Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok, here comes the rant:(

Cops above the law? If we were discussing them dealing drugs, doing standover work for local crooks, robbery etc etc then id say then we have something to talk about.

We are talkinng a traffic infringement, using the phone. I had a cop beep his horn and motion for me to get off the phone. I didnt get booked, sure others may have, but a large percentage of the time just like any remedial offence they are happy to set things straight and leave it at that.

So claiming Police abuse powers/are above the law because of a traffic infringement is being a little simple minded. Sorry if you are offended by that, but its true. There are bigger problems around, and we should all be more concerned about what it is we are doing, not those around us.

So should he have been on the phone, perhaps not. None of know the context of why he was using the phone, and seriously who cares? Did he sideswipe your car, run over a member of the public. Was he driving eratically? Hell i know i can control the car whilst talking on the phone (yeh im guilty of it, and if i get done then ill curse myself cause i knew better) so i have no dramas with an officer doing so.

In a perfect world...actually why bother thinking about it, the place aint perfect:(

Sorry end rant...:)

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Just going of topic abit here didn't a few members of the nsw drug trafficking task force got done for manufacturing and supplying heroin? They were actively cutting and pushing it.

Their reasoning was that they had to produce the drug so they can sell it, and then hopefully Mr big of the underworld comes out and buy it of them.

To me this is absurd or moronic actions and it flow through to a percentage of the force.

So every one is saying there are good cop and there are bad cop, but no one can guarantee if the good cop has been good his entire career!! Even the commissioner of police in nsw can't guarantee this.

To me abusing the power that they are empowered with, is breaking the law, no ifs or but.

Ok, here comes the rant:(

Cops above the law?  If we were discussing them dealing drugs, doing standover work for local crooks, robbery etc etc then id say then we have something to talk about.

We are talkinng a traffic infringement, using the phone. I had a cop beep his horn and motion for me to get off the phone. I didnt get booked, sure others may have, but a large percentage of the time just like any remedial offence they are happy to set things straight and leave it at that.

So claiming Police abuse powers/are above the law because of a traffic infringement is being a little simple minded. Sorry if you are offended by that, but its true. There are bigger problems around, and we should all be more concerned about what it is we are doing, not those around us.

So should he have been on the phone, perhaps not. None of know the context of why he was using the phone, and seriously who cares? Did he sideswipe your car, run over a member of the public. Was he driving eratically? Hell i know i can control the car whilst talking on the phone (yeh im guilty of it, and if i get done then ill curse myself cause i  knew better) so i have no dramas with an officer doing so.

In a perfect world...actually why bother thinking about it, the place aint perfect:(

Sorry end rant...:rofl:

True. But its the principle of the matter at hand. Even if he didnt sideswipe my car or run over a pedestrian, using a phone whilest driving increased those chances of it. Just because it turned out ok is not a grounds for justification. Is it not a police officer's duty to enforce and uphold the law? How can they do that if they dont obey it themselves? What makes them any different to us so that they are allowed to disregard sections of the law? (unless for emergency purposes of course)

I also know i can control the car whilst talking on the phone, i have only ever done it a maximum of about 4 or 5 times. But the fact that i make a conscious effort not to answer the phone when it rings while i'm driving should also mean that police officers should be setting a good example for the rest of us. I understand the fact that when i'm on the roads, i owe a duty of care to not only myself, but other drivers on the road.

Just because it is "just a traffic infringement" does it not make it a part of the law? I'm not trying to put words into ur mouth here but all i'm saying is - the laws the law.

Bottom line, i see where ur comin from - and u are by all means entitled to ur opinion. This is just how i feel about the matter.

Its true. We are all human and would abuse even to a slight extent, any power we are given.

This debate makes me think of the question when you are first questioned by police: Was there any reason for you committing (instert dodgy action here) offence? You could be pulled over for talkin on the phone when you could be a specialist doctor on the way to surgery (not speeding), telling a GP what to do until you got to where ever you were going and the cop could still fine you under the law even though, if it was a cop in the relative situation, it would be deemed reasonable for them to break the law.

Cops are effectively above the law due to the previously mentioned exemption because (correct me if i'm wrong) no such exemption exists for civilians.

Civilians can rely on the officer's personal discretion at deciding whether or not to book you, or the courts system where a judge will deem whether or not you should cop a fine, if it is not mandatory to recieve one.

you should have flashed your neons on and off and pulled them over... go ack and sit in your car for 20 mins twidling your thumbs....told them to pop the hood... slapped a yellow sticker on thier windscreen.... given them fine for mobile phone... and driven off :) lol

nah i think there are certain circumstances where thye are allowed to use hand held mobile devices for thier work

but i mean come on.. even if they wernt allowed to.. how often do u see police get pulled over by other police lol

-Ruffels

cops have a lot more responsobility as well.........

here in the uk about a month ago. a cop (wanst just a low level one either, he had a half decent rank) got done doing around 170kph in his police car. he's in deep shite with his job and it made all the papers etc, front page for some. he said he was testing the top speed of the car as he just got asigned to it, so he claimed it was for police work.

if anyone else got caught doing 170 it wouldnt make the front page and you wouldnt risk loosing your career over it and you wouldnt have lots of people writing to the papers having a go at you.

Roy, I think you must be a Police Officer as well!

To me abusing the power that they are empowered with, is breaking the law

Of course it is. I also agree with Roy that in many cases this doesn't matter. But as soon as a Police Officer puts their uniform I feel that they have a responsibility to set a good example.

nah i think there are certain circumstances where thye are allowed to use hand held mobile devices for thier work

No "i think" about it. They are.

if they got away with doing 170 on a public raod that should have been fired. If you want to see how fast a car can you you go to a track. I don't care how good a driver sombody is 170 is 170 and in most cases that is 70 too fast.

For little things like not indicating or giving way to pedestrians i can tolerate but reckless endagerment of other peoples lives should be met with a hell of alot more then "are you sure you could only go that fast?"

If the cops what to break the law then they should do it with their flashys on and write a publily available report onto the situation. They are after all our emplyees (taxes).

Also there was a reply further up and groups like the CJC who monitor the cops. But the only times they really work is when there is a massive internal drug bust. They seem to only put cops away not issue fines.

If the cops what to break the law then they should do it with their flashys on and write a publily available report onto the situation

Re the lights/siren - What if they don't want to announce their arrival?

Re paperwork - How would you prevent the paperwork from being overly burdensome? It seems kind of silly to expect an officer to have to remember, justify and report on every single incident where they broke a road rule and I can't really see any value in saying "attended xyz incident, broke some rules on the way".

Even if they did have to report on every single time they broke a rule, does it really have any point. I mean is anyone going to bother to troll through reams of records to find out whether that officer they spotted speeding was doing it for a valid reason or not?

i understand your point browny. It probably was a bit excessive but if cops cut off pedestrians then tell them to f*** off when they are pulled up on it that should not be allowed. There needs to be some sort of common ground and a place that we can complin to without either being ignored or a national investigation starting.

what alot of people forget, including the police, is that they are here to SERVE the general public. they are public SERVANTS. the way I see it, if i see an officer breaking the law/abusing their power etc, and i can make a phone call, then that phone call is followed up with said officer (ie speeding for no reason is a big one where i live) then I believe they ARE abusing their power, and it is wrong.

To say, basically "oh but they're cops, they're allowed to get away with it" and citing stuuuupid reasons like "if it was you they were breaking the law for I'm sure you wouldn't complain" is just naive, and pompous. Maybe you should be a cop mate. Abusing power at any level needs a tight reign, other wise it doesn't stop.

If i was a cop, shit yeah i'd probably speed, but no prick would ever know! I would do what i do now - slow down as soon a I'm in eyesight of another car on the road. Not just go flying past, thinking i'm all that and i cant be touched. That is, as they say, thinking you are above the law.

"with great power comes great responsibility"

"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Police should respect the power that the badge gives them. If they blatantly abuse it, then they are lost as human beings.

If you see a cop breaking the law, ring and complain. Without the lights on, they are just any other car on the road.

Dont bother trying to cut me down brown nose, you aint gonna sway my opinion on this one.

Here's a story for you - one of the truckies at work carting ammonium nitrate was pulled up by a cop, who asked him to get out of his truck. the thruckie asked him to show his badge first, to which the cop refused, offensively as you can imagine. So, the truckie got out of the truck, smacked the cop out, rolled him off to the side of the road, and left. The truckie was in the right. Incase you dont know, ammonium nitrate is the stuff that terrorists like so much. But the same thing goes if you get pulled by a cop. until you see that badge and ID, you dont "know" they are a cop. In the eyes of the law that is.

Me? hell no I wouldn't have the balls to do anything close to that. But I will stand up for my rights. funny thing is, if i hadn't been witness to so many police abusing their power in one way or another, I probably wouldn't have the same opinion on them now. Funny that.

Police are SERVANTS. Respect them, but make sure they respect you too.

There needs to be some sort of common ground and a place that we can complin to without either being ignored or a national investigation starting.

The problem is sorting out genuine complaints from the general whinging majority. People will whings and complain about everything, and the sheer volume of rubbish spoils it for those that have something genuine to say.

The company I work for ran a safety campaign not long ago, a series of innocent cartoon style ads aimed mostly at kids but also trying to raise general community awareness. The company does this sort of thing because it has strong ties to the community (esp regional areas) and it's part of our responsibility as a business. You would think this type of thing would go down well right? Wrong, there were lots of picky little complaints about details of the ads that weren't related to the actual message, a particular emergency service even submitted a written complaint along the lines that we were trying to infer things about them because some of the symbols used were similar to their logo. I have a feeling the ads might have been pulled now.

if you want genuine complints then you should be required to leave your name and licence number. If they don't match then the complint is ignored. Thats how it works with the smoky vehicles hotline in QLD. If your not willing to take ownership of your complint then it's not woth complaining about.

I agree with you there wishaw. But i also believe it is an abuse of power to make your details known to the officer in question, OR to be victimised because you made a complaint. call me cynical...

Abusing power is not just relegated to the streets regarding traffic infringements. It is -

Lying in court

fabricating evidence in court

conspiring with other officers

Smiling at you as you leave the court room.

This has happened to a few people I know.

.

what alot of people forget, including the police, is that they are here to SERVE the general public. they are public SERVANTS. the way I see it, if i see an officer breaking the law/abusing their power etc, and i can make a phone call, then that phone call is followed up with said officer (ie speeding for no reason is a big one where i live) then I believe they ARE abusing their power, and it is wrong.
To say, basically "oh but they're cops, they're allowed to get away with it" and citing stuuuupid reasons like "if it was you they were breaking the law for I'm sure you wouldn't complain" is just naive, and pompous. Maybe you should be a cop mate. Abusing power at any level needs a tight reign, other wise it doesn't stop.

You seem to have marginal comprehension of what the Police powers mean. If they have reason to break the road rules, and they do it with care they are operating within the law.

If they break the road rules without reasonable cause or are not careful in the way they do it then they are breaking the law. This is called abusing their powers.

I don't think anyone is disputing that Police abusing their powers is wrong (for various reasons, IMO mostly ethical), as is the (apparent) leniency of their discipline system, so I fail to see your point.

I also fail to see how you can observe Police actions such as speeding, without understanding the context in which they are acting, and definitively decide that they are acting this way without reason to do so?

Without the lights on, they are just any other car on the road.

Wrong, they don't have to use their lights if they see reason not to.

Here's a story for you - one of the truckies at work carting ammonium nitrate was pulled up by a cop, who asked him to get out of his truck. the thruckie asked him to show his badge first, to which the cop refused, offensively as you can imagine. So, the truckie got out of the truck, smacked the cop out, rolled him off to the side of the road, and left. The truckie was in the right. Incase you dont know, ammonium nitrate is the stuff that terrorists like so much. But the same thing goes if you get pulled by a cop. until you see that badge and ID, you dont "know" they are a cop. In the eyes of the law that is.

Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right.

I also fail to see how you can observe Police actions such as speeding, without understanding the context in which they are acting, and definitively decide that they are acting this way without reason to do so?

I never said that i had definitively decided. but it's a little difficult to understand a cop go flying past you in one direction, only to go flying back past you in the other direction, and then see them pulled up at the roadhouse on the side of the road 5 minutes later. Maybe the emergency was his chips getting cold or something.

Wrong, they don't have to use their lights if they see reason not to.

maybe i should clarify. you still have every right to complain, if you BELIEVE they are breaking the law for no good reason.

Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right.

Wrong. There is only one wrong. The truck driver had every right to use force he deemed necessary in the situation. The officer acted suspiciously, by being apprehensive to the request to show his badge, simple as that.

If an officer asked you to show him your licence, would you angrily refuse? didn't think so. It's exactly the same the other way. They are obliged to co-operate and show ID. I would also say they are obliged to operate in a professional manner at all times.

You seem to have marginal comprehension of what the Police powers mean.

correct, along with most people here. And it seems that you DO. So why dont you educate people as to what their rights ARE, instead of being an obnoxious prick and using your apparently vastly superior intellect in an attempt to belittle them, which only serves to strengthen their resolve. methinks you like feeling "better" than others. I'm sure the force is doing a recruit drive soon!

a few of my mates dads are policemen

and ive had good old chats to them bout how they view things as police officers, as a change from the view of "skyline owners :P" lol

i know i cannot judge the entire australian police force by talking to 2 single officers

how ever the ones i have spoken with have shared stories about how they have used thier lights and sirens because they couldnt be "fagged" waiting in traffic, and other times when they have used thier police car to get back to the station quickly with thier hot fish and chips

lol

these are stories straight form the horses mouth, and i dont really agree with them, but it does happen, and it will continue to happen

*note, this does not way entail the behaviour of every police officer, just personal annocdotes from 2 officers i have spoken with*

-Ruffels

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Well, that's kinda the point. The calipers might interfere with the inside of the barrels 16" rims are only about 14" inside the barrels, which is ~350mm, and 334mm rotors only leave about 8mm outboard for the caliper before you get to 350, And.... that;s not gunna be enough. If the rims have a larger ID than that, you might sneak it in. I'd be putting a measuring stick inside the wheel and eyeballing the extra required for the caliper outboard of the rotor before committing to bolting it all on.
    • OK, so again it has been a bit of a break but it was around researching what had been done since I didn't have access to Neil's records and not everything is obvious without pulling stuff apart. Happily the guy who assembled the engine had kept reasonable records, so we now know the final spec is: Bottom end: Standard block and crank Ross 86.5mm forgies, 9:1 compression Spool forged rods Standard main bolts Oil pump Spool billet gears in standard housing Aeroflow extended and baffled sump Head Freshly rebuilt standard head with new 80lb valve springs Mild porting/port match Head oil feed restrictor VCT disabled Tighe 805C reground cams (255 duration, 8.93 lift)  Adjustable cam gears on inlet/exhaust Standard head bolts, gasket not confirmed but assumed MLS External 555cc Nismo injectors Z32 AFM Bosch 023 Intank fuel pump Garret 2871 (factory housings and manifold) Hypertune FFP plenum with standard throttle   Time to book in a trip to Unigroup
    • I forgot about my shiny new plates!
    • Well, apparently they do fit, however this wont be a problem if not because the car will be stationary while i do the suspension work. I was just going to use the 16's to roll the old girl around if I needed to. I just need to get the E90 back on the road first. Yes! I'm a believer! 🙌 So, I contacted them because the site kinda sucks and I was really confused about what I'd need. They put together a package for me and because I was spraying all the seat surfaces and not doing spot fixes I decided not to send them a headrest to colour match, I just used their colour on file (and it was spot on).  I got some heavy duty cleaner, 1L of colour, a small bottle of dye hardener and a small bottle of the dye top coat. I also got a spray gun as I needed a larger nozzle than the gun I had and it was only $40 extra. From memory the total was ~$450 ish. Its not cheap but the result is awesome. They did add repair bits and pieces to the quote originally and the cost came down significantly when I said I didn't need any repair products. I did it over a weekend. The only issues I had were my own; I forgot to mix the hardener into the dye two coats but I had enough dye for 2 more coats with the hardener. I also just used up all the dye because why not and i rushed the last coat which gave me some runs. Thankfully the runs are under the headrests. The gun pattern wasn't great, very round and would have been better if it was a line. It made it a little tricky to get consistent coverage and I think having done the extra coats probably helped conceal any coverage issues. I contacted them again a few months later so I could get our X5 done (who the f**k thought white leather was a good idea for a family car?!) and they said they had some training to do in Sydney and I could get a reduced rate on the leather fix in the X5 if I let them demo their product on our car. So I agreed. When I took Bec in the E39 to pick it up, I showed them the job I'd done in my car and they were all (students included) really impressed. Note that they said the runs I created could be fixed easily at the time with a brush or an air compressor gun. So, now with the two cars done I can absolutely recommend Colourlock.  I'll take pics of both interiors and create a new thread.
    • Power is fed to the ECU when the ignition switch is switched to IGN, at terminal 58. That same wire also connects to the ECCS relay to provide both the coil power and the contact side. When the ECU sees power at 58 it switches 16 to earth, which pulls the ECCS relay on, which feeds main power into the ECU and also to a bunch of other things. None of this is directly involved in the fuel pump - it just has to happen first. The ECU will pull terminal 18 to earth when it wants the fuel pump to run. This allows the fuel pump relay to pull in, which switches power on into the rest of the fuel pump control equipment. The fuel pump control regulator is controlled from terminal 104 on the ECU and is switched high or low depending on whether the ECU thinks the pump needs to run high or low. (I don't know which way around that is, and it really doesn't matter right now). The fuel pump control reg is really just a resistor that controls how the power through the pump goes to earth. Either straight to earth, or via the resistor. This part doesn't matter much to us today. The power to the fuel pump relay comes from one of the switched wires from the IGN switch and fusebox that is not shown off to the left of this page. That power runs the fuel pump relay coil and a number of other engine peripherals. Those peripherals don't really matter. All that matters is that there should be power available at the relay when the key is in the right position. At least - I think it's switched. If it's not switched, then power will be there all the time. Either way, if you don't have power there when you need it (ie, key on) then it won't work. The input-output switching side of the relay gains its power from a line similar (but not the same as) the one that feeds the ECU. SO I presume that is switched. Again, if there is not power there when you need it, then you have to look upstream. And... the upshot of all that? There is no "ground" at the fuel pump relay. Where you say: and say that pin 1 Black/Pink is ground, that is not true. The ECU trigger is AF73, is black/pink, and is the "ground". When the ECU says it is. The Blue/White wire is the "constant" 12V to power the relay's coil. And when I say "constant", I mean it may well only be on when the key is on. As I said above. So, when the ECU says not to be running the pump (which is any time after about 3s of switching on, with no crank signal or engine speed yet), then you should see 12V at both 1 and 2. Because the 12V will be all the way up to the ECU terminal 18, waiting to be switched to ground. When the ECU switches the fuel pump on, then AF73 should go to ~0V, having been switched to ground and the voltage drop now occurring over the relay coil. 3 & 5 are easy. 5 is the other "constant" 12V, that may or may not be constant but will very much want to be there when the key is on. Same as above. 3 goes to the pump. There should never be 12V visible at 3 unless the relay is pulled in. As to where the immobiliser might have been spliced into all this.... It will either have to be on wire AF70 or AF71, whichever is most accessible near the alarm. Given that all those wires run from the engine bay fusebox or the ECU, via the driver's area to the rear of the car, it could really be either. AF70 will be the same colour from the appropriate fuse all the way to the pump. If it has been cut and is dangling, you should be able to see that  in that area somewhere. Same with AF71.   You really should be able to force the pump to run. Just jump 12V onto AF72 and it should go. That will prove that the pump itself is willing to go along with you when you sort out the upstream. You really should be able to force the fuel pump relay on. Just short AF73 to earth when the key is on. If the pump runs, then the relay is fine, and all the power up to both inputs on the relay is fine. If it doesn't run (and given that you checked the relay itself actually works) then one or both of AF70 and AF71 are not bringing power to the game.
×
×
  • Create New...