Current Four police officers killed after pulling over a Porsche 911 on Melbourne freeway

[Kurve]

Singh might end up with more time instead of a reduction imo.

Truck driver behind Eastern Freeway police tragedy appeals 'extremely stern' sentence

Mohinder Singh is appealing against the 22-year sentence he was handed over the deaths of four Victoria Police officers in 2020, arguing the penalty is too harsh.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Awakening]

Every time I get a notification on this thread, I hope it's a post to say a fellow prisoners knocked him off.

 

[andrewmillman]

Every time I get a notification on this thread, I hope it's a post to say a fellow prisoners knocked him off.

The police killer? Singh is a monster.

 

[Awakening]

The police killer? Singh is a monster.

Pusey but sure Singh too

 

[Saint12]

Pusey but sure Singh too

 

[ash17]

Isn't Pusey out of jail?

 

[Pamcake1]

Isn't Pusey out of jail?

No he is back in and denied bail already 3 times. Back in for using the photos of the crash site to make threats to the car insurer who has refused to pay him out on the porsche because he lied to them about his past on the application.

 

[ash17]

No he is back in and denied bail already 3 times. Back in for using the photos of the crash site to make threats to the car insurer who has refused to pay him out on the porsche because he lied to them about his past on the application.

Ah ok I didn't realise that. Isn't it a they?
I reckon I saw his place the other day in Fitzroy. Near the Rainbow Hotel?

 

[jason_recliner]

Ah ok I didn't realise that. Isn't it a they?
I reckon I saw his place the other day in Fitzroy. Near the Rainbow Hotel?

Their Place.

 

[ash17]

Their Place.

Haha yeah you got me there

 

[Pamcake1]

The unmentionable is currently in court contesting the charges:

"Pusey attached four graphic photos to an online complaint with the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which investigates disputes with financial firms."

‘Outraged’: Pusey accused of offensive posts after $2.2m insurance claim rejected

The Porsche driver who filmed the aftermath of the Eastern Freeway crash that killed four police officers allegedly attached photos of their dying moments to a financial complaint.

www.theage.com.au

 

[Pamcake1]

The daily fail reporting on yesterdays court appearance;

Richard Pusey asked for $2million from insurers after cops were killed

Richard Pusey is accused of uploading four graphic images from the April 2020 crash to an insurance complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority last November.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Pamcake1]

Porsche driver Richard Pusey is rushed to hospital

The man who filmed dying police officers on their phone following a horrific collision with a truck has been rushed to hospital - as they make a desperate bid for freedom after facing further charges.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Awakening]

Porsche driver Richard Pusey is rushed to hospital

The man who filmed dying police officers on their phone following a horrific collision with a truck has been rushed to hospital - as they make a desperate bid for freedom after facing further charges.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Is he dead yet?

 

[GreyCrow]

">

Can one of the legal eagles here explain the reasoning here?

 

[Power Raid]

">

Can one of the legal eagles here explain the reasoning here?

sounds like it was simply the wrong charge and not appropriate for the situation

what I find interesting is so much attention was provided to pusey and his horrible act but the attention should have been

1) charge the driver of the truck for manslaughter or negligent driving causing death
2) charge the trucking magnate for criminal negligence
3) charge the police management for criminal negligence (instructing police to pull people over on a freeway)

 

[Present Not Past]

2) charge the trucking magnate for criminal negligence
3) charge the police management for criminal negligence (instructing police to pull people over on a freeway)

This makes no ****ing sense.
So if the police knew that the truck driver was allowed to drive the vehicle by his company under the influence of drugs, the police would be charged for criminal negligence for pulling him over and preventing this accident?
FMD. That’s some ****ed up thinking right there.

 

[Power Raid]

This makes no ******* sense.
So if the police knew that the truck driver was allowed to drive the vehicle by his company under the influence of drugs, the police would be charged for criminal negligence for pulling him over and preventing this accident?
FMD. That’s some ****ed up thinking right there.

the way to look at this is, is it safe to pull drivers over on the side of a free way? was it safe to stand where the police stood?

the answer is clearly no. The pull over should have instructed the "porche" to pull over by leaving the free way at the next exit and or breakdown safety area. If the pull over was an emergency and required an immediate stop, the officers should have carried out the necessary work from the other side of the safety barrier or 40m in front of the two vehicles and placed there vehicle in such a way it blocked the inner lane.

This was clearly not done and thus forms criminal negligence.

This is what the police were in control of and thus responsible for. You can't look at criminal negligence in this case, from the police perspective from the truck drivers responsibility.

We can't have a situation where civilian directors are prosecuted and face jail time whilst government bosses are not held accountable at the same standards.

 

[yodellinhank]

the way to look at this is, is it safe to pull drivers over on the side of a free way? was it safe to stand where the police stood?

the answer is clearly no. The pull over should have instructed the "porche" to pull over by leaving the free way at the next exit and or breakdown safety area. If the pull over was an emergency and required an immediate stop, the officers should have carried out the necessary work from the other side of the safety barrier or 40m in front of the two vehicles and placed there vehicle in such a way it blocked the inner lane.

This was clearly not done and thus forms criminal negligence.

This is what the police were in control of and thus responsible for. You can't look at criminal negligence in this case, from the police perspective from the truck drivers responsibility.

We can't have a situation where civilian directors are prosecuted and face jail time whilst government bosses are not held accountable at the same standards.

And if the driver they are attempting to pull over, presumably because they believe they are a danger to themselves or others, ploughs into a barrier or another vehicle because everyone is patiently waiting for the next exit?

 

[Power Raid]

And if the driver they are attempting to pull over, presumably because they believe they are a danger to themselves or others, ploughs into a barrier or another vehicle because everyone is patiently waiting for the next exit?

no

I have already outlined this in my post. If the police felt there was sufficient reason to pull over someone despite placing themselves and the driver at risk, they should then take preventative and risk mitigation actions such as:

• placing their vehicle in a position to block the left lane
• stand on the other side of the barrier
• stand 40m in front of the vehicles

The law requires the following:

Identify risks
- was it reasonable to believe there was a risk such as what happened? yes, incidents like this (crashes leading to death where a vehicle is on the side of a free way or high way) happen regularly on free ways be it police pull overs, broken down vehicles or crashes

Measure the risk

• likelihood - low
• outcome - serious (death)

On the risk matrix
- is the risk high or low? High, as although low probability the outcome is serious

Risk mitigation
- train officers to deal with the situation
1) do not pull over on the free way if possible (not an immediate danger) but instruct a driver to pull over off the free way at the next exit
2) in the case a vehicle must be pulled over, place the squad car in a position to create a physical barrier. This should be 20m behind the car being pulled over
3) ask the person to step out of the car to a safe place such as behind a barrier or 40m in front of their car

Monitor the mitigation strategies are working

• cameras
• reporting and sign off
• GPS positioning of the car and the officers

This is the legal requirement for civilian directors, so why isn't this the standard for senior officers in the police, the police commissioner AND the minister of police?

Dozens of cops and the minister should be serving time

 

[Power Raid]

The alternative is repeal the laws regarding criminal negligence and simply say "workers are responsible for their own safety"

as it is not reasonable to have lower standards for government than ordinary civilians and society

 

[yodellinhank]

no

I have already outlined this in my post. If the police felt there was sufficient reason to pull over someone despite placing themselves and the driver at risk, they should then take preventative and risk mitigation actions such as:

• placing their vehicle in a position to block the left lane
• stand on the other side of the barrier
• stand 40m in front of the vehicles

The law requires the following:

Identify risks
- was it reasonable to believe there was a risk such as what happened? yes, incidents like this (crashes leading to death where a vehicle is on the side of a free way or high way) happen regularly on free ways be it police pull overs, broken down vehicles or crashes

Measure the risk

• likelihood - low
• outcome - serious (death)

On the risk matrix
- is the risk high or low? High, as although low probability the outcome is serious

Risk mitigation
- train officers to deal with the situation
1) do not pull over on the free way if possible (not an immediate danger) but instruct a driver to pull over off the free way at the next exit
2) in the case a vehicle must be pulled over, place the squad car in a position to create a physical barrier. This should be 20m behind the car being pulled over
3) ask the person to step out of the car to a safe place such as behind a barrier or 40m in front of their car

Monitor the mitigation strategies are working

• cameras
• reporting and sign off
• GPS positioning of the car and the officers

This is the legal requirement for civilian directors, so why isn't this the standard for senior officers in the police, the police commissioner AND the minister of police?

Dozens of cops and the minister should be serving time

How do you know they didn't? A truck ploughed into the vehicles because the driver supposedly thought they were all witches. Perhaps they should have factored this possibility in and got the truck driver to pull into the next exit.

 

[Power Raid]

How do you know they didn't?

as the images had the police car behind the porsche before the crash and the four officers were reportedly near their vehicle when the crash occurred

A truck ploughed into the vehicles because the driver supposedly thought they were all witches. Perhaps they should have factored this possibility in and got the truck driver to pull into the next exit.

a simple answer to this is yes

we know there are fatigued divers, especially truck drivers. That's why we have laws
we know truck drivers are notorious for no doze and other substances
we know driving under the influence is a real issue. That's why we have random drug and alcohol testing
we know mental health is real
we know some people hate cops

all of these are known, so no excuse.......it is the law to mitigate this as per above. further just because others did wrong, it doesn't mitigate the responsibility of management to protect their workers

 

[yodellinhank]

as the images had the police car behind the porsche before the crash and the four officers were reportedly near their vehicle when the crash occurred



a simple answer to this is yes

we know there are fatigued divers, especially truck drivers. That's why we have laws
we know truck drivers are notorious for no doze and other substances
we know driving under the influence is a real issue. That's why we have random drug and alcohol testing
we know mental health is real
we know some people hate cops

all of these are known, so no excuse.......it is the law to mitigate this as per above. further just because others did wrong, it doesn't mitigate the responsibility of management to protect their workers

Just what did workcover do you for?

 

[Power Raid]

Just what did workcover do you for?

does workcover cover criminal negligence? I'd be surprised if they would insure against criminal issues