Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Buying off the plan?
View our developments

Blotto and unlicensed in Red Hill

By johnboy 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]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
32 Responses to
Blotto and unlicensed in Red Hill
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
DUG 9:52 am 18 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.

You don’t need to crush cars! Just harsher penalties for repeat offenders! Jail after the 3rd offence!

Im not a fan of the threat of car crushing, its just another way to manipulate and control the community into conformity… it wont be long before off road vehicles are crushed if they are found driving on an unsealed road! That’s the way the Canberra government is playing it… And I enjoy my 4×4 driving.

dpm 10:03 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.

Is that you Refshauge??YOu should be working on clearing the backlog, not chatting to people on RA! hahaha!

Ben_Dover 9:48 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?

BimboGeek 8:45 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.

vet111 8:41 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.

OpenYourMind 10:32 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.

Pork Hunt 9:53 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.

Tooks 9:14 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?

CraigT 7:38 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.

CraigT 4:44 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 ?

CraigT 4:42 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.

CraigT 4:41 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.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site