Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Skilled legal advice with
accessible & personal attention

Teen muggers in Dickson

By johnboy - 19 March 2013 59

ACT Policing is seeking witnesses to an aggravated robbery that occurred in Dickson yesterday (Monday, 18 March).

Around 9.45pm a 33-year-old man was walking home from the Dickson Shops to his address in Hackett when he observed three young men who were allegedly harassing a person ahead of him on the path.

Moments later the 33-year-old man was approached by the same three young men and was pushed in the chest. Several threats were made before the men fled the area with a small sum of cash.

The first offender is described as approximately 13 years of age, light skinned, short brown curly hair and had crooked teeth. He was wearing a grey jumper and had a backpack.

The second boy is described as approximately 15-16 years of age, 168cm tall, light brown skin with a chubby face.

The third is described as approximately 15-16 years of age, 165cm tall, dark skin, with curly black hair. He was also holding a stick in his hand.

Police would like to speak to a jogger who may have been in the area during the incident as well as the person who was first harassed by the juveniles.

Anyone who may have been in the area at the time and can assist police with their investigation is urged to contact Crime Stoppers on 1800 333 000 or at www.act.crimestoppers.com.au. Information can be provided anonymously.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
59 Responses to
Teen muggers in Dickson
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
Sandman 9:56 pm 22 Mar 13

Ghettosmurf87 said :

There is no reduction in the amount of punishment being handed out when someone gets longer to pay their fine, though there is a lessening of the impacton their lives.

Surely the point of the monetary fine is to have an impact on the life of the perpetrator, therefore reducing that impact on their lives reduces the amount of punishment the perpetrator feels, even though the numerical dollar value remains unchanged.

Ben_Dover 7:58 pm 22 Mar 13

Aaaaah.

It was all a joke and it didn’t mean anything.

Well done. For a second I almost mistook you for a frothing at the mouth rabid wingnut with a visceral hatred for anyone who wants to reduce punitive measures.

But it was obviously just a joke.

Very funny

Yes, just a joke Jim. I didn’t really think even someone as crim friendly as Simon “Get out of jail free” Corbell would go for this idea; “if the thugs are poor/disadvantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty.

It was a play on this; ““The scheme will include options to pay penalties in instalments, or undertake community work or social development programs in place of payment,” said Mr Corbell.

I’m sorry you didn’t get the intended humour, I’ll try to simplify for you next time.

Not getting the joke must have hurt you for you to go to the extent of calling me a; “frothing at the mouth rabid wingnut with a visceral hatred for anyone who wants to reduce punitive measures.

Either that or you are exactly the sort of thing which you accuse me of, however with a left-wing bent.

I won’t ask you to apologise though.

Jim Jones 3:31 pm 22 Mar 13

Ben_Dover said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Let’s break this down, you are equating more time to pay fines (as suggested by “Corbells new lunatic ideas”) for people who are poor/disadvantaged with the concept of punishment being reduced (less time in jail/litter picking duty) should a criminal be poor/disadvantaged.

I made a joke about a joke idea, yes.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

There is no reduction in the amount of punishment being handed out when someone gets longer to pay their fine, though there is a lessening of the impacton their lives.

Never said there was any reduction, that is all in your mind..

Ghettosmurf87 said :

The equivalent to this, should “Corbells new lunatic ideas” be applied to criminal sentences as well as to parking infringements, would be weekend detention (for jail terms) or an extention of the time someone has to complete their community service (litter picking duty), rather than an actual reduction in the amount of the sentence.

Yes, that is your equivalence, suggested by you. It has nothing to do with anything I have written.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Therefore it is rather disingenuous to lump a reduction in something (jail time/community service) with a larger period to complete a punishment unless you believe the two are equivalent. Why else would you suggest that Corbell’s proposal could see criminals have their sentences reduced?

I never did any such thing, didn’t lump anything together, made no equivalence, never even suggested that it could see people having their sentences reduced.
It’s all in your fevered imagination.
I merely made light of Corbell’s latest hair brained scheme.

Remedial reading classes are available.

Aaaaah.

It was all a joke and it didn’t mean anything.

Well done. For a second I almost mistook you for a frothing at the mouth rabid wingnut with a visceral hatred for anyone who wants to reduce punitive measures.

But it was obviously just a joke.

Very funny.

bundah 2:59 pm 22 Mar 13

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

You’re absolutely spot on there Ben,Lord Corbell is an absolute genius and never short of a brilliant idea!

Ben_Dover 2:43 pm 22 Mar 13

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Let’s break this down, you are equating more time to pay fines (as suggested by “Corbells new lunatic ideas”) for people who are poor/disadvantaged with the concept of punishment being reduced (less time in jail/litter picking duty) should a criminal be poor/disadvantaged.

I made a joke about a joke idea, yes.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

There is no reduction in the amount of punishment being handed out when someone gets longer to pay their fine, though there is a lessening of the impacton their lives.

Never said there was any reduction, that is all in your mind..

Ghettosmurf87 said :

The equivalent to this, should “Corbells new lunatic ideas” be applied to criminal sentences as well as to parking infringements, would be weekend detention (for jail terms) or an extention of the time someone has to complete their community service (litter picking duty), rather than an actual reduction in the amount of the sentence.

Yes, that is your equivalence, suggested by you. It has nothing to do with anything I have written.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Therefore it is rather disingenuous to lump a reduction in something (jail time/community service) with a larger period to complete a punishment unless you believe the two are equivalent. Why else would you suggest that Corbell’s proposal could see criminals have their sentences reduced?

I never did any such thing, didn’t lump anything together, made no equivalence, never even suggested that it could see people having their sentences reduced.
It’s all in your fevered imagination.
I merely made light of Corbell’s latest hair brained scheme.

Remedial reading classes are available.

Ghettosmurf87 2:27 pm 22 Mar 13

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Let’s break this down, you are equating more time to pay fines (as suggested by “Corbells new lunatic ideas”) for people who are poor/disadvantaged with the concept of punishment being reduced (less time in jail/litter picking duty) should a criminal be poor/disadvantaged.

There is no reduction in the amount of punishment being handed out when someone gets longer to pay their fine, though there is a lessening of the impacton their lives.

The equivalent to this, should “Corbells new lunatic ideas” be applied to criminal sentences as well as to parking infringements, would be weekend detention (for jail terms) or an extention of the time someone has to complete their community service (litter picking duty), rather than an actual reduction in the amount of the sentence.

Therefore it is rather disingenuous to lump a reduction in something (jail time/community service) with a larger period to complete a punishment unless you believe the two are equivalent. Why else would you suggest that Corbell’s proposal could see criminals have their sentences reduced?

Ben_Dover 1:46 pm 22 Mar 13

All that foaming at the mouth isn’t really helping your cause much.

Oh yawn… No foaming at the mouth, just my usual evisceration of someone who cannot read replying to something which wasn’t written.

Can you answer me this Jim; what does your irrelevant, and content free, criticism of my posting style add to the debate? Hmmmm…

Jim Jones 12:26 pm 22 Mar 13

Ben_Dover said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Way to misrepresent the facts there. A longer period of time to pay a fine does NOT equate to a lesser fine.

Well now genius, can you show where anyone stated that; ‘”a longer period of time to pay a fine does equates to a lesser fine”?

Idiot.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

If you want to make a coherent argument while criticising the ability to pay a fine over a longer period, perhaps you would have suggested that they’d get to serve their sentence as weekend detention over a period 3.5 times longer, for the same total number of days as full time imprisonment.

If you want to criticise ANYTHING try starting with what people have actually written.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Overblowing the truth and being hysterical leaves you with a flimsy argument purely aimed at scaremongering people into thinking that something is worse than it is.

Being utterly unable to read and respond to a coherent post, makes you look as thick as a brick. (cue music.)

All that foaming at the mouth isn’t really helping your cause much.

Ben_Dover 12:12 pm 22 Mar 13

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Way to misrepresent the facts there. A longer period of time to pay a fine does NOT equate to a lesser fine.

Well now genius, can you show where anyone stated that; ‘”a longer period of time to pay a fine does equates to a lesser fine”?

Idiot.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

If you want to make a coherent argument while criticising the ability to pay a fine over a longer period, perhaps you would have suggested that they’d get to serve their sentence as weekend detention over a period 3.5 times longer, for the same total number of days as full time imprisonment.

If you want to criticise ANYTHING try starting with what people have actually written.

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Overblowing the truth and being hysterical leaves you with a flimsy argument purely aimed at scaremongering people into thinking that something is worse than it is.

Being utterly unable to read and respond to a coherent post, makes you look as thick as a brick. (cue music.)

Jim Jones 11:08 am 22 Mar 13

Thumper said :

Jim Jones said :

kumadude said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Way to misrepresent the facts there. A longer period of time to pay a fine does NOT equate to a lesser fine.

Actually it does equate to a lesser fine, twit. Please look up the concept of future value.

Oh yeah, a few extra cents. Maybe … even … A WHOLE DOLLAR!

: slow clap :

So…. If you get fined twice you can afford to go to the Scottish restaurant and buy a two buck burger!!!

That’s a win…

Way to stick it to the man!!!

Thumper 11:01 am 22 Mar 13

Jim Jones said :

kumadude said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Way to misrepresent the facts there. A longer period of time to pay a fine does NOT equate to a lesser fine.

Actually it does equate to a lesser fine, twit. Please look up the concept of future value.

Oh yeah, a few extra cents. Maybe … even … A WHOLE DOLLAR!

: slow clap :

So…. If you get fined twice you can afford to go to the Scottish restaurant and buy a two buck burger!!!

That’s a win…

Jim Jones 10:50 am 22 Mar 13

kumadude said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Way to misrepresent the facts there. A longer period of time to pay a fine does NOT equate to a lesser fine.

Actually it does equate to a lesser fine, twit. Please look up the concept of future value.

Oh yeah, a few extra cents. Maybe … even … A WHOLE DOLLAR!

: slow clap :

Ghettosmurf87 10:32 am 22 Mar 13

kumadude said :

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Way to misrepresent the facts there. A longer period of time to pay a fine does NOT equate to a lesser fine.

Actually it does equate to a lesser fine, twit. Please look up the concept of future value.

Oh wow….you want to come and personally insult me over the possibility that the government would have earnt a slightly larger amount of interest on the amount if it was paid entirely up front as opposed to over a longer period of time? You are talking about a very small amount here once you factor in inflation against the interest rate. You may as well also then mention that the person who pays their fine straight away gets a “lesser” fine than the person who pays it on the 28th day after they get fined. Sheesh!

No need to call me names, you could have just pointed out the fact that there is a possibility that it is SLIGHTLY lesser, all things considered. We are hardly talking big amounts here.

kumadude 10:06 am 22 Mar 13

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Way to misrepresent the facts there. A longer period of time to pay a fine does NOT equate to a lesser fine.

Actually it does equate to a lesser fine, twit. Please look up the concept of future value.

Jim Jones 9:32 am 22 Mar 13

Ghettosmurf87 said :

Overblowing the truth and being hysterical leaves you with a flimsy argument purely aimed at scaremongering people into thinking that something is worse than it is.

Which is entirely the point

Stevian 9:04 am 22 Mar 13

Vix said :

I know, I’m an ignoramus, but what’s “POS”?

A quantity of faecal matter

Ghettosmurf87 8:51 am 22 Mar 13

Ben_Dover said :

If the thugs are poor/disavantaged, will they get more time to pay their fine/less time in jail/litter picking duty, under Corbells new lunatic ideas?

Way to misrepresent the facts there. A longer period of time to pay a fine does NOT equate to a lesser fine.

If you want to make a coherent argument while criticising the ability to pay a fine over a longer period, perhaps you would have suggested that they’d get to serve their sentence as weekend detention over a period 3.5 times longer, for the same total number of days as full time imprisonment.

Overblowing the truth and being hysterical leaves you with a flimsy argument purely aimed at scaremongering people into thinking that something is worse than it is.

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

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

Search across the site