Greens seek to end police pursuits [With poll]

johnboy 20 July 2011 81

car crash

The Greens have announced the release of a discussion paper on police car chases.

“Police car chases are the deadliest part of police operations. We think they should be used cautiously and only for serious violent crimes where public safety demands the offender be immediately apprehended.” Shane Rattenbury said.

“The ACT has seen seven people die since 2004 on our roads in connection with police car chases, most of them related to stolen cars. That’s an average of one person per year which makes it a serious issue that warrants discussion.

Police pursuits

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

UPDATE: Shane Rattenbury has put out another media release to complain that Zed Seselja and Simon Corbell are wrong in opposing his proposals:

ACT Greens Police spokesperson, Shane Rattenbury MLA, has expressed disappointment at the knee jerk reaction from the ALP and Canberra Liberals on police pursuits and frustration at their lack of commitment to evidence based policy.

The ACT Attorney General and the leader of the Canberra Liberals made factual errors in their comments this morning and contradicted evidence from AFP reviews.

“For our political leaders to go on air uninformed and make misleading statements on such an important topic is deeply disappointing,” Mr Rattenbury said.

“Their comments this morning ignored and contradicted two important pieces of evidence.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
81 Responses to Greens seek to end police pursuits [With poll]
Filter
Order
« Previous 1 3 4 5
Special G Special G 6:18 pm 25 Jul 11

Most legislation in relation to law enforcement would have some type of Police input into the law. AS the subject matter experts in Policing the government would consult with them to whether a bit of legislation will actually work.

Tooks Tooks 4:33 pm 24 Jul 11

Mental Health Worker said :

Sorry, my poor arithmetic after a couple of beers – nearly one in six Canberrans voted for the Greens, 15.8%.

I am always surprised that chief police officers are allowed to enter political debates, when the head of any other government department would be disciplined or fired for doing so. (Apart from Neil Savery perhaps, but I suspect his days are numbered.) However, as recent Victorian experience shows, governments do have a limit to their tolerance of CPOs being involved in backroom or frontroom politics.

MHW

I don’t have a problem with it, given it is a discussion paper!

Mental Health Worker Mental Health Worker 11:14 am 24 Jul 11

Sorry, my poor arithmetic after a couple of beers – nearly one in six Canberrans voted for the Greens, 15.8%.

I am always surprised that chief police officers are allowed to enter political debates, when the head of any other government department would be disciplined or fired for doing so. (Apart from Neil Savery perhaps, but I suspect his days are numbered.) However, as recent Victorian experience shows, governments do have a limit to their tolerance of CPOs being involved in backroom or frontroom politics.

MHW

Tooks Tooks 9:42 am 24 Jul 11

It is the job of elected politicians to develop laws that the police (and numerous other agencies) are then required to enforce.

And often these laws are made in consultation with the police (and other agencies).

If the police don’t like that, then they are objecting to democracy.

If you don’t like the CPO having his say, then I’d suggest maybe you’re against democracy.

Quaedvlieg should get back in his box and stay out of politics, unless he wants to go the way of his Victorian counterpart.

What about his NSW counterpart? He seems to be going okay…

I believe the CPO has every right to comment on policy proposal as flawed as that released by the Greens.

Unless Riot Act posters are suggesting that the police should be allowed to make the law themselves (aka a Police State), stop whingeing about the Greens’ discussion paper.

Not one person has suggested police should make laws; that’s ridiculous. The Greens discussion paper is being criticised because it is poorly thought out and inaccurate. Who are you to tell people what they can and can’t whinge about on a public forum anyway?

And relying solely on the opinions of police, rather than evidence, is as logical as allowing only turkeys to vote on whether to abolish Christmas.

Agreed. That’s why no one said that. BTW, the Greens haven’t used evidence, they’ve picked and chosen various stats to suit their argument, without analysing those stats in any detail.

By the way, one in eight Canberrans voted for the Greens in the last Territory election

So? 87.5% didn’t. If this is an example of the half-arsed policy they are going to propose, then they may find fewer people voting for them next time.

Despite the results of Johnboy’s poll, I think everyone would like to see fewer pursuits. Discussion is good, but the Greens’ proposal is poorly thought out, in my opinion.

Henry82 Henry82 12:00 am 24 Jul 11

Mental Health Worker said :

And relying solely on the opinions of police, rather than evidence, is as logical as allowing only turkeys to vote on whether to abolish Christmas.

Implying Greens have used “evidence” to justify their suggestion.

Violet68 Violet68 10:57 pm 23 Jul 11

And relying solely on the opinions of police, rather than evidence, is as logical as allowing only turkeys to vote on whether to abolish Christmas.
MHW

Well said.

Mental Health Worker Mental Health Worker 6:42 pm 23 Jul 11

Tool said :

Let the police do their job I say.

And let the elected politicians do theirs.

It is the job of elected politicians to develop laws that the police (and numerous other agencies) are then required to enforce. If the police don’t like that, then they are objecting to democracy. Quaedvlieg should get back in his box and stay out of politics, unless he wants to go the way of his Victorian counterpart.

Unless Riot Act posters are suggesting that the police should be allowed to make the law themselves (aka a Police State), stop whingeing about the Greens’ discussion paper.

And relying solely on the opinions of police, rather than evidence, is as logical as allowing only turkeys to vote on whether to abolish Christmas.

By the way, one in eight Canberrans voted for the Greens in the last Territory election, and the proportion will likely rise at the next one (Greens vote has risen at virtually every Federal, State and council election for years now). Roll on evidence-based politics.

MHW

LSWCHP LSWCHP 6:30 pm 21 Jul 11

fgzk said :

vg said :

How many pursuits have y’all been personally involved in?

Thought so

Ive owned two cars that where used in armed hold ups and chased. One was chased down by a helicopter (so I’m told) and the other returned covered in black powder. So personally I would guess that there are other ways of tracking thieves.

Definitely time for a lifestyle reassessment there.

Henry82 Henry82 5:23 pm 21 Jul 11

54-11 said :

What bothers me about this discussion is the way some Rioters (such as Gillespie et al, including the usual pro-right wing lobby) turns it into an anti-Green rant. Surely it is good public policy development to put issues out for debate and discussion, and this will then guide future law-making.

Depends if the issues have actually been thought through properly. There has been a <1% death rate in high speed pursuits, which considering the danger associated with HSP its not that much. The changes they've suggested will encourage criminals to evade police, and will raise insurance costs.

Captain RAAF Captain RAAF 3:34 pm 21 Jul 11

TAD said :

I think the Greens are thinking too small scale.

I think we could save a lot of money by scrapping the police altogether and outsourcing the recording of crime to a call centre. Bam!!! Overnight a 100% decrease in police pursuits and police shootings and the courts will run efficiently without all those criminals clogging up the criminal justice system.

This is actually the best idea EVER!

This would leave honest citizens to deal with the crims the good old fashioned way, like with a gun and not have to worry about being charged with manslaughter!!!

Watson Watson 2:37 pm 21 Jul 11

Calamity said :

I can absolutely see both sides of this, however it breaks my heart to think that innocent people can so easily be taken out by high-speed vehicle screaming through a red light to escape police.

If somebody has made the choice to run from police, they are obviously dedicated to getting away and will not slow down, will not check at intersections, will not pay heed to red lights, etc – and anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time is simply done for.

I don’t think it’s worth it, personally.

But haven’t you understood the argument that those innocent lives are worth sacrificing if it results ub fining people who didn’t follow traffic rules?

Sorry, I am merely being sarcastic about the responses that you will get. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately there are quite a lot of machiavellian RAers.

nobody nobody 2:18 pm 21 Jul 11

It looks like the majority of RiotACT commenters are against the idea of reducing high speed police pursuits for less serious crimes, and fear this will only give an advantage to criminals, petty and hard.

The discussion paper also raises the idea of increasing the penalty for trying to evade police pursuit, up to around $5K with a 12 month licence loss. This higher penalty should make some petty hoodlums realise trying to speed away from the police is not worth a penalty higher than their original crime.

Calamity Calamity 2:14 pm 21 Jul 11

I can absolutely see both sides of this, however it breaks my heart to think that innocent people can so easily be taken out by high-speed vehicle screaming through a red light to escape police.

If somebody has made the choice to run from police, they are obviously dedicated to getting away and will not slow down, will not check at intersections, will not pay heed to red lights, etc – and anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time is simply done for.

I don’t think it’s worth it, personally.

Hubert_Cumberdale Hubert_Cumberdale 1:59 pm 21 Jul 11

The guy who owned the white WRX in that pic is a total nob.

Here are some videos of him demonstrating his mad driving skillz before the accident. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Aznvious?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/10/4vmTojjW-lU

http://www.youtube.com/user/Aznvious?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/8/4EmP6aUza3Y

54-11 54-11 1:27 pm 21 Jul 11

I don’t have too much of a problem with the way things are now, but I can see a good reason why such protocols should be opened up for public discussion from time to time. Indeed, Roman Quaedvlieg should be doing that (the Police Minister actually should, but being Corbell, it is way beyond his intellectual resources to do so).

What bothers me about this discussion is the way some Rioters (such as Gillespie et al, including the usual pro-right wing lobby) turns it into an anti-Green rant. Surely it is good public policy development to put issues out for debate and discussion, and this will then guide future law-making. Where is Zed Instead on all this? Being Abbott-style Mr Negative, of course.

But the real problem, as alluded to in some posts, is the intense secrecy of ACT Policing in not putting facts and figures out into the public domain. Then the public would have the data it needs to be able to understand (or not, as the case may be) why the Police wish for the status quo.

Henry82 Henry82 12:20 pm 21 Jul 11

Tool said :

Let the police do their job I say.

+1, the police regularly refine the pursuit engagement rules, and they dont need a bunch of uninformed greenies spreading their opinion

what_the what_the 12:08 pm 21 Jul 11

Just adding some research to the debate (USA – a lot more experience in the area)

First, the majority of police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation.

A traffic infraction is the most common event leading to a pursuit, followed by a suspect driving a stolen vehicle (Alpert 1997; Minnesota Department of Public Safety 2001; Nichols 2005). The most common reason for a pursuit termination is a suspect stopping voluntarily. A suspect crashing is the second most common cause of a pursuit termination, and this generally occurs before the sixth minute of a pursuit (NLECTC 1998).

Most pursuits are for minor offenses, and whether those fleeing suspects have committed a serious crime is pure speculation.7

Innocent third parties who just happened to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits.

On average, from 1994 through 1998, one law enforcement officer was killed every 11 weeks in a pursuit, and 1 percent of all U.S. law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty lost their lives in vehicle pursuits.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/march-2010/evidence-based-decisions-on-police-pursuits

http://what-when-how.com/police-science/police-pursuits/

Tool Tool 11:03 am 21 Jul 11

Engaging in a pursuit is a choice made by a person, nobody knows what this choice is at the time of the pursuit, but it is a choice.

If a person chooses to write themselves off on drugs or alcohol which results in a pursuit, it is their choice,

If a person chooses to drive a stolen motor vehicle, it is their choice;

If a person is trying to get away from Police, it is their choice;

These idealist Greens are yet again wasting oxygen and tax payers money on this rubbish. If the ACT had a culture entrenched in poor judgement from our Police relating to pursuits I would support a review, but it does not.

Those involved in pursuits are cowards plain and simple, boo hoo, life sucks get over it and move on, its about time we conformed with the majority not the minority bottom dwellers.

Let the police do their job I say.

Watson Watson 10:52 am 21 Jul 11

TR said :

In 2007, the Coroner handed down her findings in relation to the Clea Rose incident, and found a police pursuit did not contribute to the death of Clea Rose. The pursuit commenced after Clea was struck by the Commodore.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-19/police-pursuit-did-not-contribute-to-clea-roses/992966

and

http://cdn.justice.act.gov.au/resources/uploads/Magistrates/s_Findings_death_of_Clea__Rose.pdf

The review that the Greens keep on banging out also has some key conclusions which the Greens failed to bring up. Head to http://www.justice.act.gov and do a research for the 2007 review paper.

I would of thought that the Greens and The Canberra Times would of research such a controversial topic a little more carefully.

You mean the summary of the review? I read the whole thing and I don’t really see how they get to that conclusion. The consensus should be that there isn’t much evidence to support either strategy because there are too few jurisdictions with a restrictive pursuit policy to be able to compare the crime stats.

p1 p1 10:22 am 21 Jul 11

vg said :

How many pursuits have y’all been personally involved in?

Thought so

I’d rather not say, as they didn’t catch me.

« Previous 1 3 4 5

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site