My rant for possibly the year.

[JaseNZ 53]

I don't really go off on a tangent very often but reading a small news story here >>drink driving cop avoids conviction<<

WTF why should he avoid conviction, This to me reinforces the one rule for one and one rule for others. Same goes for high profile sports people, Hey get pissed and drive a car or maybe beat up your wife, does not matter i will get off with a slap on the hand with a wet card.

You do the crime that society has deemed unacceptable then you do the friken time like anybody else in that position would get.

Sorry just really pisses me off, And they wonder why people are losing respect for the police, Gee i wonder why.

[joshnz 2]

Just read this, me and wife decided the same, he should get the same treatment as Joe Public.

[pjay 8]

In spite of the discharge Mr Lamont was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay court costs.

Charge would mean instant dismissal, cant be a cop with a DIC charge. I'm leaning towards the judge here.

[joshnz 2]

Charge would mean instant dismissal, cant be a cop with a DIC charge. I'm leaning towards the judge here.

True. But he shouldn't have been drinking anyway, right?

This will get interesting

[cliffdunedin 8]

Yeah, i read that this morning too and thought how riddiculous it is!

He should have lost his job, like others who drive for a living do when they get done for DIC.

Yeah yeah could have been a first time offence blah blah blah but practise what you preach i reckon!!

[bellicose 9]

I in NO way condone drink drivers......in fact i have in the past been spoken to by police for beating the sh*t out of a guy who was legless after he drove up the footpath and into the door of a certain club in Napier when i worked on the door. Bit off track there LOL.

Yep, that cop of all people should know better.

But is what he got ie: "In spite of the discharge Mr Lamont was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay court costs." no more or less what any one of the 1000's of f**kwits get when they get done for drink driving?

If it were up to me (i so want to be a judge or law maker) i would jail ANY and ALL drink drivers, yes it would mean more prisons but i don't care. Stewart island serves no real purpose so we could just use that.

/rant.

[cliffdunedin 8]

If it were up to me (i so want to be a judge or law maker) i would jail ANY and ALL drink drivers, yes it would mean more prisons but i don't care. Stewart island serves no real purpose so we could just use that.

Agree but think a one warning policy then jail would be a better option for those who genuinely do a mistake...second the island part but think the Chathams would make more sense seeing as the bulk population is up north!

[bellicose 9]

Agree but think a one warning policy then jail would be a better option for those who genuinely do a mistake.

Yeah but, who in this country with a valid NZ drivers license doesn't know the drink driving laws?

There are no mistakes mate, people make a concious(sp?) decision to drink then pick up their car keys.

No i have never been hit, and i've not lost a friend or family member to a drink driver. I just have a very very low tolerence of idiots, and people that drink then get behiind the wheel are up in my top 5.

[JaseNZ 53]

A conviction should have been recorded against him just like anybody else and if it effected his job then so be it the same as anybody. He made the decision to drink and drive and the excuse of i did not realize i had drunk that much just does not cut it.

If i had gone up for it i would have had a conviction against me regardless of my job, Oh wait unless i was a cop.

These are the people campaigning for lower speeds and how there are so many deaths on the road because of drunken drivers, If that's the case then he deserves to loose his job as he is committing what what they are condemning.

[*Glenn* 854]

A conviction should have been recorded against him just like anybody else and if it effected his job then so be it the same as anybody. He made the decision to drink and drive and the excuse of i did not realize i had drunk that much just does not cut it.

If i had gone up for it i would have had a conviction against me regardless of my job, Oh wait unless i was a cop.

These are the people campaigning for lower speeds and how there are so many deaths on the road because of drunken drivers, If that's the case then he deserves to loose his job as he is committing what what they are condemning.

I totaly agree...only two sides to a fence...the right or the wrong side

[pjay 8]

I don't believe that everything in life is black and white, or 2 sides to the fence as such. You CAN sit on the fence, and there CAN be a grey area. Which I think there is in this case.

[cliffdunedin 8]

Yeah but, who in this country with a valid NZ drivers license doesn't know the drink driving laws?

There are no mistakes mate, people make a concious(sp?) decision to drink then pick up their car keys.

I don't know the exact specifics of legally drinking and driving...2 beers the first hour 1 every hour after that or something like that?

Though i'm sure there will be times that people have gone to a bbq or a dinner had a few beers or wines and been over the limit or others who have a higher/lower tolerance to alcohol and could be a genuine fcuk up!

One strike and out seems too much of a police state type scenario to me.

I don't believe that everything in life is black and white, or 2 sides to the fence as such. You CAN sit on the fence, and there CAN be a grey area. Which I think there is in this case.

Where do you see a grey area in this case Peter? imo like Glenn said there is a wrong side and a right side, just because he is a police man doesn't give him any right to a grey area...

[kiwi535 538]

Yeah, i read that this morning too and thought how riddiculous it is!

He should have lost his job, like others who drive for a living do when they get done for DIC.

Yeah yeah could have been a first time offence blah blah blah but practise what you preach i reckon!!

many many people get off for the same reason.was once in court waiting for another matter when a mechanic came up in front of the judge,was his 13th or fourteenth time,was miles over the limit,he kept his license

[pjay 8]

@cliffdunedin, I never stated he has a right to a grey area.

I don't think we know enough about the case to really 100% judge, thats the Judges job isn't it. All we know is what the Herald has printed.

If he is a Senior officer, he is of more use in the police force than out of the police force. He hasn't got of scot free has he? Same as everyone else, he loses his license and pays $$$.

The worst thing imo about DIC is losing your license, not so much the mark against your name.

I just firmly believe we do not know enough to simply say RIGHT, black and white. Case closed. Feed him to the sharks.

[joshnz 2]

LOL

There isn't a grey area in an drunk driving case, there just aint..

Either you are over the limit or you are under.

Going by what has been reported in the media he blew over the limit, which is illegal, he is a cop, he should not keep his job. sh*t like this f**ks me off - they can pick on the rest of NZ but when it comes to them they are invincible.

[cliffdunedin 8]

many many people get off for the same reason.was once in court waiting for another matter when a mechanic came up in front of the judge,was his 13th or fourteenth time,was miles over the limit,he kept his license

I find that very hard to believe that a judge would let someone off on a 13-14th charge of DIC, or more disgusted that a judge would let someone off, perhaps the judge thought "Thistime he'll give up"

@cliffdunedin, I never stated he has a right to a grey area.

Sorry i meant i can't see ANY grey area in a DIC charge! either you are over the legal limit and have broken the law or you are not and have not broken the law.

[greenday-rulz21 6]

I agree with Peter somewhat. Don't get me wrong I have no tolerance with drink driving but I'd rather have an senior officer with experience back working again than off the force in another job.

These cases are not easy to judge at all. NO-ONE knows if this is the first time he's driven while over the limit, only that its the first time he's been caught. But he was 1 and a half times over the limit which doesn't happen without quite a bit of drinking.

It's extremely unfair that he gets charged and gets let off with a light slap. He has received the same conditions as someone who gets convicted though, just without the charge on his record. There are a couple people on other forums who claim that they were charged and received the conviction with the only penalty being to pay the fine and court costs, no loss of licence which I completely disagree with.

I would never drink and drive and I have absolutely no sympathy for those who get caught. However this cop gets put on a pedestal. He's not the only one who has been let off with a light slap guys. All charges are judged on a case by case basis, whether thats fair idk?? But his position of authority kinda assumes he knows better than to drink drive.

I don't think this is a case of if a cop drink drives he gets let off. I believe all evidence was explored and the ruling was made regarding that. I don't believe that a judge would have let off a younger less experienced officer. The judge has obviously weighed up the pro's and con's of his decision.

And believe that he will have lost all respect from any other officers.

I don't know if I really wanna get involved in this lol

[greenday-rulz21 6]

To be discharged without conviction, the applicant has to prove the impact of the conviction would outweigh the seriousness of the offence

.....

Members of the general public aka. Joe Bloggs aren't usually directly effected by the impact of the conviction, which is likey the reason why you don't hear of others getting off the conviction. However in the case of a Police officer where their job rests on the conviction then the impact of the conviction is large. Thats why you hear of the few police officers who get off.

[JaseNZ 53]

.....

Thats why you hear of the few police officers who get off.

I point you to this >>clicky me<<

5 out of 16 thats a 31.5% conviction rate, Could the same be said for the general public ???

Even after reading that i still still believe there is one law for one and another for others. I agree there can be certain circumstances that must be looked at. I am not saying he should be treated harder than anybody else but treated in the same manner as anybody else.

If a taxi driver who is say off duty gets caught in one of the blitz's say i bet he looses his license and has a conviction recorded against his name.

Edited June 12, 2010 by M-Spec

[pjay 8]

M-Spec, we don't know the details around every one of those cases do we?

I would hope that there is a lower conviction rate against Police Officers because as they enforce the law, so I would hope they know each and every loophole possible. Whether they use that to their advantage or not is up to them.

I don't see how this case is the same as any of 16 other officers cases we know nothing about.

[JaseNZ 53]

M-Spec, we don't know the details around every one of those cases do we?

I would hope that there is a lower conviction rate against Police Officers because as they enforce the law, so I would hope they know each and every loophole possible.

Nope sorry disagree, They are not above reproach or above the law no matter what case.

I feel they are given a lot more leniency than anybody else which to me is just wrong.

As i said in my first post it just pisses me off is all.

I hope everybody just takes this as a good debate and i respect the opinions of anybody.

[pjay 8]

Fair call, I can appreciate a lot of us would feel differently about this.

Which is why:

There

is

no

Black and white.

[JaseNZ 53]

Just the red and blue getting off

[mark247 38]

I dont mind the judges decision. I'm sure this has all been said before.

The cop didn't get a conviction so he wouldn't lose his job. He still lost his licence for 6 months and had to pay court costs. So the only thing less he got than the average case was a conviction and a pitiful fine.

If he was convicted he would have lost his job which was maybe ( I haven't read much about the case ) the only thing he was specialized at. If he was convicted he can't just walk into another police station and get another job. Most other people if they lose there jobs can walk into a simular job later. You cant do that with the police. I've heard of stuff like this happening a lot, not with drink driving exactly, but I've heard of people in the airline industry losing their job at Air NZ for one reason or another and being employed by Qantas months later.

[Cale 36]

If he was convicted he can't just walk into another police station and get another job.

Right, but he could just get a normal job where no particular skills are required like a lot of other people in NZ.

Anyway, nobody is above the law, he went to court, the judge made a judgement all dependent on the case which we know nothing about. Fair enough. If the judge was biased towards an important public servant in order to keep him in his job, I have no problem. I'm sure the cop won't go out and do it again anytime soon/ever.