More idots AND they have the nerve to ask how to get out....

just.nosey · Post by **just.nosey** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:12 pm

A Police Officer is protected by law under I think it's Section 280 of the Traffic Act (don't quote me and shoot me down in Flames if I'm wrong as I will check with a mate of mine who is a Traffic Sgt. and correct it if I am)and, when operating a Police Vehicle as an Emergency Vehicle and any attempt to arrest the apprehending officer could result in that person being charged with False Arrest and laughed at a lot!!!.

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:47 pm

just.nosey wrote:A Police Officer is protected by law under I think it's Section 280 of the Traffic Act (don't quote me and shoot me down in Flames if I'm wrong as I will check with a mate of mine who is a Traffic Sgt. and correct it if i'm wrong) when operating a Police Vehicle as an Emergency Vehicle and any attempt to arrest the apprehending officer could result in that person being charged with False Arrest and laughed at alot.

man that last line craked me up!

Ludacris · Post by **Ludacris** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:54 pm

Kanye wrote:
This is the major cause of traffic "accidents" in WA. Yes, they are just accidents.

There is no such thing as a traffic accident, they are always classed as traffic crashes..... Someone is always at fault therefor not an accident.

Kanye wrote: Im also interested to know why the Police person felt the need to chase the suspect vehicle at such high speed? Did the car not have a licence plate?

I predict in the future you will see people the likes of the gentleman that made the original post using his own powers of citizens arrest and asking the question of the Police, did you have permission to chase me?

Are you for real..... you chase because usually you have no idea why they are speeding. (it is an offence to speed anyway) but lets say they just committed an armed robbery or burglary. You would never know unless you tried to stop them.......

godinoz · Post by **godinoz** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 4:40 am

the reason they changed it from traffic accidents to traffic crashes was a legal one. A person was charged, I think it was somewhere in England, with failing to stop after an accident, etc etc. When he attended court he beat the charge by saying it was no accidentbut it was delibarete(hic).

just.nosey · Post by **just.nosey** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:07 am

In England maybe I have no idea... In Western Australia it was Police Commissionor Falconer (now retired) who said there is no such thing as an accident and that someone was always at fault, and it was he who insisted that A.I.S. (Accident Inquiry Section) be re-named Crash Inquiry Section.

It is interesting to note that a person involved in a crash who then fails to stop, render assistance, and report said crash is charged with: Failing to Stop After An Accident, Fail To Render Assistance After An Accident and Fail to Report An Accident along with any other charges that might come to light e.g. Dangerous Driving et'c.

Another point if the Police are involved in any type of follow or pursuit and have activated their lights and sirens calling for a vehicle to stop and that vehicle or the Police vehicle has a crash it's called a POLAC (Police Accident).

Incidently POLAC is the name of the forms used in those situations.

Kanye · Post by **Kanye** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:36 am

Ludacris wrote:
Kanye wrote:
This is the major cause of traffic "accidents" in WA. Yes, they are just accidents.
There is no such thing as a traffic accident, they are always classed as traffic crashes..... Someone is always at fault therefor not an accident.

Kanye wrote: Im also interested to know why the Police person felt the need to chase the suspect vehicle at such high speed? Did the car not have a licence plate?

I predict in the future you will see people the likes of the gentleman that made the original post using his own powers of citizens arrest and asking the question of the Police, did you have permission to chase me?
Are you for real..... you chase because usually you have no idea why they are speeding. (it is an offence to speed anyway) but lets say they just committed an armed robbery or burglary. You would never know unless you tried to stop them.......

My question was, did he have permission to chase the vehicle at such high speed? I think you will find the Police person simply did not. That simply opens him up personally to any liability in relation to any "accident".

There are good reasons for Police asking permission to persue a car at high speed, I believe personal liability is one of those.

You may also have a situation where a person with time and resources actually uses his right to challenge/charge the non authorised speeding police person with dangerous driving.

Kanye · Post by **Kanye** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:47 am

just.nosey wrote:A Police Officer is protected by law under I think it's Section 280 of the Traffic Act (don't quote me and shoot me down in Flames if I'm wrong as I will check with a mate of mine who is a Traffic Sgt. and correct it if I am)and, when operating a Police Vehicle as an Emergency Vehicle and any attempt to arrest the apprehending officer could result in that person being charged with False Arrest and laughed at a lot!!!.

As a citizen you have the right of arrest if someone is commiting an illigal act. That right is almost the same as a Police persons right of arrest.

And interestingly enough if that person refused to be arrested, you could then notify the Police of alleged illigal behavior, they would then be obligated to make the arrest, if you had proof of their wrong doing. Which in this case would be very easy.

Without getting into the mechanics of criminal/civil law all of this would wash out in court. If the chasing Police person couldnt prove he had permission to chase at high speed, he would then be charged to the same extent as the speeding motorist.

What I am saying is that two wrongs dont make a right. You may see people in the future also challenging Police on their driving behavior as a negotiation point.

It doesnt matter who you are, you simply cannot "break" the law.

Kanye · Post by **Kanye** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:50 am

just.nosey wrote:A Police Officer is protected by law under I think it's Section 280 of the Traffic Act (don't quote me and shoot me down in Flames if I'm wrong as I will check with a mate of mine who is a Traffic Sgt. and correct it if I am)and, when operating a Police Vehicle as an Emergency Vehicle and any attempt to arrest the apprehending officer could result in that person being charged with False Arrest and laughed at a lot!!!.

It may pay for you to check that theory with a lawyer. A traffic Sgt would only understand his side of the law. The courts decide which interpretation is relevant, and which factors are mitigating. A Police persons job is simply to make a LEGAL arrest, the court decides guilt.

Kanye · Post by **Kanye** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 9:54 am

Ludacris wrote:
Kanye wrote:
This is the major cause of traffic "accidents" in WA. Yes, they are just accidents.
There is no such thing as a traffic accident, they are always classed as traffic crashes..... Someone is always at fault therefor not an accident.

Kanye wrote: Im also interested to know why the Police person felt the need to chase the suspect vehicle at such high speed? Did the car not have a licence plate?

I predict in the future you will see people the likes of the gentleman that made the original post using his own powers of citizens arrest and asking the question of the Police, did you have permission to chase me?
Are you for real..... you chase because usually you have no idea why they are speeding. (it is an offence to speed anyway) but lets say they just committed an armed robbery or burglary. You would never know unless you tried to stop them.......

Yes, but do you have permission? If so, fine. If not, hello civil lawsuits if it goes pear shaped!

just.nosey · Post by **just.nosey** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:10 am

There is a difference between calling a pursuit (Vehicle Failing To Stop) and chasing a Vehcile to catch to it and yes he does have permission under the Police Act and The Traffic Act in fact empowered might be a better word. It is only the Police Regulations that require a Police Officer to call a Pursuit and the reasons for this are many but the simple answer is Yes he does have permission because he has detected an offence and he is operating his Police Vehicle as an Emergency Vehicle.

There is no requirement for a Police Officer to Obtain Permission everytime he activates his lights or sirens or exceeds the speed limit only when they (must be 2 up) engage a vehicle in a Pursuit, Then Permission must be obtained to continue with the Pursuit.

The is no reference to the speed a Police Vehicle may travel at in this section other than to say, It Must Be Safe And Expedient.

Here's something you won't know:: In the not to distant future (no known date at this time) The old 140 kph cap is going to be scrapped, with purpose built pursuit V8's coming on line. At the time of writing this they maybe in the form of a Ford as Ford is working extensively with the Police Services around Australia to build a car specific to the needs of the Police.

The 1st of the BF 6 cyl Falcons are already out there and I would expect to see more on the road as their current vehicles are replaced with new ones.

Fastlane · Post by **Fastlane** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:18 am

just.nosey wrote:There is a difference between calling a pursuit (Vehicle Failing To Stop) and chasing a Vehcile to catch to it and yes he does have permission under the Police Act and The Traffic Act. It is only the Police Regulations that require a Police Officer to call a Pursuit and the reasons for this are many but the simple answer is Yes he does have permission because he has detected an offence and he is operating his Police Vehicle as an Emergency Vehicle.

There is no requirement for a Police Officer to Obtain Permission everytime he activates his lights or sirens or exceeds the speed limit only when they (must be 2 up) engage a vehicle in a Pursuit, Permission must be obtained to continue with the Pursuit.

Finally! Someone with some sense! Now please tell them all that theres no such thing as Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority Pursuit in the Road Traffic Act!

just.nosey · Post by **just.nosey** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:36 am

Hiya Fastlane, Yes your absolutely correct there is no such thing in the Road Traffic Act. The PP, P1, and P2, only appear in the Police Regulations and the C.O.P.'s manual and it's in fact possible (it's been done several times) for a Police Officer to decline a P2 in favour of operating the Police Vehicle as an Emergency Vehicle (under as I said previously I think it's section 280 of the Road Traffic Act and if it's wrong I'll change it once I am able to confirm the section) without fear of any disiplinary action being taken against the Police Officer concerned.

The only exception to this is if he or she is instructed to downgrade and doesn't because it is a lawful command and must be obeyed.

hitman · Post by **hitman** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:18 pm

Annie are you OK, you OK, you ok Annie, you've been struck by a smooooooth criminal!

just.nosey wrote:
Here's something you won't know:: In the not to distant future (no known date at this time) The old 140 kph cap is going to be scrapped, with purpose built pursuit V8's coming on line. At the time of writing this they maybe in the form of a Ford as Ford is working extensively with the Police Services around Australia to build a car specific to the needs of the Police.

The 1st of the BF 6 cyl Falcons are already out there and I would expect to see more on the road as their current vehicles are replaced with new ones.

I highly doubt this. I was under the impression that V8 police vehicles were ruled out (in WA) along time ago due to the sheer power and difficulty in controlling them when engaged in pursuits or emergency driving.

If this was the case, wouldn't they have SV8s in operation instead of the SV6s? Care to provide evidence of your claims?

Cheers

Walks · Post by **Walks** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:48 pm

kayne wrote:My question was, did he have permission to chase the vehicle at such high speed? I think you will find the Police person simply did not. That simply opens him up personally to any liability in relation to any "accident".

There are good reasons for Police asking permission to persue a car at high speed, I believe personal liability is one of those.

You may also have a situation where a person with time and resources actually uses his right to challenge/charge the non authorised speeding police person with dangerous driving.

Wanna quote any relevant sections of law or case law in relation to these comments? You have been quoted the relevant section of exemption for Police.....so put up or shut up

Walks.

Ludacris · Post by **Ludacris** » Tue Jun 06, 2006 12:50 pm

Kanye wrote: Yes, but do you have permission? If so, fine. If not, hello civil lawsuits if it goes pear shaped!

Civil lawsuits could happen at anytime...... I mean I could sue you for wasting my time reading your posts, (If I had the money I could) weather I would win would be another story...

As for your citizens arrest, I would be very cautious of giving out advice on people arresting someone, Just remember Deprevation of liberty..