Greens call for an effective end to police pursuits [With poll]

Tooks said :

c_c said :

Tooks said :

The only time they become involved is when they are already on duty and in a position to do so. Even then, they would never chase a vehicle.

They’d never chase a vehicle huh? Just after the 40 sec mark, one of 20 Police cars that were part of the pursuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEkbdWy99VQ

As for “when they’re already on duty” – AFP-SRS is on duty 24×7… wrong again.

Oh gosh Tooks, you make this too easy!

You would do well to read some Mark Twain. Don’t worry, nothing too complex, just one well known sentence.

No, they are not on duty 24/7. They are on call 24/7. Big difference when it comes to response times. The car in that video was one of many police cars which were co-ordinated during a very long chase to be in the right place at the right time (even then they turned up minutes after the crash).

SRS has 55 full time staff, involved in a diverse range of roles including general law enforcement and internal training. Just because they’re not in the black pyjamas doesn’t mean they magically turn off their skills and don’t have access to specialist gear.

Given in two recent high profile pursuits, it was the SRS that finally got the suspects, they’re already doing work in this area ffs.

Also not sure why people see this as the stuff of fiction or video games, what I’ve suggested is run of the mill in cities like London. They’ve been using ARVs crewed by SO19 for years, demand for them has grown many times over since they began. For vehicle pursuits they’ve long used aerial surveillance and traffic cameras.

This whole thing has turned moronic. No one is actually offering any alternatives, just shouting down what alternatives are put out there. Either speak up with an idea or pipe down. There’s too many small minded, country town type folk on here.

How about you “vg” – big man act with your comment, where’s you actual thinking? Where’s your actual ideas?

Tooks said :

Jim Jones said :

It’s genuinely scary how many people there are here who launch into spittle-flecked-mad elaborately violent vengeance fantasies at the first mention of a police car chase.

Really? You’re genuinely scared? The world wide web is a scary place.

Fear and ingorance and good friends.

“a) you’ve got tactically trained police out and about 24×7 anyway, in vehicles with bull bars and with advanced weapons training.”

Complete and utter bulls***

Helps if you know what you’re talking about, and who you might be talking to

Tooks said :

I have no problem with looking at ways to improve the safety of police pursuits. It’s retarded suggestions like shooting at engine blocks that amaze me.

+1

Tooks said :

I have no problem with looking at ways to improve the safety of police pursuits.

This is exactly how we should be approaching the issue – not as a hard and fast ‘yes’ or ‘no’ approach, but rather how to:
1) Determine whether pursuit is the appropriate option; and
2) Identify measures which could be taken to more safely conduct the pursuit.

We can still have all sorts of crazy ideas to think about. For example, what about shooting a tracking device that sticks to the vehicle being pursued, which then transmits location allowing police to carefully close a net? Obviously some pretty major constraints in this idea! What about thinking of ways to identify the occupants of the vehicle rather than just identifying the vehicle? Again, lots of constraints and issues.

Of course, the police already have a number of options to work with, and I think they probably do a pretty good job (most of the time anyway). It would be foolish, I think, to remove options they have now.

The problem is that our society is obsessed with buzz words and headlines, and we need to look and think much more deeply. There is no simple solution to conducting pursuits – it’s something that needs to be subject to constant review and improvement.

c_c said :

Tooks said :

The only time they become involved is when they are already on duty and in a position to do so. Even then, they would never chase a vehicle.

They’d never chase a vehicle huh? Just after the 40 sec mark, one of 20 Police cars that were part of the pursuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEkbdWy99VQ

As for “when they’re already on duty” – AFP-SRS is on duty 24×7… wrong again.

Oh gosh Tooks, you make this too easy!

You would do well to read some Mark Twain. Don’t worry, nothing too complex, just one well known sentence.

No, they are not on duty 24/7. They are on call 24/7. Big difference when it comes to response times. The car in that video was one of many police cars which were co-ordinated during a very long chase to be in the right place at the right time (even then they turned up minutes after the crash).

Jim Jones said :

Yeah, surely no-one could argue against killing scumbags, right?

Well when you find that, why not argue with the actual word which are written?

All you ever seem to do is constantly whine, and personally attack, (usually with made up quotes,) towards people who have the temerity to have a different viewpoint to you.

chewy14 said :

Tooks said :

chewy14 said :

Surveillance is the answer:
http://www.starchase.com/

Thanks for providing a link which c_c was incapable of doing. Looks good in theory and would be good for recovering stolen vehicles, but to actually catch the crooks, police would still have to chase the vehicle.

Tooks, I’ve got no problem with police chasing people but there’s always improvements to be made. I think more coordinated chases with better technology and aerial support could improve things.

I think it would make crooks think twice about trying to evade at high speed if they knew the cops could be remotely tracking them.

Thanks for a reasonable an intelligent response, something which c_c has so far failed spectacularly at. I have no problem with looking at ways to improve the safety of police pursuits. It’s retarded suggestions like shooting at engine blocks that amaze me.

Actually, I’ll respond to this bit just to prove you wrong…again.

“Of course the more logical people out there may realise that:
a) you’ve got tactically trained police out and about 24×7 anyway, in vehicles with bull bars and with advanced weapons training.
b) That means they’re equipped to PIT and could easily be equipped to use high calibre weapons to disable a vehicle at distance.”

SRS aren’t out and about 24/7. You lose. You are either incredibly stupid, or an incredibly good troll. Don’t waste your time responding because I lose several million brain cells every time I read your dribble.

Ben_Dover said :

Jim Jones said :

It’s genuinely scary how many people there are here who launch into spittle-flecked-mad elaborately violent vengeance fantasies at the first mention of a police car chase.

It’s genuinely scary how we cannot have a sensible debate without Jim Jones attacking people for having views different to his own, while he does address or contribute to the actual issue in any substantive way.

Yeah, surely no-one could argue against killing scumbags, right?

Ben_Dover said :

It’s genuinely scary how we cannot have a sensible debate without Jim Jones attacking people for having views different to his own, while he does address or contribute to the actual issue in any substantive way.

Oh bottoms!

That should read;

It’s genuinely scary how we cannot have a sensible debate without Jim Jones attacking people for having views different to his own, while he does notaddress or contribute to the actual issue in any substantive way

Ben_Dover said :

Jim Jones said :

It’s genuinely scary how many people there are here who launch into spittle-flecked-mad elaborately violent vengeance fantasies at the first mention of a police car chase.

It’s genuinely scary how we cannot have a sensible debate without Jim Jones attacking people for having views different to his own, while he does address or contribute to the actual issue in any substantive way.

Lol. Yeah, I’m attacking people. That’s exactly what I’m doing.

Keep on ranting about killing the scumbags, mate. Good work!

Jim Jones said :

It’s genuinely scary how many people there are here who launch into spittle-flecked-mad elaborately violent vengeance fantasies at the first mention of a police car chase.

It’s genuinely scary how we cannot have a sensible debate without Jim Jones attacking people for having views different to his own, while he does address or contribute to the actual issue in any substantive way.

Diggety said :

And we will continue taking the p*ss out of this story (e.g. .50 cal to the engine) until we have a politician proposing this with a much better reason than we’ve been given. Even if that makes Jim Jones “genuinely scared”.

Taking the piss is one thing, but admit it, there are a lotta people here who are barely stopping short of proposing the death penalty for people that attempt to evade police.

Tooks said :

chewy14 said :

Surveillance is the answer:
http://www.starchase.com/

Thanks for providing a link which c_c was incapable of doing. Looks good in theory and would be good for recovering stolen vehicles, but to actually catch the crooks, police would still have to chase the vehicle.

Tooks, I’ve got no problem with police chasing people but there’s always improvements to be made. I think more coordinated chases with better technology and aerial support could improve things.

I think it would make crooks think twice about trying to evade at high speed if they knew the cops could be remotely tracking them.

IrishPete said :

Can those of you who think police should chase anybody, please define the crimes you think justify car chases? Failing to lodge a tax return? Centrelink fraud? Parking in a disabled spot? Not wearing a helmet on a bicycle? Or is it just stuff other people do? I’m going to cop flak for this, but actually if you ask different people you do NOT get the same answer. Everyone’s cut-off is different.

IP

That’s a fair question Pete, but the point of police pursuits is to find out. Often pursuits by the police are engaged without knowing what the suspect is guilty/suspected of, do you know of a way to find out other than pursuing?

Until the Greens offer an alternative, pursuits will stay (a tenuous reference to Tassie will not suffice).

And we will continue taking the p*ss out of this story (e.g. .50 cal to the engine) until we have a politician proposing this with a much better reason than we’ve been given. Even if that makes Jim Jones “genuinely scared”.

IrishPete said :

Can those of you who think police should chase anybody, please define the crimes you think justify car chases? Failing to lodge a tax return? Centrelink fraud? Parking in a disabled spot? Not wearing a helmet on a bicycle? Or is it just stuff other people do? I’m going to cop flak for this, but actually if you ask different people you do NOT get the same answer. Everyone’s cut-off is different.
IP

As far as I am concerned if a person commits a crime, I would expect the police to stop them. If they run from the police, they (not the police) have instigated a pursuit. I would then expect the police to do the job that they are employed to do, uphold the law and apprehend the people who break the law.
To put some context to the statement that Shane Rattenbury recycled from David Shoebridge, in the ACT there have been 4 pursuits in 10 years that have resulted in deaths. In three of the four cases the police were attempting to stop career criminals. I am unsure if Ben Hayes was also a career criminal, but he was being pursued after a ram raid.
What needs to be answered is when did we have a referendum where the public decided that there was a definite delineation between major and minor crimes, and what defines a major and minor crime.
A second and I feel far more important question is why the two career criminals who were responsible for the deaths of Clea Rose and Heather Freeman are not behind bars. Amber Westin and “an un-named 14yo youth” have both been in front of the courts numerous times since their actions killed Clea Rose and Heather Freeman. The actions of the ACT Courts do nothing to deter these career criminals from instigating pursuits and putting the general public in danger.

Tooks said :

By the way, if you are going to quote me, get your facts straight:

Attacking someone for suggesting it was dangerous to maintain a high speed pursuit through an area of high pedestrian activity signposted at 40.

That pursuit didn’t occur in a 40kmh zone. And how did I attack them?

It did, it went through the Canberra Hospital Campus, that it a 40zone.

Seriously, switch on. You are doing yourself no favours!

Tooks said :

Wrong. When on duty they are often already out on patrol. They are not firefighters.

oh Tooks, quit now. You’re just digging yourself deeper.

This comment is wonderfully moronic.

You just can’t make this stuff up its so silly.

Your disputing the use of SRS for police pursuits because rather than being at their HQ all the time, they’re already out on the road on patrol.

Wow, yep, you’re right, better not bother the SRS if they’re busy driving around waiting to intervene in something. They’re very, very busy waiting and mustn’t be disturbed with anything.

Of course the more logical people out there may realise that:
a) you’ve got tactically trained police out and about 24×7 anyway, in vehicles with bull bars and with advanced weapons training.
b) That means they’re equipped to PIT and could easily be equipped to use high calibre weapons to disable a vehicle at distance.

Frankly I would much rather see the SRS used to quickly end a chase via tactical means than examples like in that YouTube video above where 20 AFP vehicles chased it through the centre of Canberra, into a high pedestrian area where it was finally stopped by a member of the public using their own car as a ram.

Do it quickly, do it in a calculated way and you reduce the risk to harm to all concerned. And though employing tactics used in war zones may seem foreign, let us consider that just a couple of decades ago, it seemed foreign to have police in large engine cars or carrying semi-automatics. They drove 4cyl vehicles and had revolvers from the early 1900s. Compare how Police were equipped to handle the Jollimont siege and how they are equipped today.

Jim Jones said :

It’s genuinely scary how many people there are here who launch into spittle-flecked-mad elaborately violent vengeance fantasies at the first mention of a police car chase.

Really? You’re genuinely scared? The world wide web is a scary place.

chewy14 said :

Surveillance is the answer:
http://www.starchase.com/

Thanks for providing a link which c_c was incapable of doing. Looks good in theory and would be good for recovering stolen vehicles, but to actually catch the crooks, police would still have to chase the vehicle.

It’s genuinely scary how many people there are here who launch into spittle-flecked-mad elaborately violent vengeance fantasies at the first mention of a police car chase.

By the way, if you are going to quote me, get your facts straight:

Attacking someone for suggesting it was dangerous to maintain a high speed pursuit through an area of high pedestrian activity signposted at 40.

That pursuit didn’t occur in a 40kmh zone. And how did I attack them?

Surveillance is the answer:
http://www.starchase.com/

Grow up? This from a guy that wants to shoot at engine blocks? I’ll start playing the man when it’s clear the man is an idiot. Let’s have a look at some of your gems from this thread:

Given the technology available, there are improvements that can be made without having to let the offenders go.

You never did explain the technology.

Well at the less technical end police vehicles should be equipped to do PIT. It’s always been a saw point for Australian police because they don’t use the body on frame vehicles US forces use.

Ever seen a PIT manoeuvre go bad? As far as following US police forces – go and check their stats for police pursuit deaths. Oh, and it’s ‘sore’ – just pointing that out since you called another poster illiterate.

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched. Has to be said though it would be safer for both Police and suspects than the use of road strips which not only place the officer in harm’s way, but also sends the vehicle out of control at speed.

Stop sticks cause a slow deflation. They don’t cause the vehicle to lose control at speed. Your Dessert (sic) Eagle comment was funny because you bagged another comment for being illiterate and because it’s an idea a 9 year old might come up with. Maybe Batman should be deployed.

Technology does exist now to tag a car with a GPS tracker fired at the escaping vehicle. That basically enables police to maintain pursuit at a distance until the vehicle stops naturally or police box them in at a predetermined point.

The police would still have to chase them otherwise the crooks would just get away. You got a link for this GPS-shooting technology?

We also have all this surveillance around these days so over time, it should be possible to follow them using traffic cameras and other surveillance assets.

Most pursuits are in the ‘burbs, where there are no (or few) traffic cameras. What are the other surveillance assets?

Point isn’t to just give up and let them go, it’s to catch them smarter.

You still haven’t suggested a smart, PRACTICAL solution.

The AFP has a full time tactical capability and it is standard practice for the SRS to be deployed for car pursuits.

As already mentioned, you are wrong. If they are involved in more than 5% of pursuits, I’d be surprised.

Train them up on the use of .50cal, place them at a point ahead of the vehicle as you would an officer to deploy spikes.

Still going on about the .50cal. Ridiculous. Absolutely retarded.

They were deployed to apprehend Massey in Narrabundah not long ago

Massey was on a bicycle or on foot when they got him. And it wasn’t in Narrabundah. SRS played no part in the earlier pursuits.

In practice though it has become standard for the SRS to attend prolonged/serious pursuits. Not surprising, they’re sitting around waiting for something to do. Doesn’t mean they get into all the black get up or anything, nor does it mean they go to all of them.

Wrong. When on duty they are often already out on patrol. They are not firefighters.

Tooks said :

The only time they become involved is when they are already on duty and in a position to do so. Even then, they would never chase a vehicle.

They’d never chase a vehicle huh? Just after the 40 sec mark, one of 20 Police cars that were part of the pursuit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEkbdWy99VQ

As for “when they’re already on duty” – AFP-SRS is on duty 24×7… wrong again.

Oh gosh Tooks, you make this too easy!

You would do well to read some Mark Twain. Don’t worry, nothing too complex, just one well known sentence.

Tooks said :

Once again, playing the man and not the ball. By the way, what’s a ‘serious’ pursuit? I thought they were all serious.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It’s not standard practice. Out of the 50-70+ police pursuits in Canberra each year, very few would involve SRS. The only time they become involved is when they are already on duty and in a position to do so. Even then, they would never chase a vehicle.

Your ignorance on this topic is embarrassing.

That’s rich.

Let’s all remember what Tooks said in February regarding a police pursuit: http://the-riotact.com/wanniassa-stolen-car/65412

User “awj” commented:

“While its all well and good to state it only reached 110 in an 80 zone, it was still very dangerous.
80+km per hour down a busy hospital road. I think the limit is 40km was extremely dangerous.
Very lucky nobody pedestrians were hit crossing hospital road.”

To which “Tooks” so insightfully replied with this reasoned comment:

“So presumably the answer is to let him get away. Wonder if you’d feel differently if it was your vehicle.”

Attacking someone for suggesting it was dangerous to maintain a high speed pursuit through an area of high pedestrian activity signposted at 40.

I particular like this silly comment at the end about “your vehicle” because of course no one else’s life matters if your car is stolen and you want it back.

Grow up.

To repeat, Police need to use technology and tactics to catch these people in a smarter way rather than in prolonged engagements of escalating risk where offenders push the boundaries until Police are forced to give up, either by:

a) ending the chase faster and more decisively (through use of the PIT or disabling the vehicle) and/or

b) deescalating pursuits while maintaining surveillance to allow apprehension (GPS tagging which companies in the US are now offering, use of traffic cameras).

c_c said :

buzz819 said :

So they attended some, that means it is standard practice. Fair enough, I will make sure all operating procedures are updated to allow for this.

lol, I absolutely knew you were illiterate but thought I would wait for you to confirm it yourself.

“Standard practice” is not “standard procedure.”

They mean different things – I never said procedure because it isn’t.

In practice though it has become standard for the SRS to attend prolonged/serious pursuits. Not surprising, they’re sitting around waiting for something to do. Doesn’t mean they get into all the black get up or anything, nor does it mean they go to all of them.

Once again, playing the man and not the ball. By the way, what’s a ‘serious’ pursuit? I thought they were all serious.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It’s not standard practice. Out of the 50-70+ police pursuits in Canberra each year, very few would involve SRS. The only time they become involved is when they are already on duty and in a position to do so. Even then, they would never chase a vehicle.

Your ignorance on this topic is embarrassing.

c_c said :

Tooks said :

No I didn’t read what happened – that’s what I heard on the initial news reports (they said police terminated then re-engaged. We all know how reliable the media are, don’t we?). They caught the offenders and recovered the vehicles. So what point are you trying to make? How would you have dealt with this situation if you were in charge?

It lasted 2 hours. So what? It takes as long as it takes. The pursuit – like all pursuits in this country – was constantly being risk-managed throughout.

So you admit the media is unreliable, but choose to contribute based on breaking initial reports rather than retrospectives written with the clarity of hindsight. Bloody genius… not.

As for the significance of lasting 2 hours, can you really not see why that’s important?

The longer a pursuit continues, the more distance is covered, the more people the pursuit comes into contact with. The more people it comes into contact with, the more chance of an accident occurring with an innocent bystander.

johnboy said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

You vote. That’s what keeps me up at night. Not car chases. That people like you – people who say sh*t like this – actually get a say in how things are run.

True.

A pistol shot through a car to disable the engine (at the front) of a fleeing car (by definition viewed from the rear) does seem unlikely to be achieved with any regularity.

I understand in afghanistan .50 cal sniping rounds to the engine block were preferred to air strikes, but I don’t think the people of canberra are quite ready for that sort of calculus.

Using a .50cal round is a common and preferred method for stopping vehicles in Afghanistan and other areas.

The AFP has a full time tactical capability and it is standard practice for the SRS to be deployed for car pursuits.

Train them up on the use of .50cal, place them at a point ahead of the vehicle as you would an officer to deploy spikes.

Take out the engine.

It disables the vehicle without putting police in harms way or causing a loss of traction that could send the vehicle out of control.

I think given that the government has just invested almost half a million in an armoured vehicle that is designed to repel the same weapons soldiers face in Afghanistan, developing such a capability for the AFP wouldn’t be a silly idea. There’s a lot more chance of that been useful than a giant truck that can take dozens of AK-47 rounds (as the Bearcat famously sustained in the US one time).

You have proven to be absolutely clueless when it comes to law enforcement. You’ve been asked several times for your solution on how to make these pursuits safer and you’ve ignored them all. You were asked specifically how you would’ve managed the Brisbane pursuit better and you offered nothing.

You are clueless enough to join the Greens.

Without stopping an offender and making inquiries, how do the police know what crime the fleeing vehicle has done?
As for the supporters of gunship style tactics, where does the projectile go when it misses the engine block and flies over the bonnet, the pre-school in the background, the man watering his front lawn? A vehicle is a little less likely to take out a bystander as it can be redirected if it overshoots its target. Also, if I was being chased by a car, I’d be a little more willing to pull over if the officer wasn’t peppering my rear window with bullet holes.

Can those of you who think police should chase anybody, please define the crimes you think justify car chases? Failing to lodge a tax return? Centrelink fraud? Parking in a disabled spot? Not wearing a helmet on a bicycle? Or is it just stuff other people do? I’m going to cop flak for this, but actually if you ask different people you do NOT get the same answer. Everyone’s cut-off is different.

What the Greens are trying to do is ensure that the police response is proportionate. If a driver is drunk or high, as often seems to be the case, chasing them to get them to stop driving because they’re a danger on the road, is like fighting for peace. It’s just stupid. You’re increasing the risk if you pursue an impaired driver, provoking them to drive faster, and they’re also not behaving rationally so don’t expect them to be making good assessments of risk.

Those of you saying that the police often find other things after stopping them need to realise that while criticising the Greens’ statistics for not being detailed enough, you are presenting your own claimed statistics also without evidence. Just cos the police say it, doesn’t make it true. If police just stopped and searched cars randomly, how much drugs, weapons etc would they find? How many serious crimes are prevented or detected by chases? Simple question, and if it’s a large number the police will soon release the statistics to the public.

If in 2012 the only way to apprehend a fleeing suspect is to chase them in a powerful car, that’s a powerful indictment of how primitive some our public services still are. If no police service around the world has solved this problem, maybe it says more about the police than it does about the problem.

Personally, I think a police helicopter which could be used for this and other duties (e.g. non-urgent traffic detection) would probably be a good investment, quite possible a cost-effective one in terms of lives saved and offenders apprehended. How much does a small chopper cost to run per year (but I know they’ll want a Rolls Royce, not a small one)? Surely the speed and red light cameras could pay for it, and when they stop clicking and flashing, then maybe it isnt needed any more.

IP

Jim Jones said :

Do you actually think it’s okay if people die unnecessarily, just so long as they’re ‘criminals’ of some sort?

I do. For me, the death of a person involved in a criminal act is less tragic than a completely innocent person having their wallet or purse stolen. Zero tolerance. Our revolving door legal system makes victims of us all.

HenryBG said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

You vote. That’s what keeps me up at night. Not car chases. That people like you – people who say sh*t like this – actually get a say in how things are run.

What keeps me up at night is the realisation that people like *you* get to vote – people who believe government should bend over backwards to ensure that criminals can roam our streets with minimal interference from the law.

Car thieves kill people. They should be shot on sight. They are worthless scum society can well do without.

Jesus, Henry. I agree with you!

p1 said :

Ever been in a car where the engine suddenly, and spectacularly ceases to turn? The driving wheels immediately lock, while at the same time you loose power assisted brakes and steering.

I have as a matter of fact, a 1988 sedan with EFI but no power steering. Control was not impaired despite the engine being totally dead in the middle of going around a round about.

More modern cars may be tougher to steer as electronic aids will be offline, but steering and brakes are not lost, they just become heavier by a small margin.

c_c said :

It disables the vehicle without putting police in harms way or causing a loss of traction that could send the vehicle out of control.

Ever been in a car where the engine suddenly, and spectacularly ceases to turn? The driving wheels immediately lock, while at the same time you loose power assisted brakes and steering.

Shane Rattenbury should be doing more important things like saving street cats from being tipped into garbage trucks.

The Greens They really do live in la la land

Sure you can shoot at the engine block of a car driving away from you. You just need to choose an appropriate calibre.

I’m sorry. I thought this was The RiotACT, but I seem to have stumbled into a Grand Theft Auto forum populated by 12-year-old kids having wet dreams about shooting cars with ‘Dessert Eagles’. Presumably you have one in each hand, and you’re holding them sideways.

buzz819 said :

So they attended some, that means it is standard practice. Fair enough, I will make sure all operating procedures are updated to allow for this.

lol, I absolutely knew you were illiterate but thought I would wait for you to confirm it yourself.

“Standard practice” is not “standard procedure.”

They mean different things – I never said procedure because it isn’t.

In practice though it has become standard for the SRS to attend prolonged/serious pursuits. Not surprising, they’re sitting around waiting for something to do. Doesn’t mean they get into all the black get up or anything, nor does it mean they go to all of them.

c_c said :

buzz819 said :

Standard practice for SRS to be deployed with a pursuit? Really? Have you told the AFP this, they would love to know that is what they are supposed to do.

Serious or prolonged pursuits then, as distinct from every chase to be more specific.

Off the top of my head, they were part of the chase convoy behind the car that was rammed in Manuka by a member of the public. They were deployed to apprehend Massey in Narrabundah not long ago. They were deployed to the young teens being pursued who were caught in Fadden one night.

In fact in the latter two cases, it was SRS that actually caught them, not the general duties officers who started the pursuit. In the last example, spike strips were used but they fleed anyway.

So they attended some, that means it is standard practice. Fair enough, I will make sure all operating procedures are updated to allow for this. 3 or 4 times in many hundreds is now standard operating procedures. Copy.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

What keeps me up at night is the realisation that people like *you* get to vote – people who believe government should bend over backwards to ensure that criminals can roam our streets with minimal interference from the law.

I don’t believe that, and I didn’t say it. I guess I can add ‘can’t read, makes stupid assumptions’ to ‘can’t spell ‘desert” and ‘believes you can shoot at the engine block of a car driving away from you’.

Sure you can shoot at the engine block of a car driving away from you. You just need to choose an appropriate calibre.
Correct selection will result in a win/win situation.

Anyway, the Greens rankly idiotic fringe approach to these sorts of issues explains why they struggle to win the support of more than about 1 in 6 of their fellow citizens. And it will not get any better with Bob Brown gone, quite the opposite.

What keeps me up at night is the realisation that people like *you* get to vote – people who believe government should bend over backwards to ensure that criminals can roam our streets with minimal interference from the law.

I don’t believe that, and I didn’t say it. I guess I can add ‘can’t read, makes stupid assumptions’ to ‘can’t spell ‘desert” and ‘believes you can shoot at the engine block of a car driving away from you’.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

You vote. That’s what keeps me up at night. Not car chases. That people like you – people who say sh*t like this – actually get a say in how things are run.

What keeps me up at night is the realisation that people like *you* get to vote – people who believe government should bend over backwards to ensure that criminals can roam our streets with minimal interference from the law.

Car thieves kill people. They should be shot on sight. They are worthless scum society can well do without.

p1 said :

I large calibre round to the engine block is the only real militarily appropriate method of stopping a vehicle with any real chance of the occupants surviving. If survival of the occupants is not a consideration, an air strike makes much more sense.

Let’s go the airstrike option then.

After all, with 25% of crimes in this town being committed by members of just 12 families, it will only take a few airstrikes to make dramatic inroads into crimes rates in this city.

buzz819 said :

Standard practice for SRS to be deployed with a pursuit? Really? Have you told the AFP this, they would love to know that is what they are supposed to do.

Serious or prolonged pursuits then, as distinct from every chase to be more specific.

Off the top of my head, they were part of the chase convoy behind the car that was rammed in Manuka by a member of the public. They were deployed to apprehend Massey in Narrabundah not long ago. They were deployed to the young teens being pursued who were caught in Fadden one night.

In fact in the latter two cases, it was SRS that actually caught them, not the general duties officers who started the pursuit. In the last example, spike strips were used but they fleed anyway.

Helicopter gunships.

Nothing more to say.

I was thinking A-10 Warthog.

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

I’m just unsure how you have a dessert eagle?

With ice cream and strawberries? Maybe with chocolate sauce?

You, sir, are officially AWESOME.

I dont get it.

Even if a chase is terminated what is to stop a scumbag driving the other vehicle from having an accident with an innocent party? Does the police NOT chasing scumbags stop them from being lunatics in cars borrowed from other people? If the police is not going to chase them what is going to stop them….lets face it it is all the more reason for them to drive dangerously …because they will get away with it.

c_c said :

Tooks said :

No I didn’t read what happened – that’s what I heard on the initial news reports (they said police terminated then re-engaged. We all know how reliable the media are, don’t we?). They caught the offenders and recovered the vehicles. So what point are you trying to make? How would you have dealt with this situation if you were in charge?

It lasted 2 hours. So what? It takes as long as it takes. The pursuit – like all pursuits in this country – was constantly being risk-managed throughout.

So you admit the media is unreliable, but choose to contribute based on breaking initial reports rather than retrospectives written with the clarity of hindsight. Bloody genius… not.

As for the significance of lasting 2 hours, can you really not see why that’s important?

The longer a pursuit continues, the more distance is covered, the more people the pursuit comes into contact with. The more people it comes into contact with, the more chance of an accident occurring with an innocent bystander.

johnboy said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

You vote. That’s what keeps me up at night. Not car chases. That people like you – people who say sh*t like this – actually get a say in how things are run.

True.

A pistol shot through a car to disable the engine (at the front) of a fleeing car (by definition viewed from the rear) does seem unlikely to be achieved with any regularity.

I understand in afghanistan .50 cal sniping rounds to the engine block were preferred to air strikes, but I don’t think the people of canberra are quite ready for that sort of calculus.

Using a .50cal round is a common and preferred method for stopping vehicles in Afghanistan and other areas.

The AFP has a full time tactical capability and it is standard practice for the SRS to be deployed for car pursuits.

Train them up on the use of .50cal, place them at a point ahead of the vehicle as you would an officer to deploy spikes.

Take out the engine.

It disables the vehicle without putting police in harms way or causing a loss of traction that could send the vehicle out of control.

I think given that the government has just invested almost half a million in an armoured vehicle that is designed to repel the same weapons soldiers face in Afghanistan, developing such a capability for the AFP wouldn’t be a silly idea. There’s a lot more chance of that been useful than a giant truck that can take dozens of AK-47 rounds (as the Bearcat famously sustained in the US one time).

Standard practice for SRS to be deployed with a pursuit? Really? Have you told the AFP this, they would love to know that is what they are supposed to do.

Tooks said :

No I didn’t read what happened – that’s what I heard on the initial news reports (they said police terminated then re-engaged. We all know how reliable the media are, don’t we?). They caught the offenders and recovered the vehicles. So what point are you trying to make? How would you have dealt with this situation if you were in charge?

It lasted 2 hours. So what? It takes as long as it takes. The pursuit – like all pursuits in this country – was constantly being risk-managed throughout.

So you admit the media is unreliable, but choose to contribute based on breaking initial reports rather than retrospectives written with the clarity of hindsight. Bloody genius… not.

As for the significance of lasting 2 hours, can you really not see why that’s important?

The longer a pursuit continues, the more distance is covered, the more people the pursuit comes into contact with. The more people it comes into contact with, the more chance of an accident occurring with an innocent bystander.

johnboy said :

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

You vote. That’s what keeps me up at night. Not car chases. That people like you – people who say sh*t like this – actually get a say in how things are run.

True.

A pistol shot through a car to disable the engine (at the front) of a fleeing car (by definition viewed from the rear) does seem unlikely to be achieved with any regularity.

I understand in afghanistan .50 cal sniping rounds to the engine block were preferred to air strikes, but I don’t think the people of canberra are quite ready for that sort of calculus.

Using a .50cal round is a common and preferred method for stopping vehicles in Afghanistan and other areas.

The AFP has a full time tactical capability and it is standard practice for the SRS to be deployed for car pursuits.

Train them up on the use of .50cal, place them at a point ahead of the vehicle as you would an officer to deploy spikes.

Take out the engine.

It disables the vehicle without putting police in harms way or causing a loss of traction that could send the vehicle out of control.

I think given that the government has just invested almost half a million in an armoured vehicle that is designed to repel the same weapons soldiers face in Afghanistan, developing such a capability for the AFP wouldn’t be a silly idea. There’s a lot more chance of that been useful than a giant truck that can take dozens of AK-47 rounds (as the Bearcat famously sustained in the US one time).

In the same vein as the fact that research found that most people who use disabled parking spaces illegally have had dealings with the police (don’t ask me for the reference; noticed in passing ages ago), people who speed away from the police rather than stop do so for a – usually nefarious – reason. So if a driver speeds away following a “mere” traffic infringement, and is chased, chances are that Plod will find drugs in the car, a warrant out, or some other travesty. So yes, they should chase.

Yep, .50 cal rifle would be a far better choice.

I large calibre round to the engine block is the only real militarily appropriate method of stopping a vehicle with any real chance of the occupants surviving. If survival of the occupants is not a consideration, an air strike makes much more sense.

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

You vote. That’s what keeps me up at night. Not car chases. That people like you – people who say sh*t like this – actually get a say in how things are run.

True.

A pistol shot through a car to disable the engine (at the front) of a fleeing car (by definition viewed from the rear) does seem unlikely to be achieved with any regularity.

I understand in afghanistan .50 cal sniping rounds to the engine block were preferred to air strikes, but I don’t think the people of canberra are quite ready for that sort of calculus.

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

You vote. That’s what keeps me up at night. Not car chases. That people like you – people who say sh*t like this – actually get a say in how things are run.

c_c said :

Tooks said :

That chase that ended with no one hurt and the offenders apprehended? IIRC they terminated that pursuit when it became dangerous and allowed the helicopter (ie.pulling back and monitoring from a distance) to guide the cops on the road to the mall, where they arrested the offenders.

Did you even bother to read what happened?

There were two vehicles being chased.
The Police did not terminate the pursuit, the continued it, deploying spikes to stop the coupe while chasing the other into a shopping centre carpark.
The Police did not deploy a helicopter, instead they relied on incidental reports coming through from media choppers (about three of them) already in the air right over the vehicle which showed the cars speeding through streets even with police a little way back.

The final vehicle load of offenders was only apprehended after SERT and Dog squad were sent into a busy shopping centre which had to be evacuated and locked down.

All this took 2 hours.

It lasted for a long time, went into busy areas, all the while decreasing the margin for error.

No I didn’t read what happened – that’s what I heard on the initial news reports (they said police terminated then re-engaged. We all know how reliable the media are, don’t we?). They caught the offenders and recovered the vehicles. So what point are you trying to make? How would you have dealt with this situation if you were in charge?

It lasted 2 hours. So what? It takes as long as it takes. The pursuit – like all pursuits in this country – was constantly being risk-managed throughout.

Personally, I wouldn’t care if they terminated the pursuit in the first 30 seconds and let the crooks get away and torch the cars. QPol chose option B, which proved to be a success.

johnboy said :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8_Fire_Scout

Why is it light gray, when manned military helicopters tend to be dark/camo?

ROFLCOPTER.

Tooks said :

That chase that ended with no one hurt and the offenders apprehended? IIRC they terminated that pursuit when it became dangerous and allowed the helicopter (ie.pulling back and monitoring from a distance) to guide the cops on the road to the mall, where they arrested the offenders.

Did you even bother to read what happened?

There were two vehicles being chased.
The Police did not terminate the pursuit, the continued it, deploying spikes to stop the coupe while chasing the other into a shopping centre carpark.
The Police did not deploy a helicopter, instead they relied on incidental reports coming through from media choppers (about three of them) already in the air right over the vehicle which showed the cars speeding through streets even with police a little way back.

The final vehicle load of offenders was only apprehended after SERT and Dog squad were sent into a busy shopping centre which had to be evacuated and locked down.

All this took 2 hours.

It lasted for a long time, went into busy areas, all the while decreasing the margin for error.

HenryBG said :

Helicopter gunships.

Nothing more to say.

Exactly.

The driver who leads police on a pursuit is the exact equivalent of the person who opens fire with a firearm in the middle a crowded shopping centre.

They should be treated as the homocidal maniacs they are.
Even better than helicopters, the police should be given unmanned drones equipped with hellfire missiles to put a rapid end to any pursuit in order to protcet the public.

The Greens’ proposal is about *not* protecting the public, but about facilitating crime and putting yet more sticks into the spokes of law-and-order..

Yeah … because that’s what they *really* want – more criminals. It’s obvious, just read the OP, you can’t miss it.

:sigh:

Things effective (actually and economically) in big cities are often not going to be in Canberra. While we have a spread out city with lots of road, it is not LA, and we won’t have police air assets up 24/7 until drones become a lot cheaper.

Having all of of the traffic (and other) cams in the entire city live streaming to some kind of tactical control centre ( with giant screens on the wall controlled by weird hand gestures) is probably a more realistic approach, but still not likely to implemented (especially since the ACT Police cameras never seem to record properly…).

c_c said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

c_c said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

Maybe they should be launching blancmanges?

I think you’ve watched Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment too many times.

Point is even the farcical, verging on comical would make more sense than the prolonged, fuel burning exercises or dangerous, w-kyote tactics they insist on doing still. That chase in Qld last week that ended at a shopping centre reportedly went for over an hour. The longer it goes, the greater the chance for incident. The methods need to be changed to ensure either a prompt, decisive end through offensive means, or a pull back but still in control way of monitoring to bring it to an end later.

That chase that ended with no one hurt and the offenders apprehended? IIRC they terminated that pursuit when it became dangerous and allowed the helicopter (ie.pulling back and monitoring from a distance) to guide the cops on the road to the mall, where they arrested the offenders.

c_c said :

KeenGolfer said :

c_c said :

Given the technology available, there are improvements that can be made without having to let the offenders go.

Care to elaborate on what these “improvements that can be made” are exactly?

Well at the less technical end police vehicles should be equipped to do PIT. It’s always been a saw point for Australian police because they don’t use the body on frame vehicles US forces use.

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched. Has to be said though it would be safer for both Police and suspects than the use of road strips which not only place the officer in harm’s way, but also sends the vehicle out of control at speed.

Technology does exist now to tag a car with a GPS tracker fired at the escaping vehicle. That basically enables police to maintain pursuit at a distance until the vehicle stops naturally or police box them in at a predetermined point.

We also have all this surveillance around these days so over time, it should be possible to follow them using traffic cameras and other surveillance assets.

Point isn’t to just give up and let them go, it’s to catch them smarter.

You still haven’t suggested how to ‘catch them smarter’. You haven’t really offered any practical solutions.

BTW, stop sticks don’t usually cause a vehicle to ‘lose control at speed’.

The ACT is too small to utilise a helicopter, the PIT maneuvre will never be allowed here. A GPS tracker which could be shot into the fleeing vehicle would be a good idea (if it exists).

Helicopter gunships.

Nothing more to say.

Exactly.

The driver who leads police on a pursuit is the exact equivalent of the person who opens fire with a firearm in the middle a crowded shopping centre.

They should be treated as the homocidal maniacs they are.
Even better than helicopters, the police should be given unmanned drones equipped with hellfire missiles to put a rapid end to any pursuit in order to protcet the public.

The Greens’ proposal is about *not* protecting the public, but about facilitating crime and putting yet more sticks into the spokes of law-and-order..

johnboy said :

How do you hand the ban to the driver of a stolen car?

That’s part of the can of worms… with a police chase out of the question a person driving a car that’s not registered to them, either with or without permission of the owner, will have no incentive to stop.

This could result in more people accelerating away from police even for minor indiscretions.

The result could be quite negative.

Thoroughly Smashed said :

c_c said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

Maybe they should be launching blancmanges?

I think you’ve watched Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment too many times.

Point is even the farcical, verging on comical would make more sense than the prolonged, fuel burning exercises or dangerous, w-kyote tactics they insist on doing still. That chase in Qld last week that ended at a shopping centre reportedly went for over an hour. The longer it goes, the greater the chance for incident. The methods need to be changed to ensure either a prompt, decisive end through offensive means, or a pull back but still in control way of monitoring to bring it to an end later.

c_c said :

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched.

Maybe they should be launching blancmanges?

I think you’ve watched Police Academy 2: Their First Assignment too many times.

c_c said :

Well at the less technical end police vehicles should be equipped to do PIT. It’s always been a saw point for Australian police because they don’t use the body on frame vehicles US forces use.

Can’t see that ever happening in Aus, the “greenies” will say it’s too dangerous.

c_c said :

Has to be said though it would be safer for both Police and suspects than the use of road strips which not only place the officer in harm’s way, but also sends the vehicle out of control at speed.

Out of control? The tyres deflate slowly and if they keep driving, they end up driving on their rims. There’s no danger to the driver, only to the officer trying to deploy them. Deploying them effectively is difficult.

c_c said :

Technology does exist now to tag a car with a GPS tracker fired at the escaping vehicle. That basically enables police to maintain pursuit at a distance until the vehicle stops naturally or police box them in at a predetermined point.

Not allowed to box in vehicles either. GPS fired tracking would be cool, but still has issues. Is there any police force anywhere actually using this technology?

c_c said :

We also have all this surveillance around these days so over time, it should be possible to follow them using traffic cameras and other surveillance assets.

Would be awesome if the govt had the budget to fund a full time chopper for pursuits, but again that will never happen.

c_c said :

Point isn’t to just give up and let them go, it’s to catch them smarter.

The thing is that’s easy to say. Show me a police force anywhere in the world that has solved this issue, I’d love to know how they do it.

KeenGolfer said :

c_c said :

Given the technology available, there are improvements that can be made without having to let the offenders go.

Care to elaborate on what these “improvements that can be made” are exactly?

Well at the less technical end police vehicles should be equipped to do PIT. It’s always been a saw point for Australian police because they don’t use the body on frame vehicles US forces use.

I could also suggest a well placed shot from a Dessert Eagle into the engine block of a fleeing car but that’s probably far fetched. Has to be said though it would be safer for both Police and suspects than the use of road strips which not only place the officer in harm’s way, but also sends the vehicle out of control at speed.

Technology does exist now to tag a car with a GPS tracker fired at the escaping vehicle. That basically enables police to maintain pursuit at a distance until the vehicle stops naturally or police box them in at a predetermined point.

We also have all this surveillance around these days so over time, it should be possible to follow them using traffic cameras and other surveillance assets.

Point isn’t to just give up and let them go, it’s to catch them smarter.

c_c said :

Given the technology available, there are improvements that can be made without having to let the offenders go.

Care to elaborate on what these “improvements that can be made” are exactly?

Out of the ten submissions received about the proposal, six were in favour of it. Great, because what we need is every idiot who has been asked to pull over speeding away because the cops can’t chase them.

Also I do want to make clear that while I’m attacking Rat boys disingenuous manner, I am not discounting the need for improvement in the way criminals who choose to run are caught.

We’re using techniques that have advanced little since the days of bushrangers being chased though the bullock runs on horse back by colonial police. We’ve just upped the horse power. Given the technology available, there are improvements that can be made without having to let the offenders go.

I’m in two minds about it. A criminal running from the police in a motor vehicle is incredibly dangerous to themselves, to the police, and to the potentially thousands of people who may be in close vicinity to the police chase over it’s course.

On the other hand, banning police chases will open a can of worms… allowing anyone in a car to accelerate a little and force the police to give up.

If police chases are banned, then other deterants must be put in place to discourage people from trying to escape police in a motor vehicle. Such as, running from police at high speeds for a period exceeding 30 seconds = automatic 10 year driving ban and automatic compulsary prison time. Second offence, life time driving ban and prison again.

Jim Jones said :

Do you actually think it’s okay if people die unnecessarily, just so long as they’re ‘criminals’ of some sort?

Exactly what Diggety said is my opinion.

No one forces them to run. They make the choice to run, they pay the price.
If they choose to run most of the time for minor offences, then that only highlights their stupidity, and why no one should shed a tear when they write themselves off.

Where the problem does lie is when innocent people caught in the cross fire so to speak are injured and lose their life, however, many people die or are injured by emergency vehicles not engaged in pursuits, who are just running to a job with blue and twos on.

So Mr Rattenbury has to come clean and say just how many of those 163 are actually innocent bystanders and how many are really the tools who chose to run and in doing so, chose their fate.

Perhaps RA could send a message to his office for a clarification, or at least a source?

An ‘effective end ‘ to a police pursuit it when the criminal who attempts to flee from police wraps his vehicle around a tree/pole and only kills or injures themselves.

The Greens’ Shane Rattenbury has announced the release of a discussion paper on police car chases.

Why would anyone chase a police car?

I we could solve all Shane’s worries by putting all the cops on bike, since he only seems worried about. cars.

Jim Jones said :

Do you actually think it’s okay if people die unnecessarily, just so long as they’re ‘criminals’ of some sort?

I think it is ok for people to die if they choose to put themselves in a situation where death is a likely outcome (I’m pro right-to-die).

The innocent and unsuspecting on the other hand….

Ben_Dover said :

The ACT Greens proposed to trial an updated ACT police pursuit policy to restrict chases to violent crimes only like murder, rape, tree damage, and armed robbery.

This discussion paper set out evidence that most chases currently are for traffic infringements or suspicion of car theft, and also that a chase poses risks to police and shrubbery.

Based on this evidence, we believed a better balance can be struck by only permitting chases to take place for serious violent crimes that warrant the risk, but then only in cars powered by recycled cooking fats,.

Further evidence cited showed that other jurisdictions, such as Tasmania, are using more progressive policies, such as chill out rooms, meditation, Reiki, and holistic Hopi ear candling, and have experienced decreases in crimes. This is contrary to the often stated view that amending our police chase policy will result in an explosion in global warming.

We proposed that if the trial was successful and crime levels remained steady or declined, the trial should be made permanent, and a tree planted for every successful non-pursuit caught violent robber who stops and recants his life of evil and meat eating.

Lol 🙂

Haven’t read the post, but I think there should be more Dukes of Hazzard style chases. With jumps.

The ACT Greens proposed to trial an updated ACT police pursuit policy to restrict chases to violent crimes only like murder, rape, tree damage, and armed robbery.

This discussion paper set out evidence that most chases currently are for traffic infringements or suspicion of car theft, and also that a chase poses risks to police and shrubbery.

Based on this evidence, we believed a better balance can be struck by only permitting chases to take place for serious violent crimes that warrant the risk, but then only in cars powered by recycled cooking fats,.

Further evidence cited showed that other jurisdictions, such as Tasmania, are using more progressive policies, such as chill out rooms, meditation, Reiki, and holistic Hopi ear candling, and have experienced decreases in crimes. This is contrary to the often stated view that amending our police chase policy will result in an explosion in global warming.

We proposed that if the trial was successful and crime levels remained steady or declined, the trial should be made permanent, and a tree planted for every successful non-pursuit caught violent robber who stops and recants his life of evil and meat eating.

Firstly I must confess that I haven’t read the full discussion paper.

But can someone explain what the Tasmanian government did to archive a more “progressive policy” that has resulted in a decrease in crimes??? And does it include legalising previously illegal activities?
Also I was under the impression that Tasmania has one of the highest road fatality rates in the country:
http://www.news.com.au/hummer-protects-against-lethal-roads/story-0-1225699587190
Could the Tasmanian statistic be a function of other factors other than that related to the chase or not chase argument, potentially a wider environmental issue??

“He wants people to infer that 163 innocent people or people who barely did anything wrong, died from pursuits”

Where did you get that idea from?

Do you actually think it’s okay if people die unnecessarily, just so long as they’re ‘criminals’ of some sort?

That poll is so tenuously linked to the given proposal as to be completely pointless.

“The police vehicle is the most deadly weapon in the police arsenal. There have been 163 deaths on Australian roads between 1990 and 2008 which involved pursuits. By comparison, 92 people were shot and killed by police in the same period.”

Rat boy then goes on to say that police pursuits risk the lives of “…police, innocent bystanders and road users…”

And so just like Zed has been doing of late, Shane Rattenbury is engaging in another classic example of Willie Horton style politics.

He wants people to infer that 163 innocent people or people who barely did anything wrong, died from pursuits. He carefully omits the percentages on that figure, instead choosing to put it in for mere shock value.

What percentage of that 163 people were the offender, or an occupant in the offender’s vehicle?

In what percentage of the 163 deaths were the Police deemed at fault by a latter inquiry?

The only places I could find another reference to this 163 figure was on Civil Liberties Australia’s website and the Canberra Times, both citing Rattenbury, and neither elaborating on what constituted that fatality figure.