Just let cops do their jobs

KH says:

07:35am | 24/03/10

Geez, what’s your punishment for a rapist, which is far worse than stealing a car? And a murderer?  I suppose you want the death penalty reintroduced.

I agree that harsher punishment, or in so many cases, some punishment is required, but this is a little extreme - you aren’t considering more serious crimes - if this was a standard punishment, they have nothing to lose by killing someone as well as stealing the car.

The man in Canberra should have been locked up, with such an extensive history.

Craigles says:

07:48am | 24/03/10

It requires more than the police service and the jail system to deal with people like Justin Williams; it requires family, friends and probably other agencies to try to help manage their obsessions with criminal behaviour.

Bruce says:

10:14am | 24/03/10

Gin: Agree. As well as 10 years in gaol for not taking directives from the police. Each time someone tries to run away from the police, 10 years. That will make them think first, and if they do not, that will be one more bit of scum in gaol. Also, I want the death penalty bought back for certain crimes.

Hangman says:

10:53am | 24/03/10

@KH.  maybe not the death penalty….can’t be responsible for that, but maybe rapists and murderers should be placed in the care of the victims families.  Preferably strung up and let the families take out their own justice.

Just a thought.

iansand says:

11:06am | 24/03/10

The problem with these theories is the average criminal is not very bright.  Contemplation of consequences is outside the scope of their imaginations.  Or, if they do think about consequences, they think their plan is good enough that they will avoid capture.  Ridiculous sentences may keep people off the street but they have minimal deterrent effect.

TracyS says:

12:14pm | 24/03/10

I agree Gin, penalties need to be higher and more fitting to the dire and tragic outcomes.

If a person dies as a result of a car chase, the charge against the driver should be a murder charge not manslaughter, as the driver has made a clear decision to drive in a dangerous manner without regard to the safety of others. Alcohol and drug use should not be considered as mitigating factors. The piddly sentences that have been doled out on manslaughter convictions in these cases are simply inadequate.

Harry says:

09:52pm | 24/03/10

For those of you that don’t support a hash punishment then I pray that your loved ones don’t become victims of crime…..........

LC says:

10:18pm | 11/11/11

I’d say 6-12 months should do it for general car theft. 25 years is going overboard.

Though the little bit of bogan shit in this case should have been declared a hopeless case and either sentenced to life in prison or life incarcerated in a metal institution. The blood of the poor family he killed, and of their three-month old child, lies in part on the hands of any member of the judiciary who failed to recognize him as hopeless case when it was blatantly obvious and take appropriate action to protect the community.

Oh and there is a rarely used part of law which allows whose who commit act with a certain degree of recklessness and kill someone while doing so to be charged with murder even if they did not intend for the victim to die. Someone who fires a gun in a random direction while blindfolded on a crowded city street would face this charge if he kills someone. I fail to see the difference between that scenario and this one in terms of the degree of recklessness.

Sanchy says:

03:06pm | 25/03/10

What he said x2

Alex says:

06:49am | 24/03/10

I’m a libertarian (civil and otherwise), and I put the blame squarely on the driver.

Botfly says:

06:54am | 24/03/10

I doubt the familes of innocent people killed in these chases could be in any of those categories. A four month old baby has hardly had time to get any sort of criminal past.

Adam Diver says:

07:08am | 24/03/10

For Boftly
(d) are directly involved and have no-one else to blame as the criminal driver was killed.

KF says:

07:19am | 24/03/10

Botfly, those categories were used to describe the critics of police chases, not the victims of the accidents which sometimes result from them.

BTS says:

07:14am | 24/03/10

Botfly,

I did say usually.

Do four month old babies communicate issues such as these with you on a regular basis?

David C says:

09:42am | 24/03/10

Im really struggling to understand why the author and this post allude to civil libertarians, my understanding of libertariansim is that everyone has the right to live their lives as long as they dont harm anyone else, why would a libertarian be against the police here? Surely a strong effective police force is exactly what libertarians support?
And to the author I dont agree that the majority of people dont consider the police “decent people”

BTS says:

10:00am | 24/03/10

David C,

The liberatarians view Police as oppressive, invasive and fascist.  They oppose police intervention in daily life and far too many promote the rights of criminals, in some bizarre form of acceptance of their behaviour whilst ignoring the rights of the rest of us to go about our daily life without becoming a victim.  They ignore the fact that Police preserve our rights.  No it doesn’t make sense, but people make a living out of it.

Tom says:

03:12pm | 24/03/10

BTS, Libertarians are not one homogeneous group, and hence to say that ‘they’ all believe one thing is absurd and wrong. I personally consider myself to be a libertarian, and like Alex have absolutely no sympathy for the driver in this case, and lay the blame squarely at his feet. I think PJ O’Rourke best encapsulated libertarianism when he said “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.” This man did as he pleased, and took the consequence - death.

However, that should not prevent us from having a discussion about policy for police chases. Perhaps it would be wise to follow the drivers by helicopter where available, with cars staying at a distance ready to move in once the vehicle has stopped. Surely that is safer than chasing the driver on the ground. Several innocent people died from this chase, and it is not the first time this has happened. Hence, we should by all means examine whether the current policy requires changing.

BTS says:

05:49pm | 24/03/10

Tom,

Where did I say you weren’t allowed to discuss the issue?  Please indicate this to me.  Just as everyone else is putting across a point of view, so too am I.  I am also entitled to put reasons forward why various suggestions aren’t the solution, aren’t I?  I haven’t attacked anybody, I haven’t called anyone names, I am engaged in debate, if you have seen it otherwise, then that’s your misinterpretation.

With regards to the ‘libertarians’ perhaps you need to do a bit more wider reading on this issue and you will see what they have had to say and to whom I am referrring.

It’s entirely plausible he would have hit and killed them, Police or no Police, that point seems to have been lost.

BTS says:

05:51pm | 24/03/10

Tom

You also failed to mention that the Police did stop the pursuit!

Tom says:

09:16pm | 24/03/10

BTS, I think you somewhat misinterpreted what I meant when I said “However, that should not prevent us from having a discussion about policy for police chases.” I wasn’t specifically targeting you, just saying that there does need to be a discussion as to whether the current police policy regarding chases needs altering. The reportage of this case claims that the chase was stopped ‘shortly’ before the crash - how shortly exactly? I don’t think it would be too controversial of me to suggest a criminal will probably be driving more dangerously if he is being pursued than not, all other things being equal.

And again, could you please provide links to civil libertarians with views on the case? Thus far much commentary such as yours has been quick to attack the civil libertarians, when I don’t recall any such commentary on this case. Apart from the mother I don’t think I have read anything that lays the blame anywhere else but at the feet of the driver.

David C says:

11:04am | 25/03/10

Are people from civil liberties groups “libertarians”?

BTS says:

06:48am | 24/03/10

Yes,

Let’s have everyone drive as fast as they want in any stolen car they want.  With no consequences for their action, dangerous driving and further fatalities would surely drop under this regime.

Horizons says:

07:02am | 24/03/10

This guy stole a car!! He never committed mass murder and neither did the people who were killed during this chase. In this country we don’t give the death penalty to drivers of stolen cars. Far better to apprehend him in other ways. That baby deserved a chance at life

Adam Diver says:

07:16am | 24/03/10

I would suggest that a more effective policy would be to go the other way. If a siren sounds and you decide to boot it the police should start firing and ramming cars. I would suggest more innocent deaths would be avoided this way.

But of course this will never happen and probably should not. But in terms of an effective solution well..

BTS says:

07:30am | 24/03/10

‘He never committed mass murder’

Yes, he did!

maybe says:

09:10am | 24/03/10

Think about this: People who steal cars drive them fast and run red lights and in general have no regard for other drivers on the road *even* when they are not being chased by police.  The sirens might at least warn others of the dangers

Wayne Kerr says:

10:18am | 24/03/10

Horizon,  Let me get this straight.  You’re saying if a cop sees a car speeding past him/her at great speed he/she shouldn’t chase in case someone gets killed.  Chances are if K**bjockey is speeding, there’s a good chance they will have a crash and kill someone anyway.  this guy wasn’t running, he was already speeding excessively when the Police gave chase.
What would you have the Police do?  Take the rego of the car? Oh Dear, the car is stolen and dumped.  Where’s the driver?  Damn he got away.  Guess what, he’s going to do it again and again.

TracyS says:

12:20pm | 24/03/10

The police are not responsible for the death of these people, the driver of the stolen car is wholly responsible. His decision to act completely without regard for the safety of others resulted in their deaths. It’s not that far off mass murder in my view.

The Planner says:

01:16pm | 24/03/10

OK Horizons. You say “Far better to apprehend them in other ways”. Tell me right now what these “other ways” are. You mention helicopters in your previous statement but have you taken into account:

- Airspace restrictions especially above metropolitan centres
- Costs of operating choppers (fuel, servicing, engineering)
- Cost of purchasing entire fleets of choppers for different areas
- How many choppers per constabulary could the state budgets afford?
- How may choppers would you have in the air of an night catching these hoons?
- What kind of chopper training programes would you implement as chopper pilots are not exactly abundandt.
- Chooper pilots are highly skilled thus command huge salaries could state budgets afford to have them running all over the states daily.
- What is the cost of infra red equipment that can follow these speeding cars?
- what is the time taken from call in of a speeding driver to getting a chopper airborne to the speeding cars location?
- What is the cost of seeting up helipads at every cop station in the states? Will taxpayers fund this?
- How will residents of suburban and metro areas react to choppers flying overhead every night, they aren’t exactly quiet.

You Horizons are a tyically, poorly informed, whinging idiot, that has no business telling these cops that “other ways” exist. You offer no tangible solution that is well researched, well budgeted nor actually feasible yet you complain anyway.

Do us a favour join the force then come up with another way or close that ignorant pie hole of yours and let these guys who know a thing or two about people that comit murder with motor vehicles do their job.

Tom says:

03:22pm | 24/03/10

I recall reading somewhere that there is the technology to fire projectile GPS trackers onto stolen cars. If so it would seem to be the best solution, the car can be tracked from a distance, hopefully without the danger of a chase or the cost of a helicopter.

Horizons says:

04:26pm | 24/03/10

The Planner what cost is a human life worth? Would you feel great if this was your family? It might be next week. I just feel so very sad for the young families lives that were taken. We have advanced so much in the last 50 years surely they can find a solution to this. Once again the Police have my uttmost respect and they have my admiration. But the family that is left to bear this burden of innocent loved ones lost on the way to visit this babies grand dad makes my heart ache for them. A car can be replaced a human life can’t.

The Planner says:

10:57am | 26/03/10

Horizon’s you have done so well to completely miss the point of my comment. After all, the cops had called off the chase by the time this guy ploughed into this family. This just might well be my family next week and i’ll tell you one thing, if this guy is being chased, sirens and lights would alert me to coming danger and I would stop at a green light, and wait for the danger to pass.

Seeing in this particular instance he was not being chased, the family had no sirens or lights to alert them of coming danger, where they might just have halted at their green light knowing sonething fast was approaching not just a filthy mongrel that had no regard for the law or the lives of the community.

You say it’s just a stolen car, but a person in a stolen car already has the adrenaline rushing and is already in the frame of mind to break the law, they’ll speed, and run red lights even withouth the cops chasing and anyone who thinks letting them go is safer is kidding themselves. But lets see shall we, bring in the no chase law and see how well the safety of the comminuty fares. I will by all means happiliy eat my words if it saves lives, but common sense tells me that me and my family have a fighting chance of survival if a cop car chasing a thug like this has its lights and sirens blaring as opposed to a thug is a stolen car silently speeding through a red light.

LC says:

10:37pm | 11/11/11

Planner’s point aside, if the police would not allowed to chase crims, you can guarantee that every single person who would otherwise be pulled over would floor it, knowing they’d get away because the police aren’t allowed to chase them, resulting in MORE, not less, tragedies such as this. Especially so for young hoons who think they’re invincible, such as the idiot in this case.

Didn’t think that one through too much didn’t you?

BTS says:

07:33am | 24/03/10

No problem with expressing an opinion.

Big problem with promoting the rights of criminals, whilst obliterating the rights of victims.

d.jay.stevo says:

08:57am | 24/03/10

I haven’t seen or heard anyone defend the criminal, only the victimes!

BTS says:

09:22am | 24/03/10

You haven’t noticed that there has been no criticism of the driver?

There seems to be lots of discussion about the Police role, but no condemnation of the driver, no determination, that except for his actions, this would not have happened at all.

Ryan says:

10:10am | 24/03/10

BTS: I have seen nothing but condemnation for the driver. In fact here I go, I condemn the driver also, he was ultimately responsible for this tragedy, if only there were a way to get rid of boofheads like this without killing three innocent people to one boofhead.

BTS says:

07:57am | 24/03/10

KH,

Apparently, losing $50,000 to some people is petty.

LC says:

10:51pm | 11/11/11

Killing a young family of three whilst doing 200km/h through suburbia was a “minor criminal act”?

So in your book what’s a major criminal act.

And don’t say “murder”. As far as I’m concerned that’s what this is. It’s an act no less reckless than shooting a gun while blindfolded on a crowded street.

Bitten says:

10:57am | 24/03/10

I am a contractor and worked for a company that didn’t pay me.  They owe me $14K, but when I actually did something about it, they pulled the “we’re going into liquidation” routine *and* got away with it.  Depends on the criminal really doesn’t it?  Wasn’t that really the same as going into my house and stealing $14K?  Not to the courts it’s not.

Our justice system is a sham.  There is no justice.

iansand says:

11:24am | 24/03/10

Bitten - Next time ask for directors’ guarantees.  If they are not forthcoming ask yourself why not.

Bitten says:

12:54pm | 24/03/10

Dude, you nicked my screen name!

I won’t press charges though

Kia says:

08:33am | 24/03/10

You think the police see high-speed pursuits as a “fun idea”?  Puhlease…

BTS says:

09:24am | 24/03/10

Dave,

Exactly, how does the Police car up the road stop them?

Ben says:

09:40am | 24/03/10

How does the police car up the road get there quickly enough if the stolen car is doing 150 or 200km/h+? Do we just have extra cars hanging around waiting for a chase all day?
Where do all the extra police resources (extra chase cars, full time chase helicopters, chase surveillance teams) come from? Use “use cameras to record the rego” And do what when the car is stolen?

Using your brains works both ways.

Michelle says:

09:41am | 24/03/10

Believe me, when you’ve got a family waiting at home for you, hoping you’ll survive your shift, the last thing you think is that a high speed car chase is “fun”

Front On says:

04:27pm | 24/03/10

Belting the absolute living crap out of anyone who got involved in a high speed chase used to work in my day.  It’s brutal, and ugly, but it seemed to do the trick in a strange kind of way.  It was almost like the exposure to sheer human violence got beyond the artificial “police” thing and took it to another level.  It’s a horrible thing to admit to being a party to, but it actually worked.  It’s basically the same sort of thing that would happen to you if you stole a car from the Hells Angels.

LC says:

11:00pm | 11/11/11

Firstly, if you knew any police officers they would tell you that high-speed pursuits are FAR from being fun and games.

Helicopters are a good idea: Once one of them are onto you there’s no getting away.

But if you ban high speed on-land chases, you can bet every driver and his mother would gun it knowing the police could not chase them and thus they would not get caught. The amount of helicopters and all the labor required to man and maintain them to deal with all these high speed drivers would send us into bankruptcy. It’s not a practical option.

And if you think they can track them by satellite at the present time, then yes, you’ve been watching way too much 24.

barry says:

08:51am | 24/03/10

only a few dickheads are saying its the cops fault.  they were just doing their job.  maybe we need to make their job easier and say ‘only chase cars if there is a suspicion of a serious offence’.  I’m sure most sensible cops would be grateful not to have to chase shitty tin boxes worth a couple of grand, just to save some money for an insurance company.

KP says:

09:01am | 24/03/10

Until our Insurance premiums double and triple (or they don’t even offer insurance for stolen vehichles anymore) because of all the stolen vehicles that the cops aren’t stopping. Sure insurance will pay, but in the end, it’s us that end up paying via increased insurance premiums.
Again, there are no easy answers,.

BTS says:

09:30am | 24/03/10

shere khan,

How do you know at the time it’s ‘just a stolen vehicle’?  Is he returning from a bank robbery, a murder, what? 

Why is he driving so fast before he came to Police attention?
If a stolen car is such a minor matter, will you give me $40,000, since that only appears a trifle amount to you?

In this last case you refer to, where you there?  How do you know what actually happened and whether it’s ‘spin’ or not?

How about criticising the scum-bag criminal that drove dangeroulsy before he came up to the Police and who callously wiped out another family?

Which of the above groups do you fit into (snivel libertarian, criminal or disgruntled traffic offender?)

BTS says:

09:38am | 24/03/10

‘and if this means stopping a chase and allowing a suspect to escape, so be it.’

They did that.

miffy says:

09:44am | 24/03/10

“if this means stopping a chase and allowing a suspect to escape, so be it”

This is the current policy and that’s what the police did: they chased until it became unsafe to do so, at which point they stopped. It’s unfortunate that the idiot criminal didn’t stop as well. He might not have killed so many people.

I can’t believe this is even being debated. The police, as much as it pains me to say this, did the right thing and unfortunately a tragedy occurred which was not their fault.

There’s a fine balance they police have worked out over the years and guess what? In everyday life sometimes bad things will happen to good people.

rudbbot says:

02:27pm | 24/03/10

I’ve got one with only three letters:  UAV
Sorry, I’m cheating: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

David C says:

10:30am | 24/03/10

it would make better Telly

Vicki PS says:

12:52pm | 24/03/10

Quite so, H.  I don’t understand how civil libertarians (whoever this ill-defined group happen to be) suddenly became the bogeymen in this debate.  Of all the anti-police comment I’ve read in relation to this incident, I wouldn’t characterise any of it as coming from a civil liberties position.  Seems like those blaming so-called civil libertarians actually mean “anyone who disagrees with me”.

As for why that equally mysterious “no-one” is condemning the driver of the stolen vehicle, personally I try to avoid stating the bloody obvious.  But if it makes Steve feel better, criminals are just bad, mm-kay?

Rover says:

01:16pm | 24/03/10

Blame the NSW Council for Civil Liberties for being all over the news the day after this accident calling for a ban on police chases.
Not calling for a ban on morons stealing cars and driving them ridiculously dangerously.

Andrew K says:

03:08pm | 24/03/10

I was going to raise this issue. Apparently it was in some Hollywood movie - surely science could overcome the fiction if its not real. Hell my 1993 Ford has more electronics in it that the moon landing vehicles. If an EMP hit even my car that then its all over. Much, much cheaper than helicopters and no more dangerous than shouting a warning. In the US car dealerships can immobilise cars (admittedly only at standstill) if the owner defaults on a payment. Surely the Police could use this technology to shut down the vehicle remotely.

Alex says:

04:55pm | 24/03/10

Sending SMS messages to drivers. What could possibly go wrong?

BTS says:

07:22am | 25/03/10

So, don’t bother chasing any criminals really as they all have the potential to risk lives.

LC says:

11:20pm | 11/11/11

Davido, you’re a blithering idiot.

Banning police pursuits would mean that any person the police would pull over, what do you think the driver’s going to do? He’s going to floor it, as he knows that he’s stands a very, very good chance at getting away, causing more tragedies like this. This would make our roads no-go zones all of the time and you would not even be able to walk on the footpath safely.

If a friend or family member of yours were killed or worse, left as a vegetable doomed to spend the rest of your life as an empty shell in a hospital bed as a result of the ensuing mayhem, don’t look at me for sympathy.

There’s one person whom had the power to stop this chase at any time. The same person could’ve also prevented it from happening full stop. He is one of the deceased. He is not a police officer. He his not at police dispatch. He was the man driving the stolen car. He did not make that decision, now he is dead.

BTS says:

07:12am | 26/03/10

Gravyishot,

Take a deep breath.

The Police didn’t do everything in their power to catch the offenders.  They stopped chasing the offenders.  Did the scumbag offender slow down, no, he continued at the same speed he was driving ‘before’ the Police saw him.  So the Police saw the danger to innocent bystanders was too great to risk and they did something about it.

Breath out.