Silly Picture Thread.

[old man emu]

My reason for pointing out to a driver that they had offended, but giving them absolution (Catholic reference there) was that they would have a great story to tell their mates around a bar-b-que, and that the interaction between themself and the Police and also the reason for the interaction, would be remembered, with the hope that a recurrence would occur. 

 

But then, I worked a stretch of the Hume Highway where I could "fill a book" in a shift, so, like a recreational fisherman, I could throw the occasional one back. However, one had to be careful that the speeding motorist wasn't a undercover member of the Professional Integrity Unit, aiming to lay some allegation of corruption on you.

[ClintonB]

[facthunter]

The Police Integrity Unit indulge in entrapment do they?  Do you as the apprehending person have NO discretion. If he slipped you a fiver, they might have a point.  Nev

[old man emu]

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Do you as the apprehending person have NO discretion

Technically, yes. Someone who holds the Office of Constable is an independent entity, answerable only to the Monarch. However, to enable efficient and effective law enforcement, those independent entities are bound together in an organisation. By being bound together in an organisation, there can be standardisation in the many areas such as operational procedures and administration. I am using the term "constable" to include persons holding NCO and Commissioned ranks within the organisation as their powers of arrest are the same as the newly attested constable.

 

When it comes to law enforcement, it is the individual constable who brings an allegation before a Court. In other words, if a constable brings a person before a court using poor supporting evidence and the allegation is dismissed because of a want of good evidence (not on some technicality) then the constable could be made to pay the legal costs of the person accused. Normally if an Order for Costs is granted, the police organisation pays on behalf of the constable.

 

So. The individual constable has the ability to use discretion to deal with a breach of the law as circumstances dictate. That can range from simply a direction to move on, with no further action if the direction is obeyed, to apprehension and initiation of proceedings. 

 

However, this ability to apply discretion has been eroded due to the very many independent overseers of police activity, whose raison d'etre seems to be to vilify everything constables do. This has resulted in the development of a culture of "covering your arse", which leads to the abandonment of discretion and automotin-like action.

 

26 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The Police Integrity Unit indulge in entrapment do they?

It was the opinion of working police that they did.

 

When I joined the NSW Police, I was trained at the Redfern Police Academy. The curriculum dealing with Law and Police Procedures could be equated to an apprenticeship in which experienced police taught recruits what they needed to know to operate as General Duties police. There was no mention of policing theory. As for ethics, the teaching was simple: "There are three things that will get you into trouble - gash, bash and cash. Avoid them".

 

When the Police Academy moved to Goulburn, training became more academic. Great emphasis was placed on integrity. These recruits were indoctrinated to believe that everyone who had gone through Redfern was corrupt and that it was the duty of Goulburn graduates to record and report any type of action that wasn't on the straight and narrow, no matter how little the deviation. As a result, the use of discretion was looked upon as deviating from the One True Path, so its application withered away, resulting in the black and white law enforcement we see today.

[facthunter]

Thanks for a thorough explanation. it's much as I expected.  Nev