COPS - what did they do wrong?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Ribbit

Just because what I say disturbs your complacent arrogance, doesn't discourage me from attempting to wake you TF UP!

PS Thinking about it, Eff That. Your blatant ignorance and bias really has earned you a place on my ignore list.

Can you add me as well, while Rustic and I may have different views on some matters - we are at least both on the same planet.

[Ribbit]

Originally Posted by Factor

Can you add me as well, while Rustic and I may have different views on some matters - we are at least both on the same planet.

The foundation of Australian Law is the Common Law, right?

Australia is a recipient of the annual Blackstone's updates, right (I have worked in the Office they are created, and Australia was on the shipping list)?

The foundation is still there, it hasn't gone away, and it is available to be used.

Page 362, Paragraph 1 "Constitutional Law" E C S Wade and G Godfrey Phillips (the standard work that was used to teach Civil Servants, and used as their reference, etc) Third Edition, :

"Settlers, however, carried with them English Law, both the common law, and, in so far as it was applicable, enacted law existing at the time of the settlement".

As such, it (the Common Law) is part of the Birthright of the settlers descendants, and as I am sure you are aware - "No Government may lawfully or legitimately, deny the People their Birthright"

Nobody has any power or authority, to interfere with that Birthright.

Still want to go on that ignore list?

Oh and as an aside, something that is presently being encouraged to disappear, to everybody's disadvantage - the essential concept of criminal intent.

I don't know what Planet you are on, but is the communication becoming clearer?

[jtsailjt]

Certainly an amusing video but as many others have pointed out, you can see similar and worse at launch ramps everywhere.

On the subject of cops being required to have college degrees, I think it's a great idea here in the US, not because it makes them any smarter but it would at least mean they were 4 years older and more mature when they begin their police force training. Also, they would have had a chance to meet and interact with a greater variety of people with various backgrounds while they are a college student and they would have learned at least something in their major that might prove useful somewhere in their career. Lest anyone think I'm down on cops, I'm not at all and have great admiration for most of the cops I've ever had the pleasure to deal with and great respect for the dangerous job they do. But I did think the video was pretty funny and also think that most cops who watched it would also.

[Nicholson58]

Maybe I should have started this - Did they do anything right? or - How many errors can you spot? I'm really just a happy guy trying to share the funny stuff.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

What? Name one aspect of what I have twisted anything you have posted? Anything at all? You brought in the pedantic issues of 'driving on a public street' and a 'boat ramp is a public street'. YOU DID. To which I pointed out if it is to be that pedantic then when putting a boat in you should have your seat belt on. To which YOU said, not if your reversing. To which I pointed out, if your reversing a boat in, you have to drive forward at some point and then according to your logic you should be wearing your seat belt because hey, it's a public street.. Now where in this conversation have I twisted ANYTHING you said

This whole conversation started because in POST 48, it was suggested that if anyone else did these things that these cops did, you would be booked for it.. POST 48. I didn't accuse you of it, but you come in disputing it and agreeing with post 48, despite the fact you clearly didn't even read the context to my posts.

Can you get booked for not having a trailer shackled whilst reversing on a boat ramp? To be honest I don't know about where this happened. Some of the laws in the US are so odd, that I guess it's possible. Certainly, you can't here in Australia and I 'DOUBT' you can where this happened. Whether you should be able to be you ask? That's questionable.

You seem so black and white that it's unlawful.. well provide a cite for it? Has it ever happened? Has anyone ever been booked for it? Can you give an example?

I still don't think they did anything unlawful at all and I have 14 years as a cop to back up my experience. Dumb yes! That's my last on the issue..

It's not a "pedantic issue". It's a fact. A public boat ramp is part of the road. The traffic laws of the road apply there.

You CAN be booked for not having a safety chain fitted on a trailer. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter whether anyone HAS been booked while reversing on a boat ramp. (I doubt if anyone has been booked for driving at 400 km/h in a 60 zone either, but that doesn't make it legal)

The simple fact is that if you don't have a safety chain fitted when towing a trailer you can be booked.

This is is not rocket science.

[0urh]

Originally Posted by Factor

Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying to not use a rated shackle,

To be clear - Use a rated shackle and proofed chain etc.

I am saying that in QLD there appears to be no legislation requiring any specific shackle. There is a "Guide" but even it doesn't require a rated shackle. The Federal stuff is interesting and nice and all that, but for it to be law in QLD it needs to be "picked up" by QLD state law (small matter of Section 51 of the constitution). The same way that the Marine Pollution Act in Qld picks up the MARPOL.

If there was legislation requiring the use of a shackle marked with a specific marking, no of course the police officer only requires to inspect and give evidence of that lack of marking, if however the legislation simply requires a shackle to have a SWL of X, then markings do not prove that only testing will.

My advice stands, hell it stands on any issue, never pay a ticket till you check the legislation.

Its not about being picky - its your right. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you committed an offence.


And of course this discussion only started cause someone above reckoned that you could get written up in QLD for not using a rated shackle, I see no evidence of any legislation that supports that position.

Oh dear, I have started a "shackle war" I interpreted a "marked" shackle as being a "rated" shackle?? Lots of talk around SE Qld that persons have been booked, but I have no first hand knowledge of actually occurring. Here is an article in the latest Hervey Bay VMR magazine with an interpretation from the HB Water Police. Not sure it actually clarifies anything?

Sorry to keep you guys up so late ...

Approximately two years ago someone posted on Facebook that a person was pulled over by the police while travelling through Gympie. During an inspection of the person’s vehicle and trailer it was pointed out that the dee shackles connecting the safety chain to the vehicle were not to the required standard. This prompted many questions to be answered. Some people thing they were doing the correct thing and wishing to abide by their interpretation of the law went out and purchased shackles which resulted in some stockiest running out of stock.
To the credit of the water police in Hervey Bay who investigated the inter-pretation of the law in conjunction with the Main Road’s Department, re-leased a statement which is very beneficial to the recreation fisher person. The following is an extract which relates to Dee shackles :-

"D" Shackles and Safety Chains

Transport and Main Roads requires that "D" Shackles, used to connect a trailer safe-ty chain(s) to the towing vehicle, MUST have strength that is compatible with the safety chain (fit for purpose). THIS CAN BE ENSURED IN TWO WAYS

Use of "D" Shackles that comply with Australian Standards (See matrix back page) and having the appropriate makings in one way. (TMR) recommends this.
Select a "D" shackle of REPUTED brand (ie: A tow bar manufacturer) so the part has its BRAND NAME / MODEL permanently marked on it.
Stainless Steel "D" shackles and padlocks are NOT to be used.


Trailers ATM over 2 Tonne must be fitted with safety chains that are marked in ac-cordance with the relevant Australian Standard and (or cables as applicable) com-plying with the following:
Trailers that do not exceed 2.5 tonnes ATM must have at least one safety chain complying with Australian Standard AS 4177.4-1994 or Australian Standard AS 4177.4-2004 ‘
Trailers over 2.5 tonnes and not exceed 3.5 tonnes ATM must have two safety chains of designation of 3500 kg complying with Australian Standard AS 4177.4-1994 or Australian Standard AS 4177.4-2004 Trailer ATM (kg)

Released with the permission of the Hervey Bay Water Police as a guide only

[Rustic Charm]

[QUOTE=Factor;2018581]

Originally Posted by Rustic Charm

. Didn't say they were, they are however Criminal Offences.

We will use my states legislation for this lesson - but given your expertise you would no doubt know that the Tasmanian Criminal Code was based heavily on the Qld Criminal Code, way back when, when Sir Samual griffith wrote it:

So you see Criminal Offences can be simple offences (i.e. traffic matters and the like) and are not necessarilly Crimes.

Yes and the standard is the same - beyond reasonable doubt. - Balance of Probabilities relates to civil matters only. You my friend clearly didn't pay attention to the some of your lectures at Rokeby. I did give some lectures there in the past. You clearly do not understand the difference between CRIME ( a type of criminal offence) and Criminal Offence.

You may find some of the information in the Tas DPP publications helpful. eg Definitions likeand the definition of summary offence Maybe the publication of the Magistrates Court in Tasmania will also assist when it says So you can see a Crimnal Offence is a very different thing to a Crime.


I did not get my understanding of the law from TV. I am not sure where you got yours, it certainly wasn't from the Academy

before you respond, call one of your former colleagues in the Prosecution section and pose the question to them, Traffic Matter - does it require proof beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't have time at the moment but just to let you know when I was in court this morning I took your advice and asked and the response I got was accusing me of getting old and it was suggested I was thinking of the Standard of Proof of the 'Defence' case which is on the balance regardless of the court. So it's seems you are on the right path and I'm feeling rather foolish . I'll do some more reading tonight

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Ribbit

The foundation of Australian Law is the Common Law, right?

Australia is a recipient of the annual Blackstone's updates, right (I have worked in the Office they are created, and Australia was on the shipping list)?

The foundation is still there, it hasn't gone away, and it is available to be used.

Page 362, Paragraph 1 "Constitutional Law" E C S Wade and G Godfrey Phillips (the standard work that was used to teach Civil Servants, and used as their reference, etc) Third Edition, :

"Settlers, however, carried with them English Law, both the common law, and, in so far as it was applicable, enacted law existing at the time of the settlement".

As such, it (the Common Law) is part of the Birthright of the settlers descendants, and as I am sure you are aware - "No Government may lawfully or legitimately, deny the People their Birthright"

Nobody has any power or authority, to interfere with that Birthright.

Still want to go on that ignore list?

Oh and as an aside, something that is presently being encouraged to disappear, to everybody's disadvantage - the essential concept of criminal intent.

I don't know what Planet you are on, but is the communication becoming clearer?

Ah yes, the convicts were sent out along with English common law, and their birthrights all well and truly taken care of.

Although, exactly what this has to do with backing a trailer down a boat ramp eludes me...

[alansmith]

Simon V , and how many people forget just that. Without police or crowd control many instances in history, no matter what country, people can do some pretty bad things when there is no risk of legal repercussions!

[Factor]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Ah yes, the convicts were sent out along with English common law, and their birthrights all well and truly taken care of.

Although, exactly what this has to do with backing a trailer down a boat ramp eludes me...

Its the internet. It doesn't have to make sense

[Factor]

For those bored beyond belief, a quick update on the safety chain issue:

After hours of reading legislation and a long time on the phone with TMR I can say with confidence that,in Queensland there is NO requirement to use a rated shackle, indeed you don't have to use a shackle of any type, you could use a big nut and bolt and in fact many other ways of connecting.

[Factor]

[QUOTE=Rustic Charm;2019182]

Originally Posted by Factor

when I was in court this morning

Hope they continued your bail, and that the charges are not too serious.

[0urh]

Originally Posted by Factor

For those bored beyond belief, a quick update on the safety chain issue:

After hours of reading legislation and a long time on the phone with TMR I can say with confidence that,in Queensland there is NO requirement to use a rated shackle, indeed you don't have to use a shackle of any type, you could use a big nut and bolt and in fact many other ways of connecting.

Good to know, now they just need to inform the cops and/or the authors of the Safe Towing Guide

Quote from Qld 'Safe Towing Guide'

“D” Shackles that do not have any markings make it difficult to identify there source and strength and may raise questions during any roadside audit by enforcement officers.

Yeah I know, it is only a guide. Note their spelling of there

Does 'made in China' count as a marked shackle?

[Factor]

Originally Posted by 0urh

Good to know, now they just need to inform the cops and/or the authors of the Safe Towing Guide

Quote from Qld 'Safe Towing Guide'

“D” Shackles that do not have any markings make it difficult to identify there source and strength and may raise questions during any roadside audit by enforcement officers.

Yeah I know, it is only a guide. Note their spelling of there

Does 'made in China' count as a marked shackle?

Short story - don't argue, nod agreeably, if you get a Ticket, write to the commissioner 200 Roma Street Brisbane, outline briefly what occurred, attach copy of ticket, indicate that that you have been advised there is no offence, and ask him to specify what offence it is that you are alleged to have committed, i.e. which section of what act/regulation.


the safe towing guide is just that - its a guide, it isn't law.

[Wotname]

Originally Posted by Factor

Short story - don't argue, nod agreeably, if you get a Ticket, write to the commissioner 200 Roma Street Brisbane, outline briefly what occurred, attach copy of ticket, indicate that that you have been advised there is no offence, and ask him to specify what offence it is that you are alleged to have committed, i.e. which section of what act/regulation.


the safe towing guide is just that - its a guide, it isn't law.