BOAR THE ELEVENTH
by The Boar
Gidday to all. Answers first to some interesting questions from the forums...
Klink, you are a scheming bucket of shit. I like that in a person. I must start asking you questions about how to avoid paying bills to a multi national telco company! Anyway, scenario one. Doing the runner is like most things in life, your choice. Will the boys and girls in blue 'forget about it' if they've got your rego? NO. If they don't get you that shift they will be sure to get you the next shift. You see there are checks and measures in place where if a pursuit is called then it MUST be followed up. I'm sure you wouldn't be surprised to hear that the Government, the Courts and the cops take a very dim view of those who want to do a runner thereby compounding the original offence exponentially.
Klink, you are also asking about shift changes. If the big old fat HWP sergeant is doing his/her job well, there won't be a time like that because they overlap shifts. A simple answer is I have no idea. (What's the channelling Hill Street Blues nonsense all about? You clearly base too much of you life on TV!).
Kev11e, much the same response to your inquiry. (By the way, I'm 'ex' so I don't know nor care whether there are any 'more like me' in the cops.) You do ask about terminating pursuits. Yes there is a protocol and it basically sets out where the danger to other road users outweighs the offence overall taking into account a myriad of impacting factors including, but not limited to, traffic conditions and volume, experience of the police driver and type of police vehicle involved in the pursuit, actions of the offending driver etc etc etc. Having said that if they've got your rego number and they don't get you then they sure will get you later.
Andrew, there was a time when unmarked cars were pass? That stemmed from the personal opinion of a certain Deputy Commissioner who believed that 'high visibility' was better than actually enforcing the laws. (That is a simplistic view of a very complex issue so disregard my smart arse attitude). Anyway that's no longer the case and just about every Command has at least one unmarked pursuit vehicle. Enforcement tactics are specific to the area where they work (naturally). What is good for Hornsby might not work at Lakemba so I'm sure you get my drift. It is not secret that data provided by (in the main part) the RTA dictate areas that get the most attention. You'll often see those little black rubber tubes across the road, well, they ain't counting cars boys, they are checking your speed and that determines later what type of enforcement will take place (anywhere between speed cameras to regular patrols and everything in between). The stats for prangs are also examined to determine strategy as well as complaints from members of the public (usually received through your local member).
BJ. Your 'mates' ticket sounds a bit strange. Is your 'mate' complaining that he's been booked with the wrong (meaning lesser penalty) or just that he's been booked? Sounds to me like he should pay the bloody thing and count his blessings! Why you might ask? Okay 3612 has a fine of $231 and loss of 3 points. The offence which he clearly should have been booked for is 'Over 30kmh' carrying a $590 fine and 3 month suspension of licence! It seems to me the cop has looked after him a bit. As for a reminder, well he should have got one but just because he didn't does not negate the offence. Your 'mate' should ring the Infringement Processing Bureau through the police switchboard, give them the ticket number that he has and find out what stage the infringement is up to. As for getting off the ticket for the incorrect info or for not pressing down enough ? NO. In court they would argue 3 kmh tolerance, plus human error by the officer and then they would probably proceed with the large speed. I don't know what your 'mates' demerit points are like so he would have to consider seriously his options and may be get some advice from a solicitor.
Boris, please leave the mirrors on the cars of unsuspecting lady lawn bowlers alone. If someone makes a complaint, and they have your rego, eventually one way or another cops will be knocking on your door. It might not happen that shift, but it will happen (see above).
This then brings me to the 'Golden rules' you expounded in an early blog. Let's say Plod knocks at your door and says,
"You big bad biker, you kicked old Ma Jones's mirror off in the traffic. I am going to ask you further questions about this matter. You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish but whatever you say or do will be recorded and produced in evidence. Do you understand that?"
You reply "Yes Constable I understand the caution you have given me."
Now?..
What happens next depends on your belief in the Golden Rules (say nothing, admit to nothing, sign nothing etc etc) or an understanding of how cops work. If you decide to claim the 5th amendment (for the uneducated that is the right of silence in the American constitution) then in the absence of any other information the cop is obliged to arrest you and place you before a Court. Superior Courts have set this precedence in that your right of silence is sacrosanct, HOWEVER, the administration of Justice should not be handicapped. So if the cop has a statement from Ma Jones saying you smashed the mirror off, and in fact the mirror is smashed, and you won't provide any other reasonable explanation for the event that the cop can investigate, then you will end up in Court.
However, if what actually happened was that Ma Jones drifted across her lane and nearly run you the fuck over and the breaking of the mirror was her colliding with you? Well?. You can see what I mean.
Before I launch into a couple of stories I just want to mention a story in AMCN Vol 56 No 21 with the title 'Speed Limited Bikes' What the ?..? It seems our brothers and sisters in the old Blighty are again suffering from the most vile of all diseases, political interference. What on earth are these fuckers thinking suggesting speed limiting bikes? I wonder if they try and run this shit up the flagpole if any argument will be made for equality? What do I mean? Well I can just see good old Prince Charles having his Aston Martin speed limited. Or any number of other toffey nosed fucksticks driving million dollar vehicles having them speed limited! When I read this story I had to check it wasn't April fools day because it just beggars belief that anyone would even propose such a rash removal of a persons rights. You could extrapolate that argument to firearms and for god sake knives as well. They both hurt people so the only knife you're allowed is a blunt one! And what about this House of Commons Transport Committee? Allegedly they could see no reason why anybody would need a motorcycle with a top speed of any more than 65mph (105 km/h). Clearly everything we see on the television about the House of Commons is dead set accurate. They are too busy fucking little boys, each other wives, and walking around with their stuffed up noses in the air to make judgements about real people. Now, why am I bleating about this? Just think how lucky we are that no self respecting Government would even consider this shit. Or would they? Something to think about.
Righto, a war story or two now so those of you that are bored with that shit may click the small cross in the top right hand of your screen...
Seeing I mentioned interviewing people I thought I might relate a few yarns about occurrences in the interview room.
There is nothing more gratifying than a battle of wits between an investigator and an offender in the hallowed ground of the interview room. With all the rules and regulations governing what you can, and cannot say, it's nothing like you would expect. Certainly not like The Bill and DEFINITELY not like any number of US shows.
I had a workmate when I was in the criminal investigation branch that was considered an excellent interviewer. He was very bland, showed little or no emotion, spoke very slowly and clearly and overall had the ability to get people to talk. I was the other end of the spectrum, very chatty in interview, displayed an emotive side and could be very combative during interviews. Sometimes that's what's needed, sometimes it's not. It just depends on the crook you are dealing with.
We had a fairly 'ticklish' inquiry. A woman from a 'lower socio economic' background claimed that her ex boyfriend had sexually assaulted her by introducing into her vagina a children's pink plastic baseball bat. The bat was about a metre long and its width was relative to its length (and it was an item that clearly one did not want to touch without gloves!) Anyway the ex-boyfriend had moved to greener pastures in the Sydney metropolitan area so in conjunction with a number of other inquiries we made arrangements to interview him late one evening. By the time my workmate and I spoke to him we were both exhausted. This also was about the time that video interviewing had been introduced. It was an incredibly difficult time for investigators because what used to occur in some interviews now could NEVER occur. It also meant that as an investigator you had to have the ability to string a few cogent sentences together and expect to be critiqued by judge and jury on your performance via the video medium. In other words if you fucked up there it was for everyone to see. Trying to maintain professionalism in the face of some monumental stupidity in an offender's response was one of the most trying aspects. Fair dinkum, some of the comments people make, although not designed that way, are hilarious. So certain measures were taken to ensure you didn't laugh in their face. Some of those measures will appear below.
The fellow we were interviewing was a very engaging chap. He just was the type of bloke you would love to have a beer with. He had a great sense of humour, an infectious hyena like laugh and a really broad outlook on life generally. He wasn't at all concerned about the allegation and was happy to go on interview to provide his version of the events. I will try and relate these to the best of my memory.
After all the administrative shit was finished the allegation was put to the offender. Let's call him 'Dasher' for the purpose of this exercise. My workmate, lets call him John, was the lead interviewer in this tragedy.
Q John: (bland delivery) Dasher, Mary Jane Rotten Box has alleged that you inserted a pink plastic child's baseball bat into her vagina (SHOWN THE OFFENDING INSTRUMENT). What have you to say about that?
A. Dasher: Fucking oath. (Accompanied with a broad smile). She loved it too.
(At this stage being tired and emotional I have tried to suppress laughter at his response by strategy one - diving for one's hankie and pretending to have a runny nose thereby hiding your mouth from the video.)
Q (repeat bland delivery) What do you mean 'she loved it too'?
A. Mate she got me to use the fucking thing five nights a week. Made me feel like my dick was out of work. Then again look at the size of that bat, not much use me throwing my dick in her after that.
(Strategy 2 for suppression of laughter - combined with strategy one - dig ones government issue ball point pen into ones thigh attempting to puncture the femoral artery thereby creating pain to suppress laughter)
Q (repeat bland delivery AFTER a small snort of laughter suppression, he was even getting to my 'expert' workmate). Are you saying that Mary Jane Rotten Box asked you to use the bat on her in sexual activity?
A. Sexual activity, what's that? Rooting you mean?
(Strategy 3 for suppression of laughter - combined with strategy one and two - actually lean your upper body back out of camera shot, think of every sad thing that's happened in your life and above all else DO NOT LOOK IN THE FACE OF THE OFFENDER)
Q (repeat bland delivery now with lip tremble attempting to suppress laughter) Yes, rooting.
A. Mate she was right into all that shit. Hey, did she tell you about the time at her birthday party her brothers tied me to a tree and she sucked me off in front of the whole family.
(Strategy one comes in handy now because during the suppression of a fit of baying laughter I expel a long stream of snot out of my nose and down over the outside of my hand. It was too late for any other strategies then).
Q (repeat bland comment). No, she didn't tell me about that.
A. Mate, and shoving shit up her, she was right into that. Fuck I had everything up her but the kitchen sink. Carrots, celery, bananas, tomato sauce bottle and... what's them green things called?
Q (repeat bland response) Zucchini?
A. Yeh, zucchini.
At this time I made the fatal mistake and actually looked in the offender's eyes. With his most charming smile he just let out his hyena laugh.
All was lost.
Whilst still trying to wipe snot off my lower face and hands and whilst removing my government pen which almost now impaled my leg I stood up and walked out of the interview tyring to maintain a scintilla of dignity until the door closed at which stage I collapsed onto the floor in uncontrollable laughter.
I can recall clearly thinking that next time I spoke with that victim I was not to eat anything stored in the kitchen or elsewhere the home.
Just as a postscript that offender was never charged. Upon receipt of the 'new' information and further interviews of the complainant, not unsurprisingly the complaint was withdrawn.
It's also possible to make a total and complete fool out of a smartarse offender.
I had a job where a male and female were sharing a house. They used to be in a relationship and after splitting up neither could afford to leave so they just shared the home as flatmates. The male (and he was truly a dickhead I can tell you) used to possess an industrial size, battery operated, dildo with 'tickler' that he used to insert into his rectum. Apparently he did this during sex so as to increase his pleasure overall. (Clearly a man that was betting both sides of the odds in my view).
Anyway the male gets on the piss one night and fondly remembering how things used to be goes in and rapes his ex using his dildo on her (for a change). She rightly rings the cops and the old boar turns up as the detective. After obtaining relevant statements and seizing (again with gloves) relevant exhibits in particular the said dildo, I conduct an electronic interview with the male.
He denies having sex with her, he denies utilising his dildo. The following exchange illustrates same. Bear in mind however that I have left the dildo sitting on an exhibit bag on the table between us during the exchange. It is clearly in view in all its masculine glory for the entire interview!
Q Boar: I am told that you own a dildo. Is that right?
A. Dickhead: Yeah.
Q I am told that you would normally insert that dildo into your rectum during sex, is that right?
A. Yeah, what's wrong with that?
Q Well from a professional standpoint not a single thing, from a personal standpoint I'd suggest problems on numerous levels, however setting that aside. Did you insert your dildo into Mary's vagina last night?
A. No. Shit that old dildo I haven't used it in ages anyway.
At this stage, and wearing double gloves, I switch the dildo on. It starts with a roar akin to five Harley Davidson motorcycles (with screaming eagle pipes) and begins to crawl across the table. The shaft moving independent of the tickler (something like rubbing your tummy and patting your head at the same time if you know what I mean) created an almost invertebrate type movement independent of all human intervention. I allowed it to make the full journey across the desk before switching it off.
In the silence that descend once the industrial size battery had ceased its power supply I made one comment only.
Q. I note that the batteries are in good working order.
Interestingly enough at the trial that followed the female Crown Prosecutor asked that I turn the dildo on in the witness box in front of the jury (ensuring I was appropriately gloved of course). Some amazing looks issued from the faces of the jury men and women I can tell you.
And finally there are interviews were an admission sometimes beggars belief and cause the interviewers to examine their own lifestyles.
Two males were on the piss watching some porno movies. One male was the neighbour of the other male. One male falls asleep and when he wakes up he finds his neighbour performing fellatio upon him (for the uneducated, sucking his dick). Seeing the fellow who was asleep was truly heterosexual he is somewhat troubled by the sudden behaviour of his neighbour and rightly, after smacking him in the head, calls the cops.
My workmate on this occasion was one of the most sensational looking policewomen I have ever worked with. A truly great sort who was the subject of many a carnal thought by every red blooded male in the joint.
When a woman of this quality is sitting opposite you and you are asking some bloke about sucking some other bloke's dick then you can appreciate, I'm sure, you get just a tiny bit uncomfortable. Imagine the difficulty whilst looking deeply into my workmates eyes during the following exchange (living by the "don't look in the offender's eyes" rule)?.
Q So once 'boofhead' went to sleep you exposed his penis, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q Was his penis erect even though he was asleep?
A. Yes, it was.
Q What did you do then?
A. I went down on him.
Q By that do you mean you performed oral sex on him?
A. Yes.
Q How long did you perform oral sex on that man?
A. Shit, for at least an hour I'd reckon.
Q What continuously?
A. Yes.
My workmate then very slowly reaches up and begins to massage her jaw with a perfectly formed hand with long red nails.
I know what the message was. This bloke must have had jaw muscles like a fucking crocodile!
By the time we got outside the interview it was all she and I could do not to scream with laughter. This was certainly a man who enjoyed his work and we both agreed if you can find a chick that will suck you off for an hour without complaint, marry her!
Anyway, enough of these war stories, I know you're bored by them.
Talk again soon.
Boar
