Skip to content Skip to main navigation


Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Police pursuits endangering lives (not criminals) – civil libertarian

By Ralph - 5 July 2007 54

The ABC reports that Civil Liberties Australia is howling over yesterday’s police pusuit through Canberra, claiming that police are endangering lives.

Apparently the full moon was last Friday, but I’m sure one would have thought that rising numbers of violent thugs are more of a threat to Canberrans.

Said offender had allegedly robbed elderly women of cash from ATMs.

What’s Your opinion?

Please login to post your comments, or connect with
54 Responses to
Police pursuits endangering lives (not criminals) – civil libertarian
Showing only Website comments
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst

DMD, given that you seem unable to divorce our nicknames from this discussion, you are a stupid, uneducated, lazy, ugly, useless wanker.

NOW I’m happy.

bd84 6:10 pm 08 Jul 07

Committing crimes is endangering peoples lives, the morons who keep suggesting the police don’t chase people who break the law need to shut up and pull their head in. The is going to be some sort of danger no matter what action the the police take. They already have rules and regulations up to their eyeballs which hinder them doing their jobs. WE all know it is the scumballs committing the crimes then running when police try to aprehend them who are at fault, nobody else.

Or maybe I should take the other view and go and rob some little old ladies of their pension money, then speed away when sighted by the police knowing that I will escape because I will know they won’t chase me? Grow a brain people. 🙂

asp 7:48 pm 06 Jul 07

What about those huge steel spherical cages from that tv show Gladiators. They’re aircooled, durable and have incredible cornering. Just roll to work.

Absent Diane 4:36 pm 06 Jul 07

everyone should be forced to catch buses or giant beach balls.. no high speed getaways in those. and you only have so far to run.

Deadmandrinking 4:29 pm 06 Jul 07

How can you expect me to be sensible with a nickname like that? When I have a nickname like this? Or when I’m posting on a site with characters like you, vic bitterman and the redneck guy?
I’ve give it a shot..

Yes, society expects that people don’t behave in a criminal manner, but society also expects that the duties of correcting the wrongs of criminal are given to people with training and government approval, whom can also be held accountable for their actions. Joe Bloggs on the street who gets a hard-on from bashing junkies and/or bleeding hearts usually does not have the training or expertise to deal with criminals in a way society deems appropriate.
Also, I at no point and time said I didn’t want these criminals caught – just not at the expense of peoples lives. There are other ways of catching criminals that are less risky that have been pointed out by other’s posts.

There, happy?

The point, DMD, is that as a society we have to set the level of ‘criminality’ that we are willing to withstand without protection. For me, the elderly being robbed at ATMs, and home invasions, are not acceptable. Acordingly, I see no problem with dealing with said events (preferably by the police, but by myself if police can’t/won’t). You are clearly willing to accept these types of criminal activities – as implied by your assertion that we shouldn’t be chasing down and catching criminals involved.

The problem, I think, is that society’s expectation is that they can use ATMs, and live in their homes, without being victims of crime. When people such as yourself assert that this is an unreasonable expectation (by implication), because of the risk that something might go wrong. The lawless society to allude to above is the result of lack of policing – not because people try to fortify their homes. A law, really, is only as effective as it’s policing.

So bottom line – you think I’m a ‘crazy V8 owner’ (nice association BTW), and yes, I think you’re a bleeding heart. Instead of speaking in generalities using emotional rhetoric (your comments directed at me, for example), try to present your view rationally, and people might be willing to sensibly engage with you.

Deadmandrinking 3:00 pm 06 Jul 07

Sure I understand the human motivation, but we’ve got to suppress some of our instinctive urges if we are to function as a civilized society – otherwise we can just fortify our houses, stock up on weapons and food and lead our lives in an anarchic free-for-all. In the case of your apparent utopia, anyone would be perfectly justified barging into your home, setting fire to it and zooming off in your V8, because it would be evolution, baby.
Fortunatley we live in a society with laws and power that’s (supposedly) distributed, so that criminals are dealt with indirectly by the collective society. This way, we don’t have crazy v8 owners or anyone else for that matter brutalizing someone where they see fit.
But I’m such a bleeding heart for dead people I wouldn’t understand, right?

Cletus 3:00 pm 06 Jul 07

Cletus – if it makes you feel any better, people play the man not the ball all the time round here (speaking of which – anyone heard from bonfire recently?). It doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve run out of ideas – it just means they think you’re a dick.

Ah of course, the mating call of the loser “yeah I can beat you but I don’t want to”. Ha ha ha, good one. (Yes, I savour the irony too, thank you).

We’re actually on a (mostly) anonymous internet forum where you don’t need any speck of courage or conviction to back up insults, so I find them even more idiotic and pointless than in real life. Why would you even bother saying anything at all if it isn’t going to be constructive? It’s utterly pointless.

That said, I don’t mind having a bit of a dig myself especially when you’re winning the argument. It’s when you lose and try to dig your way out of it with nothing but personal attacks is when you confirm your status as a loser to your oponent and all spectators.

Thumper 2:55 pm 06 Jul 07

Yeah jase, I said as much in an earlier post.


jase! 2:47 pm 06 Jul 07

it costs an incredible amount to keep a chopper Thumper: in the air per hour. I wish I could remember the dollars but sadly I can’t.

for a police type chopper, around $1500-$2500 an hour depending on model, staffing etc

“Your V8 should be impounded then. It gives you too much testosterone, sorry.”

The words of a narrow minded loser who lacks understanding of the human motivation. Grow a brain and focus on the issue. None of the bleeding heart crapola you have sprouted has convinced me of anything.

Mr_Shab 2:21 pm 06 Jul 07

The high-speed chase thing is a tough one. However, given that the feds have to deal with this kind of thing as an operational concern, I’d say that they have some pretty well-defined procedures about when to stop and when to give chase. This is probably why it took so long to nab this granny-bashing nob-end.

A question – would having a pursuit chopper make chases any safer? Wouldn’t the crim just try to run from the chopper and be equally dangerous (you’ll note that in these situations, it’s invariably the crim who knocks over the innocent bystander, not the cops chasing)?

I don’t know if chasing everything that runs is a good policy though. I’m not convinced that it would result in fewer chases. The mentality that runs from the flashing lights and sirens is not one that does a considered risk assessment before stomping on the throttle.

That said, I’m convinced that the ABC journos trotted out comment from this Rowlings guy cause it was the closest thing they could find to the old “police chases should be banned” chestnut so the kind of debate that we’ve seen here could be generated (i.e. so people would pay attention to the story).

Cletus – if it makes you feel any better, people play the man not the ball all the time round here (speaking of which – anyone heard from bonfire recently?). It doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve run out of ideas – it just means they think you’re a dick.

Cletus 1:59 pm 06 Jul 07

Hi Woody,

Maybe some cop will run over and kill your loved one so they can catch a petty crim who nicked a handful of cash one day. I’m sure it’ll all be worth it.

True, and maybe one day a petty crim will take your mother’s handbag, knocking her to the ground and she’ll hit her head and be killed (god forbid), and then you’ll wish the cops could have been a stronger deterrent or caught him last time he did that, and you might realise the issue isn’t black and white.

Or maybe one day the police will never chace anyone. Would you be happy then when there are criminals everywhere, speeding around and knocking people down as they go? Because if I was that way inclined, and knew the police would never chase me, I know what my ATM would be, and I know exactly how I would drive to get there and back.

I would like nothing more than for there to be no need for a police force, but if you think that can happen by empowering people to be responsible for their actions, then you are in fairly land. The civil libs, like many ideological groups, have some good ideas when taken in moderation — gaining freedom via personal responsibility is great, but I think only the deluded would go so far as saying we could dispense with law enforcement.

Well said cletus.

Well named, more like it.

Ahh, exactly the eloquent and well reasoned rebuttal to my arguments that I expected. Yep, when your opposition resorts to personal attacks, you can be fairly sure that they’ve no more real ammunition. Thanks for confirming that.

cranky 1:55 pm 06 Jul 07

Has anyone asked the Police if they have a helicopter, or have access to one?

Perhaps a smallish, light blue unit, with Police siren installed? Seen a couple of years ago over the Majura Lane driver training complex.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved. | |

Search across the site