Skip to content Skip to main navigation

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

johnboy 17 April 2012 96

police pursuits

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

Shane’s release tends to shy away from what he’s actually proposing but the discussion paper is reasonably direct:

The ACT Greens proposed to trial an updated ACT police pursuit policy to restrict chases to violent crimes only like murder, rape 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 innocent bystanders.

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.

Further evidence cited showed that other jurisdictions, such as Tasmania, are using more progressive policies 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 crime.

We proposed that if the trial was successful and crime levels remained steady or declined, the trial should be made permanent.

So what do you think?

When people run from police

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

UPDATE 17/04/12 16:40: The Liberals’ Jeremy Hanson is not at all impressed.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
96 Responses to Greens call for an effective end to police pursuits [With poll]
Filter
Order
VYBerlinaV8_is_back VYBerlinaV8_is_back 1:31 pm 18 Apr 12

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.

Tooks Tooks 1:22 pm 18 Apr 12

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).

Ben_Dover Ben_Dover 1:14 pm 18 Apr 12

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.

Tooks Tooks 1:14 pm 18 Apr 12

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.

Tooks Tooks 1:09 pm 18 Apr 12

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.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 12:14 pm 18 Apr 12

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 Ben_Dover 12:12 pm 18 Apr 12

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

Jim Jones Jim Jones 12:12 pm 18 Apr 12

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!

Ben_Dover Ben_Dover 12:09 pm 18 Apr 12

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.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 11:57 am 18 Apr 12

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.

chewy14 chewy14 11:42 am 18 Apr 12

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.

Diggety Diggety 11:33 am 18 Apr 12

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”.

m00nee m00nee 10:30 am 18 Apr 12

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.

c_c c_c 10:22 am 18 Apr 12

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!

c_c c_c 10:20 am 18 Apr 12

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.

Tooks Tooks 10:12 am 18 Apr 12

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.

Tooks Tooks 10:11 am 18 Apr 12

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.

Jim Jones Jim Jones 10:04 am 18 Apr 12

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.

Tooks Tooks 10:02 am 18 Apr 12

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?

chewy14 chewy14 10:00 am 18 Apr 12

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

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2019 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site