Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Officer charged with dangerous driving

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Officer charged with dangerous driving

    Officer charged with dangerous driving - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

    A 21 year-old Perth police officer has been charged with dangerous driving while on duty.

    Constable Nathan Carbone was in an unmarked police car in Bentley in February last year when he attempted to stop a motorist.

    The car failed to stop and Constable Carbone pursued the vehicle.

    He then lost control of his car at the intersection of Albany Highway and Alexandra Place, forcing another car into a pole.

    The officer is due to appear in court today.
    So reading between the lines, what happened? I'm guessing he didn't have authorisation for the pursuit
    For LAMS information and resources - http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/foru...thread-156358/
    For LAMS discussion and to ask questions - http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/foru...thread-143289/

  • #2
    inb4 rah rah cops are cnuts we demand blood!

    not a lot of info given there, pursuit class driver/car? unauthorised? excessive speed? looks like the media trying to incite another shitstorm.

    Comment


    • #3
      Nathan "Carbone"

      Comment


      • #4
        Sounds like a case of a young inexperienced copper with some red mist issues.

        Comment


        • #5
          It was destiny.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sonik View Post
            looks like the media trying to incite another shitstorm.
            1. Police officer is charged with driving offence.
            2. On public interest grounds, WAPOL issues release stating information about the charge and the scheduled court appearance.
            3. On public interest grounds, news media prints article based upon WAPOL media release.
            4. Police apologist accuses cop-hating media of trying to incite shitstorm.

            No?
            Originally posted by Melkor
            The Saint is all over the answer like a Saint on a cupcake.

            Comment


            • #7
              ok, so maybe my judgement of the media was a little hasty and I'm certainly not trying to defend the actions of the accused. I'm just so used to the media trying to blow things up and then seeing the public going off with little knowledge or care for facts and it's getting a bit old.
              I would like to know more about the circumstances surrounding it, like who was he chasing? Some kid in a rice burner who did a little skid and doesn't want his wheels impounded or a known dangerous granny bashing scumbag carrying a kilo of heroin.

              Comment


              • #8
                ^ Should all come out in the next instalment.

                Stay tuned!
                Originally posted by Melkor
                The Saint is all over the answer like a Saint on a cupcake.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by barfridge View Post
                  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/22/3145521.htm]Officer charged with dangerous driving - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)[/url]



                  So reading between the lines, what happened? I'm guessing he didn't have authorisation for the pursuit
                  As I've stated before under law he doesn't technically need authorisation to contravene the Road Traffic Code. It is procedure to get authorisation, and if you fail to obey the instruction from the police radio you could be charged departmentally with offences under the police regulations.

                  However, the coppers work under this new (since 2000) Section 280 which says

                  280 . Exemption for drivers of emergency vehicles (police officers)

                  (1) A provision of these regulations does not apply to the driver of an emergency vehicle being used for official duties by a police officer if —

                  (a) in the circumstances —

                  (i) the driver is taking reasonable care; and

                  (ii) it is reasonable that the provision should not apply;

                  and

                  (b) the vehicle is a motor vehicle that is moving and the vehicle is displaying a blue or red flashing light or sounding an alarm.

                  (2) Subregulation (1)(b) does not apply to the driver if, in the circumstances, it is reasonable —

                  (a) not to display the light or sound the alarm; or

                  (b) for the vehicle not to be fitted or equipped with a blue or red flashing light or an alarm.

                  It reads basically "if you fuck it up, you will get charged".


                  i.e. if you do crash when driving through an intersection or something and hit another car, then you weren't doing everything that's reasonable.



                  He fucked up.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    21 seems pretty young to be a pursuit driver to me, don't know how they train their people or anything about the guys background maybe he has raced 800hp sprint cars since he was 16 or something or maybe not

                    i know i found myself facing the wrong way several times in a pissy 110hp torana at that age and there would be no way in hell i could have safely pursued an experienced driver at high speeds through traffic in a 200kW commodore.

                    i will be surprised if he is found guilty, some property damage and no one was hurt, his job is to pursue and he can only do so to the best of his ability.
                    Originally posted by Bendito
                    If we get to a stop and we are missing a dozen bikes and you are last, it was your fault. Don't be that guy. No one likes that guy.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Under the previous Road Traffic Code, the magic words were, ".....if it is safe and expedient to do so...."

                      What does "safe and expedient" mean.

                      If you go charging through a Stop sign or red traffic lights without hitting anything, then by definition it was safe.

                      This was where he allegedly fucked up. His actions allegedly caused another driver to crash.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Melkor View Post
                        It reads basically "if you fuck it up, you will get charged".


                        i.e. if you do crash when driving through an intersection or something and hit another car, then you weren't doing everything that's reasonable.



                        He fucked up.
                        Fair enough too.

                        If you don't have the training then you shouldn't be doing that shit.

                        If you do, and you fuck up then you were pushing too hard or were negligent in ensuring that you were within the limits of safety.


                        Was the guy actually a pursuit trained cop, or he just thought he'd have a go?
                        “Crashing is shit for you, shit for the bike, shit for the mechanics and shit for the set-up,” Checa told me a while back. “It’s a signal that you are heading in the wrong direction. You want to win but crashing is the opposite. It’s like being in France when you want to go to England and when you crash you go to Spain. That way you’ll never get to England!” -- Carlos Checa

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ken Oath View Post
                          Under the previous Road Traffic Code, the magic words were, ".....if it is safe and expedient to do so...."

                          What does "safe and expedient" mean.

                          If you go charging through a Stop sign or red traffic lights without hitting anything, then by definition it was safe.

                          This was where he allegedly fucked up. His actions allegedly caused another driver to crash.
                          Apart from the only reason that you didn't hit anything is that the driver coming through the green light saw you flying through, took evasive action and ended up driving through the front wall of someones house killing the occupant of the car and the family of 10 in the front room.
                          Just because you don't hit something doesn't mean it was safe.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X