place the safety of anybody at risk to attend burnt toast alarms, or even a going fire.  The time delay created by slowing down at a school zone or roadworks is not going to make any difference at the pointy end.  Weigh up the risks against what you realistically expect to achieve.  You would never ever forgive yourself if you caused injury (or worse) to a roadworker or child in your haste to get to a grassy that burnt 10 acres of grass and a few fence posts. The legal ramifications is another matter altogether - the rules are only there to keep everybody safe, duty of care etc etc.

I like they way that the two scenarios that you use "Burnt Toast Alarm" and "10 acre of grass and a few fence posts" are two very minor incidents that in only rare circumstances would go be driving at the edge of your ability for. As I had suggested early, I am entire willing to put the safety of people silly enough to walk out infont of my truck at risk in certain circustances, and no those circumstances do not happen to be fixed alarms at the usual places, nor a cat in a tree. But for something like a Structure Fire with persons reported, I may ease off a touch through a given speed zone, as road conditions dictate, but that is it.

People tend to forget that we are all responsible for our own actions. If you walk out in front of a Fire Truck doing what ever speed, you deserve to be hit (Yes kiddies are different). Much like if you run at high speed from the police and hit something and die, you made the decision to run.

RescueHazmat has hit a nail about the head for this one.

[Firey9119]

if i am reading this right (if I'm not tell me!!)

people here KNOW the rule eg stop at red light make sure safe the proceed, SLOW down going pass posted road works(keeping in mind coso state we are only permitted to do 20km above limit so 45km/h max)

and what you are saying is you WOULD do what ever speed you like and if you course an mva and worse case you kill someone, its not your fault!!

i think it is simple!! the rules are there for a reason to protect us all!! if you break the rules sorry to say i would expect you cop the full weight of the law.

yes the law state that in simple terms states we as emergency responder can break some road rules, ONLY IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO!!

we have to be accountable for all our actions!!!!

[6739264]

if i am reading this right (if I'm not tell me!!)

people here KNOW the rule eg stop at red light make sure safe the proceed, SLOW down going pass posted road works(keeping in mind coso state we are only permitted to do 20km above limit so 45km/h max)

and what you are saying is you WOULD do what ever speed you like and if you course an mva and worse case you kill someone, its not your fault!!

i think it is simple!! the rules are there for a reason to protect us all!! if you break the rules sorry to say i would expect you cop the full weight of the law.

yes the law state that in simple terms states we as emergency responder can break some road rules, ONLY IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO!!

we have to be accountable for all our actions!!!!

Now you have parts of this right and parts very very wrong. The suggestion of breaking COSO's and SOP's and then attempting to play off that I would not be at fault, is entirely incorrect. All I said was that in certain circumstances, I would happily not strictly adhere to COSO's and SOP's. I think that it may be hard for people to grasp the varied nature of our responses, and the areas that we drive through that have special speed limits. For exmaple, if I were going to a job that required a more time critical response than normal, and I enter a school zone with two children standing off to the side of the road, yet on the roadway side of the school fencing, and the area in which I am driving has plently of visibility, I will happily chug along through there at a cracking pace. If I feel it necessary, I may even drift to the opposite side of the road to allow an extended safety cushion around the children.

The point is that at times, and with proper training, and under very specific circumstances, I am happy to take on the responsibility of making my own decisions. If everything went pear shaped would I expect to have the book thrown at me? OF COURSE! Not for one second would I dare to think that by stepping outside of COSO's and SOP's I was still entitled to protection by the CFS.

The long and short of it is that sometimes decisions need to be made in the heat of the moment, we can only use our SOP's and COSO's as a guide. If a rule needs to be bent, or smashed, now and then for a positive outcome, then so be it. We can't adhere to the book 24/7.

And yes, I expect that my opinion will cause a shitstorm, but hey, when hasn't that been the case?

[jaff]

Its not a new concept for us as responders to step outside of the COSOs and SOPs for expediency at certain times, the situation that CFS/MFS may find themselves in is different to the police by the very nature of the design of our appliances.
In most cases the officer in charge of the appliance will not be driving the appliance, distance from the steering wheel tends to give you a better perspective on speed and "relative overall safety" and if the driver of the appliance is stretching the boundaries too far, they normally will be kept in check by the officer or an equally attentive crew.
"A common sense approach to a situation is more easily achieved by concensus, than by an individual" a soon to be famous quote by the Jaffmiester, World war 2 and all the other power grabs by despots and their cronies not withstanding!

[jaff]

In further thinking about this subject, Appliance drivers need to be situationally aware at all times when driving priority 1 or even just tooling around offroad in difficult conditions.
Situational awareness involves using most your senses at one time!
Sight- anything seen that may cause you to alter course.
Hearing- any noise that is out of the ordinary for your current task.
Touch- feedback through the wheel and the seat of your pants may be the first hint of trouble.
Taste- unfortunately this sense is usually dulled by the lingering after taste of SPAM
Smell- an often overlooked sense when driving, but a rank smell may well be the greatest indicator of impending danger, Yep when one of your crew follows through you should definitely reassess your situation!

[Hazmat206]

 I may even drift to the opposite side of the road to allow an extended safety cushion around the children. - Good point

And yes, I expect that my opinion will cause a shitstorm, but hey, when hasn't that been the case? - True!
[/quote]

[boredmatrix]

All this banter...and no mention of natural selection.....


really - why did this make the media anyway - it's north of Gepps Cross?

[6739264]

All this banter...and no mention of natural selection.....


really - why did this make the media anyway - it's north of Gepps Cross?

Because man, fuk tha police and all that jazz.

It shouldn't have made court, let alone the media.

[Alan (Big Al)]

What is wrong with internal discipline of the officer if it's warranted, i agree with most the driver made a couple of errors in judgement but should not have been taken to court.

And as for the motorcyclist well ya get whats coming to you.

[Firey9119]

btw

if the officer stopped the dude on the bike earlier that day he would have all his details!!

so why chase him, let him go and go around his house later that night knock on the door and say "your nicked buster"

[rescue5271]

I agree 100% with phil,the officer did stop the guy on the bike early in the day and the chase should have been stopped once it hit the speeds that it did in such a area.. I think we also need to take into account that we are not hearing the full story unless you have been in court each day with this case...the media would only have reported what they want us to read/hear.