Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Do you expect police to prevent crime, or just watch?

By IrishPete 18 May 2013 43

The CT reports that police watched a house being burgled and did not intervene. No doubt they will say there was some bigger picture, but this may be little consolation to the cancer patient and their family, whose circumstances were used to tug at our heart strings.

When you can’t rely on police to protect your house, maybe it IS time to get that vicious neighbour-eating Rotty, or a shotty booby trap.

IP


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
43 Responses to
Do you expect police to prevent crime, or just watch?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
vet111 1:49 pm 20 May 13

IrishPete said :

Ah, debate…

snip

And I still think animal-hoarding is wrong.

IP

Even after it was proved that your initial allegation of animal hoarding was, in fact, grossly mistaken?

You’re a real class act…

IrishPete 1:42 pm 20 May 13

Ah, debate…

So an 18yo driving off in a stolen car presents no risk to anyone? Really? There’s some straw-clutching going on to justify indefensible positions. That no-one got physically hurt does not mean there was not a substantial risk of such. The analogy to the drink-driving scenario is actually extremely close; the driver of the stolen car may have been drunk or high (for a bit of Dutch Courage), as someone else has suggested in an attempt to justify police not apprehending them on the premises.

And someone has been mentally hurt by being burgled, and their car being stolen, but I repeat, this seems not be of concern to many other people commenting here.

Police regularly charge people with “going equipped for burglary” (or similar charge). If the police had apprehended these guys knocking on a door (which seems to be the only point that anyone thinks they could have intervened, which isn’t necessarily true), might they not have got them on that charge? It seems more likely that the police were holding out for a slam-dunk on a more serious charge, and in the process they undertook a risk assessment, a cost-benefit analysis, which I disagree with. Their decision to hold out might have been influenced by not wanting to have surveillance officers or vehicles or methods identified, and in the process they have given less weight to the victims’ experience than I believe is acceptable. If the police did this in relation to my house, I can assure you there would be consequences.

We can all monitor this case to see who turns out to have been right – I remain confident. I predict the burglary charge will be dropped (or plea-bargained away) due to weak evidence, and the outcome of the case will be guilty pleas to stealing a car (one of them, probably not both) and possession of stolen property, receiving a Good Behaviour Order, Suspended prison sentence or Periodic Detention, the only full-time imprisonment being that currently being served on remand. (The offenders’ age works in my favour, as often their juvenile record is not given a lot weight in adult sentencing, and they’re too young to have much adult criminal record.) Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen.

And I still think animal-hoarding is wrong.

IP

Blen_Carmichael 12:49 pm 20 May 13

IrishPete said :

Analogy (or straw man for the cynics amongst you):

I apologise for introducing rigorous, informed and intelligent analysis to the RiotACT, but will continue to do so in the hope that at least someone reading has the capacity to learn.

IP

No, please, don’t apologise. We sit before you, eagerly awaiting the opportunity to catch one of your pearls of wisdom.

Years ago – on another local blog – I remember someone else who would, without exception, bag the police whenever the opportunity came. He was a criminologist, as I recall, and once declared to all and sundry that he knew more about policing than most police. I think he thought that in a past life he must have been Sir Robert Peel. He got very petulant and antsy when someone pointed out the errors in his argument.

He too was an Irishman by the name of Peter. Fancy that.

Mickeyau 11:51 am 20 May 13

Irish Pete, a bit of Law 101 for you. The establishment of intent of the offenders is required by law to prove beyond reasonable doubt and without this proof there is the possibility that the offenders could be charged with the less of the offenses or charges dropped all together.

Proving beyond reasonable doubt is a mandatory requirement for a successful conviction in a court of law and the CT news article failed to establish things like did they go equip to steal, did they physically or verbally assault the home owner, where police even aware that anyone was home.

What needs to be established for a successful conviction is the intent of the individuals who have entered a property unlawfully and removed property that they intend to permanently deprive the rightful owner of, which is all validated when the offenders LEFT the property.

Also you don’t have to make an arrest at the scene because there is always the added risk of pursuits and Police officers being assaulted because offenders are on an adrenalin or drug high. Police make the arrest when the offenders are least aware, it’s better for everyone’s safety.

By Police doing what they did have successfully proven beyond reasonable doubt on all offenses and a successful conviction will be reached because the offenders were caught “red handed”. It really now comes down to the Magistrate handing out the appropriate sentence to Dylan Stacker and Brendon Walters.

Ghettosmurf87 11:46 am 20 May 13

I think you miss the point Plodder, which is that prevention is a better outcome than punishment.

As IP pointed out, just because no one answered the front door, it does not mean that no one was home. I have certainly slept through people knocking on my front door before, or failed to realise that someone was at my door while performing other tasks.

What would we all be saying if, while under police surveillance, a person broke into a home and assaulted someone when the police had the option of preventing someone from doing so by scaring them away through alerting them to their prescence?

A police officer doesn’t just stand by in the city when there is a person arking up looking for a fight, they speak up, give the possible perpertrator a chance to consider their options and maybe think straight for a second and hopefully prevent someone else getting their teeth knocked out. If they continue on and commit a crime, then the police are right there to limit the damage and arrest the bugger.

People seem to think it is a great thing to ensure that these people are locked up. I would say it would be an even better outcome if the crime was prevented and therefore no one was burgled, no one was potentially injured and no one ended up with a criminal conviction. You can’t predict what will happen in the future, but who’s to say that an early intervention doesn’t stop someone going down a path that spirals out of control?

vet111 11:40 am 20 May 13

This is unsurprising, coming from the man who brought us this gem of a post:

http://the-riotact.com/eighteen-greyhounds/16988

I think we all just need to accept that IrishPete is better at everything than anyone else, and we should all bow down to his supreme knowledge of the intricacies of every single situation in the universe.

buzz819 11:27 am 20 May 13

IrishPete said :

Analogy (or straw man for the cynics amongst you):

police observe a car driving erratically. They suspect the driver may be intoxicated. Rather than stop the vehicle, they follow until it crashes. They now apprehend the driver on a much more serious charge than they could have if they’d stopped them earlier. Everyone is happy, aren’t they?

blah blah blah…

IP

How about we look at the two major flaws with your analogy…

Road Transport (Alcohol and Drugs) Act 1977
19 Prescribed concentration of alcohol in blood or breath
(1) A person commits an offence if the person—
(a) has been––
(i) the driver of a motor vehicle on a road or road related
area; or
(ii) the driver trainer in a motor vehicle on a road or road
related area; and
(b) has, within the relevant period, the prescribed concentration of
alcohol in the person’s blood or breath.

So with this analogy, the Police see the person driving, pull him over breath test him, he has committed the offence because he is driving. They don’t have to follow him, because the offence has already been committed.
Do you think they should be able to lock up the driver just by walking up to the car for drink driving?

Criminal Code 2002
311 Burglary
(1) A person commits an offence (burglary) if the person enters or
remains in a building as a trespasser with intent—
(a) to commit theft of any property in the building; or
(b) to commit an offence that involves causing harm, or
threatening to cause harm, to anyone in the building.

So for this offence, watching them walk up and knock on the door is not an offence. If they had tried to apprehend them in the house, in most likelihood they would have either a) lost the offenders or b) caused a lot more damage in the course of the arrest.

Police aren’t allowed to lock people up before an offence has been committed, even by stopping the crims breaking into this house by scaring them off, would have just caused them to disappear and break into other peoples houses…

So with that in mind, what else should the Police have done?

Plodder 10:30 am 20 May 13

IP comparing the situation in your analogy with what happened in this case is ridiculous. In the real situation there is no evidence or information suggesting anyone was at risk of injury. In your pretend scenario clearly police would endeavour to stop the vehicle prior to an accident occurring if that was possible. You’re comparing apples with oranges and it just doesn’t work.

You just have to accept the fact that in this instance your criticism of the police was both unreasonable and incorrect. They did the job the taxpayer expects them to do and they did it very well. It’s great that you hold the government and its agencies to account – how about applying the same standards to yourself and admit you got it wrong.

Plodder 10:26 am 20 May 13

IP comparing the situation in your analogy with what happened in this case is ridiculous. In the real situation there is no evidence or information suggesting anyone was at risk of injury. In your pretend scenario clearly police would endeavour to stop the vehicle prior to an accident occurring if that was possible. You’re comparing apples with oranges and it just doesn’t work.

You just have to accept the fact that in this instance your criticism of the police was both unreasonable and incorrect. They did the job the taxpayer expects

IrishPete 10:11 am 20 May 13

Analogy (or straw man for the cynics amongst you):

police observe a car driving erratically. They suspect the driver may be intoxicated. Rather than stop the vehicle, they follow until it crashes. They now apprehend the driver on a much more serious charge than they could have if they’d stopped them earlier. Everyone is happy, aren’t they?

I know of numerous serious crimes, including deaths, that would likely have been prevented by police doing their job better, So does everyone else on here, because many of them have been highly publicised. I know of numerous “perps” who have escaped prosecution because of individual or systemic faults with the way the criminal justice system works.

Yes I will bag the police, and any other person who is not doing the job that our taxes pay them to do. That includes the courts, corrections, Legal Aid and DPP, and even journalists who don’t ask probing questions and simply reprint media releases (like the one who wrote the original article I referred to).

I do not defend the actions of offenders. No objective reader of anything I have ever posted could conclude that. I may sometimes point out the annoying legal and real distinction between suspect, defendant and offender; or point out where an offender is not accountable for their actions because of a mental illness or intellectual disability, and where the system has failed them as well as their victims and society (distressingly common in the ACT).

The AMC is full of people who should be there, and has plenty of room for more who should be there. It also contains quite a lot of people who shouldn’t be there – if by improvements to the criminal justice system we could just swap those for the ones form the streets, Canberra would be a much safer place.

I apologise for introducing rigorous, informed and intelligent analysis to the RiotACT, but will continue to do so in the hope that at least someone reading has the capacity to learn.

IP

Conan of Cooma 8:35 am 20 May 13

The Police were doing absolutely the right thing. Why pick up the crooks for knocking on doors? Oh, they can’t, it’s legal! Why disturb the crooks in the act and risk them jumping a fence and disappearing? The best option was taken – Watch them commit the crime and when they have seen all the evidence they need to secure a solid conviction then they move in.

Plodder 8:57 pm 19 May 13

Oh for goodness sakes IP don’t be such a child. Of course the police can and do make mistakes, anyone who suggests otherwise is a fool – on this occasion though they have done a text book, first class job. You posted the original story clearly intending to be critical of the police but the discussion hasn’t followed that trajectory – get over yourself. A number of posters have provided tangible, reasonable explanations as to why the police didn’t intervene to prevent the burg before it happened. There’s been nothing in the media even remotely suggesting the victims are unhappy so I’d suggest the only person who has an issue is you. Why would that be I wonder…

Special G 8:46 pm 19 May 13

You are not quite getting the point are you Irishpete.

The cops know who the crooks are, but until they actually commit a crime they are a little hampered in efforts to stop them. Legislation does not allow arresting people for the offence of ‘walking down a street with an extensive criminal history and most likely going to break into someones house’.

In this case they did commit a crime and were caught effectively red handed. Is this not good enough for you.

dpm 7:56 pm 19 May 13

IrishPete said :

I think I’m the only person who has mentioned the victims. Apparently most RiotACT-ers don’t care about the victims. Except perhaps if it was your own house, or your sick or aged relatives’.

I recant. ACT policing can do no wrong. Their job is to get a “result” no matter what the cost. It is not their job to prevent crime (which wouldn’t get them glowing and fawning newspaper coverage). How silly of me to think otherwise.

IP

Haha! I think it’s probably because most other threads like this you would have been sticking up for the perps?! Maybe everyone thinks you’re winding them up here?

Then again, you *are* bagging the cops, which is status quo….

buzz819 7:51 pm 19 May 13

IrishPete said :

I think I’m the only person who has mentioned the victims. Apparently most RiotACT-ers don’t care about the victims. Except perhaps if it was your own house, or your sick or aged relatives’.

I recant. ACT policing can do no wrong. Their job is to get a “result” no matter what the cost. It is not their job to prevent crime (which wouldn’t get them glowing and fawning newspaper coverage). How silly of me to think otherwise.

IP

Mate you’re an idiot. If Police weren’t following these numpties, the place would still have been burgled, only the victims would not have gotten there goods back.

If Police did stop them, before they committed the offence, these two scrotes would still be on the streets creating a lot more victims.

Diggety 7:17 pm 19 May 13

Dear IP,

Need more information.

Kind regards,
Nigger-Diggety

Blen_Carmichael 6:16 pm 19 May 13

IrishPete said :

I think I’m the only person who has mentioned the victims. Apparently most RiotACT-ers don’t care about the victims. Except perhaps if it was your own house, or your sick or aged relatives’.

I recant. ACT policing can do no wrong. Their job is to get a “result” no matter what the cost. It is not their job to prevent crime (which wouldn’t get them glowing and fawning newspaper coverage). How silly of me to think otherwise.

IP

Take your bat, your ball, and your straw man arguments with you…

IrishPete 6:04 pm 19 May 13

I think I’m the only person who has mentioned the victims. Apparently most RiotACT-ers don’t care about the victims. Except perhaps if it was your own house, or your sick or aged relatives’.

I recant. ACT policing can do no wrong. Their job is to get a “result” no matter what the cost. It is not their job to prevent crime (which wouldn’t get them glowing and fawning newspaper coverage). How silly of me to think otherwise.

IP

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 3:30 pm 19 May 13

Tooks said :

As far as anti-police whinges goes, this takes the cake. Burglars caught, a water-tight case, all property recovered and they still get bagged.

Why didn’t surveillance officers arrest them as they came out of the house? Maybe because they don’t want crooks to know how surveillance operatives look, how they dress, what they drive, or give away any of their methodology.

Following them to see where they go after committing burgs is also very good for intel purposes.

Did not even think of this. Excellent points.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd 3:30 pm 19 May 13

Bubbalo_Bill said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

RE: theives cutting them selves, they do not need to seeing as majority of can erra builders use trend and Stegbar for their windows and doors. Instead of using laminated glass, these companies use 4mm and 5mm toughened. Easy to break, easy to enter through and zero possibility of getting cut.

Another thing to think about for new houses or retrofits. Never let a builder use toughened glass in windows or doors. Always use laminated.

If toughened glass makes it less likely that you get cut when it breaks, wouldn’t it be safer to use it? Seems like not getting cut yourself is worth not having a burglar cut themselves either. Or is there an advantage to the laminated that I’m missing? (Maybe it’s stronger?)

Basically, toughened glass is put through a furnace. When it breaks it goes into millions of little pieces with not sharp edges.(can still easily mess up your eyes if explodes in your face). Laminated glass is two pieces of glass with a see through interlayer that glues them together. When it breaks there are no sharp edges as the glass is stuck to the interlayer( unless if somebody hits it really hard or many times with a hammer or something). Realistically, you may break laminated if you fall into it, rock from lawn mower erc erc, it may crack but no danger unless you bounce off and hit your head or something random like that. Toughened glass has the tendency to just explode for no reason aswell. When I was a glazier, we used to get many jobs where a toughened door panel just blew up when the owner was watching TV next to it.

Long story short, unless you are a criminal trying to break into somebody’s home or a glazier, you probably will never get cut by laminated glass.

Re: strength of glass, 6.38 lam is weaker than 5mm toughened. Easier to crack 6.38 than it is to explode a 5mm toughened, but when talking about gaining entry, its much harder to make a decent sized hole in 6.38 than it is to explode a piece if 5mm toughened( there are very very easy ways but I’m not going to put that info on here)

4mm toughened is a complete joke and should be removed from the market entirely.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site