Forde man blows 0.3!

effect, not affect. Grrrrr. Rant ends.

IP

Pork Hunt said :

Tooks said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

So para 4 (1) (b) is not good enough to arrest a drunk driver?

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

If his wife wants to come and pick him up and look after him, theres an alternative, the Police can take him home if someone is there to care for him.

If there is any other reasonable alternative, they can not just lock him up.

Pork Hunt, no. Drivers are taken into custody for breath analysis, not for protection. Once breath analysis is complete they are free to go. Note the legislation says “in a public place”. The police station is not a public place. That doesn’t mean they can’t be lodged for protection afterwards or it doesn’t happen, but IMO it is open to debate due to the wording of the legislation and as police also have a duty of care.

Tooks said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

So para 4 (1) (b) is not good enough to arrest a drunk driver?

HenryBG said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

I’m actually a little concerned you think I might have been serious there HenryBG… However at 0.3 he would have had little ability to actually control his car, or his speed, and thus there was a very high probability that had the cops not picked him up for drink driving he would have ended up wrapped around a tree.

Now I’m not overly sure how familiar you are with physics, but I’ll put it into nice simple terms. When a car hits a stationary object which is well connected to the ground, for example a tree, it has the affect of making the front part of the car stop suddenly. Now that in itself is not a problem, except there is a little thing call momentum \ inertia, which is basically things will keep doing what they where doing. So assuming this guy is driving at 100 km/h when the front of the car comes to a sudden stop, the back end of the car will still be doing 100 km/h (although deaccelerating quite quickly). This has an affect of squishing the car together, this is especially noticeable when it is not the front of the car which hits the immovable object, but say the roof.

Funny enough it’s this idea that parts of a car is moving, whilst other parts of the car is stationary is the basic principal behind a car compactor. Thus my reference to him still being in it was that the end result would be the same regardless of which method was chosen. Of course with method number 2 you don’t have innocent bystanders getting mixed up with all this unpleasantness, however method number 2 is also consider execution (and probably cruel and unusual punishment) and would thus be banned in most of the western world.

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

It’s actually the Intoxicated People (Care and Protection) Act. It’s a very short piece of legislation if you want to have a read of it yourself, but here’s the part about locking up intox people:

4 Detention of intoxicated people
(1) If a police officer believes, on reasonable grounds, that a person in a public place is intoxicated and is, because of that intoxication—
(a) behaving in a disorderly way; or
(b) behaving in a way likely to cause injury to himself, herself or another person, or damage to any property; or
(c) incapable of protecting himself or herself from physical harm;
the officer may take the person into custody and detain the person.

(2) The police officer may take the person into custody only if the officer is satisfied that there is no other reasonable alternative for the person’s care and protection.

(3) A person detained under subsection (1) must be released—
(a) when the person ceases to be intoxicated; or
(b) at the end of 8 hours after the person is detained;
whichever is earlier.

(4) A police officer must not allow a person detained under subsection (1) to remain at a police station where the person was detained for longer than 12 hours after the person is first detained.

(5) This section does not prevent a police officer from releasing a person detained under subsection (1) if, in the police officer’s opinion, it is reasonable to release the person.

(6) For subsection (5), a police officer is taken to have acted reasonably if the officer releases a person detained under subsection (1) into the care of the manager of a licensed place.

Pork Hunt said :

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

You can read it here:
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1994-85/default.asp

NoImRight said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

He probably knew he was drunk but was too drunk to make a sober decision. You see the Catch 22 here?

He made a sober decision. Right about the time he decided to start drinking, with car keys in his pocket, knowing the likely outcome.

See, you can’t use the “too drunk to be responsible” defense. It doesn’t exist, because that’s not when the critical decision was made.

Tooks said :

Pork Hunt said :

Tooks said :

HenryBG said :

harvyk1 said :

At 0.3 I wouldn’t mind seeing this guys car crushed in a car compactor, with him still inside… Let’s face it, if he considers driving whilst being that drunk acceptable (and at 0.3 there is no way he wouldn’t have known he was drunk), then it’s only a matter of time before he crushes his car with him still inside it anyway, at least by using a car compactor you remove the innocent 3rd party from the equation.

So, he didn’t kill anybody but he’s locked up, whereas you actively and publicly fantasise about killing people and you’re allowed to roam free.

If I had my way, the situation would be reversed: tolerating people like you in our society exposes us to the danger of a publicly-supported takeover by a ruthless and homocidal extremist authoritarian dictatorship.

He wasn’t locked up, for starters. Secondly, I hope the aim of that little rant was to get a reaction from harveyk1 and you weren’t actually serious.

Hang on Tooks, if I’m wandering around Civic with a skinful at .298, would I not be locked up for at least my own protection?
You say he wasn’t locked up but released to wander the streets in that state in Civic?

You’re alcohol reading has nothing whatsoever to do with whether you’re taken into custody under the Intox Persons Act. If you read the media release, he was tested, blew positive, and released from the police station. They had no power to lock him up.

Can u shed some light on the Intox Persons Act?

HenryBG said :

Tooks said :

He wasn’t locked up, for starters. Secondly, I hope the aim of that little rant was to get a reaction from harveyk1 and you weren’t actually serious.

So you don’t have a problem with the fact that Harveyk is posting on a public forum his fantasies about killing people, which appear to me to be an admission of intent, even if the crime has (possibly) not yet been committed?

And meanwhile, Mr 0.298 has neither murdered anybody nor – as far as I am aware – demonstrated any intent to do so.

In other words, while the police are busy dealing with their drunk, there is a potentially lethal psychopath wandering our streets and posting crap on Riot Act which the police will no doubt do zip about.

[Troll detector reboots] I refuse to believe you are really this stupid. I congratulate you on successfully reeling me in, but you’ll get no more bites from me.