BOAR THE SEVENTH
by The Boar
It is interesting to gauge response to my last blog.
If we for example believe that we are representative of a cross section of society (bike riding cross section of course), one must be intrigued by the lack of objection to the philosophy I expound.
In other words, no one fucking complained. so is what I speak the truth? Is what I speak really what everyone is thinking?
I certainly don't suggest I am the sharpest tool in the shed, but what I can say is that I feel I possess (at times) a reasonable degree of common sense and above all else an understanding of fair play. Maybe that's why I became a cop, I fucking hate bullies and I hate unfairness. I know the quick witted among you will say being a cop was being the biggest bully there is! Well it all depends on what you believe and feel inside I suppose.
Anyway, the bottom line is thanks to all of you for actually confirming what I, and no doubt all of you, suspect. We are sick of the 'reverse' discrimination that exists. We are sick of weak gutted politicians. We are sick of some misguided belief that everyone else's culture has greater entitlement than ours. And above all else we are sick of our families and us not being allowed to live in peace doing what we like best -- roaring the fuck out of (at least) 1000cc's of pulsating power!
Whilst we are on the heinous offence of exceeding the speed limit monkey boy's questions beg a response.
No, there is no statutory defence to exceeding the speed limit in the terms you have described. There are some defences but I will need a bit of time to research those. The situations you describe may be a mitigating factor which would allow the officer who stopped you to exercise the discretion that each and every police officer possesses whether to proceed or not. Or alternatively if you had come across one of my brain dead ex-brothers or sisters who when you had genuinely raised a medical issue as an excuse for speeding still proceeded to book you, well then you could take the matter to court. Even self represented (which I might add is not a principle I normally support -- he who represent himself has a fool for a client you know) you could raise it as a defence in the terms of 'necessity' (Piet is an expert at that shit defence, let me tell you!). That may result in an acquittal. Or you might simply raise it as mitigation to the offence and try and influence sentence.
Clear as mud on that? Good.
Trying to escape a road rage would be viewed as a defence to assault (in its broadest terms) and would be subject of the two tiered test that now exists in New South Wales regarding self defence. In layman's terms the first level of the test is basically this.
Is the situation you claim to have been occurring reasonable in so far as your need to defend yourself? Secondly, if you meet the first test is the action you take to protect yourself reasonable in the terms of the threat you were facing.
So, if old mate attacks you with a paddle pop stick and you blow his fucking head off with a shotgun you might not meet either level of the test and find yourself doing a bit of time as bubba's wife in gaol. (I am led to believe that there is nothing pleasant about a 6'6"350 pound bald headed monster penetrating your balloon knot, so gaol is definitely a place to avoid!)
If however someone attacks you with a knife and you hit him over the head with a piece of wood to protect yourself (hit once only and ceasing the attack on him once the attack on you is ceased), then you just might find yourself acquitted. Generally it is a test for the jury not for the poor old dumb cop that turns up. So your road rage incident may well meet the requirements. So much of it depends on what your state of mind is in conjunction with the facts of the incident.
And finally, what is this shit about using vehicle as a shield as you enter a intersection? I don't know what you mean there but I suspect that whatever you're smoking is worth quite a lot of money per pound! More information may help me give you an informed opinion (guess).
If anyone isn't clear on this shit let me know and I'll try my best.
Whilst we are on 'free legal (mis)advice' I noted a small exchange in the forums recently about 'the rules' by which Boris suggest we all should live when in (confrontational) contact with the cops. These rules as I understand were authored by Piet. Piet is a smart man (for a lawyer) and I will always cut him shit loads of slack because he is one of the founders of BIKE ME! and a keen motorcyclist. However we probably need to (from a New South Wales perspective) re-visit just exactly what the boys and girls in blue can do.
The defining act of parliament is called the Law Enforcement Police Responsibility Act or LEPRA if you've worked in an organisation that insists on utilising acronyms for E.F.T. (every fucking thing). This act was the result of trying to codify a myriad of different acts of Parliament which contained arrest and stop, search and detain powers. It also, as I am now led to believe since the Cronulla nonsense, provides varying specific powers relating to public order issues. In other words if you and your mates get on the piss and go looking for a big stoush you may get one, but not with whom you originally believed would be your opponents.
The basic right of silence to prevent self incrimination still exists, as it should. However there are moves afoot to adopt totally the British model which, if any of you have every watched The Bill on ABC, includes the obligation to raise at the time of arrest any defence you would later rely on in Court.
I can hear Piet and all his lawyer mates choking now. How can they expect their stupid clients to know what to say without their (Piet and his mates) collective hands up their backs doing the talking for them?! Anyway boys, don't panic yet, it's not law, so you can claim the '5th' if you want. (Fifth Amendment - USA constitution - right of silence etc).
Anyway, let's bang through these rules shall we? I will not bore the shit out of you with specific legislation. Suffice to say if I indicate there is a rule preventing or making you do something you will just have to take my word for it. Otherwise this blog will be 5,000 pages long and boring as bat shit. Additionally, and it's something we all must remember, it's against the law when the judge says so. If you refuse to comply with any of the requirements of LEPRA you can, and most likely will, be arrested. The magistrate will decide on your penalty if you are found guilty. I'll relate a small war story below about when it pays to actually speak instead of being a pig headed arsehole who is trying to prove a point. Read about that at the end.
Anyway, yes, traffic matters are different. You do have to provide versions and names and addresses of drivers. There are also provisions for passengers to have to supply their details in certain circumstances.
Rule 1 and 2. Generally good advice. Name and address would be fine. But let me put this to you. If you do not provide some form of alternative version in response to an allegation most cops will be rubbing their hands in glee. You know why? Because case law supports the premise that if you do not provide some alternative version then the police rightly have no other course but to arrest you and place you before a court. I am not saying you need to participate in an interview; all I am saying is that if you haven't done what is suggested that you have done - fucking say so. If you have a witness to support you exculpatory (there's a big word, it means likely to acquit or exonerate) version then supply their name.
You see these days police like to charge at the end of the investigation, not the beginning. They like to have all the information to hand and the last thing they do is speak to the suspect. If you provide a reasonable version and give them further avenues for other lines of investigation they 'might' just let you walk and follow those lines of inquiry up before sticking you in the little cage. If they do 'tag and release' you (which is now an accepted practice), you then have time to get some legal advice and deal with what may be coming down the track from an informed position.
If however you are a guilty fuck, well then stiff shit. Make your own decisions! Rule 3 is right and wrong. Police can now invite you to a station for questioning and you are placed in custody as a voluntary person. This means that at any time you wish you can get up and leave. If you are under arrest however any attempt to walk out may end up with you getting stomped all over so it's best to be 100% sure of your status. You can now be taken in for questioning. You can be held for four hours in the first instance and for an additional 12 hours upon further application to a magistrate by police. Rarely would that additional 12 hours be refused. There is also additional time for DNA and other forms of forensic testing. Those tests can't really be refused in most circumstance so if you refuse to give a mouth swab a number of large constables will sit on you and pull out a large clump of your hair. Alternatively, police can seek an order at the court and then they take you off to the gaol where Corrective Services boys will show you in detail how their rules widely differ to those which govern police. In other words you will get flogged if you even look like resisting.
Rule 4. Good advice. However, ultimately the decision will be made by the bail sergeant. Most of those sergeants will bend over backwards to get you out of the joint because it's a pain in the arse babysitting you until the next court. Only quite a small number of locations (actually one I think) have a night court and I don't think they take fresh custodies so if you get charged at night and you don't make bail, resign yourself to a night in the pokey with nourishing Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner. You should also be aware that some offences do not have the presumption of bail. They include, but are not limited too, armed robbery, major drug supply, a myriad of domestic violence offences, and serious offences against the person. That is a very broad view of those offences without presumption of bail. There are shitloads.
Rule 5. Generally a correct statement. It is however a subjective test based on the observations, inquiries and knowledge of the officer. That's a fancy way of saying it's pretty hard to argue the point at 3am on the side of the road. The cop determines what is, or isn't suspicious activity and there are a number of acts that have different tests as to what the level of 'reasonable grounds to believe' is or isn't. Again the litmus test if you get found with 5000 Es and a sodomised goat sitting on the back seat of your car is whether or not the judge or magistrate accepts that the search was legal. You generally are in no position to argue that particular point at the time. Certainly raise your objection if you wish (as per Rule 6). I've heard it said many times and it didn't matter a fuck at the time. It's later in court that counts. (Got to keep Piet in work you know!).
Finally Rule 7. Yep, you'll get a phone call when you're fucking told you can have one. Actually I'm being a bit rude there. Yes of course you will, after you are entered into custody, provide the custody officer with shitloads of personal information and then only if that call is not likely to result in the destruction of evidence or commission of a further crime (including protection or potential witnesses or warning of co-offenders).
You know I keep ending up back at Boar 1, or was it Boar 2, about the attitude test. I have seen more reasonable people get a bug up their arse and talk their way into gaol than not, you know.
I was working at a large station towards the end of my career. The transit cops brought in a bloke on a pushbike. The arresting officer was a mate of mine; used to ride bikes with me and fuck he could ride the pants off most people. Ex-Highway Patrol (we will forgive him) but had an unusual disposition at times.
Anyway, what had occurred was that my mate and his offsider we walking from a nearby railway station back to the police station when they saw old mate riding along on his pushbike without a helmet. It was the end of shift and the boys decided to give old mate a warning and tell him to walk the pushie home (or at least until he was out of view of the cops then he could no doubt ride like a bastard). The 'offender' was clearly a well educated adult male. Hence the offer of a warning instead of the ticket.
Now before everyone starts screaming about a minor offence etc. yes, you're right. But really it has little difference to the helmet rule for motorbikes. You know you've got to wear one, you might not agree with the law, but it's still the law, so if you're riding around without it you know you're going to get pulled over. You roll the dice, you take your chances. The cop told the male that he should have been wearing his helmet but on this occasion he would let it slide and just give him a caution. He then asked for his name and identification to record that he had spoken with him and issued him a caution. Again: them's the rules, so live with it.
Our sans-helmet friend then decides to exercise his God-given right to be a contrary fucker and refuses to provide any information.
And, I mean any.
Fair dinkum it was like someone had glued his fucking mouth shut. Despite numerous reasonable requests for a name and address old mate decided to do the Martin Luther King Jnr and stand on his dig. It was then explained to him that he could be arrested. No change.
Now as I have explained numerous times, cops are people too. Good and bad, big and small, fat and slim, reasonable and unreasonable. Our involved officer in this case was of the opinion that he had been treating this bloke more than reasonably, however, he was also starting to get a square jaw about this and decide well, no, fuck you I've given you a chance and you're treating me like a class A dickhead.
Eventually as you all would suspect our errant Lance Armstrong gets arrested and frog marched up to the station. He comes into the cells and everyone gets told about what has happened. I'm rolling my eyes at this, firstly for paying any attention to the fuckwit in the first place, but mostly because this bloke isn't seeing reason. There is no cogent reason not to cooperate. This bloke, if still refusing to cooperate, could only end up in the cell for not wearing a pushbike helmet. For fuck's sake let's get this in perspective. Is he taking a stand on the immigration issues, or global warming or smashing baby fucking seals or bitching about the Japs collecting hamburger mince from the Pacific Ocean -- no, he's taking a stand about a stupid fucking pushbike helmet.
Now each station has a duty officer, a commissioned officer (inspector and upwards) that looks after (watches) all the day-to-day shit that happens and (tries to) make sure cops are doing what they are supposed to be doing. This duty officer is trying his best to talk this bloke around because all he (the duty officer) can see is the front page of the morning paper declaring how a man spent a night in a cell for not wearing a pushbike helmet. I know some of you are probably saying why didn't we just let him go, why not back down? Well, cops generally get suspicious about this type of response to minor matters. To establish who the fuck he was is to negate the fact he's not some seriously bad bastard who fucks kids and sells drugs and has been on the run for weeks on end. There are many stories of bad bastards being lucked on to by normal plods doing their job and there was nothing to say this wasn't one of those cases.
The duty officer was getting apoplectic trying to convince this bloke to see sense. All to no avail however, this dickhead stood his ground.
Finally, and luckily, a mate of mine being a local solicitor, come wandering into the station to see one of his not-so-lucky clients who was utilising the hospitality of the Queen for the evening.
I explained to him what had occurred and how this bloke had gone from a warning, to a $40 ticket, to looking at a night in gaol and a $200 fine the next day at court (for all the offences including refusing to supply particulars). My mate the solicitor went and took old mate to an interview room,
Forty minutes later he finally came out with a name and address. Old mate in the room still refused to give it personally to police but was happy for the solicitor to provide it. I recall the solicitor referred to him as a 'dumb prick' which given the entire set of circumstances in all fairness was a reasonable description. Old mate didn't get the caution; he got a ticket for the helmet offence, (although they did caution him for no bell on the pushbike. Yes, I know, you don't have to say it).
Ultimately, was his stand worth it? From my perspective as an (ex) cop, of course not.
From my perspective as a member of the public? Definitely fucking not.
What was he trying to prove? No idea.
Did he prove it? Well, maybe in his mind he did. He obviously had fuck all else to do that evening apart from annoy the local cops with pigheadedness.
Anyway, that's all for this one. Ultimately if you want to be a crusader for your civil rights go ahead. I suggest you start a political party, or sneak into an established party, and destroy the machine from within. Protests by silence in the dock of your police station really have little impact.
Again I'm asking all my faithful readers (is there anyone out there?) what you want me to cover. Fire in some questions or give me a proposition to have a root around at. Surely you're getting bored with war stories.
Boar.
