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

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.

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…

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.

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….

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.

Dear IP,

Need more information.

Kind regards,
Nigger-Diggety

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…

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

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.

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.

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?)

Stolen car and stolen property probably won’t even get them a custodial sentence in the ACT, unless they have a huge criminal history..Perhaps they were expecting them to go on and do something more serious with the stolen

ACT courts are notoriously soft on criminals, but if you think young property offenders aren’t given custodial sentences, you are kidding yourself. I will guarantee you that at least one of these offenders will be given time inside. Guarantee it.

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.

Pork Hunt said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Also, I’d be questioning anybody currently hiring small brick laying company’s who have 18 year old looking labourers…

WTF are you rabbiting on about with that? My goodness (or fcuk) as others would say, you are so oblique sometimes…

The funny thing is that his defence lawyer Kate Bills said Walters had secured full-time employment with a bricklaying company, which knew the extent of the allegations against him.

Hmm a bricklaying company run by ex-crims or just an equal opportunity employer?
Oh and i wonder how Kate bills him,by the number of bricks he can lay in an hour?

To the police involved – good job, guys. As you’re fully aware, there is always one loudmouth who’ll second guess and criticise you. Interesting to see that the CT article doesn’t seem to imply any criticism by the reporter, contrary to what’s been suggested.

Henry82 said :

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Disclaimer: I no longer work in the security screen industry( nice cushy office job now lol), but I do know how effective these type of screens are, especially clearshield ones..

Are they? Wouldn’t a thief just use a crowbar and jimmy the door open? (instead of “smashing” the screen as the advertisement entails). I for one like the idea of the thief cutting himself of the broken glass on a standard window.

As long as security doors and screens are fitted with correct gauge screws and doors are fitted with three point locks the they cannot be pryed or crowbarred.

Be sure to check what screws are being used. I know first hand there are at least two companies in Canberra that use screws that are less than half the size of what they should be. Also ensure that if screens are fa e fitted that there is a proper security screw every 300mm.

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.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Also, I’d be questioning anybody currently hiring small brick laying company’s who have 18 year old looking labourers…

WTF are you rabbiting on about with that? My goodness (or fcuk) as others would say, you are so oblique sometimes…

Good work ACT policing. Anyone who’s watched Goodfellas knows you don’t apprehend a major criminal under surveillance for failing to indicate. Wait until you have a half decent charge to bring against them.

Comic_and_Gamer_Nerd said :

Disclaimer: I no longer work in the security screen industry( nice cushy office job now lol), but I do know how effective these type of screens are, especially clearshield ones..

Are they? Wouldn’t a thief just use a crowbar and jimmy the door open? (instead of “smashing” the screen as the advertisement entails). I for one like the idea of the thief cutting himself of the broken glass on a standard window.

Why didn’t the cops enter the house and arrest them, red-handed?

I’m no cop apologist, but I don’t know what the problem is – one of the scum bags was being surveilled and in the course of this was observed breaking and entering. Had the police approached the scum whilst knocking on doors, I’m sure their defence would have been “we were just seeing if anyone needed their lawn mowed” (as happened to me many moons ago when I found some scum peering through my front door) and the operation, whatever it was for, would have been compromised.

By waiting, they were able to apprehend said scum and probably have the photos to prove their crime – and the victim(s) got all their goods back.

There’s no way of knowing what a defence lawyer may, or may not, try to do do re the burglary offence as we don’t know what evidence the police have, what if any admissions the suspects made and so on. That said If the stolen commodore was started with keys from inside the house then the crooks have a problem they may find it quite difficult to get over. Not to mention the property stolen from the house located in their possession in very close time proximity to the offence – circumstantial but compelling. For some people it’s just impossible to admit that the police have done a good job.

Plodder said :

It would be informative (although probably not interesting) to know when IP thinks the police should have acted.

I am guessing the police actually lost sight of them.

As it is, they have caught them “red handed” in a stolen car with stolen property. Evidence of burglary is circumstantial because they did not see them on the premises, never mind apprehend them on the premises. A decent lawyer will rip holes in the burglary charge, unless it turns out police did see them on the premises, in which case they should have arrested them on the premises.

Police were able to follow two separate cars away from the scene, so they weren’t short-handed,

Yes, I do give them credit for not pursuing, and just following, though that was no guarantee that they wouldn’t be hooning in the stolen car.

Stolen car and stolen property probably won’t even get them a custodial sentence in the ACT, unless they have a huge criminal history..Perhaps they were expecting them to go on and do something more serious with the stolen car.

But I restate my original point – the victims of the burglary seem not to have featured highly in the police decision-making.

IP

Another reason to have clearshield or crimsafe screens and doors installed.

Disclaimer: I no longer work in the security screen industry( nice cushy office job now lol), but I do know how effective these type of screens are, especially clearshield ones.

A great investment that makes it near impossible for scum like these to break in.

OT, it may seem a crappy thing to let them actually break in and leave, but if they acted straight away, then what charges could be brought against the scum, and even then, what sort of punishment would be applied? I’m guessing a big zero. At least now their is a few charges that can be laid.

Also, I’d be questioning anybody currently hiring small brick laying company’s who have 18 year old looking labourers…

IrishPete said :

If they damaged the house getting in, or just for kicks, then getting the “stuff” back may not be a huge consolation. Burglars have been known to do a lot of damage, including defecating and urinating in places they shouldn’t. Many people who have been burgled never feel safe again in their home, and move at great expense.

If police were “protecting the house” then they failed miserably. Did police know there was no-one at home to be directly traumatised by the burglars, threatened or maybe assaulted? No, they didn’t. Just cos you don’t answer your door doesn’t mean you’re not at home.

And what if they’d gone joyriding in the stolen car and done something really serious in the process, like killing a pedestrian?

Perhaps RiotACT could seek comment from ACT Policing?

IP

Why don’t you go right ahead and seek comment from ACT policing. Can’t wait to hear their response.

What exactly do you want from the police? a) they had the scumbags under surveillance in the first place b) they arrested them on a number of charges, red handed c) scumbags were both remanded. Seriously – what more do you want?

I can just picture it now, police following the scumbags into the house: “I was just looking for my dog your honour”, “I thought I heard someone crying out for help your honour” – scumbags walk free laughing at the police and court, free to go and keep knocking on doors and burglarising other houses.

pepmeup said :

Don’t police basically just take care if traffic infringements in Canberra.

They seem to spend most of their budget on media, doesn’t leave much for doing anything.

Conducting a surveillance operation in suburban streets on criminals who are actually in the process of doing badness and are therefore hyper-alert is extremely difficult. The fact police managed to identify the crooks and maintain observations well enough to see them leaving the house that was burgled without being compromised is excellent work. That they were able to do so and collect the evidence needed to charge the suspects is even better. On top of that the officers involved didn’t try and stop the offenders while they were driving – which may have led to a pursuit with all the associated hazards that entails – instead they continued to follow them until an arrest could be made safely.

In a perfect world perhaps the police could have arrested the suspects when they saw them knocking on doors but I think we all know how that would play out in the courts here. I also note that nowhere in the CT article does it suggest that police actually saw the suspects breaking in to the house they eventually burgled. Going to my earlier comment re surveillance ops I would not be surprised if the police didn’t see the burglary happen and therefore could not know for certain that an offence had occurred. In that situation surely the correct option is to continue to observe and wait until definite evidence of an offence is located. In this case that was probably when they saw the suspects driving the stolen commodore – and again the police acted properly by not immediately moving to make an arrest as that could have led to a pursuit.

It would be informative (although probably not interesting) to know when IP thinks the police should have acted.

I expect police to do nothing other than give you a report number for your insurance. Don’t police basically just take care if traffic infringements in Canberra.

Maybe I wrong them. I can’t see how just watching and doing nothing would improve their statistics.

If they damaged the house getting in, or just for kicks, then getting the “stuff” back may not be a huge consolation. Burglars have been known to do a lot of damage, including defecating and urinating in places they shouldn’t. Many people who have been burgled never feel safe again in their home, and move at great expense.

If police were “protecting the house” then they failed miserably. Did police know there was no-one at home to be directly traumatised by the burglars, threatened or maybe assaulted? No, they didn’t. Just cos you don’t answer your door doesn’t mean you’re not at home.

And what if they’d gone joyriding in the stolen car and done something really serious in the process, like killing a pedestrian?

Perhaps RiotACT could seek comment from ACT Policing?

IP

Wouldn’t finding out who they are selling the stolen goods to also be of concern, like going after drug dealers to get rid of drugs, shutting down the sale of stolen property will slow down burglaries??

You can’t arrest someone for knocking on doors. It’s not like they were watching a vicious assault and didn’t intervene, let’s remember it was ‘stuff’ that was no doubt recovered.

You can arrest someone for grabbing some stuff and making off with it. Presumably the police needed the crime to be committed before arresting them for it.

Let’s not leave any room for defence lawyers to get them off now…

Seems clear to me that the police were in fact protecting the house (or any house that these scumbags decide to enter).

This is a tricky one for to effectively arrest them immediately after they had broken into the house they would have needed a number of plod to prevent them escaping.So perhaps their M.O. was the appropriate thing to do given the circumstances?