police cleared by coroner over pursuit

http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,9922019%5E1702,00.html

kindly not it was the CORONER, not the police, that cleared the police
drivers in this matter, so all you conspiracy theorists can run along and
find something else to conspire about

 

Well OBVIOUSLY the coroner was in on it too! Duh.
(This is known as a self-reinforcing delusion)

James
ZZR250==>ZX9R

 

On 23/6/04 1:53 AM, in article

Feeling the heat were you, Corks?

Hammo

 

Maybe not a conspiracy theory, but I have one problem with the reported
judgement.

It is reported:
"Coroner Phillip Byrne today ruled Senior Constable John Mizzi acted
reasonably in flashing the lights and sounding the siren of his police
car once he realised Tran was speeding in a stolen vehicle."

Ok, so the police knew the car was stolen and attempted to pull them
over. Fair enough.

But then it goes on:
"Mr Byrne ruled Snr Const Mizzi and his partner Snr Const Jason Bolitho
could not have known Tran would flee because 99.9 per cent of drivers
pulled over when asked."

I find hard to believe that 99.9% of drivers of stolen cars pull over
when asked. Based on this conjecture, the police would have had more
uncertainty that the driver would flee than the coroner applied in his
judgement.

2c, ching, ching

David

 

"OH SHIT! It's that electromagnetic radiation from satellite debris again!"

 

and again, and again

 

corks wrote:

well it is a good thing the pursuit was abandoned immediately otherwise
someone might have got hurt

i once had the police follow me around for a bit...when i did stop, at a
red light, they said 'why did you run from us?'
i explained to the officer that due to the noise level of my exhaust, i
did not hear the siren
and on being asked...i did not see the lights 'cos i had no mirrors
and no, i did not know how fast i was going 'cos i had no speedo
and no, i did not fail to indicate, the motorcycle was not fitted with
indicators

they didnt lock me up immediately...it took half an hour or so

 

uh-hu , he said 99.9% of drivers pulled over , not 99.9% of drivers of
STOLEN cars ...

must afmitt i found the 99.9% odd/high but i suppose if you think of
everytime a vehicle gets pulls over something no matter i guess how minor or
how serious - most of the drivers will pull - which then leads to what
percertanage dont....
....most state coroners are pretty cluey people and not prone to throwing
around meaningless stats

 

hi hammo "waves"

feeling the hear .,..nah not me over ...the nanny state

 

The stats provided are quite meaningful.
They mean that the coroner quite deliberately indulged in a fiddle with the
numbers, to create a certain impression.
Seems he managed quite well, too.


--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur
Warning: All posts to be treated with a grain of salt.
By Order
K.K.

 

Your failure is your problem, not mine.
Nice of you to share it with us, though.
--
Toby
quidquid latine dictum
sit, altum viditur
Warning: All posts to be treated with a grain of salt.
By Order
K.K.

 

Hence the 'managed quite well' bit.
Do you require an explanation or are you being obtuse?

Anyway..
99.9% of 'all' drivers might very well pull over.

Lets say 25% of drivers of stolen vehicles pull over.
I dont know the figures but Ill put a C note on it that it would'nt be 99.9%

Bit of a difference.

--
JB
Im a Starship Trooper
This is my letter to dad
Transferred from Saigon to Baghdad
And now Im dead --Ozi Batla - Starship Troopers