Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Daily flights from Canberra
to Singapore and the world

Don’t have a domestic in your grow house

By johnboy 24 May 2011 197

ACT Policing has arrested and charged a 24-year-old Griffith man after finding a quantity of cannabis plants in his house last night (Monday, May 23).

Police were called to the house around 9pm after reports of a possible disturbance. At the house, police spoke to the man who advised that he was the only person in the house.

Officers entered the house and located a hydroponic system and nine large cannabis plants growing in a bedroom.

The resident, who until that time had been assisting police with their investigation, then lunged at an officer with a syringe. The man was escorted from the house where a violent scuffle took place with the man attempting to kick and head-butt officers.

The man was conveyed to the ACT Watch House and will face the ACT Magistrates Court later today after being charged with cultivating a trafficable quantity of cannabis for sale, and obstructing a territory public official (knowingly).

[Courtesy ACT Policing]

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
197 Responses to
Don’t have a domestic in your grow house
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
10
shadow boxer 4:13 pm 30 May 11

Buzz said Your right, I did. But only out of a good natured heart. I was looking out for the greater community.

That is so stupid it would be funny if this wasn’t such a sad thread picking on a family that has grave fears for their sons and brothers survival.

Just concede the police had options that they don’t appear to have explored, the lad ultimately needed to be charged and let it rest.

Chop71 3:47 pm 30 May 11

Violet,

As much as I have been sympathetic to your cause …….
This is a fight you are not going to win on an internet forum. Rather than preaching to people you will never know or meet, why not spend some time with your brother.

Ranting and raving on here just makes you sound like a child having a tantrum who is determined to have the last say.

During this time of need your time and resources are better spent elsewhere.

buzz819 3:42 pm 30 May 11

Yep and your wonder Captain wished my son dead. There was also another member (Buzz I think) who commented that he should be put down – yet I am the one of moral bankruptcy? Would an upstanding member of our armed forces EVER break a law, wish death or injury upon another or god forbid have a psychosis? Hell yes.

Your right, I did. But only out of a good natured heart. I was looking out for the greater community.

I understand your frustration, but taking it out on the Police is the wrong way to do it. Take it out on ACT Mental Health, their the ones that can’t be bothered or don’t have the resources to properly care for people.

One thing you have to wonder is, if this was to happen in NSW what would happen? If this was to happen in Vic, what would happen? There would be the same reaction to the original call by Police, he would be put in front of a magistrate and put in a Mental Health ward until they can find the right drugs to balance him out or turn him into a vegetable.

There’s no point you u getting upset with everyone’s opinion’s here, it is their opinions, they have different one’s to you, they also have the benefit of not having an emotional connection to the bloke who it is about.

Whats the point of you continuing this thread? You’re just getting yourself worked up, with no benefit, if it is your outlet and makes you feel a little better to talk about it, relatively annomously, then sure I understand that, but maybe you should find someone to really talk to about this?

Violet68 3:12 pm 30 May 11

creative_canberran said :

Violet68 said :

Unfortunately, internal/external complaints processes & civil law (if you have the money) are, for the most part, the only options available when a Statutory authority does something wrong. The news report says negligence was proven. You have previously quoted a Police Media Release as being the truth so what is different here?

Big difference:

Media release = primary source (what is said)
News report – secondary source (reporting and condensing what was said)

Kind of basic academic research 101 there… to invoke your earlier arrogant quip.

Also I would like to say how absolutely disgusting it was of you to wish, to actually wish, that a colleague of Capt RAAF, a member of our armed forces and a member of our society, should have PTSD. Absolutely low and abhorrent behaviour and again indicative of the sociopathic defensive mechanisms I spoke of earlier that you exhibit.
I for one hope none of Capt RAAF’s colleagues in the RAAF, past, present or future, suffer from PTSD, for they have done nothing wrong and nothing that would deserve such a thing.

It is a person of corrupt judgement and moral bankruptcy who would wish harm on another.

Yep and your wonder Captain wished my son dead. There was also another member (Buzz I think) who commented that he should be put down – yet I am the one of moral bankruptcy? Would an upstanding member of our armed forces EVER break a law, wish death or injury upon another or god forbid have a psychosis? Hell yes.

Your grandiose delusions are getting scary and stink of misplaced superiority – especially to someone like me who believes all members of society are of equal value and have a place in this world.

BTW – A media release is a hastily written, condensed version of an event presented to or by the “media” designed to “pull people’s interest into a story” which it obviously did for you.

PS. I’m glad my previous “quip” about your seondary school quotations on civil law annoyed you so much. Peace Out

creative_canberran said :

She may have though attracted a more respectful tone had she shown the respect due for the community in the first place.

Do you read Captain RAAF(sic)’s posts?????

creative_canberran 2:38 pm 30 May 11

shadow boxer said :

So how would you judge someone who chose to publicly pick a fight with the mother of a mentally ill young man who has just been arrested after a phychotic episode ?

She chose to put forward her views on a public forum, views I might add that from the outset attack a broad selection of people in the community. Her views are not absolved from reasonable critique by virtue of her relationship with the offender. She may have though attracted a more respectful tone had she shown the respect due for the community in the first place.

shadow boxer said :

creative_canberran said :

Violet68 said :

Unfortunately, internal/external complaints processes & civil law (if you have the money) are, for the most part, the only options available when a Statutory authority does something wrong. The news report says negligence was proven. You have previously quoted a Police Media Release as being the truth so what is different here?

Big difference:

Media release = primary source (what is said)
News report – secondary source (reporting and condensing what was said)

Kind of basic academic research 101 there… to invoke your earlier arrogant quip.

Also I would like to say how absolutely disgusting it was of you to wish, to actually wish, that a colleague of Capt RAAF, a member of our armed forces and a member of our society, should have PTSD. Absolutely low and abhorrent behaviour and again indicative of the sociopathic defensive mechanisms I spoke of earlier that you exhibit.
I for one hope none of Capt RAAF’s colleagues in the RAAF, past, present or future, suffer from PTSD, for they have done nothing wrong and nothing that would deserve such a thing.

It is a person of corrupt judgement and moral bankruptcy who would wish harm on another.

So how would you judge someone who chose to publicly pick a fight with the mother of a mentally ill young man who has just been arrested after a phychotic episode ?

+ 1 dog act.

shadow boxer 1:37 pm 30 May 11

creative_canberran said :

Violet68 said :

Unfortunately, internal/external complaints processes & civil law (if you have the money) are, for the most part, the only options available when a Statutory authority does something wrong. The news report says negligence was proven. You have previously quoted a Police Media Release as being the truth so what is different here?

Big difference:

Media release = primary source (what is said)
News report – secondary source (reporting and condensing what was said)

Kind of basic academic research 101 there… to invoke your earlier arrogant quip.

Also I would like to say how absolutely disgusting it was of you to wish, to actually wish, that a colleague of Capt RAAF, a member of our armed forces and a member of our society, should have PTSD. Absolutely low and abhorrent behaviour and again indicative of the sociopathic defensive mechanisms I spoke of earlier that you exhibit.
I for one hope none of Capt RAAF’s colleagues in the RAAF, past, present or future, suffer from PTSD, for they have done nothing wrong and nothing that would deserve such a thing.

It is a person of corrupt judgement and moral bankruptcy who would wish harm on another.

So how would you judge someone who chose to publicly pick a fight with the mother of a mentally ill young man who has just been arrested after a phychotic episode ?

creative_canberran 1:28 pm 30 May 11

Violet68 said :

Unfortunately, internal/external complaints processes & civil law (if you have the money) are, for the most part, the only options available when a Statutory authority does something wrong. The news report says negligence was proven. You have previously quoted a Police Media Release as being the truth so what is different here?

Big difference:

Media release = primary source (what is said)
News report – secondary source (reporting and condensing what was said)

Kind of basic academic research 101 there… to invoke your earlier arrogant quip.

Also I would like to say how absolutely disgusting it was of you to wish, to actually wish, that a colleague of Capt RAAF, a member of our armed forces and a member of our society, should have PTSD. Absolutely low and abhorrent behaviour and again indicative of the sociopathic defensive mechanisms I spoke of earlier that you exhibit.
I for one hope none of Capt RAAF’s colleagues in the RAAF, past, present or future, suffer from PTSD, for they have done nothing wrong and nothing that would deserve such a thing.

It is a person of corrupt judgement and moral bankruptcy who would wish harm on another.

Violet68 12:54 pm 30 May 11

The conclusions you just jumped to are paranoid, judgmental and irrelevant.

A lot of anger, defenciveness and blame projection in your response. Not a good sign.

Three parties were found to have not met the standard of care required. It is dishonest of you to say they have been “proven negligent” until such time as the court determines the percentages.

And given that you don’t care about the difference between criminal and civil, whatever credibility you had left just disintegrated.

Yep, I find ignorance and comments about shooting someone I love aggravating.

Unfortunately, internal/external complaints processes & civil law (if you have the money) are, for the most part, the only options available when a Statutory authority does something wrong. The news report says negligence was proven. You have previously quoted a Police Media Release as being the truth so what is different here?

Anyway, I have better things to do and prefer to live my life through experience rather than what I can quote out of text books. As for blame and projection, you’ve done a pretty good job at that yourself. Cheers

creative_canberran 9:58 am 30 May 11

Violet68 said :

You were clearly trying to label the Police as guilty parties or at least make such an inference.

Yes indeed I was. There were 3 parties who were proven to be negligent in this case. I don’t give a toss whether it was civil or criminal…..the case was proven by law.

However, I directed the comment at Captain RAAF as he had earlier raised the subject of putting a bullet in my son’s head. This news story has a similar thread although I think the bullet was in the neck. A Police Officer shot the bloke whilst he was having a psychosis. Negligence has been proven and he will be compensated for it. Again, I am simply adding different perspectives to the discussion. Something that seems to be unacceptable to you.

If you had bothered to read my response to my son’s neighbour, you would realise that I do not despise the general public or society in general. I work within the system and with people on a daily basis in a social welfare setting – AND I speak from experience.

The conclusions you just jumped to are paranoid, judgmental and irrelevant.

A lot of anger, defenciveness and blame projection in your response. Not a good sign.

Three parties were found to have not met the standard of care required. It is dishonest of you to say they have been “proven negligent” until such time as the court determines the percentages.

And given that you don’t care about the difference between criminal and civil, whatever credibility you had left just disintegrated.

Violet68 8:32 am 30 May 11

You were clearly trying to label the Police as guilty parties or at least make such an inference.

Yes indeed I was. There were 3 parties who were proven to be negligent in this case. I don’t give a toss whether it was civil or criminal…..the case was proven by law.

However, I directed the comment at Captain RAAF as he had earlier raised the subject of putting a bullet in my son’s head. This news story has a similar thread although I think the bullet was in the neck. A Police Officer shot the bloke whilst he was having a psychosis. Negligence has been proven and he will be compensated for it. Again, I am simply adding different perspectives to the discussion. Something that seems to be unacceptable to you.

If you had bothered to read my response to my son’s neighbour, you would realise that I do not despise the general public or society in general. I work within the system and with people on a daily basis in a social welfare setting – AND I speak from experience.

The conclusions you just jumped to are paranoid, judgmental and irrelevant.

creative_canberran 11:32 pm 29 May 11

Violet68 said :

I do apologise…..I assumed the term “sue” would explain this story relates to civil law rather than criminal. And yeah, we all do the swimming at the beach and hitting head on sand bar case scenario in law 101…..yawn.

You were clearly trying to label the Police as guilty parties or at least make such an inference. You have all along been firm in your stand that Police, the public (or “nosy fkrs” as you call the public) and just about anyone but the individual is to blame. This is just another example in what could well be described as an pathological dislike of Police and perhaps society in general. The Police are brutes, the nosy public “fkrs” and everyone should just keep away for only the individual knows best.

It was clear what you were trying to do, again demonstrating the blame projection that is a part of those defensive mechanisms phycologists have identified in patients.

Violet68 10:36 pm 29 May 11

I do apologise…..I assumed the term “sue” would explain this story relates to civil law rather than criminal. And yeah, we all do the swimming at the beach and hitting head on sand bar case scenario in law 101…..yawn.

creative_canberran 10:02 pm 29 May 11

Violet68 said :

Yesterday, he received the answer he had been waiting more than two years to hear; negligence on all three counts.

Supreme Court Judge Hilary Penfold found all three defendants had been negligent, saying that each had breached their duty of care and caused Mr Crowley’s injuries”.

What violet forgot to mention was this was a civil suit, dealing only with compensation liability. It was NOT a criminal matter and the officers and authorities involved are not in anyway guilty for what occurred.

Civil law requires only that a case be established on the balance of probability. It is also possible under civil law to establish the liability of a party for in this case negligence, but for the effect of that liability to be partially or completely negated by the plaintiff’s own actions. The damages to be awarded are still being determined. The Plaintiff’s state may see this reduced by a percentage or in total.

I should also point out that it is in civil law that people have been able to earn million dollar pay outs for jumping into water at the beach, holding councils liable for not pointing out the obvious.

Violet68 9:17 pm 29 May 11

People like Violet can’t be reasoned with; she is right, everyone else is wrong. Pointless in arguing with her as it will just result in the same arguments repeated on both sides.

My comments have been reasonable. I have presented research to support my comments which has not been disputed or refuted. I have pointed out that the Police had alternatives. In fact there is a “standard” procedure for dealing with this type of situation. Standards don’t have to be “invoked” (CC). They are “standards” which are at the very minimum a guideline to be adhered to in professional practice. People “like me” didn’t write those standards and I’m sure they were created out of best practice reviews rather than on the premise of who is right or wrong.

Tooks 7:09 pm 29 May 11

It is quite apparent that you have no real knowledge of police powers of entry to a premises, their data systems or procedures. Quite a number of assumptions appear to have been made by you.

She’s made that abundantly clear. No idea about police powers of entry, powers of arrest etc. Not to mention her contempt for “nosy fuckers” (sometimes known as good samaritans) and police. People like Violet can’t be reasoned with; she is right, everyone else is wrong. Pointless in arguing with her as it will just result in the same arguments repeated on both sides.

10

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