Police Wrap – 2 August

johnboy 2 August 2009 28

1. 47, on the grog and on P’s:

    A 47-year-old Kambah woman with a provisional licence will be summonsed to court to face a drink-driving charge after she was apprehended by police driving in Greenway last night (Saturday, August 1).

    Around 10.50pm, General Duties police on patrol in Tuggeranong performed a traffic stop on a yellow Holden Commodore travelling on Reed Street in Greenway.

    The female driver returned a positive result to a roadside screening test for alcohol. She was then conveyed to Tuggeranong Police Station, where she subsequently recorded a blood alcohol content (BAC) of 0.240, or 12 times her permitted level.

    A provisional driver is only permitted a BAC of 0.02.

    ACTP Traffic Operations’ Sergeant Erin Pobar said that drivers should be well aware that police are patrolling Canberra’s roads at all hours of the night and day, and that any motorist may be subjected to a roadside screening test for alcohol at any time.

    “The message, as always, is simple,” Sgt Pobar said. “Don’t drink and drive because you will be caught.”

2. Shootout on Northbourne!

    AFP Professional Standards is investigating the discharge of a police firearm by an officer during an incident involving the attempted interception of a stolen car on Northbourne Avenue yesterday (July 31) around 5pm.

    The incident began when a purple Holden Commodore had been reported stolen around 3.20pm from a residence in Gungahlin.

    Police in an unmarked car identified the stolen car stopped in traffic at traffic lights at the corner of Northbourne Ave and Macarthur St around 5.05pm. The police car was in an adjacent lane to the stolen car.

    Police activated their emergency lights, left their vehicle, approached the stolen car on foot and identified themselves in an attempt to apprehend the two males in the car. The stolen vehicle has then reversed suddenly and collided with the car behind it. An officer then drew his firearm and gave repeated directions to the driver to stop.

    The stolen car has then swerved onto the median strip and struck the police officer.

    At this time, the police officer’s firearm discharged once. This matter is now the subject of an AFP Professional Standards investigation which is standard practice when any firearm is discharged. The police officer was not seriously injured and did not require medical treatment. No other persons were injured.

    Other police vehicles then pursued the stolen car for a short time to Westgarth St, O’Connor, where the driver abandoned the car and fled on foot. He is still sought by police.

    A 29-year-old Hawker man was stopped and questioned by police in a nearby street a short time later. He was arrested and charged with riding in a stolen vehicle without consent. He has been bailed to appear on a later date.

    AFP’s Professional Standards is conducting an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the discharge of a firearm by an officer in the line of duty. Any persons who has any information in relation to the driver of the stolen vehicle or who witnessed the incident on Northbourne Ave and has not yet spoken to police is urged to contact Crime Stoppers.

If you can help police, contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or via the website at www.act.crimestoppers.com.au.


What's Your Opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
28 Responses to Police Wrap – 2 August
Filter
Order
Jim Jones Jim Jones 3:23 pm 03 Aug 09

RatsNest said :

p1 said :

The way I read it, it was a ND when he was hit by the car.

If I am correct it this, then the only issue is whether he was correct in drawing his weapon. It we are going to start insisting that out police be able to take a hit from a moving vehicle without involuntarily clenching their hand, it’ll get even harder to retain enough staff. Although the pre-employment tests might be fun to watch.

Sounds like a reasonable situation to draw the gun. But unlocking the safty on a busy road during peak hour?

I’m sure you had a good view from behind your desk, chief.

Special G Special G 1:34 pm 03 Aug 09

The safety on a glock is not pulling the trigger.

It could be argued that police who get shot, run over, stabbed etc probably would have been fine if they though move instead of draw.

RatsNest RatsNest 12:45 pm 03 Aug 09

p1 said :

The way I read it, it was a ND when he was hit by the car.

If I am correct it this, then the only issue is whether he was correct in drawing his weapon. It we are going to start insisting that out police be able to take a hit from a moving vehicle without involuntarily clenching their hand, it’ll get even harder to retain enough staff. Although the pre-employment tests might be fun to watch.

Sounds like a reasonable situation to draw the gun. But unlocking the safty on a busy road during peak hour?

Joshua Joshua 12:37 pm 03 Aug 09

ant said :

When I worked in a bank, we had a revolver in the safe, but word was, all we could do was throw it at robbers as no one was allowed to shoot it. Some one tried to kill this guy with a 1 tonne metal machine, and he’s in the stink for firing his gun?

Honestly why would any bank employee actually want to risk their life protecting the bank’s insured money. Have you seen how bank’s treat their staff and customers.

p1 p1 11:47 am 03 Aug 09

The way I read it, it was a ND when he was hit by the car.

If I am correct it this, then the only issue is whether he was correct in drawing his weapon. It we are going to start insisting that out police be able to take a hit from a moving vehicle without involuntarily clenching their hand, it’ll get even harder to retain enough staff. Although the pre-employment tests might be fun to watch.

Skidbladnir Skidbladnir 10:44 am 03 Aug 09

@Taco and the rest, re: investigations into a police shootout:
The instant a police officer feels threatened enough to pull a gun and point it in a public space (ie: outside a firing range), you have one incident, another results from pulling the trigger.

The first is a response to a legal duty of care towards a) staff and b) those affected by the action.
(ie: a) Why is an officer so threatened in the course of their duties that their was an exposure to serious risk, how can this risk be mitigated in future.

b) Why was the situation such a risk that escalating the situation by discharging a weapon into peak hour traffic was justified, regardless of hitting the intended target. (ie: Citizens shouldn’t be fearful of a) having a gun pointed at them, or of ricochets and being an injured bystander from incidental shootouts from their law enforcers, etc…)

The second is that a shooting incident occured which threatened the life of another person or persons, which needs to be investigated anyway.

Sit back and wait for a result before you scream, but I doubt we’ll hear more.

YouWhat YouWhat 10:34 am 03 Aug 09

Re the P-plater pulled over by the cops on Reed St in Greenway – not exactly marvellous detective work by the cops there, as the Tuggeranong police station is on the corner of Reed St. Good work in pulling her up, but they didn’t really have to go out of their way to find her. 🙂

The discharge of a police weapon and investigation: my understanding is also that is purely routine following the firing a weapon. Nothing should be read into it at all.

screaming banshee screaming banshee 10:13 am 03 Aug 09

taco said :

, though he may get into trouble for missing (he could have shot a bystander)

Lets see how well you can aim while you’re being hit by a car.

DJ DJ 10:10 am 03 Aug 09

Get in trouble for mising? So, if he had hit what he was aiming at (your logic) he would be ok? Why don’t we all wait for the actual facts….

taco taco 9:15 am 03 Aug 09

The officer isn’t necessarily in trouble, they made it clear it’s a routine investigation that happens in any circumstance a gun is discharged.

It sounds completely warranted in this case, though he may get into trouble for missing (he could have shot a bystander)

Danman Danman 8:58 am 03 Aug 09

I would have assumed professional standards would investigate any discharge of a weapon in a public area as a matter of accountability.

It does in no way insinuate that the officer involved was acting inappropriately.

andym andym 8:26 am 03 Aug 09

To me that reads as if the weapon was dischargd by accident when the officer was struck. ie as a result of being hit.

Granny Granny 2:59 am 03 Aug 09

ant said :

When I worked in a bank, we had a revolver in the safe, but word was, all we could do was throw it at robbers as no one was allowed to shoot it.

*lol* I hope you were properly trained in gun-throwing, but a sling-shot might have worked better.

Cletus 2 Cletus 2 2:21 am 03 Aug 09

Well we don’t really know the situation either. But when the theif decided to start using the car as a weapon and hit the car behind, it seems like good reason to draw the weapon. The fact they did then run onto the median strip and hit the bloke reinforces that. What if they swerved another way and killed a kid (or anyone) walking across the lights or on the footpath? I’m sure the officer is relieved nobody has been killed, but if the driver was killed, it seems to me like it would probably have been justified.

(I don’t know anything much about the laws or the particular situation :))

caf caf 10:35 pm 02 Aug 09

Well for flap’s sake, if the cop can’t try to shoot the car trying to kill him, that is just bloody stupid.

Sure, but you do have to admit it’s a bit concerning to have guns fired in the middle of peak hour northbourne avenue traffic. Not sure he had any alternative though.

ant ant 10:15 pm 02 Aug 09

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Self-defense. The cop drew on us. We feared for their lives. It was him or us. The shot fired proves the officer was willing to use deadly force. Also, we had troubled childhoods.

Don’t give them ideas! You’ll hear this defence in court, guaranteed.

ant ant 10:14 pm 02 Aug 09

Well for flap’s sake, if the cop can’t try to shoot the car trying to kill him, that is just bloody stupid. When I worked in a bank, we had a revolver in the safe, but word was, all we could do was throw it at robbers as no one was allowed to shoot it. Some one tried to kill this guy with a 1 tonne metal machine, and he’s in the stink for firing his gun?

babyface babyface 9:57 pm 02 Aug 09

Addison said :

shoulda shot the bloody car thief. one less crim to worry about.

why dont you take your dumb reactionary opinion over to america where they might appreciate it

Silentforce Silentforce 8:37 pm 02 Aug 09

Now THAT’S the Cop that should have been pursuing the stolen car in London Circuit and East Row when…

DJ DJ 8:30 pm 02 Aug 09

AndyC said :

He was arrested and charged with riding in a stolen vehicle without consent.

This inteerests me. Who’s consent needs to be given to ride in a stolen vehicle? I’m sure the gentleman arrested gave his consent to ride in the vehicle. And if it’s the owners consent that needs to be given to ride in their stolen vehicle, then I guess the vehicle isn’t stolen….

Ummm, the owner….

How is it not stolen?

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top

Search across the site