Hi Johnsy
I've asked my partner's sister for advice about the legislation you "spoon fed" me. She gave me the
following advice: She is not a barrister who specialises in criminal law. Pulling up a piece of legislation
in isolation and pretending to understood it is not something you can do, but was happy to pass
comment. What is required is an in depth understanding of the laws that the legislation is designed
to effect. In her opinion, "section 4 seems to remove any discretion that the judicial officer would
otherwise have under another Act". I asked for an example for the kinds of miscarriages
of justice that would likely result. I didn't write down the legal gobbledy gook, just the stuff a layman
can understand: "In a joint criminal enterprise one criminal might be held liable for the entirety of
the criminal enterprise even though they personally participated in a small part".
I asked her whether or not it was a "police power". She agreed that it is not, but said that the kind
of legislation she was looking at served to make a police force "unaccountable and give them
a sense of entitlement". She also made the point that making the life of a police officer more important
that the life of an ordinary citizen is a slippery slope, but that we are already in these dangerous
waters with regards to Ambulance officers etc. With regards to whether or not it was a police power
she said that the power was in the ability of the Police Force to be able to get that kind of legislation up
and get it through parliament. At this point, I stopped wasting her time.
I disagree with you and her regarding it being a police power. Creating an unaccountable police force
is form of power. The NSW police force ran amok from long before I was born (in the early 1970s) up until
the Wood Royal Commission. If you need a more tangible example, look no further than
the LAPD circa the LA riots of 1992, resulting from the acquittal of the police involved in the bashing of
Rodney KIng. Briefly, the LAPD felt that they could just bash african americans for no reason with
total impunity. They were right. The police were acquitted and the subclass rioted for six days In Australia
the police have a shameful record regarding the aboriginal people. Australia has a record that would make
the LAPD proud regarding Aboriginal deaths in custody.
How would you feel if they came around to your house unannounced just to check if you there were any outstanding warrants. After all, if it catches one criminal and preventsa crime in the future who does it hurt.
See this is exactly the reason why you come across as a nut job. Polic shave intelligence, they know where you live. If it is a rental address and someone has moved on, what's the problem with the Police coming around to see if he still resides there, after all he failed to show up for court. Or don't the rules put in place by the judicial system apply to people like him. Does he consider himself above the law, exactly the same sentiment you used towards the Police force earlier? See the hypocrisy.
You have completely missed the point. A breath test should be just that: a breath test. Unless you have failed the breath
test you should not be asked for identification and should not be checked for outstanding warrants. What the police
currently do at a breath test is the equivalent of coming around to your house without any cause to see if you have a committed
an offence.
Yes they told me why I was being pulled up, they were on routine burglar patrol.
So now you take issue with them legally stopping people in areas that have had high rates or burglary, all because it took up 5 min of your time. If that was me I'd be glad they are being proactive and making all efforts to reduce this type of crime. But that would just make me some type of weak merkin without a backbone because I don't mind my rights being ever so slightly impinged upon for the community greater good.
So no link to a coroners report you seem to think you know enough about to make an informed opinion on, what a shock. I look forward to this, or an retraction that you went off 1/2 cocked without having all the information.
Again you have completely missed the point. I don't think stopping and searching people
for the purposes of preempting petty crime should be legal. It has nothing to do with the
5 minutes of my time that they waste, it is about the kind of state in which I would prefer
to live. It took 20 minutes of six police officers time. That is two hours of police time
I wasted discussing whether or not they wanted to arrest me. I enjoyed watching them
procrastinate while they tried to figure out if they should arrest me for simply explaining
that I oppose the laws that they are using to harass me while heading to Woolies at 6PM
on a Saturday.
I didn't go off half cocked. I was providing a professional opinion as an electrical
engineer that putting 5000V across someones heart isn't a good idea, and that this
is even more true when they have no idea what pre existing medical conditions
they may have.
First off, as I stated in a much earlier post, a police force is a necessary evil. I have said their powers should be very carefully given or taken away.
That is exactly how it is done, it mirrors the standards the community expect. You know democracy.
Unfortunately this isn't really the case anymore. What you call the "standards the community expect" are the extreme
right wing agenda that is driven by the murdoch press. This has come about in part through a lack of media diversity.
Technology is throwing up interesting challenges for democracy. Now that we have such incredibly powerful databases,
all the ALP and the Liberal party have to do is ring people up (take a sample) and find out what your values are. This
is why the liberal party has lurched so far to the right, and the ALP is chasing them like a kelpie. Instead of governments
leading opinion and thinking, they are following the opinions of the mindless minority in order to keep power at any cost.
On the flip side of this, we have the Greens who don't do this, but are so high high handed with respect to their beliefs
that they are simply unable to compromise.
I would reduce certain powers. Ideally breath testing should stay. It should be allowed,
and the bracket creep rolled back. No more asking for identity, unless you have are
intoxicated.
You want the blood alcohol limit increased, wow!!! How many fatal accidents have you attended because some knob head was pissed, had no thought for anyone else but himself, as a result killed another person driving not intoxicated. Or how many relative/friends of yours have been killed because someone wanted to drive home after drinking ?
I am guessing 0.
http://www.drinkwise.org.au/you-alcohol/alcohol-facts/drink-driving/
Danger increases the more you drink
0.02 to 0.05 BAC ? your ability to see or locate moving lights correctly is reduced, as is your ability to judge distances. Your tendency to take risks is increased, and your ability to respond to several stimuli is decreased.
At 0.05 BAC drivers are twice (2) as likely to have a crash as before they started drinking.
0.05 to 0.08 BAC ? your ability to judge distances reduces further, sensitivity to red lights is impaired, reactions are slower, and concentration span is shorter.
At 0.08 BAC drivers are five (5) times more likely to have a crash than before they started drinking. At 0.08 to 0.12 BAC ? ?euphoria? sets in ? you overestimate your abilities, which leads you to drive recklessly, your peripheral vision is impaired (resulting in accidents due to hitting vehicles while passing), and your perception of obstacles is impaired. Drivers are up to ten (10) times more likely to have a crash.
What a great idea, increase the limit. You complete moron.
I said quite clearly I would like breath testing to stay, on the proviso that it is just that, a breath test.
I would remove tasers and guns from police. Move the guns to specialised units like they
do in England. Tasers are nothing but an weapon built for abuse of power.
That's fie and it's an opinion. How man incidents are tasters used correctly compared to incorrectly ? Would be interesting to give this debate some perspective, something you clearly lack.
I need to dig up some articles. The rapid rise in taser use is causing alarm. I don't
know what curve you would fit over the rise in use off the top of my head, but at a
cursory glance it would suggest they are being drawn for compliance.
No more sniffer dogs. Decriminalise drugs for personal use.
Until drugs are illegal, won't happen. I am guessing your are at least a recreational user. Enjoy the induced psychosis in the years to come. If not then I apologise for the incorrect assumption.
You think I'm a nut job? Why are the lives of road users sacred and the lives of drug users irrelevant? Australia prides itself
on being egalitarian, the fair go etc. It is our version of the American dream. Of course, as is reflected by your attitude, just
as with the American dream, you would need to be asleep to believe it.
No introduction of mandatory sentencing for the murder of a policeman. Leave it up to
the judicial system.
The judicial system does determine the sentence, they have to be found guilty of murdering a Police officer by the courts. I even spoon fed you the revenant legislation. I take it legislation is more of the devils work suppressing the good every day folk just wanting to live their lives?
Addressed at the beginning of the post.
That is non sensical. My idea of freedom, is being left alone to go about my own business
and not be bothered by a society that is trying to preempt every possible thing that could
ever go wrong. Others like the idea of a nanny state (a kind of benevolent Police state)
where we are made to feel safe by government through constant interference in day to
day living.
Does anyone stop you wearing thongs in the wet if you choose, Or does anyone stop you wandering the streets at 2am because it may be dangerous, Does anyone stop you plying cricket in the nets without using any pads, box etc because it may be dangerous ? No.
How exactly were you interfered with today, and yesterday, and the day before?
What a complete and utter overreaction. Your usual MO as we can all see.
In all honesty, if life in todays society is so over bearing and you just can't take it. Move to a hippy commune and live the free life man. They exist, and there are many.
I am stopped from doing the most basic things every day. My nephew goes to a local Infants school and I had to pick him
up from school as a favour to my sister. Although my sister had rung the school to tell them I would be picking
him up, he was not allowed to be handed into my care because I was not wearing shoes. I can't even ride my bike to the
shops if I don't wear a stack hat. My mum has been dead for ten years, I don't need a pimply 20 year old kid telling me whether
I should wear a stack hat if I duck up to the shops.
I refer to the Gen Y's as the dog shi@#t generation. This is because they are the first generation of children to have grown
up in Australia without ever having trodden in dog sh@#t. They haven't let off fire crackers, they weren't allowed to play on
play equipment because society had to have it removed because a child might get hurt on the monkey bars.
The days of playing cricket without a box and pads being legal because it is too dangerous is not far away unless we stay
vigilant against government and police.
I accidentally missed one of your posts. I'll address it in my next post.
Anyway, I will be online after a few bevies having seen my team get lapped around 9:30.
