The only person responsible for the Paul Brown's death was the Police Officer or Paul Brown - Simple.Going by your reasoning, I could conclude that Carl Jackson was speeding to get to the hospital to see his wife have a baby - therefore it is Carl Jackson's wife to blame.David
The pig is to blame. Jackson was only speeding. The pig did the dodgy driving.In this instance speed did not kill, bad pig driving did.It is the tax mentality that pigs now have that causes pigd to do dodgy for the sake of a tax ticket.
Following that line of "reasoning", a cop may kill an innocent person provided he's in pursuit of a suspect and its the suspect's fault?Jesus wept!Get it through your thick skull--a police officer is NOT entitled to break the law and risk the lives of innocent people in pursuit of revenue.
I think the comments above are being a little disingenuous. Brown had no idea what was over that hill, it could have been me giving first aid to a victim of circumstances that had nothing to do with me. 154 kph over a dbl yellow lined hill aint stoopid it is self destructive and I will be very surprised if Brown wasn't speeding to boot. I love to speed also and have either been clever or more likely bloody lucky, sports cars, bikes, high performance cars and a bloody V8 disco so don't go off at me. I expect the law to stop idiots doing 150 plus on a road that is as restrictive as this was.Brown was obviously going at a speed or had insufficient concentration to cope with what unfolded on "his road" and although plod contributed to this accident Browns inability to cope with the unfolding events is the major cause.BTW as an emergency response person I could be first on scene and I am in considerable danger until others can make my position safer but I don't often wait for that luxury.
Your inability to understand simple concepts isn't my problem, KG. I suggest nowhere that the Police are entitled to break the law.There is a difference between being accountable for a death and being to blame for it. One is a matter of law, the other a matter of morality. The Police officer is accountable under the law for the death and presumably will be held to account for it. The fact that he was pursuing an offender is a mitigating factor.. Look these up if you don't understand them. Carl Jackson, by contrast, is morally to blame for the death, and has no right to pretend to himself that the incident was none of his doing. I realise you lot don't get much beyond "Four legs good, two legs bad" with this stuff, but do make an effort.
Is carrying Paul Brown's casket on said ute an act of contrition, or a show of bravado?
Milt is spot on.
Don't mind me if I use your reasoning to continue to attach the blame to a police culture that excuses reckless and dangerous use of vehicles to chase revenue from a 115-120k speeding ticket (yes I call "bullshit" on the 154k number). So, that means YOU Leo Toomey.There's three things I want to see happen out of this tragedy:1) Cop training on how and when to initiate pursuits overhauled.2) Those useless cock-extension Commodores canned in favour something sensible. I suggest Toyota Corrolas with a few BMW's for M-way work.3) Cameras in all cop cars, using the money saved by item #2.
"to continue to attach the blame to a police culture that excuses reckless and dangerous use of vehicles"Jamie, you can get as emotive, juvenile and as full of your own self-importance as you want, but until you can produce some facts and figures to back up your claim people will not take you seriously. And I'm sure Leo Toomey is quaking in his boots right about now.Isn't this the first ever fatality between a Police car and a motorcyclist? Infact I can't even remember a single other fatality involving Police and an innocent motorist at all, can you James?Certainly not what I would expect given the dangerous and reckless driving culture?
It would seem to me, that the police car may have been moving (as in reversing), to complete the 3 point turn, upon impact with the biker. I think that the biker had chosen his angle of avoidance, but the police car with it's 2 occupants moved into the bikers new path, not even being aware of him bearing down on them. The passenger in the police car must have thought "this is not tidy place to do a U turn" surely. The police car driver will have had adrenaline and some red mist at the prospect of 'nailing' the speeder in the ute (aka the 'gotcha' syndrome), thus making a poor choice of where to do the U turn. These modern bikes have Very good brakes but the rider probably chose to try and go around the (moving) car. A likely scenario in my mind.
Gravedodger wrote: I will be very surprised if Brown wasn't speeding to boot.Me too. If Carl Jackson was speeding, Brown started out after he did, and was a matter of seconds behind him at the time of impact, it kind of rules out the idea of him tootling along at 100k.James Stephenson: it's yet to be seen whether the Police driver will be excused for his actions. If he is excused, then you'll have a point.
"Funny how people whose selfish idiocy results in the deaths of others never see that they did anything wrong."That is indeed the nature of communism.
Dexy. Can I call you that? How are your midnight runners these days?Read the original stuff article: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3595827/Motorcyclist-killed-in-police-collision-namedOnce you've scraped your jaw off the floor looking at where the cop chose to do a -now admitted- 3-point turn, read to the bottom. Four additional cases where police have snapped into "chase mode" and u-turned in front of members of the public in the last couple of years. How many more times have people been lucky and managed to avoid collision?It's blindingly obvious to all but the most blinkered police apologist that the first thing they think is "Wa-hey another one off the quota!" not "Is it safe to chase that one, or should I just call it in?"Leo Toomey's attitude to bikers is apparently well-known (I've done a bit of research since yesterday) and he's been the subject of official complaint by BRONZ - barely concealed contempt seems to be the apposite description.
Did Leo take over from rickards in Hamilton? Leo looks well into retirement age.
Jackson says "I remember lifting the foot off the pedal when I saw the patrol car and the needle was around the 120 markWhat's the range that they can pick you up?, is it possible he was clocked before he saw the patrol car?.Too right the guy on the bike must have been significantly over the speed limit to catch his mate who admits to doing at least 120.Just illustrates that you need to be able to stop within the distance visible.
Maybe motorcyclists should be made to wear seat belts.
Answer me this; if the bike rider had been doing 100 k or less would he have been able to stop when he saw the cop car?If the answer is yes then there is only one person responsible for this death, the dead guy.If the answer is no then the cop is totally at fault.
Depends if it was a 100km/h zone or a Open Speed Zone. if it's the OSZ, my understanding is the driver can do any speed up to 100km/h that is safe for the conditions, i.e.:weather, light conditions, visibility and so on.If it's an OSZ, then more fault lies with the rider, however, some fault must always lie with the officer for choosing to turn where he did, as it is obvious he didn't pick a very safe place to do it. Having said that, taking into account that the ute driver admits to doing at least 120km/h, if his mate wasn't speeding behind him the cop would have likely finished his turn before the rider arrived.
Look at the photo on stuffwhat a damn fool place to pull a 3 point turn. There's no where for anyone coming over the hill to go. I couldnt have pulled up in that time, even in my little sportscar. If I had been in my 4wd that cop would be dead now.If I had been on my bike, I would have been the dead one. Its bloody obvious. We don't need a sanctimonious lecture from Milt, I very much doubt his old Rover could have stopped in that little distance if he came over the brow of that hill at 100kmh.Who the hell expects to see a copcar pulling a U turn on a narrow road with no visibility?It just beggars beliefStupid stupid stupid.
We don't need a sanctimonious lecture from Milt, I very much doubt his old Rover could have stopped in that little distance if he came over the brow of that hill at 100kmh.Honour demands: that old Rover has disk brakes all round and doesn't do a bad job of stopping.That aside: it wasn't a good place to do a u-turn, no. I expect the bloke who did the u-turn will be held to account for it. So what's your problem?There's nothing sanctimonious about my attitude to this. I expect cops to pursue and apprehend offenders (which includes me, because I'm no religious observer of speed limits myself); such pursuits are carried out by humans, so mistakes will sometimes occur; the people who make the mistakes have to be held to account for them; but let's not lose sight of the reason why the pursuit occurred. Exactly what is unreasonable, let alone "sanctimonious" about that?
It's interesting that organisations like Bronz and its followers are getting on soap box's and bleating out about what killers the Police are on the roads after the first ever fatality involving a Police car and the public. Give the total number of deaths on the roads each year and over the years this figure is rather incredible.At the same time we have motorcyclists killing themselves almost daily through excessive speed, excessivel fast bikes, terrible judgement and very poor riding skills yet Bronz seems to be strangely quiet as to the real killers when it comes to bikers, themselves.Funny that, guess they are too scared of alienating their own revenue source.
Post a Comment