Blotto and unlicensed in Red Hill

By 13 December, 2013 32

A 45-year-old Red Hill man, holding a disqualified licence, has been caught drink-driving for the sixth time.

Around 11.30am yesterday (Thursday, 12 December), police were conducting mobile patrols in Red Hill when they were flagged down by a motorist who notified them of a white utility swerving and driving recklessly near the Red Hill shops.

Police located the vehicle and approached the driver, who underwent a roadside breath test.

The driver returned a positive screening test for alcohol and was taken to Woden Police Station where he undertook a breath analysis returning an Alcohol Concentration reading of 0.267.

The man had a disqualified licence and was a Special Driver, making him subject to a Blood Alcohol Concentration limit of 0.00.

He has been convicted five times for previous drink-driving offences, the most recent being in September this year.

Due to his level of intoxication and disqualified licence, the man was arrested and transported to the ACT Watch House.

He will appear in the ACT Magistrates Court this morning.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

Please login to post your comments
32 Responses to Blotto and unlicensed in Red Hill
#1
IrishPete12:49 pm, 13 Dec 13

Nice to see that he wasn’t released from the Watchhouse to stagger home with that blood alcohol level.

IP

#2
Pork Hunt4:19 pm, 13 Dec 13

Talk about living the life of Riley. Blew .267 when the sun was barely over the yard arm:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=The%20Sun%20is%20over%20the%20yardarm

#3
Deref5:45 pm, 13 Dec 13

Tch. No doubt he’ll receive a severe finger-wagging and be sent to bed without his supper.

#4
shauno9:43 pm, 13 Dec 13

Only way really to stop this is to confiscate the cars some people just cant help themselves so with no car they cant do it

#5
OpenYourMind11:53 pm, 13 Dec 13

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Crushing the repeat drink driving offender’s car is the best solution. How is it acceptable to crush a car owned by a bogan doing a burnout and not for idiots like Mr .267. At least Bogan Burnout hopefully has some control over his vehicle, at .267 I doubt that guy had any. It’s not fair on everyone else that we get to occurrence number 6.

And before anyone says what about his family’s need for a car; why punish them? Well if he’s driving round that drunk, he is likely to write-off the family’s car anyway.
What about if the car is borrowed? Well, I’m guessing repeat offenders are likely to be well known to anyone lending a car – the car could easily have been written off anyway.

Fix this problem now. We don’t need that kind of person f**king over someone else’s Christmas.

#6
CraigT8:18 am, 14 Dec 13

OpenYourMind said :

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Crushing the repeat drink driving offender’s car is the best solution. How is it acceptable to crush a car owned by a bogan doing a burnout and not for idiots like Mr .267. At least Bogan Burnout hopefully has some control over his vehicle, at .267 I doubt that guy had any. It’s not fair on everyone else that we get to occurrence number 6.

And before anyone says what about his family’s need for a car; why punish them? Well if he’s driving round that drunk, he is likely to write-off the family’s car anyway.
What about if the car is borrowed? Well, I’m guessing repeat offenders are likely to be well known to anyone lending a car – the car could easily have been written off anyway.

Fix this problem now. We don’t need that kind of person f**king over someone else’s Christmas.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where he did any damage to persons or property.

You are advocating he be punished on account of something he hasn’t actually done, right? Something he *might* do?

Nice world you want to live in.

I always said they pulled down the Berlin Wall way to quickly – people like this close-minded “openyourmind” idiot *really* need to experience a world run along the lines they suggest.

#7
BimboGeek9:17 am, 14 Dec 13

CraigT said :

OpenYourMind said :

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Crushing the repeat drink driving offender’s car is the best solution. How is it acceptable to crush a car owned by a bogan doing a burnout and not for idiots like Mr .267. At least Bogan Burnout hopefully has some control over his vehicle, at .267 I doubt that guy had any. It’s not fair on everyone else that we get to occurrence number 6.

And before anyone says what about his family’s need for a car; why punish them? Well if he’s driving round that drunk, he is likely to write-off the family’s car anyway.
What about if the car is borrowed? Well, I’m guessing repeat offenders are likely to be well known to anyone lending a car – the car could easily have been written off anyway.

Fix this problem now. We don’t need that kind of person f**king over someone else’s Christmas.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where he did any damage to persons or property.

You are advocating he be punished on account of something he hasn’t actually done, right? Something he *might* do?

Nice world you want to live in.

I always said they pulled down the Berlin Wall way to quickly – people like this close-minded “openyourmind” idiot *really* need to experience a world run along the lines they suggest.

Shutup drunky!

#8
farnarkler11:01 am, 14 Dec 13

CraigT this bloke has broken the law for a sixth time. What would you do, give him a stern talking to, do a Michael Clarke finger point at him, take some money of him and just let him go about his business?

#9
Primal11:15 am, 14 Dec 13

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. SELL the cars.

#10
IrishPete1:11 pm, 14 Dec 13

Primal said :

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. SELL the cars.

Worth a ttry (confiscating, crushing or selling) though he’ll probably only buy another, but he should be prohibited from registering it, and perhaps there could be some way of preventing the transfer of registration, so that sellers know they can’t sell to him?

0.267 is getting close to a fatal level of alcohol, for him as well as anyone unlucky enough to be in the way of his motorised vehicle.

IP

#11
milkman1:43 pm, 14 Dec 13

Primal said :

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. SELL the cars.

And use the proceeds to help victims of crime. Destroying valuable property is stupid.

#12
Deref1:51 pm, 14 Dec 13

CraigT said :

You are advocating he be punished on account of something he hasn’t actually done, right? Something he *might* do?

I think if you read it again you’ll find that OYM’s advocating punishing him for something that he did do.

#13
breda1:54 pm, 14 Dec 13

Bimbogeek, you uncaring sod, this person is the real victim here. Society is to blame. Just think of the guilt he may (or may not) feel if he killed someone while driving drunk for the nth time. It might even make him depressed.

#14
GardeningGirl1:56 pm, 14 Dec 13

milkman said :

Primal said :

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. SELL the cars.

And use the proceeds to help victims of crime. Destroying valuable property is stupid.

+1
+1

#15
shauno5:03 pm, 14 Dec 13

They can fit those ignition lock out devices where the person has to be below 0.05 or whatever the limit is before the car starts. Repeat offenders should have to fit those at there own expense.

#16
IrishPete5:58 pm, 14 Dec 13

shauno said :

They can fit those ignition lock out devices where the person has to be below 0.05 or whatever the limit is before the car starts. Repeat offenders should have to fit those at there own expense.

He has had his license suspended. He shouldn’t be driving, drunk or sober. Ignition interlocks might make some sense for first time offenders, who need to drive for or to get to work. This guy’s beyond that. And anyway, it doesn’t stop him buying another car.

IP

#17
BimboGeek8:54 pm, 14 Dec 13

Problem is Breda, even though you’re joking and I LOLd, there is a grain of truth there. I’m always pro rehabilitation through counselling, medication if indicated, education, whatever. But I wouldn’t let this lunatic keep his car any more than I’d offer anyone at all a free handgun. It can’t do him any good to be constantly sent out with opportunities to fsck up. Too much like that old saying about giving people enough rope to hang themselves, with a little extra, just to be sure.

#18
OpenYourMind10:23 pm, 14 Dec 13

CraigT said :

OpenYourMind said :

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Crushing the repeat drink driving offender’s car is the best solution. How is it acceptable to crush a car owned by a bogan doing a burnout and not for idiots like Mr .267. At least Bogan Burnout hopefully has some control over his vehicle, at .267 I doubt that guy had any. It’s not fair on everyone else that we get to occurrence number 6.

And before anyone says what about his family’s need for a car; why punish them? Well if he’s driving round that drunk, he is likely to write-off the family’s car anyway.
What about if the car is borrowed? Well, I’m guessing repeat offenders are likely to be well known to anyone lending a car – the car could easily have been written off anyway.

Fix this problem now. We don’t need that kind of person f**king over someone else’s Christmas.

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where he did any damage to persons or property.

You are advocating he be punished on account of something he hasn’t actually done, right? Something he *might* do?

Nice world you want to live in.

I always said they pulled down the Berlin Wall way to quickly – people like this close-minded “openyourmind” idiot *really* need to experience a world run along the lines they suggest.

Are you serious, CraigT. Is that what it takes before this guy can be severely punished. What, does he have to kill someone, is that enough? The guy is blind drunk, he’s swerving all over the road so badly people are reporting him and he’s been guilty of being drunk behind the wheel 5 times previously and doesn’t even have a licence to drive.

Crushing this fsckers car is letting him off lightly.

How bout I fire a gun at you (if I had one). I’m a lousy shot and probably won’t hit you and well, if there’s no damage to property or persons then what crime have I committed?

#19
Ben_Dover9:55 am, 15 Dec 13

CraigT said :

Sorry, I must have missed the bit where he did any damage to persons or property.

You are advocating he be punished on account of something he hasn’t actually done, right? Something he *might* do?

Nice world you want to live in.

I always said they pulled down the Berlin Wall way to quickly – people like this close-minded “openyourmind” idiot *really* need to experience a world run along the lines they suggest.

I only hope its you or yours he runs over, while blind drunk and unlicensed, in order to make him worth punishing in your estimation.

#20
BimboGeek9:56 am, 15 Dec 13

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

#21
CraigT4:41 pm, 15 Dec 13

farnarkler said :

CraigT this bloke has broken the law for a sixth time. What would you do, give him a stern talking to, do a Michael Clarke finger point at him, take some money of him and just let him go about his business?

Has he ever caused damage to property or injury to persons?

Because if not, he is being punished for nothing more serious than indulging in behaviour that control-freak wowsers disapprove of.

#22
CraigT4:42 pm, 15 Dec 13

Deref said :

CraigT said :

You are advocating he be punished on account of something he hasn’t actually done, right? Something he *might* do?

I think if you read it again you’ll find that OYM’s advocating punishing him for something that he did do.

He’s advocating this guy be punished for his personality and behaviour in the absence of any evidence that any damage has been caused to persons or property by that behaviour.

#23
CraigT4:44 pm, 15 Dec 13

Ben_Dover said :

I only hope its you or yours he runs over, while blind drunk and unlicensed, in order to make him worth punishing in your estimation.

Maybe the wowsers should have *you* locked up for wishing bad things to me and my loved ones, eh, BenDover, seeing as you are clearly E V I L ?

#24
CraigT7:38 pm, 15 Dec 13

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

#25
Tooks9:14 pm, 15 Dec 13

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

So you’re okay with any traffic offence as long as no damage or harm is caused?

#26
Pork Hunt9:53 pm, 15 Dec 13

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

You are f#*ked in the head mate.

#27
OpenYourMind10:32 pm, 15 Dec 13

Pork Hunt said :

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

You are f#*ked in the head mate.

I’m hoping you are correct or else CraigT is simply a massive stirrer. The alternative, that he believes what his writing to be true, is simply too horrible to contemplate.

#28
vet1118:41 am, 16 Dec 13

CraigT said :

BimboGeek said :

Yep this is also why hate speech is illegal and why crimes have “attempted” and “conspiracy” versions.

This guy comes more under criminal negligence if you like. It should be illegal for anyone to be this reckless as they may cause immense property damage, personal injury and whatever else. In civil cases you can only sue for damage that actually occurred due to negligence which means that if the victim was lucky, so is the negligent bastard. You can also sue under the same category for intentional recklessness in which case the victim may be awarded damages consistent with the outcome that could be expected even if all ends well. But if there’s no victim and no specific attack then the criminal law says “ok but we can’t tolerate you taking these risks. You can kill half a dozen people and cause a hundred grand in damages if you hit the wrong car” and the criminal is dealt with accordingly. And quite generously, as we have all seen!

And yet he in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills.

There appears to be no actual measurement made of *anybody’s* likelihood to cause damage or injury whilst driving a car (licensiing is haphazard at best), let alone any measurement of this particular guy’s level of negligence or recklessness whilst driving at whichever is his chosen level of blood alcohol content.

Err, do you know what reckless means CraigT? Intent is not a factor. And there’s no excuse for thinking that a serious accident or damage to people or property was not reasonably foreseeable.

I don’t understand how people like this are still on the road. I know that he shouldn’t have been (as he was unlicenced) but the fact remains that he was. That tends to indicate that there’s something very wrong with the system.

IMHO, given this is his sixth offence I would be hoping for a prison term of at least 6 months. I know, I know, wishful thinking.

#29
BimboGeek8:45 am, 16 Dec 13

” Alan’s 2nd Law of Newsgroups: Any sufficiently advanced troll is
  indistinguishable from a genuine kook.” – Alan Morgan.

Or see Nathan Poe’s law: Without a winking smiley or other context to indicate humour, any parody of an extreme opinion is indistinguishable from the real thing.

Four posts in a row is a good sign but hardly conclusive when it’s such a well known meme.

#30
Ben_Dover9:48 am, 16 Dec 13

CraigT said :

Ben_Dover said :

I only hope its you or yours he runs over, while blind drunk and unlicensed, in order to make him worth punishing in your estimation.

Maybe the wowsers should have *you* locked up for wishing bad things to me and my loved ones, eh, BenDover, seeing as you are clearly E V I L ?

But I haven’t. I only hoped that should he go out drunk driving again, that you are in front of his car, get mercilessly run down and spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair eating through a straw. After all; in all likelihood has no intention of committing any damage or injury, so the intention just isn’t there. Nor do we see any objective measure having been made of his driving skills. So, no harm in my wishing that then eh?

Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.