Guess what colour the Commodore in the police pursuit was?

johnboy 11 August 2012 46

ACT Policing has arrested a 24-year-old Dunlop man following a vehicle pursuit in Belconnen yesterday afternoon (Friday, August 10).

Around 2.20pm Belconnen Patrol members were conducting a mobile patrol along Kuringa Drive when they saw a white Holden Commodore travelling at excessive speed.

Police activated their lights and sirens attempting a traffic stop on the vehicle, however the vehicle failed to stop and a pursuit commenced.

The pursuit travelled past several Belconnen suburbs before being terminated by the Belconnen Patrol.

A short time later members of the public flagged down another patrol and advised a vehicle, matching the description of the car involved in the pursuit, had collided with a wooden retaining wall in their front yard. The car sustained some minor damage before driving off.

The vehicle, which is suspected to be stolen, was located several streets away with a flat tyre.

A man matching the description of the driver was located a short distance away. He had the keys to the car in his possession and was a disqualified driver.

A maximum speed of 160 km/h was reached during the pursuit which lasted for 1 minute and 19 seconds.

The man was charged with driving while disqualified and several traffic offences. He received Watch House bail to appear in the ACT Magistrates Court on Tuesday, August 21 2012.

[Courtesy ACT Policing]


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
46 Responses to Guess what colour the Commodore in the police pursuit was?
Filter
Order
screaming banshee screaming banshee 11:07 am 13 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

screaming banshee said :

HenryBG said :

Driving a car around suburban roads at 160km/h is attempted murder.

What about driving a car around suburban roads blind drunk Henry, should that driver be shot too?

Probably, although you appear to be,

a/ changing the subject
and,
b/ somewhat confused between the concepts of “exceeding a proscribed BAC” and “being blind drunk”.

But I don’t generally come on here expecting too much evidence of intelligent life.

So somewhere between not under the influence of alcohol at all and being blind drunk there is a point at which it becomes unacceptable to Henry, geez if only there was some sort of body that represented the community as a whole that could set some sort of level in that range as being the unacceptable level.

Heck, I’d reckon they could even base is on some of that there science stuff you read about in all the papers.

VYBerlinaV8_is_back VYBerlinaV8_is_back 9:23 am 13 Aug 12

screaming banshee said :

astrojax said :

i blame society; and white car paint manufacturers…

(back in my day it was white kingswoods, but i’m an old fart…)

I’d be pretty certain it was brown kingswoods….or the more upmarket Premier

I had a red kingswood wagon once. 160km/h in that thing was the stuff dreams were made of (as in, you might approach 160km/h if you pushed it off a very tall cliff).

HenryBG HenryBG 7:28 am 13 Aug 12

screaming banshee said :

HenryBG said :

Driving a car around suburban roads at 160km/h is attempted murder.

What about driving a car around suburban roads blind drunk Henry, should that driver be shot too?

Probably, although you appear to be,

a/ changing the subject
and,
b/ somewhat confused between the concepts of “exceeding a proscribed BAC” and “being blind drunk”.

But I don’t generally come on here expecting too much evidence of intelligent life.

bigfeet bigfeet 6:52 am 13 Aug 12

Deckard said :

I think you’ll find Henry’s mind is full of contradictions…

It’s quite amazing to watch isn’t it? Every idea or theory he brings out is almost always directly contradicted by another one of his thoughts.

Sometimes he even argues against himself in the same thread.

It’s a toss-up between him and Mr G as to who is the resident nutter here.

KB1971 KB1971 6:46 am 13 Aug 12

KeenGolfer said :

KB1971 said :

Last I saw, doing 160km/h wasnt a criminal offence.

You didn’t check very well. It’s called drive manner dangerous/reckless. Max 1yr imprisonment and/or $11k fine.

According to this: http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/sl/2005-11/current/pdf/2005-11.pdf its 6 points & then $1811 fine.

When you then run from the coppers a criminal offence is added but the speeding act in itself is not a criminal offence. I would definately be interested to see if anyone who was caught at that speed who pulled over when instructed was actually charged with anything else.

Disclaimer: I did not look further into that document as I did not have time this morning.

screaming banshee screaming banshee 2:00 am 13 Aug 12

astrojax said :

i blame society; and white car paint manufacturers…

(back in my day it was white kingswoods, but i’m an old fart…)

I’d be pretty certain it was brown kingswoods….or the more upmarket Premier

Deckard Deckard 9:37 pm 12 Aug 12

screaming banshee said :

HenryBG said :

Driving a car around suburban roads at 160km/h is attempted murder.

What about driving a car around suburban roads blind drunk Henry, should that driver be shot too?

I think you’ll find Henry’s mind is full of contradictions…

bundah bundah 9:21 pm 12 Aug 12

KeenGolfer said :

KB1971 said :

Last I saw, doing 160km/h wasnt a criminal offence.

You didn’t check very well. It’s called drive manner dangerous/reckless. Max 1yr imprisonment and/or $11k fine.

Only one year that’s interesting given in NSW and SA for example it’s a max of 3 years for first offence and 5 years for aggravated offence.

PrinceOfAles PrinceOfAles 9:16 pm 12 Aug 12

tg_703 said :

Perhaps something similar to NSWs’ ‘Skye Law’ ought to be introduced here in the ACT…..or do we need a tragedy to occur first, as it did in NSW?

We`ve had more than enough tragedies here. 3 in the last 7 years or so should be more than enough to prove to the law makers that tougher action is required.

astrojax astrojax 8:53 pm 12 Aug 12

i blame society; and white car paint manufacturers…

(back in my day it was white kingswoods, but i’m an old fart…)

tg_703 tg_703 8:18 pm 12 Aug 12

Perhaps something similar to NSWs’ ‘Skye Law’ ought to be introduced here in the ACT…..or do we need a tragedy to occur first, as it did in NSW?

KeenGolfer KeenGolfer 7:34 pm 12 Aug 12

KB1971 said :

Last I saw, doing 160km/h wasnt a criminal offence.

You didn’t check very well. It’s called drive manner dangerous/reckless. Max 1yr imprisonment and/or $11k fine.

screaming banshee screaming banshee 5:53 pm 12 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

Driving a car around suburban roads at 160km/h is attempted murder.

What about driving a car around suburban roads blind drunk Henry, should that driver be shot too?

KB1971 KB1971 5:35 pm 12 Aug 12

HenryBG said :

KB1971 said :

Mr Gillespie said :

KB1971 said :

farnarkler said :

FFS why can’t we have the death penalty for oxygen thieves like this. A .22 calibre bullet is so much cheaper than court cases and jailtime.

Can you find Bill & Ted, jump into their time machine & go back to the century you came from?

Why do you need a time machine to get proper justice?

Why am I not surprised you piped up?

So, you think that someone who has comitted a minor crime needs to be shot?

Skewed sense of punishment much?

It’s not a minor crime.

Driving a car around suburban roads at 160km/h is attempted murder.

I fully agree that he should be shot. End of problem.

Are you Mr Gillespie’s other personality?

Last I saw, doing 160km/h wasnt a criminal offence.

Pork Hunt Pork Hunt 4:01 pm 12 Aug 12

Felix the Cat said :

farnarkler said :

KB1971 people like you are the reason we have people who commit crimes like this. This individual was already a disqualified driver, therefore had previously commited a crime. The fact that he tried to evade the police is evidence of his blatant disregard for the law.

I wonder how you would feel if, during his 160km/h jaunt, he’d rounded a corner and hit and killed one of your relatives. Would you feel so lenient then? I really despise do-gooders like you who think we should give scum like this playstations and soothing counselling sessions, etc.

But he DIDN’T round the corner and hit or kill anyone. You can’t go around punishing people for actions/crimes they didn’t commit. Sue the guy was breaking the law by speeding, evading the police, driving while disqualified and numerous other offences but he didn’t injure or kill anyone. The potential was there of course but he didn’t do it. It’s like charging someone for armed robbery just because they own a gun.

Or being a prostitute because they have a fanny…

HenryBG HenryBG 3:57 pm 12 Aug 12

KB1971 said :

Mr Gillespie said :

KB1971 said :

farnarkler said :

FFS why can’t we have the death penalty for oxygen thieves like this. A .22 calibre bullet is so much cheaper than court cases and jailtime.

Can you find Bill & Ted, jump into their time machine & go back to the century you came from?

Why do you need a time machine to get proper justice?

Why am I not surprised you piped up?

So, you think that someone who has comitted a minor crime needs to be shot?

Skewed sense of punishment much?

It’s not a minor crime.

Driving a car around suburban roads at 160km/h is attempted murder.

I fully agree that he should be shot. End of problem.

Spiral Spiral 3:46 pm 12 Aug 12

Felix the Cat said :

It’s like charging someone for armed robbery just because they own a gun.

Ummm no.

It is like firing a gun in the suburbs. Which is against the law.

Your argument that no-one was hurt would be like a shooter who had lost his licence going into his backyard and shooting. If he doesn’t hurt anyone there apparently wouldn’t be a real crime and he shouldn’t be punished for what might happen.

Felix the Cat Felix the Cat 2:51 pm 12 Aug 12

farnarkler said :

KB1971 people like you are the reason we have people who commit crimes like this. This individual was already a disqualified driver, therefore had previously commited a crime. The fact that he tried to evade the police is evidence of his blatant disregard for the law.

I wonder how you would feel if, during his 160km/h jaunt, he’d rounded a corner and hit and killed one of your relatives. Would you feel so lenient then? I really despise do-gooders like you who think we should give scum like this playstations and soothing counselling sessions, etc.

But he DIDN’T round the corner and hit or kill anyone. You can’t go around punishing people for actions/crimes they didn’t commit. Sue the guy was breaking the law by speeding, evading the police, driving while disqualified and numerous other offences but he didn’t injure or kill anyone. The potential was there of course but he didn’t do it. It’s like charging someone for armed robbery just because they own a gun.

KB1971 KB1971 1:14 pm 12 Aug 12

farnarkler said :

KB1971 your redneck comment was weak as piss but your latest post is legitimate. Ok I might have been a bit over the top with wanting this individual shot, HOWEVER, you must agree that we are sick, sick, sick of hearing about scum, who think the law doesn’t apply to them commit crime, go to court, do a crocodile tear job about how bad their lives have been and get off with a suspended sentence from a weaker than piss judiciary and then go and commit more crime.

I’ll bet this individual won’t give a flying f*ck about the pathetic punishment he’ll receive. I’ll bet he’ll laugh about it over a case of Tooheys with his mates.

How about the Singaporean punishment of caning? Not lethal but certainly hurts like f*ck! My real point is that if the punishment is severe enough, a person may think twice before commiting a crime.

Your comment got the contempt it deserved.

You made a massive & incorrect assumption that I was a civil libitarian who thinking no one should be punished.

Realistically, we dont live in a society that deals in harsh punishments, that is in the past unless you live in Afganistan where a wife can be shot for suspected adultery. She was judged and executed not by a jury of her peers but her supressors. What happened to the bloke that was involved? Nothing.

That is a massive injustice that makes me cranky rather than some excuse for birth control being a dick in front of the coppers.

The reality is, we dont know this blokes background. He might not be a s*** stain on soiciety, just a bloke going through a rough patch. Then again he may be.

Yep, petty crime is a PITA but that is all it is, petty crime.

KB1971 KB1971 12:58 pm 12 Aug 12

Antagonist said :

[

You’ve got quite a fanclub going, KB. +1 … mostly because there was no mention of cyclists.

Someone has to take the idiots on when they make idiodic comments …….

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site