19 December 2007

Another police chase ends badly

| Skidbladnir
Join the conversation
123

According to the The ABC, the Clea Rose coronial inquest is due to publish findings today.
But in a bad case of unfortunate timing, the ABC are also reporting that a 17 year old male is in a serious condition after a bungled police chase last night.

Join the conversation

123
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
Latest
Deadmandrinking1:12 pm 27 Dec 07

Well, I’d say judges get their fair share here. I just have to say Terry Higgins and these guys will start barking.

They did a good job with the 17-year old who ran away. The fact that he crashed into a tree was his own fault. I hope I made that clear in that topic.

DMD, Fair call in that Police need to be accountable, But lets be realistic here, No matter what Police do, there is always someone who camplains. It’s not very often you here a forum started about what a great job the Police did. There is a need to be accountable, but gees, What about other organisations that should be accountable, ie firies, doctors, government, judges, etc etc. The list goes on, however it always seems to come back to the cops.

Deadmandrinking11:18 pm 26 Dec 07

It seems like that, Vicepope. But as you said, it’s alot different from immunization. The main part is that there are alternate measures to combating car crime. Plates, descriptions (which work only sometimes), backing off and following at a safe distance (like the case in the other topic), harsher penalties for evading police (which would probably stop most of the ‘aw, I don’t want a DUI – slam the pedal’ types) and I’m sure the law enforcement tactical geniuses have a few other tricks up their sleeves.

The other main part is that with vaccination, you are generally trying to save lives, not property. As other people have said, no car can ever be worth someones life, ever.

I agree that the coppers should be accountable – and they are, in a number of ways. (Professional Standards for the small stuff, Ombudsman oversight for a lot of stuff, Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner for corruption, inquests, evidence giving in criminal matters, being criminally charged, Legislative Assembly Committee hearings on pretty well anything). This is how it should be.

Where it gets icky is trying to work out how much collateral damage the community is prepared to put up for the sake of law enforcement. My previous post suggested it was difficult – it might be impossible. For example, if the police do a number of chases in a given period and, by catching perpetrators and sending a message to potential offenders, they reduce significantly the amount of serious crime (ie fewer people murdered, kidnapped, raped, robbed etc). Are we happy to accept some level of unavoidable by-product in the form of noise and fright, damage to property, personal injuries or death? If we want the police to go after only those villains who put their hands up when challenged, we might as well replace them with social workers.

The immunisation analysis might apply here. Immunise a million people and, say, 1000 will get sick, 100 will get very sick and 10 will die as a result of the immunisation. Is it worth doing if it saves 100 lives and corresponding sickness from the illness? The logical answer is that it is, but that’s cold comfort if it’s your child who dies. The police chase thing is just more complex because of the number of variables in it. If you apply the Current Affair/Today Tonight test, whatever the police do will be able to be portrayed as wrong. If they act, and someone dies, they will be abused for causing a death (largely ignoring the role of the idiot being pursued). If they don’t act, it’s a case of “Canberra, where car thieves/armed robbers/whatever thumb their nose at the law”. No win.

Deadmandrinking7:42 pm 24 Dec 07

Vicepope, I know it must be hard to be a copper and I honestly do feel sorry for the amount of sh-t they have to put up with. I will always be the first to welcome more funding and more numbers to the Afp, because they bloody need it.

But, regardless of the difficulties of the job, they must always be held accountable to the public, simply because without that accountability, without the public having the right to criticize their actions, we lose an essential democratic aspect of our society. The guilt trips people try to push on critics always annoy me for this reason. Many pollies have hard jobs, even personal cost, yet none of us feel guilty for criticizing them – and we shouldn’t.

Okay, that’s it from the DMD newsroom this christmas. I’m about to eat a fat turkey and some prawns and boiled eggs and kaviar and god knows what else but it smells nice. Have a merry christmas all (except you, BigDave) and a happy new year. Have safe holidays too, so you’re fit to come back and have heated arguments whilst we should be getting work done (follow the last one BigDave). Cya’s.

it may seem counter-intuitive, but if you investigate it, the numbers would stack up…

what does our proud local think of the concept, i wonder?

merry festive everyone – ‘m orf now. bon noel and eat chocolate (and don’t try to run from the law, huh??) ; )

Astrojax – Don’t think so.

This must be a terrible issue for those responsible for law enforcement. If you go after people who are demonstrably committing an offence, and they try to get away, only two things can happen. The police chase with a view to catching the offender but, in doing so, expose the ublic to considerable risk from both the pursued and the pursuers. Or the police note the event as evidence and think about going to catch the villain some other time. And this puts the maintenance of law and order in disrepute – if there is no chance of being chased and caught, more people may offend. As well, a criminal would know that all he/she has to do is put the foot down – and that, in itself, will lead to more accidents.

Any analysis that talks about whether a chase is worthwhile ignores two things. First, while the stolen car or previous traffic offence may be relatively trivial, there is still an offence. Second, it requires a matrix where no risk, some risk substantial risk and serious risk of collision has to be ticked off against the gravity of the possible offence in assessing proportionality, having regard as well to other factors (such as record, probability of other offences, driving skill of the offender and the police pursuer etc). It’s all too complicated to set simple rules.

The really nasty little problem is that any form of law enforcement carries some risk to the general public. Is society prepared to say that the risk of some collateral damage (in these cases, the death of an innocent person and the unbearable grief and sense of injustice of that person’s family) is worth it? If it’s not, then we might as well give up on the idea of systematised law and return to retribution by the victims.

Problem with all these theories, is that no one considers what evidence it takes to put the person before court.

Comment by vandam — 22 December, 2007 @ 2:25 pm

The nail hit fair square on the head!

All I can say is that with the Clea Rose thing, once that kid saw the Police, they had no idea what actions or streets he would take. As mentioned above. The kid saw Police even before the chase started. Police barely had enough time to catch up to the car, before it could be called a ‘Chase’. I think the Coroner’s decision is a good one. There are strict measures Police have to follow in regards to pursuits. And more often than not, they get terminated anyway. You know there are probably about 10 pursuits a week. your lucky to catch 1 or 2. The rest get away and remain unidentified.
Is what canberrans want is at least (only according to pursuits) 8 people getting away with serious crimes a week? The next thing will be why aren’t Police catching the offenders.

Deadmandrinking1:33 pm 23 Dec 07

Maybe if you read my comments, you’d see.

“Vandam – perhaps a solution would be to make it a more serious offense to evade police, thereby giving that drunk driver a greater penalty than what he would have had he stopped?”

Shush BigDave. Waddle back to the fridge and help yourself to some ice-cream, but be careful – the cyclists might get it first!

I think we’ve established earlier that it’s not about letting them go, it’s about not pursuing the vehicle in dangerous conditions – ie, populated or suburban areas. If it’s an open wide freeway then I don’t think anyone has an issue. That’s my take anyway.

actually, dave, not pursuing [in peopled environs like near civic] would probably see such a small increase in incidence as to be negligible. if they only catch them after someone else gets hurt, what’s the point? and often enough the plice ‘know’ the offender and can apprehend them later, so probably in practice there wouldn’t be much difference.

the maiming and killing is, after all, usually associated with the panic of being pursued, not just the random driving about…

so you could be, to answer your question, a whole lot stupider…

DMD is on another f**king planet as usual. Yeah, let’s not pursue. Let them go so they can maim or kill somebody somewhere else.
Does that work for you? How stupid can you possibly be???

How about this for a change in regulations to protect the innocent bystanders.

Police are given greater powers and bull bars. In case of pursuit they punt car off the road (providing safe for pedestrians) thus ending pursuit and catching bad guy.

This does two things:

1 – ends pursuits quickly with decreased risk to ublic albeit increased risk to offender.

2 – sends clear message to offenders that should they run they are putting themselves at greater risk than if they just stop.

DMD – Until someone invests a mobile EMP to disable cars have you got another option. You have spouted a fair bit about your dislike of the police and about regulation changes, but I am yet to see any options put forward.

Deadmandrinking2:30 pm 22 Dec 07

I still think the regulations should be change, regardless of my personal convictions surrounding the coroners findings. High speeds pursuits are bloody dangerous and human life will always take priority over property. Even in America, they’re looking at alternate solutions. Why can’t we here, now the issue has been raised?

Vandam – perhaps a solution would be to make it a more serious offense to evade police, thereby giving that drunk driver a greater penalty than what he would have had he stopped?

DMD, even though that theory makes sense, the Problem Police have is that when they get to the address sometime after the idiot is home. All he needs to say is ‘Sorry guys I knew I should’ve stopped. I couldn’t stop thinking about, I’ve been drinking since I got home’ They do say that, then all you have is a fail to stop charge.

Problem with all these theories, is that no one considers what evidence it takes to put the person before court.

DMD, it was written in the CT the day after the juvenille gave his evidence. Naturally, as it was the CT and it wasn’t critical of police, it wasn’t plastered on the front page.
I still prefer to go on the evidence of the juvenille along with the video footage. Are you saying the young offender was lying? What on earth would he have to gain by lying?
Some witnesses said the police were doing 80-100km through the interchange, some said they were doing 20km. Under the circumstances of the night, including the consumption of alcohol, I would be very cautious in relying on witness accounts.
DMD, you obviously don’t agree with the finding of the Coroner. Like it or not, that is now a matter of public record. She was presented with all the evidence, including that of witnesses, and came to a finding. She clearly stated that the pursuit had nothing to do with the death of Clea Rose, and in fact commenced after she was struck. Therefore, your continued questioning of the actions of police is completely irrelvant. Time to move on.

Deadmandrinking12:36 pm 22 Dec 07

But is it worth risking someone’s life for it?

Taking down the number plate is useless for stolen cars.

Deadmandrinking11:42 am 22 Dec 07

Sands, it is a really tough one. Alot of grey area.

MRB, just after the incident, why were all the witnesses saying the car which the police were driving had lights flashing and were only a few seconds behind the car when it struck Clea? Did they all make it up on the spot? Why did an independent inquiry find otherwise?

Which news story are you referring too btw, MRB, the CT and the ABC and some other news websites made no actual mention of those sequence of events.

“From juvenille’s sworn evidence during the coronial inquest, he stated that the second he saw the AFP badge on the sleeve of the driver of the unmarked sedan, he took off and made the decision to drive down East Row. This was prior to police activiating lights and sirens, and prior to the police vehicle even following the stolen car.”

Look, you can’t just come along and introduce actual facts at this stage of the debate!

It makes all of the above police-haters look really, really stupid…..

yeah, I get your point now. If they’re drunk and being chased then they’re less likely to pay attention to the road and will be distracted with the rear vision, getting away etc.

It’s not a license to do it, but an observation that being chased is going to increase the chances of an accident.

It’s a tough one.

I shall post this on both threads, for the benefit of DMD…

Officer plod, driving along London Circuit when it is dark… follow so far? Juvenille drives stolen car out of car park in opposite direction. From juvenille’s sworn evidence during the coronial inquest, he stated that the second he saw the AFP badge on the sleeve of the driver of the unmarked sedan, he took off and made the decision to drive down East Row. This was prior to police activiating lights and sirens, and prior to the police vehicle even following the stolen car. That’s when Clea Rose had her fate sealed. Geez, if only those silly plods didn’t leave the station that night, none of this would have happened.

Deadmandrinking1:38 am 22 Dec 07

As opposed to him speeding off and ploughing into someone once the cops chase him, a’la the umm…clea rose case?

Of course the cops would try stop him at first, if he sped off and the pursuit got dangerous at high speeds or with lots of people around, then they should call it off.

el ......VNBerlinaV812:46 am 22 Dec 07

You did take down his number, though. What if you were a cop and he didn’t stop? You would be able to run his plate number through and find his address. He’d be screwed then.

Yeah, provided he didn’t run a red light and plough into an innocent driver BEFORE HE GOT HOME you imbecile.

Deadmandrinking12:22 am 22 Dec 07

It’s the same argument, just different threads, don’t worry, mate.

You raised a good point, mate. I’m not saying that my theory would be 100% foolproof. Yes, there’d be crashes from speeding loons who’ve just done a runner from the cops. The question is; is the drunk driver going to be more likely to drive dangerously with the police on his tail? That’s what I think.

You did take down his number, though. What if you were a cop and he didn’t stop? You would be able to run his plate number through and find his address. He’d be screwed then.

I don’t want to go too far down this path, though. I’m no police expert, just someone with an opinion , like all of us here (with the exception of Proud Local).

Just realised that should have been posted on the other thread – I knew it was one of them…

Ok, so DMD I thought about you as I drove home today and about an earlier comment you made about taking down number plates to avoid dangerous chases. I overtook a white car (about 5.30pm) that was swerving all over the tuggeranong parkway at around 80km and when I passed, the guy could barely hold his head up. I have NEVER seen anyone that pissed behind a wheel in my life. So anyway, I took down his number plate and was wondering how your theory would play out from here? He’s either home safely sleeping it off, wrapped around a tree or worse (someone else is).

Taking his number plate did nothing but if the police pulled him over, he would be off the road and wouldn’t be a danger to himself or others. If he suddenly ‘woke up’ and sped off, should the police back off and hope that he makes it home safely and doesn’t drive into on coming traffic etc or hit a pedestrian etc?

I’m not having a go at your theory, just testing it.

Deadmandrinking5:25 pm 21 Dec 07

You’d be surprised at the amount of criminals that were brought up in families that believed in discipline, Nyssa. Youths rebel. Some too hard.

Whereas I would complain about why the crime was ‘allowed’ to happen, meaning, why did the person get to that state before he/she did it?

Society is too lenient period.

The ‘there, there’ hippie mantra is the reason that a 17yo kid can be a criminal without taking responsibility for his/her actions. The child’s parents should also be hung, drawn and quartered for not doing their parental responsibility i.e. bringing up their child to respect society and the law.

Deadmandrinking3:46 pm 21 Dec 07

I agree with the last line after ‘send them to jail longer’. People complain about lenient sentences, I’m complaining about lack of proper rehabilitation.

astrojax – Do you have idea what type of people are out there? What these people do to other people without any regard for their safety? Not all but a lot of these criminals who are heavy drug users, don’t care what they steal, who they assault, what they damage. All they care about is their next hit. When someone has 300 crim history, it is pretty clear “justice” isn’t working. They need to be punished. So send them to jail longer, or better still get some boot camps running with education programs so they can come back to society as a productive member of the community.

Deadmandrinking2:55 pm 21 Dec 07

It is a gray line, astrojax. I think some of the answer might lie within balancing which is more important: a car thief being arrested, or the public safety being put at risk. Punisher or the protector? Keeping order as well as law? Insert crappy philosophical sounding question here?

You know what I mean anyway. Merry Christmas!

i wasn’t suggesting that mental illness can’t have some input fro the parents and, as you cogently point out, genetics is implicated in fair proportion of cases…

it doesn’t follow, though, that parents should be held responsible for their actions, as if they have some magical hold over them. people with mental illness are stil people and act as autonomous agents.

and as for your last question, you are being disinegenuous from the outset – ‘criminal’ and ‘punished’, which is rather the whole point in a debate over appropriate reaction to a person of diminished capacity commiting an action prescribed by the crimes act.

if a family member were to be killed in the event of a criminal activity, then i would expect appropriate justice; but the prima facie circumstances can’t be relied on to indicate what form that might take. no value can truly be asssigned to a life and it is churlish to expect the justice system to assign one.

life sucks and, according to a former PM, wasn’t meant to be easy. I suspect, on a personal level, that a sentence of 18mths for those convicted of occasioning the death of ms rose is immensely lenient and i wonder what lessons (ie what justice) is thus visited upon them and their future actions. let’s just hope it is enough.

and dmd, while the xmas spirit is indeed among us and i find myself agreeing with much of what maelinar has posted here, it is also a very dim and grey line between preserving safety and prosecuting the duty to apprehend evil-doers… how do we define this line? and how do we apportion blame when it is crossed – to the police so prosecuting in good faith, or to the scrotes who cause the pursuit and its resulting catastrophe?

[10s can be a long way and an even vaguely competent driver shouldn’t ‘panic’ – this lends much weight to the latter in my above scenario]

Deadmandrinking2:15 pm 21 Dec 07

Maelinar – investigating crimes and arresting suspects should never take precedent over the preservation of safety.

BD84 – 10 secs behind is still enough to be seen and for the driver to panic. Note in the chase this topic started around, they were 30 secs behind.

Astrojax, Whilst I stand corrected on the 300 charges = 300 victims comment, I don’t agree with you on the Mental Illness people. A majority of those people have issues becuase
A = it’s in the their family ie depression etc.
B = Their parents mistreat them ie assault etc and C = Their on choices in life ie drugs etc.

Whilst parents are the main players in what issues a child will grow up with, they also rely on government services which are currently appalling. I know this from first hand experience.

Secondly if a criminal breaks the law, they should be punished. Are you going to be happy if your house gets burgled,all your prized possessions stolen and the offender gets away with it? better still in ACT if your family member gets run over and killed by a kid driving a stolen car, are you going to be happy with the kid being behind bars for 18 mths? Is that what your family member is worth – 18 mths?

I know it’s a crazy hypothetical but I was wondering how many of you would let this guy rob your house or assault your daughter if it meant some magic could save his life? Just curious as to how many people put a crims life above their own property or well being?

Yep, karma came right up and hit him with a tree.

It’s definitely not a good thing that a young life is taken – no matter what the situation.

But it’s hard to feel sad, when this is the same person that burgles your house and steals cars for fun.

One word springs to mind – Karma.

Can’t see the problem in this case. Some little shit runs, crashes and dies = 1 less apprentice criminal to graduate to bigger and better crimes. Alternatively, if he survives, with luck the criminal urges will have been brain damaged out of him.

Skid, you are a prodigy of a cretin father.

So sue me if you can find me.

I think people obsess about police behaviour in these instances, because everyone knows nothing will change the behaviour of an unrepentant teenage car thief. So we imagine that we can improve things by making more and more rules for the police.

If only VG was still around. He would love the majority of posts on this thread.

You just don’t understand this: There is absolutely no requirement for the police to stop following a vehicle that they want to pull over, for the escaping vehicle is already breaking the law by fleeing.

Therefore they are doing exactly what we are asking them to do (investigate and solve crimes and pursue the rule of law) by following the vehicle that is breaking the law.

Naturally, if the people breaking the law don’t want to either crash, hit somebody or otherwise, they should bloody well pull over and stop. Until they do so, the police are pursuing crime.

dmac: to clarify, I have ZERO sympathy for someone who dies while running from police, the person driving the car dying is the best outcome possible faced with a choice between them and some innocent person minding their own business.

Yes there is a danger whenever there is a police pursuit, but there is still going to be a danger if they let the person go. In reality they’re these little shits who have never held a drivers licence and are not old enough to hold one, a drunk driver or a dangerous offender. I would feel less safe if the police did not try and aprehend them.

Deadmandrinking: “closely behind” it was proven by video footage that the officers pursuing were about 10 seconds behind the car that hit Clea. Try standing next to a main road and counting to 10 and you will realise that that 10 seconds is a fair distance, even more than the 2 seconds behind they recommend when people are normally driving (0.5 in Canberra traffic).

There are many things that could have happened that night. The scrotes could have not stolen the car in the first place, the police could have just sat and watched them steal the car and did nothing (would you be angry if they watched someone steal yours? answer: yes), the scrotes could have pulled over when directed, they could have made the choice to turn a street earlier and avoid the interchange, they could have crossed to the wrong side of the road when faced with banked up traffic and killed themselves and perhaps people going the other way, Clea may not have got totally pissed off her face and had a faster reaction time when hearing the car coming, they could have got away and crashed the car into a tree later… so many choices and outcomes… the police did their job, the scrotes made the wrong choice and killed a girl then got piss weak sentences.

Adding more rules and variables to the system just complicates the thought process and causes confusion which will lead to more accidents. Time for the do-good whingers to shut up and crawl back into their holes and let the police try and do their jobs.

Deadmandrinking7:25 pm 20 Dec 07

“Say this bloke had hit someone walking home drunk from the tradies and killed them. Would it then have been the Police’s fault?” The Police called off the chase before it got dangerous. They didn’t in Clea Rose’s case – they were right behind the boys.

Maybe the system does need to be changed. If the police were following guidelines and that resulted in them following a car closely at high speeds through the city center – then that needs to be addressed.

Ok DMD you keep bringing it up.

Say this bloke had hit someone walking home drunk from the tradies and killed them. Would it then have been the Police’s fault?

Clea Rose’s case – Police saw wankers in stolen car. They ran – chose to drive through a crowded area – why you ask – because they are well aware that Police are either not going to follow, or follow at much reduced speed, through a crowded area due to stringent guidelines on Police pursuits and thus they will get away.

Its the same reason they do things like blow stop signs and red lights, drive on the wrong side of the road, turn headlights off – dangerous yes – more likely to get away and the pursuit stopped yes. Just watch crap American cop TV and you will see all of these things.

You tell me if my reasoning is flawed…

What’s with the outbreak of crazies lately?

Anyway, I’m not in the PS either.

My view on this subject was best summed up by Mælinar with:

“They didn’t die because they were running from the police, they will die because they hit a tree, during which time the police were trying to prevent them from doing aforementioned damage.

Discuss the merits of their approach to stopping them doing damage all you like, NO fault lies with them as they were legally allowed to pull over the vehicle and instruct it to stop.

Case. Closed.”

adios barney – i for one, while in the ps now, have had considerable life experience.

and dmd, why insist the police are ‘at least partly to blame’ – tell us what system for orderly conduct among fallible himanity do you propose to replace the human police officers enacting their profession within its given framework? blame the system in which they operate, mebbe, but to say in any way the police were to blame when they reacted by making an initial attempt to apprehend a person reasonably suspected of having committed a crime (which they probably reasonably thought the comunity they represent would have wanted them to apprehend).

this is all getting too silly for me too. can i come with you, barney?

barking toad4:45 pm 20 Dec 07

Is barney really margo in drag?

I can’t recall seeing them in the same thread together.

Yes Adios Barney! o.O

I’m not a pube either.

Bye Barney – we’ll really miss you.

Deadmandrinking4:02 pm 20 Dec 07

Maleinar, I said in this particular case, it was solely the fault of the driver.

In the other one, it wasn’t, as the police decided to pursue them at dangerous speeds through a crowded area.

Capice?

Deadmandrinking3:56 pm 20 Dec 07

I’m not a pube.

They didn’t die because they were running from the police, they will die because they hit a tree, during which time the police were trying to prevent them from doing aforementioned damage.

Discuss the merits of their approach to stopping them doing damage all you like, NO fault lies with them as they were legally allowed to pull over the vehicle and instruct it to stop.

Case. Closed.

The Riot-ACT has been overrun by “short sighted closet fascists”. Mainly, people who sit in offices immune to the real world where they have never had any experience. They find the most childish things extremely amusing, whinge about things that “affect them only” like coffee prices. It’s the Public Service “I am important in my own world” selfish mentality that is put on display by the boring and stupid comments that they make, and the gas-guzzling “look at me” vehicles that they drive with one person to their “DESERVED JOB’S” every morning so that they can use RiotACT all day and cry fowl about “Public Service Razor Gangs of the Labor Government” when they think that they might not be able to go down to their luxury beach house in the holidays because they know that they are moronic “yes men/women” with no brains and they feel threatened.

Want a slice of banality, join the Public Service and talk a shit load of hot air on http://the-riotact.com. Nobody’s making you. It’s a free world…

Adios. Dudes …………

“But I don’t subscribe to the view that if someone breaks the law their death is deserved or meaningless.”

I do!

Deadmandrinking3:46 pm 20 Dec 07

Special G, people on here have failed to convince me that the police were not partially to blame.

“And every single policeman and woman is human. Lets not forget that they are human, and subject to all the problems that come with being a human, like error.”

So are 17-year olds. Even Criminals.

Nobody deserves to die because they ran from the police.

Headbone – I agree that it is terrible when an innocent person is killed by another person breaking the law. I also agree that it warrants immediate and lengthy custodial sentences.

But I don’t subscribe to the view that if someone breaks the law their death is deserved or meaningless.

Actually dmac, I am with bd84 on that one, if someone breaks the law and dies as a result then it is not only acceptable but they qualify for the Darwin awards as well. What is not acceptable is when they wipe out some innocent person as a result of their unlawful actions and live to tell the tale. That warrants immediate and lengthy custodial sentences.

bd84 – just to clarify you think if someone breaks the law it is acceptable that they die?

And every single policeman and woman is human. Lets not forget that they are human, and subject to all the problems that come with being a human, like error.

That said, some policemen and women are very very good.

@dmac: Anonymity polarises people. RiotAct posters tend to have large opinions and hit people with them, until legal action is pursued.

@vandam: I don’t have any tickets, nor have ever been locked away. I don’t think all police are good guys (or bad guys), but some are definitely better at or more suited to the job of community policing and patrolling than others.
The alleged is older than 16, but not yet old enough to be named. If he was twelve, I might care about parental involvement.

My view of police isn’t particularly fond though. Experience as a security guard and intruder\duress alarm monitorer & organising cars has highlighted that average people can often be on their own.

no, 300 charges of say, use dope, possess dope, etc, means 300 charges and no victims.

incompetent sentencing? you mean, not enforcing draconian incarceration on every single person who transgresses the line between perfect you and your idea of ‘wrong’. what exactly do you want a justice system to do? seems like you want a ‘punishment’ system. the two terms are quite quite different, y’know.

and back to the parent thing, you really have no idea about mental illness, do you? you really oughta get out and about and pay attention. mebbe go visit a psych ward and tell me that each and every person in there has crap parents. go on. many other readers may find such sentiments sad and upsetting. not that you might care…

dmac – we can tell your new! people say these things all the time. get use to it! People say these things because of the incompetent judges sentencing these people. If there were adequate sentencing then we wouldn’t have half the problems in society as we do today. And it’s only going to get worse. Fact is, there are people in their 30’s living out there with over 300 charges against them. Please tell me that person does not deserve to be behind bars. 300 charges = 300 victims.

The chase ended well from all I can see, perhaps not for the tree though. Poor tree had some little dickhead in a stolen car crash into it. I don’t see how the chase was “bungled”, they may have driven past the accident, but that would be easy to do at night.

As for the Clea Rose BS what a waste of money just to tell us what we already knew. The police were within their rights to chase the car, they weren’t to know they were complete dipshits who were going to drive through a bus interchange at high speed. The city is hardly “crowded at night” would be even moreso during the day the fact is that the one person who could have avoided the accident was the one driving the stolen car by simply pulling over. Feel sorry for the family, but i’ve had enough of their whinging and looking for others to blame when they and everyone else in this city already know the little shits driving were to blame.

As for dmac, crawl back into the hole from which you came. It’s hardly a “redneck” view.. go look it up in the dictionary.. It wouldn’t have been a big loss if the kid did die, it’s like taking your chance swimming through crocodile infested waters, good chance you could die. Not sure where the “police state” comes into it.. look that one up in the dictionary too.. it doesn’t relate to anything you said, and to put it simply, if you’re not breaking the law (including stealing cars and not stopping for police) you most likely will never have a problem with the police.

I am new to this site and I have to say I am horrified by some of the redneck attitudes – people wishing this kid had died? So we now advocate the death penalty for people fleeing police custody? You want a police state that bad go move to one.

Snahons_scv6_berlina10:44 am 20 Dec 07

Police pursuits are the result of the person attempting to flee. If that person abided by the law and stopped there would be no pursuit. Therefore everything that occurs as a result of a pursuit should be the responsibility of the person fleeing and not the police.

We can muddy the waters about the protocols and procedures police must adhere to when engaging in this activity but lets not forget the overriding fact, the person fleeing is the root cause of why the pursuit occured.

Oh, and lets not forget that the latest contender for the Darwin Awards (the subject of this article) had two warrants out for their arrest.

Having said that, there is obviously cause for guidelines to be in place that govern how these ‘pursuits’ are handled. Travelling 100 km/h in a suburban street is unlikely to be a safe option in most circumstances.

If they had chosen not to do this, there is a chance the Clea Rose tragedy would have been avoided.

Or theres a chance that the offender, smug in his ability to evade police, continues on his wild driving escapades.

At the next set of traffic lights he arrives at, he realises that the heat is on and that the police couldn’t be too far behind, so he runs the red light, and the next one, and the next one, and the next one, and so on.

At each of those traffic lights there is a risk that some poor sap not paying adequate attention (possibly inebriated) is going to be accosted by the tonne-or-so of metal being piloted by the offender.

The point is, life is full of surprises, and one action avoided can lead to other actions eventuating, and vice-versa.

If the Police enact a policy of ‘no pursuit’ then offenders are given open slather to do as they wish, safe in the knowledge that they can drive away at speed with immunity.

The ABC 7pm and WIN news last night both reported that the alleged is now in a critical rather than serious condition.

Sounds like a good result all round, with the cops doing the right thing, and the offender getting his just desserts. Hopefully the poor bugger who’s car he stole will get some sort of (legal) crask at him too.

Special G haven’t been anywhere, still reading The RiotACT, just appalled at Ingegoodbee’s lack of IQ and felt that it needed comment.

DMD I’m not going to go into it – it has been said a number of times on differnent threads – just goes to show you have no schmick of what you write.

Good to see you back bone – where you been?

You are right DMD, it was said toungue in cheek. Ingeegoodbee would be the last person you’d want enforcing the law. It would be akin to making Bob Brown Commissioner and John Stanhope Deputy.

Deadmandrinking5:20 am 20 Dec 07

And, sorry to double post, Headbone, that is a ridiculous argument “go and join them”. The police should always be accountable to the community at large.

Deadmandrinking5:17 am 20 Dec 07

Special G – The police chose to make a pursuit through a crowded city center late at night. If they had chosen not to do this, there is a chance the Clea Rose tragedy would have been avoided. This is not to say that the boys who stole the car were not to blame as well. They clearly were. But the fact that the decisions of the police resulted in elevating the deadly situation puts some (not all) of the blame on the police.

In the case of the topic’s car chase, the police did the right thing. Good on them.

Ingeeweirddude…..the coroner bags the firies so goes easy on the cops? The problem with your ‘argument’ (well, not really an ‘argument’ as such, just a very odd statement…) – the coroner didn’t bag the firies – they did an outstanding job as directed by their bosses. If you bother to make yourself informed, the coroner ‘bagged’ the bosses, not the people on the ground. You comments are offensive at the very least.
Secondly, why would a coroner decide to go easy on the cops after ‘bagging’ the firies? Weird logic….
‘Fat-butt donut munchers’ – from what I’ve seen, some of the cops in this town don’t look too bad at all! Kudos to the recruitment people!
Finally, I may be incorrect but for some reason, imagining you as a fat-ass, KFC eating, arm-chair sitting, expert on everything, part time human seems to be as obvious as the sun rising in the morning.

The pursuit lasted about 30 seconds before being wisely called off due to the extremely dangerous manner of driving by the youth.

30 seconds later he crashed on his own accord.

He was in a stolen car. He never had a licence.

He did not hit Clea Rose. The bloke who did still steals cars though.

Ingeegoodbee I bet you wouldn’t be such a smartar*e when you are face to face with the “Fat-Butt Donut Munchers” as you have so eloquently written. I you chose to be I am sure you would be appalled at the outcome on a personal level. FYI it was a different Coroner in both matters. This posting just demonstrates your ill-tempered view of the judiciary as well as our emergency services. If you are that unhappy with the Police go and join them and enlighten them with your expertise.

el ......VNBerlinaV810:05 pm 19 Dec 07

Shoot the kid, then the parents.

Problem solved.

Ingeegoodbee9:59 pm 19 Dec 07

I guess after bagging on the firies the coroner thought it might be time to give the fat-butt donut munchers a break.

Good result all round me thinks. Police cleared of any wrongdoing with the Clea Rose thing (DMD back in your box) and bad guy caught with bonus injuries caused by …. himself and his own stupidity.

There is a facebook group to reflect this type of discussion http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2406005664

Jonathon Reynolds8:45 pm 19 Dec 07

@Skidbladnir — 19 December, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
On that basis… every car accident (regardless of the circumstances) you would claim that speed was a contributory factor if the vehicle was moving!

Blame is being shared around, when these incidents would NEVER have happened without the criminal activities of the young perpetrators.

The full ramifications should be sheeted home to these individuals. Police involvement is almost incidental, and certainly after the event.

Why do we allow mitigating circumstances to reduce the responsibility visited on these youths, and ramp up the responsibility of the Police? Are we admitting that we do not know how to handle these individuals, but society demands a fall guy?

I’m sorry the Rose family feel jilted that the Police were not implicated in the death of Clea. But again, why is so little opprobrium visited on the driver of the stolen car?

regardless Astrojax of the childs condition mentally or physically, its up to the parents to manage that. If they can’t, they get help. But they don’t. And if you were to look at the kids parents, you’d probably find they’re all f*** up too!

I really can’t understand some people on this forum. I suspect that those whinging about the cops have either been locked up for being a crook or given a ticket they don’t want to take responsibility for. For FS people, why are we picking on the good guys. Its the crooks that are responsible. That crook stole a car ran it into a tree or bus interchange. before Police even started chasing the car think about this – Where were the parents? If he didn’t steal the car would the pursuit still have happened? and thirdly don’t think that all these ‘MINORS’ are great young people making stupid decisions. There are some minors that have well of 50 criminal charges against them. And they don’t give a crap about people. look at the bloke who killed clea, obviously didn’t learn much cause he’s breached his parole. But no ones upset about that. Nah it’s much easier blaming the Police. God get a life!

assert all you like, skidbladnir, but there seems to be nothing at all remotely even a bit likely to be embarrassing for the afp in them attempting to stop a vehicle, it driving away at speed and the driver colliding with a tree, with the police no longer even in sight.

you are drawing a very very long bow and continuing to do so with prettywell every sane poster here drawing this to your attention.

i suggest you go spend a few shifts with a police patrol and see up close what they do, then consider what they might have done differently here. seems very inflammatory to say ‘bungled’.

and hutch, just ’cause a kid misbehaves doesn’t automatically imply some mal-parenting. have you heard of mental disorders? have you considered that a person, yep even a juvenile, might suffer from one of these without the parents necessarily wanting him to??

Deadmandrinking5:47 pm 19 Dec 07

Mr Evil, it said a Dunlop teenager, not an Ainslie Teenager.

What I can see here that in this case, unlike the Clea Rose debacle, the Police appear to have taken the correct course of action and that the young guy made some stupid decisions. It’s good no-one got killed.

This does not validate the Clea Rose case, mind you. The police f-ked that one up.

@Skidbladnir

NEWSFLASH: The ACT Coroner has found a police pursuit did not contribute to the death of Clea Rose two years ago

I put this question out there…When will we as a society start promoting some self-responsibility rather than always blaming others?

Also when will parents start taking some responsibility for their childrens actions??? I can almost promise that this idiots parents don’t really give a crap about you, me or the law!

Which has cleared police of being a contributing factor, even though the ABC is using the words “Police were pursuing the car through Civic in Canberra’s city centre when Ms Rose was struck” and “…found that the pursuit started after our daughter was hit…” within the same article.

How did it end badly?
Believed (alleged) driver was a known minor, behind the wheel of an (allegedly) stolen, most likely unfamiliar car, and has known reason to run, if indeed minor was the believed.
Chase lasting ‘just over a minute’ at speeds of 100km/hour (so, ‘just over’ 1km of chase) in a mixed residential\recration area (Tyson St – Cowper St – Majura St is past a retirement village, homes, and then a sports oval).

Alleged thief runs into a tree and achieves a serious injury.

While as a suspect in motor vehicle theft he may have eventually done it anyway, I put forward that the pursuit was possibly a factor in the injury, which has a high possibility of being a result of driver error.
Which particular error, who knows.
Possibly (allegedly) ‘stealing the car in the first place’ being the major one.

Regardless, I assert this has resulted in embarrassment (re: use of the ‘b-word’) for the AFP on this, the day that Clea Rose’s coronial inquest result comes out.

Barney, you are obviously from a different planet from the sane people. Go and hide in you little dark corner and peek out every once in a while – it’s tnot that bad and you might find that most cops are nice people who will help you.

barking toad5:04 pm 19 Dec 07

“…police chase ends badly..”

How so?

Police were correctly carrying out their duties.

Suspect is apprehended.

Self inflicted injury notwithstanding.

Unaccountable. Police can do what they want. Under the guise of “Terrorism”. This applies to basically anything almost.

@Skidbladnir
Its fair to say at this point the only people qualified to say if the chase is bungled are the guys investigating it. You are the only person I can find that is willing to draw this conclusion. Don’t assume anything. It just so happens that their Professional Standards Unit investigate all pursuits and uses of force regardless of the outcome. It does not mean anything untoward has occured. As for the term ’embarrassing’ can anybody please give me a reasonable example of what Police could have done to avoid this alleged ’embarrassment’. I fail to see anything wrong here.

Oh well, sucks to be him.

Why the hell is this being investigated with the assumption that the police chase caused this. He was running from police and breaking the law, the police should be chasing him. For christ sake!!! Its a shame the prick is still alive.

If he hadn’t run in the first place he wouldnt be hitting a tree, would he? That chase didnt end badly for the cop who had terminated the chase, but the driver, despite being 17, caused it to end badly for himself. Another typical media reactionary comment I say for what I had read/heard and made it my business to find out, nothing to indicate that it was in any way bungled. For mine, its easy to criticise when either you dont understand or when you have really nothing to say in the first place. For those who cant resist the opportunity to have shot at the cops put yourself in their shoes for just one minute and ask yourself, what would you have done……ignored the criminal or done the job you are paid for and expected to do. For the record I dont support “chase at all costs” type mentality, but when it is conducted in a responsible and as safe as practicable manner, I support it otherwise, as others have commented for if they are not chased, they will fail to stop for anything police. Where do we end up then? Police pursuits are world wide problem glamourised by American crap TV, but at least in Australia there are such a rigid set of guidelines that at least harm to any/all involved, and that includes the cops, is minimised.

As embarressing as this is for our police department, youth culture has something to answer for too (& the adults some teenagers look up to). Its almost a right of passage into adulthood & a way of proving how tough you are to engage in criminal acts & get away with it (violent assault through to theft of just about anything not nailed down). Fortunatly not everyone within that age bracket thinks that way, its just bullshit that some people have payed the ultimate price for those that do.

You have too! haha

You know, up until I posted that link Google didn’t list us as the number one hit for that phrase.
I think I broke PageRankings.

I get the point you’re making. But I’m saying it wasn’t an embarrassing mistake. The ‘getaway’ was bungled – ie, spoiled by clumsy driving into a tree. But from what has been written, I wouldn’t assume the ‘chase’ was bungled. Close behind the ‘bungled police chase’ on 10,900 results is ‘bungled getaway’. 😉

bungle:
n.
an embarrassing mistake
v.
to spoil through clumsy or foolish behaviour.

Interestingly, there are 13,400 hits on Google for bungled police chase.

It was only ‘bungled’ when the idiot ran into a tree! The fact that the police were in pursuit at a responsible speed (ie, not in eyesight when the crash happened) illustrates their caution when chasing cars through a suburban street. Nothing less.

The use of the term ‘bungled’ in this post is both inflammatory and potentially erroneous.

Skidbladnir – try driving down that street at night (when the crash happened) and see if you can spot every car in the everyones driveway doing probably lets say 80Km/h! How can you comment on Police actions when you don’t even know the circumstances? That street is a very dark street with very poor lighting. If Police are chasing a car, they are hardly looking for a car into a tree!

I wasn’t alleging anything; just curious that’s all. I thought it was interesting that so many of the little pieces seemed to fit together.

Anyway, just because the Police intercepted this idiot in Tyson St doesn’t necessarily mean he lives there.

Old enough to have a licence then old enough to be treated as an adult in the courts, I reckon…

@Mr Evil: Either way, he is still a minor so will not be identified, and alleging it was he who did this may be pushing a fine line too far.

1) After the chase, he crashed. Something went wrong, and I’m hesitant to believe police’s initial statements about anything requiring internal investigation.
2) They drove past and failed to spot the crashed vehicle in ‘pursuing’ it.

People forget the whole thing about pursuits. If Police dont engage in pursuits, then every person out there will not stop if being pulled over for a minor traffic offence! So what would happen if Police stopped traffic stops altogether? There would be dangerous unroadworthy cars on the road. crime would skyrocket. Cars being stolen, stolen property being transported, pissed drivers – which would result in higher taxes to compensate insurance claims, more deaths on the roads, more road rage, more crashes, more people in hospital…..the list goes on!

People need to realise that Police need to chase to protect so many other issues in the wider community. It’s not just about the Police chasing the bad guy!

17 yr old male – Tyson St, Ainslie?

Mmmmm, wouldn’t Clea’s killer be 17 by now, and didn’t he come from Ainslie – coincidence?

Sounds like the Police were doing their job! Good on them. It will be the best punishment for him. If only the courts could issue injuries! lol. Anyway he deserves what he gets. ‘A teenager well known to Police’ He must have great parents!! No doubt they’ll blame the coppers and make a nuisance of them selves. Media loves that sh*t!

Hmm, probably a bit too simplistic. Yeah, they speed more than others. But this issue is about accidents that occur during a police chase and who’s ultimately responsible for that accident.

There’s a line. Obviously police aren’t going to chase a car at excessive speeds during a residential suburb. But if they need to pull a car over for whatever reason (RBT, speeding, stolen car etc) and that car speeds off – of course they’re going to chase them!

Jonathon Reynolds1:30 pm 19 Dec 07

@Skidbladnir:
I hardly see how the chase was “bungled” (I assume you are implying causing the crash) when the Police were at least 30 seconds behind the vehicle. But I guess you would rather the police did absolutely nothing to apprehend individuals breaking (or reasonably suspected of breaking) the law.

la mente torbida1:26 pm 19 Dec 07

Seems to me it’s more a case of another 17 year old speeding ends up badly.

lucky the little sh*t didn’t have anyone in the car with him. I doubt he would have taken their safety into consideration when hooning off.

I agree.

“Police say the teenager was well known to police and was wanted in relation to several criminal offences.”

And then he thought he could out run them? Obviously no respect whatsoever for the law, for other people, for other people’s property, and other people’s wellbeing.

Yes, it’s sad that he crashed and has serious injuries, but he made the decision to take off, as much as he made the decision to possibly be involved in other crimes.

Put simply, it’s all of his own doing.

sorry, why am I supposed to feel sorry for a scrote whose own actions led to his situation?

When they take someone else out why do we blame the police?

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.