https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-01-...-nsw/103291458
Printable View
probably more of a case of dont be stoopid ........driving under the influence with a shotgun and 150 rounds of ammo in the boot after a "domestic" incident with his brother, might not have lost his licence if he left the shotgun in the safe
Ya, DUI with firearms onboard should absolutely lose you your licence.
DUI without firearms involved COULD be enough for loss of firearms license.
I don't know the background but from what I read on here I don't see it as a stupid ruling.
What does seem stupid is if he was in another sport (League, Union etc) would they have cut him a bit more slack.
Hmmm https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-...uitted/9018384
So it is not all as it seems, it appears the latest judge is still treating him as though he was guilty of the firearms charges. DUI aside it sounds a little like he is made a scapegoat.
My addition to this discussion is - dont think this wont happen here. You are guilty until you prove your innocence on firearms matters
Not at all surprising, even before you link @vulcannz I thought he was being scapegoatted. For a democratic society, the Aussie authorities really hate 'the people' having legally owned firearms. Even more so than the poms I reckonQuote:
Originally Posted by vulcannz
They must be afraid of something
Despite what a government may say, they are all interested in having power over the people, firearms are a most important threat to governmental power, so a government is always in favor of strengthening this power base.
I am of the opinion the our new Government will not remove this registration folly, but will accept it, blaming the prior government for the trouble it causes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noelfj
I can only hope you’re wrong with that last comment.
Just don't drink and drive? Seems pretty simple.
What a load of malarkey, Jeeze going by the courts comments you’d think he was another Martin Bryant heading to do a massacre!:yuush:Quote:
Originally Posted by Woody
Still, to be fair the rules on that one are fairly clear and driving under the influence is a known self-inflicted dumbarse moment doesn't really matter here or Aus to be fair. Capping it off with a firearm, with ammo to make it complete and functioning is really a 'you win the stupid prize' moment. Not sure about it being a fair comment about scapegoating him, if it wasn't a sportsperson it just wouldn't be newsworthy.
Also, one could argue that at the level of competition he was in there is no way he could claim ignorance of the rules and that he was unaware of any of the requirements.
They need some balance in these rulings. This is a professional shooter whose livelihood depended on being able to possess firearms. He obviously made a big mistake, but is he really a danger to the public by owning a firearm?
Met a chap last duck shooting season who’d had his FAL suspended due to DUI. Was an eye opener for him and his mates, that’s for sure……was local knowledge that this certain group of individuals in the district were not acting fit and proper during duck shooting season yet could afford good lawyers to get themselves out of the shit in conjunction with the cops not being able to pin it on anyone in the group. When old mates DUI happened he got nailed quick smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetawa
It is. They are getting revoked for this now all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by tetawa
Hate to sound like a karen but he was certainly a danger to the public choosing to drive under the influence knowing full well its dangerous and he could easily crash / kill someone. He may not be a danger to the public as far as firearms offences are concerned but who knows, hes already chosen to flout the law and drive drunk potentially putting others in danger so only seems reasonable to assume he could break the law further. Just because its his livelihood doesn’t make him exempt from the law or due any special treatment. Unfortunate for him that its potentially ended his career but end of the day he made the decision to drive drunk with firearms in the car, fuck around & find out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatberg
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well he is certainly a danger to the public driving a car in that state......Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatberg
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I agree from the DUI perspective. But in the ruling the judge referenced his "history". So I had a good google and could find no previous convictions or issues. That leads me to believe that the ruling was based in including the firearms offences which had been dismissed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 6.5 CRD
If they were dismissed, were they actually offences for which conviction might have been the outcome?Quote:
Originally Posted by vulcannz
Plenty of history surrounding this guy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-o...idUSKCN0YF050/
If you hold a FAL you ought to be capable of making good judgements about your own and others' safety.
Yup, some history mentioned here. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-...-ban/101883506
In a submission to the tribunal in 2022, the commissioner's representatives stated that Diamond had also been involved in a series of domestic incidents.
"The police were called to domestic incidents involving the applicant 12 times between 2003 and 2021," the submission said.
It was outlined that in one incident, on May 21, 2016, Diamond was reported to be "aggressive and very intoxicated and drove off in his vehicle with a firearm".
"During the period he was also the subject of AVOs which were revoked."
Looks like he may have a history of being a fwit.
Probably lucky to not have lost his license a lot sooner - if he was Joe Bloggs and not a "medal winning Olympian" it would have been gone years ago.
Being fit and proper isn't about being careful (to not get caught), it's about not being an f'wit and doing dumb stuff that shows you either don't think or have a general disregard for the finer points of the country's statutes and laws. On this it really isn't a case that the rules are vague and the requirements aren't clearly communicated, the info is right there and for the new people who are going in a sitting their licence requirements it's in clear black and white in several places.
In a lot of cases, the individual in the case in this thread being a good example - people are given a huge amount of leeway in the system and multiple opportunities to alter the trajectory they've put themselves on. But, they choose not to change anything. Then when they finally get to the short end of the rope and they aren't given any more leeway they cry unfair and why is this being done to me - I really don't have a huge amount of sympathy especially when it's your competitive profession and you choose to lead your life in such a way that you basically chuck it all into the bin.
Due to the standard of driving I have seen, very few police officers are fit and proper to have a drivers license!