Cops

[JuddsABlue]

Really?







Who are you trying to fool here tough guy?

Nothing there aggressive towards you, just some observations made from your comments, not random guesses

Anyway, your rep is pretty obvious and you've basically waved the white flag with your last few responses so I'd suggest putting your troll dollars to better use on someone else

To finalize my opinion on the topic, I think overall cops do their job incredibly well and are hunted and picked at by the dredgs of society to look incompetent. There are bad cops, from a numbers point of view there are quote a lot, but from a percentage of the force point of view that are small. My encounters with police have left me with a good impression of then

And putting attitude aside, I think they're also incredibly good at their job.

 

[dymot]

Hey Dymwit,

Here's the law for QLD

http://www.legalaid.qld.gov.au/lega...lice/Pages/Entryandsearchwithoutawarrant.aspx

The police are at my house and want to come in but they don't have a warrant . I don't have to let them in, do I?

Yes, for some things, for example to:

• prevent domestic violence
• investigate traffic offences e.g. to take a breath test for alcohol
• catch someone who has escaped from prison or from being arrested
• search if they reasonably suspect there is evidence which may otherwise be hidden or destroyed
• arrest someone
• reach a crime scene.

Sounds like you're going to have your arse handed to you on a plate again. Should have taken my advice and STFU.



You're my bitch.

I suggest you have a look at S21(1) and (2) of the PPRA which states a police officer may enter the dwelling without the consent of the occupier to arrest or detain a person only if the police officer reasonably suspects the person to be arrested or detained is at the dwelling.

They have your address as his current address on record. Therefore if they believe he is there in the first place and the reason they are searching for him is to detain/arrest him then they have sufficiently complied with the test. On the second day if they believe you have been lying to them and they still think he is there and you have not told them the truth then they are lawfully allowed to enter the property to search him for the purpose of arresting or detaining him. How do they know certainly that you were being honest when you rang up the station? Therefore in the scenario you have stated (you still have never told us why they were looking for him, I believe because you don't actually know) if they are coming to arrest him then they have no obligation in Queensland to search for him on your property with permission from the occupier or with a warrant. As you have failed to allay their concerns in any way (other than by telling them he no longer lives there) by failing to show proof such as ending of his lease, another address etc then it is more than likely going to be held reasonable that they keep returning because he is obviously highly wanted by them.

 

[dymot]

Yes I did. Plain as day.



Show me the law from any state that would allow police to trespass in such circumstance. Don't tell me about it. Find it. Post it.



I thought

Location: Sydney

might suggest I live in...........Sydney

dumb arse.

Everything I have passed of as fact is in fact, fact. Can't say the same for you.

Now go find that stuff and post it.

I went back and searched and in none of your posts on it from the first one you quoted you never said you lived in Sydney in them. You then further prove that you never said where you lived when you referred me to your side bar and assumed I read there. So much for everything you have stated being the truth and factual.

 

[bunsen burner]

I suggest you have a look at S21(1) and (2) of the PPRA which states a police officer may enter the dwelling without the consent of the occupier to arrest or detain a person only if the police officer reasonably suspects the person to be arrested or detained is at the dwelling.

How does this apply to my situation?

Firstly, the police didn't come to arrest my ex lodger. They just wanted to talk to him.
Secondly, what reasonable evidence do they have that he is at the dwelling? It's his last registered address. Means little. "But people in this situation lie to us all the time" is just not going to cut it.

There's no car registered in his name parked anywhere close. There was nothing suspicious at all about the situation. Cops come to door. Owner answers. Cops asks if guy lives here. Owner says not for 18 months and don't know where he is.

There is nothing that would enable a cop to be suspicious that the person they are looking for is on prem.

They have your address as his current address on record. Therefore if they believe he is there in the first place and the reason they are searching for him is to detain/arrest him then they have sufficiently complied with the test.

Who said anything about detaining/arresting? Why you making shit up?

On the second day if they believe you have been lying to them and they still think he is there and you have not told them the truth then they are lawfully allowed to enter the property to search him for the purpose of arresting or detaining him.

Please show me where it says that?

Are you saying cops can go to a drug dealer's house and because the suspect he has drugs they can enter without a warrant? I don't think so. Doesn't work like that.

How do they know certainly that you were being honest when you rang up the station?

They don't. But "I think he's lying" is not just cause. Never is anywhere in AU and never has been.

Therefore in the scenario you have stated (you still have never told us why they were looking for him, I believe because you don't actually know)

Correct. I didn't know. I asked and as professionals they didn't tell me. He lodged with us for a couple of years and seemed ok. I certainly didn't detect he had any criminal inclinations. Certainly wasn't a drug user. I hadn't seen him for 18 months and had no idea where he lived. I haven't heard from him since and still don't know.

if they are coming to arrest him then they have no obligation in Queensland to search for him on your property with permission from the occupier or with a warrant.

Stop with this arrest shit.

As you have failed to allay their concerns in any way (other than by telling them he no longer lives there) by failing to show proof such as ending of his lease, another address etc

They didn't ask. As mentioned in a previous post - I would have been happy to supply information to show he no longer lived there.

then it is more than likely going to be held reasonable that they keep returning because he is obviously highly wanted by them.

Highly wanted. Put your crack pipe down.

They were more than welcome to return. Just not walk straight into my back yard without knocking whilst my wife has her **** out.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Take a chill pill bunsen before your head explodes

It's funny because before this thread I hadn't noticed anything abnormal about his posting. But he sounds like an absolute turkey in this thread

 

[HPKS]

Bunsen having seen & been in a few situations like this & worse I see your frustration at people unable to see a problem with the way the justice system really works. I would like to tell a few situations I have been around but i am not prepared to on a public forum. Put up CCTV, find a good lawyer & put everything in writing & this problem will go away.

 

[dymot]

How does this apply to my situation?

Firstly, the police didn't come to arrest my ex lodger. They just wanted to talk to him.
Secondly, what reasonable evidence do they have that he is at the dwelling? It's his last registered address. Means little. "But people in this situation lie to us all the time" is just not going to cut it.

There's no car registered in his name parked anywhere close. There was nothing suspicious at all about the situation. Cops come to door. Owner answers. Cops asks if guy lives here. Owner says not for 18 months and don't know where he is.

There is nothing that would enable a cop to be suspicious that the person they are looking for is on prem.

Who said anything about detaining/arresting? Why you making shit up?



Please show me where it says that?

Are you saying cops can go to a drug dealer's house and because the suspect he has drugs they can enter without a warrant? I don't think so. Doesn't work like that.

They don't. But "I think he's lying" is not just cause. Never is anywhere in AU and never has been.

Correct. I didn't know. I asked and as professionals they didn't tell me. He lodged with us for a couple of years and seemed ok. I certainly didn't detect he had any criminal inclinations. Certainly wasn't a drug user. I hadn't seen him for 18 months and had no idea where he lived. I haven't heard from him since and still don't know.


Stop with this arrest shit.

They didn't ask. As mentioned in a previous post - I would have been happy to supply information to show he no longer lived there.



Highly wanted. Put your crack pipe down.

They were more than welcome to return. Just not walk straight into my back yard without knocking whilst my wife has her **** out.

"Just wanting to talk to him" is a very broad statement that needs interpreting. Who knows that they weren't there to talk to him to serve a warrant on him or to detain him under some other act they have the power to. You asked me where they had the power to come into your house without permission to look for him and I have given an example. That's where the arrest bit came from genius.

If you knew you had proof to show he did not live there then why did you not show it to police voluntarily.? It looks like if they were after him for a reason such as to arrest him and they wanted to piss you off by returning then if they were in QLD they sure would have done so lawfully.

Sure a cop can be suspicious as you have alluded to all along when you said that they are likely to be suspicious from dealing with scumbags all day. Hence why they may suspect he still lives there even if you claim he does not.

Where does the car come into it?

In Victoria if you looked at 459 crime act I showed you exactly how they can come to someone's house uninvited because they suspect the person has drugs. Being in possession of drugs can be classed as a serious offence and thus under 459 the police have the power to enter simply because they suspect that the person has or is about to commit a serious offence. The reason this law was bought in was to enable them when they have intelligence to suspect someone of committing or being about commit a crime to enter the dwelling without the need to obtain a warrant and thus protecting the community in the meantime.

Someone reported our neighbor as having masses of dope planted in his backyard and told them roughly where it was located within. Apparently as the police had long standing intelligence that this person was a drug dealer and had been done dealing before they were out there within 1-2 hours of the call. Having this intelligence by way of a recorded tip off with addresses and names stated was sufficient for them to attend the property without a warrant. End result was a whole pile of dope was found and the guy was done with no warrant being required.

 

[JuddsABlue]

Well your observations are wrong so they can be nothing else but random guesses. But on the subject of observations, I can clearly tell you are lacking in the brains department. Seriously, what sort of person thinks busting a car thief has precedence over the safety of innocent bystanders?

This is like watching a car crash

I never said busting a car theif is more important than public safety

All I did was point out a stupid comment you made about the 'karma bus' taking care of criminals. Is it you or I who should write to the police chief with this great idea?

You're wrong again and grasping at straws to save face. You obviously put lots of effort and time into these little forums scraps of yours and the results seem important to you with constant comments that youre making people your bitch etc

Time to let this one go

 

[mehow2g]

All I did was point out a stupid comment you made about the 'karma bus' taking care of criminals. Is it you or I who should write to the police chief with this great idea?

Its not really stupid though you make it out to be stupid if you want which you have as if hes talking about some kind of voodoo magic, you know exactly what he meant but you chose to use it against him.

In case you are just stupid which I don't believe you are what he meant was bad people do bad things eventually it will catch up to him with the law or other reason like crashing the car that he stole while killing himself in the process.

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Do you actually have an opinion on this cop thing? I'm a bit concerned as to why you aren't sharing it?

I do but I was too budy laughing at you.
Since you asked though every cop I know including my Dad who is one comes off as a decent bloke. I'm sure there are prick ones out there but that's not the majoirity

 

[bunsen burner]

"Just wanting to talk to him" is a very broad statement that needs interpreting.

It's unknown. To interpret is to blindly guess.

As I said, the lodger was not a drug user, was not dishonest as a person, had full time work the whole 18-24 months, was from a middle class background, and wasn't at all rough around the edges.

They wanted to talk to him. May have wanted to arrest him, may have wanted him as a witness. The second would seem more plausible to me judged by his character. But as discussed, I'm not guessing. Could have been anything.

Who knows that they weren't there to talk to him to serve a warrant on him or to detain him under some other act they have the power to. You asked me where they had the power to come into your house without permission to look for him and I have given an example. That's where the arrest bit came from genius.

I don't want to denigrate your intelligence because it's quite clear you're always late (ready "tardy") to pick up on things. let me spell the law out to you:

Police, in any AU State, cannot go to someone's house and enter without permission or warrant because the person the want to arrest's last known address is that abode, or if they have a hunch that the owner of that property is concealing their whereabouts. They need a warrant.

They need a tip off, or maybe a sighting through a window, or maybe some fast footsteps suggesting the target is starting to run.

Just because they want to arrest someone doesn't mean they can go to likely places and enter without a warrant.

Do you actually understand this?

If you knew you had proof to show he did not live there then why did you not show it to police voluntarily.?

They didn't ask. Do you have some sort of problem with that?

It looks like if they were after him for a reason such as to arrest him and they wanted to piss you off by returning then if they were in QLD they sure would have done so lawfully.

Please show me where that is documented? I have shown you the documentation from Qld Legal Aid and it says nothing of the sort.

Here it is again from another source:

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~819.htm

Entry and Search for Arrest
Police officers are empowered to enter and stay on a private dwelling or other place, including a vehicle, to arrest or detain a person. An officer may only enter and search a private dwelling for arrest if holding a reasonable suspicion that the person being pursued is at the dwelling. Upon entry, the officer has the power to search the place for that person.

Sure a cop can be suspicious as you have alluded to all along when you said that they are likely to be suspicious from dealing with scumbags all day. Hence why they may suspect he still lives there even if you claim he does not.

You seriously don't think the police would be able to use that in court do you?

It seems you have no real comprehension of citizens rights. If the police were able to use this as just cause then they wouldn't need search warrants. "That known drug dealer says he doesn't have drugs at his house but in our experience people lie to us everyday. So we used this as just cause to search his house"

Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Do you know if the police searched a dealer's house and found drugs it would get thrown out of court because of an illegal search?

Legally, police can't enter a person's property because they think the person is lying. Or that it's the person's last recorded address. For good reason too.

Where does the car come into it?

If a car was rego'd in his name parked in the street then that probably would be just cause to suspect he was at my address.

In Victoria if you looked at 459 crime act I showed you exactly how they can come to someone's house uninvited because they suspect the person has drugs.

Yeah, bullshit. Post it. Link and excerpt.

Being in possession of drugs can be classed as a serious offence and thus under 459 the police have the power to enter simply because they suspect that the person has or is about to commit a serious offence.

So you're saying a guy might be walking along a street, sniffer dog sounds him out, guy is carrying a large amount of drugs, and from this they can search his house?

Yeah, no shit. The police have just cause to search without a warrant. Totally different from my situation where they didn't have just cause.

Someone reported our neighbor as having masses of dope planted in his backyard and told them roughly where it was located within. Apparently as the police had long standing intelligence that this person was a drug dealer and had been done dealing before they were out there within 1-2 hours of the call. Having this intelligence by way of a recorded tip off with addresses and names stated was sufficient for them to attend the property without a warrant. End result was a whole pile of dope was found and the guy was done with no warrant being required.

Again, they had just cause. Enough intelligence to enter wihout warrant. And again, completely different from my situation. Not sure why you can't see the difference. Missed the bus again I suspect. Looks like you are "tardy" once again.

 

[JuddsABlue]

Sure you did.

I said that given the risk the innocent public is in during a high speed car chase that police should not engage in high speed chases and should just let these guys go. Sooner or later they will get picked up for something else. Not worth endangering the public over.

You laughed it down. Therefore it can only be assumed that you think busting a car thief is more important to public safety.

Don't make me waste time and go and quote that entire exchange. Take your medicine like a man.


Why would I do it? The police have been recommended by far more appropriate and influential people than me that high sped car chasers are a bad idea.

Big claims by someone who is clearly wrong. Try me again and I'll go back and quote exactly what was said.

Please go and quote what I said

I enjoy watching you running around hopelessly trying to defend yourself so you can sleep tonight knowing you won an argument on the Internet

You even shot yourself in the foot right there by admitting you made an assumption (a very loose one at that) about something I said which is completely incorrect

Keep scrambling

 

[dymot]

It's unknown. To interpret is to blindly guess.

As I said, the lodger was not a drug user, was not dishonest as a person, had full time work the whole 18-24 months, was from a middle class background, and wasn't at all rough around the edges.

They wanted to talk to him. May have wanted to arrest him, may have wanted him as a witness. The second would seem more plausible to me judged by his character. But as discussed, I'm not guessing. Could have been anything.

I don't want to denigrate your intelligence because it's quite clear you're always late (ready "tardy") to pick up on things. let me spell the law out to you:

Police, in any AU State, cannot go to someone's house and enter without permission or warrant because the person the want to arrest's last known address is that abode, or if they have a hunch that the owner of that property is concealing their whereabouts. They need a warrant.

They need a tip off, or maybe a sighting through a window, or maybe some fast footsteps suggesting the target is starting to run.

Just because they want to arrest someone doesn't mean they can go to likely places and enter without a warrant.

Do you actually understand this?


They didn't ask. Do you have some sort of problem with that?



Please show me where that is documented? I have shown you the documentation from Qld Legal Aid and it says nothing of the sort.

Here it is again from another source:

http://www.aussielegal.com.au/informationoutline~nocache~1~SubTopicDetailsID~819.htm

Entry and Search for Arrest
Police officers are empowered to enter and stay on a private dwelling or other place, including a vehicle, to arrest or detain a person. An officer may only enter and search a private dwelling for arrest if holding a reasonable suspicion that the person being pursued is at the dwelling. Upon entry, the officer has the power to search the place for that person.


You seriously don't think the police would be able to use that in court do you?

It seems you have no real comprehension of citizens rights. If the police were able to use this as just cause then they wouldn't need search warrants. "That known drug dealer says he doesn't have drugs at his house but in our experience people lie to us everyday. So we used this as just cause to search his house"

Do you realise how stupid that sounds? Do you know if the police searched a dealer's house and found drugs it would get thrown out of court because of an illegal search?

Legally, police can't enter a person's property because they think the person is lying. Or that it's the person's last recorded address. For good reason too.

If a car was rego'd in his name parked in the street then that probably would be just cause to suspect he was at my address.


Yeah, bullshit. Post it. Link and excerpt.

So you're saying a guy might be walking along a street, sniffer dog sounds him out, guy is carrying a large amount of drugs, and from this they can search his house?

Yeah, no shit. The police have just cause to search without a warrant. Totally different from my situation where they didn't have just cause.


Again, they had just cause. Enough intelligence to enter wihout warrant. And again, completely different from my situation. Not sure why you can't see the difference. Missed the bus again I suspect. Looks like you are "tardy" once again.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s459.html

Againyou are guessing as much as I as to why they wanted him. You have no knowledge of why the police wanted to attend your property or what intelligence they have on him and whether that links him to your property. I guess though it is reasonable for you to assume facts but if anyone else does it they are immediately wrong? Under S459 they have the right to search for a person if they believe he is or is about to commit an offence.

Again you are putting words in my mouth (or attempting to when trying to clarify what I have said). What I said was if the police had reasonable suspicion to link him to your property initially, you denied it, they clarified the information with their source and then returned to do the exercise again they still would have reasonable suspicion to return to your property and enter it to search for the wanted person. If they have a source and a reason to believe that person may still be at that premises after clarification then they can return without warrant or permission to search for the person if their purpose is for detaining them or arresting them. All they have to do is have a reasonable suspicion that the person is there on the balance of probabilities. This means that the police donot have to ultimately be right in the end but they simply need to show that a reasonable person's mindset would agree with the officer's beliefs as to why the person might be there. Hence as it has been his last known address for sometime they have a reason to believe that he may be in that property and thus could enter to search. I would say that if someone is living at an address it is reasonable that the person may be there and if they wanted to detain/arrest him hypothetically then they would be well within their rights to enter without a warrant.

As for the police searching the dealers house without a warrant and finding drugs again they only have to show on the balance of probabilities they were there because they felt that the drug dealer had or was about to commit an indictable offense.

 

[Probitas_]

Thanks for the tip but I'm an educated and law abiding professional person. It worries me that people like you refuse to acknowledge our police forces have some serious cultural and behavioral problems.

I never said that at all, there are plenty of problems with the police force. There are also plenty of things they get right, just like any other job there are going to be a mix of people who are in it for the wrong reasons. Doesn't mean I generalise everyone into the same category.
You keep mentioning how educated and classy you are, but you can't seem to hold a conversation without insulting people who disagree with you. If you speak to people the same way in the real world then it's no wonder they treat you poorly.

 

[JuddsABlue]

You were saying?

I said exactly what you would do, and I'm pretty embarrassed for you that you did it

Nowhere did I say catching car theifs is above public safety, you made an assumption (which you've admitted) and it was completely wrong

Have some self respect, be a man and admit you were wrong

 

[radiojake]

The only people who would defend police are those who are cops, directly related to them, or have been able to live a nice clean, white and law abiding existence and have not encountered them -

I don't fit any of the above, I do not trust them

 

[Hard_to_Beat]

The only people who would defend police are those who are cops, directly related to them, or have been able to live a nice clean, white and law abiding existence and have not encountered them -

I don't fit any of the above, I do not trust them

There's more than a little truth in this.

Basically, the state exists to maintain the status quo of the middle and upper classes and the police are the internal military arm of the state.

 

[Kram]

The large majority of them that I've had dealings with seem to be pretty reasonable and fair people, it's just the nature of the job though that it's always going to attract a small minority of tossers on a power trip towards it.

 

[Probitas_]

Sure I can, but it's the internet. I choose not to. Doesn't mean my argument is any less valid.

I've never come across you before so let me give you a heads up. Sounds like you agree with me but disagree with how I go about it. I'm fine with that but don't bother me with it. There's a massive queue of people just like you who want to argue with me for how I handle things whilst they agree with what I say.

I'm simply not interested in engaging with you about this. I do it by design and don't care to discuss why you don't like it.

[/quote][/quote]

I don't agree with you at all. I try to look at both sides of every story and realise that the world isn't black and white, I don't make rash generalisations about things I am not educated in. But that's fine, it's clear by your responses that you believe yourself to be correct so I won't 'bother you with it'

 

[bunsen burner]

I don't fit any of the above, I do not trust them

Why would anyone trust them?

A few years back a guy call Andrew Petrelis went on witness protection. A cop who was a known associate of John Kizon who this guy was testifying against accessed the system to see where he was relocated. A week later Petrelis died of a hotshot.

I have no sympathy for Petrelis as he is a snitch, but a cop giving up a witness protection location knowing the witness would have been murdered? wtf?

I know it's only one dirty cop, but as an organisation, how can they be trusted? Why is that data not more secure?

 

[Stratton_Gun]

Well to be fair, you do have a problem accepting that some people just aren't satisfied with our police force. Not exactly rational thought becoming of university level study.

Please provide the quote where I said that. I can accept that some people do have problems with our police force. However I assume they are not all wacko's like your good self.

 

[dymot]

I don't usually look down on others but since you're talking yourself up: I'm private school and university educated, I work in the IT industry. I'm your standard middle class law abiding bloke who lives in a leafy suburb with two kids who are both top of their class.

Sort of dispells your myth that anyone who dare criticise the police is a chip on the shoulder bogan with a working class attitude of "**** da police". I believe in law and order and I believe in a police force. Just not happy with how our police forces conduct themselves.

Maybe, just maybe, people like me are sick of our under performing police forces brought about by poor culture. And when squibs like you who seem to justify every bad deed they do, and refuse to acknowledge there are some gaping deficiencies within our police forces, and then get your kickers in a twist when people are giving them a serve, and then start telling anyone who is critical of the police force is an unwashed bogan with a chip on their shoulder.....

Well I'm just going to come out and say it: You're from police stock. People who aren't smart enough to get a real job.

You are a sad man. I must say you must be one hell of an insecure prick if you need to go around showing how big your dick is and telling everyone how wonderful you are to strangers on the interwebz.

Your post reeks exactly the same of the **** da police attitude you claim bogans have. It is just the stuck up posh prick way of saying it.

Also nice generalisation that all policemen are dumb as is Stratton. I know some very intelligent people within the force who were headhunted on good salaries to work for them because they had skill sets urgently required. For someone who is so well educated and above everyone else you should know that assumptions are the ultimate sign of ignorance which is often the ultimate sign of a lack of education. Hell just because you went to private school and university doesn't mean you are a genius by default.

If you are so concerned about the quality of the police force then join rather than continuing to carry on like you have short man's syndrome as to how inept everyone else is. Otherwise get off your high horse and **** off.

 

[bunsen burner]

Please provide the quote where I said that. I can accept that some people do have problems with our police force. However I assume they are not all wacko's like your good self.

You didn't say it. But you came on here and didn't approach the subject but rather started attacking the man (ie me). Then I find out your Dad's a cop.

You do the maths. it's not calculus.

 

[dymot]

Why would anyone trust them?

A few years back a guy call Andrew Petrelis went on witness protection. A cop who was a known associate of John Kizon who this guy was testifying against accessed the system to see where he was relocated. A week later Petrelis died of a hotshot.

I have no sympathy for Petrelis as he is a snitch, but a cop giving up a witness protection location knowing the witness would have been murdered? wtf?

I know it's only one dirty cop, but as an organisation, how can they be trusted? Why is that data not more secure?

What a double standard. You complain about how inept the force are but someone who wants to be a witness and do good is evil and deserved what came to him? You are utterly delusional if you think what you have just said has any rationale or logic behind it.

 

[bunsen burner]

You are a sad man. I must say you must be one hell of an insecure prick if you need to go around showing how big your dick is and telling everyone how wonderful you are to strangers on the interwebz.

Not really any different to people telling people they are uneducated rednecks who associate with criminals.

I'm just clarifying where I come from.

Your post reeks exactly the same of the **** da police attitude you claim bogans have. It is just the stuck up posh prick way of saying it.

Looks like we have gone 180 degrees. From bogan to stuck up elitist in a handful of posts.

You know, there's a bit argy bargy going on here and if you're not up to it then maybe this thread isn't for you.

Also nice generalisation that all policemen are dumb as is Stratton. I know some very intelligent people within the force who were headhunted on good salaries to work for them because they had skill sets urgently required.

So do I. But they aren't cops. The work for the Police Force but they are actually cops.

I was just returning serve with interest to Stratton but in saying that I think you'll find very few people with grades to go to uni who will choose to be a cop. Poor working conditions, poor pay, hard job, poor culture.

There's 3 reasons people join the force:

1. People who want to serve the community
2. People who want to make an official means of having power (uniform, gun, "I'm going to f*** you up" sort of attitude
3. People who don't have the grades to get a better job and think this is an okay careeer

Not a lot of people with grades good enough to go to uni out of that lot.

Hell just because you went to private school and university doesn't mean you are a genius by default.

I don't usually disclose to people I went to private school but that was nothing to do with IQ and everything to dispel any ideas I'm some bloke from Broadmeadows or St Albans where that "f*** da cops" attitude is inbred.

If you are so concerned about the quality of the police force then join rather than continuing to carry on like you have short man's syndrome as to how inept everyone else is. Otherwise get off your high horse.

Why would I do a job way below my pay grade with a bunch of power hungry inbreds?

Shit job, Shit pay, Shit conditions, Shit people. No thanks.