The Law Police

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
42,244
31,377
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
He isn't being charged with their deaths though. He was involved in an accident and his actions after the accident have lead to those specific charges being laid. Along with his prior actions.

Minimal information has been released regarding the truck driver so it would be premature to attack him. He'll be charged with something no doubt though and then a discussion around his charges can occur.

Also grow up, you aren't being lynched.
my wife was driving along the freeway, a car from a side road slammed into her passenger door pushing her off the road and continued down the road,
I turned up, tow truck arrived.
waited..... waited....cops never came.
We had witnesses who had stopped they gave us the rego and we got their details , i had to leave when the towie said he wouldn't wait any longer.

We went to dandenong cops the next day.

Turns out..
Packenham cops had found the other car at a servo a couple of km away. took a statement and let her leave.
We kept pushing the dandenong cops and eventually they charged her with failing to stop.

Cop from Packenham turned up at court, told how he had driven past the accident scene immediately after he saw the driver , and saw no other cars and oil on the road that may have caused the accident .
My car was there for hours. Lying bastard. no oil on the road. SHe must have given him the best blowjob ever.
Of course , witnesses who were already in court ( me and my wife ) were not involved.
all neat and tidy, lets her off without a fine.
 

Navyblues09

Club Legend
Sep 3, 2009
1,537
1,155
Templestowe
AFL Club
Carlton
Apparently his lawyer did not request bail. For the offences he has been charged with it was very strange that a homicide squad Detective read out the police summary in the Magistrates court. This guy appears to be a scumbag but he didn't kill anyone.

Some details of the truck driver has been released now.
Yeah heard afterwards he hadn’t applied for bail, quite a shock or maybe he feels safer there!

Saw his wife on the news, wow, looks like they belong together...

I think the PCs refusal to release details of drug tests etc says a lot about the truck driver

But they're only throwing those charges at him because he drives a porsche and is a dickhead. Trial by character. If an old bloke in a corolla fled they'd say the poor man was in shock and has dementia
Oh here we go lynch mob. Apologies if my measured approach to the topic rustles a few jimmys. The Porsche driver isn't responsible for the deaths in any way that's the bottom line. Lynch all you want but your primal "fast car big rims" emotions are better aimed towards the truckie. The cops demanded he pull over in a dangerous spot and he did as requested. He also complied up until the truck driver decided to drive into everyone.

I can only imagine the outrage if he was a dole bludger! This Porsche bloke is currently getting ACA'd to the shithouse

I’m surprised you can access BigFooty in jail...

He is being lynched because there is nothing but a history of negative interactions with a person who seems to be nothing but a *******. What he said to a dying officer on the side of the road is the lowest of lows and he deserves everything he can get and probably more.

But come trial there will be some horrible sob story and some leftist judge will let him off, but he deserves the full 10+ years. You do not leave the scene of an accident with serious injuries.

No one except cop hating morons could have even an ounce of compassion towards him, he is the lowest of lows. Yes had the truck not come along he’d be facing heavy fines only, as he would also only be facing if he’d simply hung around after.

Plus trying to hinder a police investigation when they already hate you really isn’t the smartest idea!
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
They are charging him with those offences because he left the scene of an accident and failed to render assistance.

Everyone gets charged with that offence, the cyclist who died the other day, the driver of that car who struck them will be charged with the same offence when caught.



The laws around leaving the scene and failing to render assistance relate to the driver who caused the accident - so was applicable in your examples.

In this case the guy had been out of his vehicle for over an hour and his car was in control of the police. He was effectively a bystander to the accident. Unless you are responsible for the accident there is no duty to come to the aid of those involved - except perhaps if you are medical professional but even that is ambiguous.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Fire

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 12, 2003
10,284
3,507
New York
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Never hung out with anyone that needed them, only know of two interactions with them.

First was me, living in rural vic coming home from seeing a movie in a different town with a mate. Got pulled over just past the middle of our town. Was sitting there for maybe two minutes wondering why they wernt getting out. Next thing I know, an unmarked car came barreling down the wrong side of the divided road, pull up in front of me, and four casually clothed men come out. One comes to the front of my car and starts asking standard questions while the other five take off my tarp and go through the tray of my ute. No idea if its legal but I did feel somewhat violated since they didnt even mention what they were doing, let alone ask. After searching the cabin, they mentioned some bullshit about me driving slow and swerving all over my lane entering town some five kilometers earlier. I remember thinking to myself if they are gonna lie about that they could have lied about finding anything in my tray if they needed to. There were six of them and no other witnesses. To this day I have no idea what they were doing.

Other time was when a coworker had clear videocam of a guy hitting and running her from an illegal turning lane. She went to the station whete they refused to watch the video or take a statement, meaning her insurance company couldn't do anything about it.

So yeah, im sure there are some decent cops out there but from my experiance they are lawless lazy thugs.
 

GreyWind

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 12, 2007
7,884
9,138
The North
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers
In this case the guy had been out of his vehicle for over an hour and his car was in control of the police. He was effectively a bystander to the accident. Unless you are responsible for the accident there is no duty to come to the aid of those involved - except perhaps if you are medical professional but even that is ambiguous.
I have to disagree with what I read from section 61 of the road safety act. The way I read it was that if you are involved, responsible or not you've got to stay and render some form of assistance. I could be wrong though but now it's in the hands of the legal system.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
I have to disagree with what I read from section 61 of the road safety act. The way I read it was that if you are involved, responsible or not you've got to stay and render some form of assistance. I could be wrong though but now it's in the hands of the legal system.
First sentence of the act.

Duty of driver etc. of motor vehicle if accident occurs
 

Navyblues09

Club Legend
Sep 3, 2009
1,537
1,155
Templestowe
AFL Club
Carlton
First sentence of the act.

Duty of driver etc. of motor vehicle if accident occurs
It doesn't distinguish as to who caused it, but his vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused serious injury and death and he failed to remain on scene. Even though he wasn't driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, he is still a party involved in the accident.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
It doesn't distinguish as to who caused it, but his vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused serious injury and death and he failed to remain on scene. Even though he wasn't driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, he is still a party involved in the accident.
I would be hard to argue that he is the driver in the incident. And it seems he has not been charged with leaving the scene.
 

Navyblues09

Club Legend
Sep 3, 2009
1,537
1,155
Templestowe
AFL Club
Carlton
I would be hard to argue that he is the driver in the incident. And it seems he has not been charged with leaving the scene.
Mr Pusey was charged on Thursday night with numerous offences, including driving at a dangerous speed, reckless conduct endangering life, failing to remain after a drug test, failing to render assistance and failing to exchange details
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
Basically he is charged with leaving the scene before exchanging details and failing to render assistance at an accident he is involved in.
I don't think he's charged with leaving the scene.

As for the other offences

Driving at a dangerous speed - will get a big fine.
Reckless conduct endangering life - can't see that one sticking.
Failing to render assistance - as I said he wasn't the driver so it doesn't apply.
Failing to remain after a drug test - if proven it's a fine.
Failing to exchange details - who was he supposed to exchange details with?
Possessing a drug of dependence - depends on whether there is evidence.
Destruction of evidence - he would not have recorded the crash. If this relates to him wiping his phone - he did not delete evidence of a crime. Filming the victims was despicable but not illegal.
Three counts of committing an indictable offence while on bail - will disappear if the other charges disappear.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Connoisseur

Club Legend
Mar 25, 2010
2,200
1,909
AFL Club
Geelong
Basically he is charged with leaving the scene before exchanging details and failing to render assistance at an accident he is involved in.
at an accident he is involved in.
Come again? He didn't cause the accident, on the contrary he could well have been another victim had he not been pissing (from what I've heard/read) on the median strip an hour or so after he was caught.

This witch hunt just reeks of the coppers wanting this Pusey fellow desperately to pay for having a very slight indirect involvement in what lead up to the accident. The taking of photos is crass but he'll probably get away with it with his lawyer claiming the accident left him in a state of shock or something and the reason why he reacted the way (the photos and leaving a horrific traumatizing scene) he did which I'd probably buy.

Anyway the coppers are barking up the wrong tree if they persist going hard after this fellow. Plenty of these sort of accidents have occurred in the past (vehicles wiping out and killing motorists parked in the emergency lane) without receiving this much over the top attention. Any death is a tragedy but this wasn't a deliberate attempt to kill coppers so I'm amused at the amount of space it's been receiving in the news. It's almost like a coppers life is worth considerably more than a civilian life which rubs me the wrong way. You sign up to be a copper knowing full well the dangers and risks the job entails. Don't like it then go and find another job with risks associated with it that are more to your liking.
 

GreyWind

Norm Smith Medallist
Dec 12, 2007
7,884
9,138
The North
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Green Bay Packers
Driving at a dangerous speed - will get a big fine.
Looking at a $826 fine along with a 12mth licence suspension.

Reckless conduct endangering life - can't see that one sticking.
He was driving at 149kmph in a 100 zone with other members of the public on the road as well. The main challenge with this one is that apparently he was under the influence of illicit substances. Otherwise his actions definitely fit the definition regardless if he actually hurt anyone.

Failing to render assistance - as I said he wasn't the driver so it doesn't apply.
I disagree with you here and stated why previously so no reason to state them again.

Failing to remain after a drug test - if proven it's a fine.
He tested positive to a preliminary in field drug test. As such he has two options go and get tested and a station or not. He chose not to. Will also depend on his prior history as to his penalty.

Failing to exchange details - who was he supposed to exchange details with?
Supposed to exchange details with the truck driver who caused the accident as he was still a party to the accident. But seeing as though the truck driver had a medical episode he is supposed to give his details to a member of Vic Pol to give to the driver at a later date. One could argue he already gave his details to police before the accident occurred.

Possessing a drug of dependence - depends on whether there is evidence.
Will probably come down to what the body cams show/heard on the recordings.

Destruction of evidence - he would not have recorded the crash. If this relates to him wiping his phone - he did not delete evidence of a crime. Filming the victims was despicable but not illegal.
Three counts of committing an indictable offence while on bail - will disappear if the other charges disappear.
I believe that charge relates to drugs being found in his car, which he then destroyed after leaving the scene. Nothing to do with him recording.
 

DidakDelight

Club Legend
Jun 5, 2008
1,543
555
In amongst it all
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Queensland State of Origin
my wife was driving along the freeway, a car from a side road slammed into her passenger door pushing her off the road and continued down the road,
I turned up, tow truck arrived.
waited..... waited....cops never came.
We had witnesses who had stopped they gave us the rego and we got their details , i had to leave when the towie said he wouldn't wait any longer.

We went to dandenong cops the next day.

Turns out..
Packenham cops had found the other car at a servo a couple of km away. took a statement and let her leave.
We kept pushing the dandenong cops and eventually they charged her with failing to stop.

Cop from Packenham turned up at court, told how he had driven past the accident scene immediately after he saw the driver , and saw no other cars and oil on the road that may have caused the accident .
My car was there for hours. Lying bastard. no oil on the road. SHe must have given him the best blowjob ever.
Of course , witnesses who were already in court ( me and my wife ) were not involved.
all neat and tidy, lets her off without a fine.
You sound very needy and entitled.

Was your wife injured?
Did ambulance come and take her to hospital?
Was there a traffic hazard or was her car off the road?

The cops assessed those three questions above deemed no need to attend and instead went and found the driver, interviewed them and charged them with failing to stop and the court let’s them off lightly.
 

Navyblues09

Club Legend
Sep 3, 2009
1,537
1,155
Templestowe
AFL Club
Carlton
Come again? He didn't cause the accident, on the contrary he could well have been another victim had he not been pissing (from what I've heard/read) on the median strip an hour or so after he was caught.

This witch hunt just reeks of the coppers wanting this Pusey fellow desperately to pay for having a very slight indirect involvement in what lead up to the accident. The taking of photos is crass but he'll probably get away with it with his lawyer claiming the accident left him in a state of shock or something and the reason why he reacted the way (the photos and leaving a horrific traumatizing scene) he did which I'd probably buy.

Anyway the coppers are barking up the wrong tree if they persist going hard after this fellow. Plenty of these sort of accidents have occurred in the past (vehicles wiping out and killing motorists parked in the emergency lane) without receiving this much over the top attention. Any death is a tragedy but this wasn't a deliberate attempt to kill coppers so I'm amused at the amount of space it's been receiving in the news. It's almost like a coppers life is worth considerably more than a civilian life which rubs me the wrong way. You sign up to be a copper knowing full well the dangers and risks the job entails. Don't like it then go and find another job with risks associated with it that are more to your liking.
So in your opinion, if you’re vehicle gets hit by an out of control car, you are not obligated under section 61 to render assistance or exchange details because you didn’t cause the accident?

Anyway of course the public are upset when an emergency service worker is killed in the line of duty, same as when firefighters were killed during the summer. I suppose you felt the same way then? Oh well they knew the risks!

It’s interesting timing as only last week you had Bigfooty posters talking of how no one respects VicPol anymore...
 

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
42,244
31,377
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
You sound very needy and entitled.

Was your wife injured?
Did ambulance come and take her to hospital?
Was there a traffic hazard or was her car off the road?

The cops assessed those three questions above deemed no need to attend and instead went and found the driver, interviewed them and charged them with failing to stop and the court let’s them off lightly.
No they didn't .
They lied in court.
They didn't attend an accident when they didn't even know .
You fail comprehension.
Yes her car was knocked off the freeway and onto the central media strip.
But that is obviously ok in Didak land ( lol it probably is ), drivers can get knocked off the road and no-one needs to stop.
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
Looking at a $826 fine along with a 12mth licence suspension.


He was driving at 149kmph in a 100 zone with other members of the public on the road as well. The main challenge with this one is that apparently he was under the influence of illicit substances. Otherwise his actions definitely fit the definition regardless if he actually hurt anyone.


I disagree with you here and stated why previously so no reason to state them again.


He tested positive to a preliminary in field drug test. As such he has two options go and get tested and a station or not. He chose not to. Will also depend on his prior history as to his penalty.


Supposed to exchange details with the truck driver who caused the accident as he was still a party to the accident. But seeing as though the truck driver had a medical episode he is supposed to give his details to a member of Vic Pol to give to the driver at a later date. One could argue he already gave his details to police before the accident occurred.


Will probably come down to what the body cams show/heard on the recordings.


I believe that charge relates to drugs being found in his car, which he then destroyed after leaving the scene. Nothing to do with him recording.
I guess we'll see where the evidence lands.

149 km/h might end up as the usual 3% lower figure giving an alleged lower speed and $702 fine and 6 month ban.

The drugs evidence, destruction, and failure to remain might be difficult to support. As is the failure to swap details.

The police bodycam footage might prove he's a campaigner but not that he broke any laws.

I would also add that information in the media from early reports and allegations are not necessarily accurate.
 

DidakDelight

Club Legend
Jun 5, 2008
1,543
555
In amongst it all
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Queensland State of Origin
No they didn't .
They lied in court.
They didn't attend an accident when they didn't even know .
You fail comprehension.
Yes her car was knocked off the freeway and onto the central media strip.
But that is obviously ok in Didak land ( lol it probably is ), drivers can get knocked off the road and no-one needs to stop.
You do understand that police only attend incidents where there is an injury or a traffic hazard, do you not?

In the case of your wife, it was a hit/run where they knew where the offending driver was. They found the other driver and interviewed them for fail to stop. (Summary offence I’m pretty sure so no power to arrest exists in your scenario)

They then charged the other driver for failing to stop and the judge gave them nothing after the pleading guilty.

You weren’t required to give evidence due to the guilty plea and your wife’s insurance fixed her car.

Are these the circumstances so far, or am I misunderstanding that your wife was the one who was actually charged?
 
Last edited:

Leeda

Talons B Sharp
Sep 26, 2012
6,349
1,085
AFL Club
Hawthorn
You sound very needy and entitled.

Was your wife injured?
Did ambulance come and take her to hospital?
Was there a traffic hazard or was her car off the road?

The cops assessed those three questions above deemed no need to attend and instead went and found the driver, interviewed them and charged them with failing to stop and the court let’s them off lightly.
Just thinking that people would say that after the fact.. NO one should be thought of as to be causing the accident.

Want to say that I am sorry for what happened by the way.. there would of course be some people who will argue that things
are different...

I use my dots at the end of sentences to make the point that one thought is not always the entire meaning of the situation...

It just doesn't make it right and it doesn't ring true when so many people are affected.. I was absolutely pissed off that all these
people were riding on the back of the drama of the day..

More to come....
 

sorted

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 21, 2016
8,424
10,936
AFL Club
Geelong
The driver of the truck has now been charged with four counts of culpable driving causing death. Usually attracts a sentence of about seven years but seeing as he's killed four coppers he might get closer to the maximum of 20 years.
 

SaintsSeptember

Hall of Famer
Mar 19, 2008
42,244
31,377
Narre Warren North
AFL Club
St Kilda
Other Teams
.
You do understand that police only attend incidents where there is an injury or a traffic hazard, do you not?

In the case of your wife, it was a hit/run where they knew where the offending driver was. They found the other driver and interviewed them for fail to stop. (Summary offence I’m pretty sure so no power to arrest exists in your scenario)

They then charged the other driver for failing to stop and the judge gave them nothing after the pleading guilty.

You weren’t required to give evidence due to the guilty plea and your wife’s insurance fixed her car.

Are these the circumstances so far, or am I misunderstanding that your wife was the one who was actually charged?
Wife driving along freeway in the left hand lane.

Car from side road, smashes into passenger side door, shunting Driving Car into the central media strip of Freeway.
Car from side road, with smashed window continues driving down freeway. Car in media strip un-drivable.
Witnesses saw it and stopped to give assistance.
Other witnesses followed and took the rego, turned and came back.
Police were called , and said they would attend. ( they didn't, but later lied about it in court ).

(( all this is great in Didak land, its quite normal to get shunted off the road by hit and runs, we only worry about it if someone gets hurt ))

Visited Dandenong police the following day, made a statement and followed it up.
Packenham police hadn't charged the other driver driver.
Dandenong police were told by Packenham police that it was closed.
Based on the statement they had it re-opened and had her charged.
Apart from the accident i think there were also questions about the road worthiness and registration of her car.
Somehow the police had found her vehicle at a service station some km from the crash site. They did NOT attend the crash site at the time they claimed they had. They might have noticed the Tow Truck in the middle of the freeway with lights flashing if they had.

Magistrate let her off because she was supposedly broke , and because the lies by the police made it all seem trivial. It was the Packenham police blatently lying about it in court that i found mystifying, why they had chosen not to visit the scene of the accident , and cover for this woman? Were they lying because they knew her or to cover up for their laziness ? Why did they say they would attend the crash site, and tell us to wait there, then not attend?

I understand why we didn't need to give evidence.

The old "insurance pays for it all" , victimless crime thing is a dumb statement and gives me some insight into you mindset.

Sure if you think that its ok for this sort of crap to happen with no consequence, I'm entitled to think you are a dumbass if you do.
Personally i consider driving into the side of vehicles travelling 100km/h a far more dangerous thing than driving 25km/h over the speed limit, which routinely carries a loss of license. I guess we are just lucky that people don't do it more often .

She was easily as guilty as that flog in the Porsche everyone is on about right now.
 

DidakDelight

Club Legend
Jun 5, 2008
1,543
555
In amongst it all
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Queensland State of Origin
Wife driving along freeway in the left hand lane.

Car from side road, smashes into passenger side door, shunting Driving Car into the central media strip of Freeway.
Car from side road, with smashed window continues driving down freeway. Car in media strip un-drivable.
Witnesses saw it and stopped to give assistance.
Other witnesses followed and took the rego, turned and came back.
Police were called , and said they would attend. ( they didn't, but later lied about it in court ).

(( all this is great in Didak land, its quite normal to get shunted off the road by hit and runs, we only worry about it if someone gets hurt ))

Visited Dandenong police the following day, made a statement and followed it up.
Packenham police hadn't charged the other driver driver.
Dandenong police were told by Packenham police that it was closed.
Based on the statement they had it re-opened and had her charged.
Apart from the accident i think there were also questions about the road worthiness and registration of her car.
Somehow the police had found her vehicle at a service station some km from the crash site. They did NOT attend the crash site at the time they claimed they had. They might have noticed the Tow Truck in the middle of the freeway with lights flashing if they had.

Magistrate let her off because she was supposedly broke , and because the lies by the police made it all seem trivial. It was the Packenham police blatently lying about it in court that i found mystifying, why they had chosen not to visit the scene of the accident , and cover for this woman? Were they lying because they knew her or to cover up for their laziness ? Why did they say they would attend the crash site, and tell us to wait there, then not attend?

I understand why we didn't need to give evidence.

The old "insurance pays for it all" , victimless crime thing is a dumb statement and gives me some insight into you mindset.

Sure if you think that its ok for this sort of crap to happen with no consequence, I'm entitled to think you are a dumbass if you do.
Personally i consider driving into the side of vehicles travelling 100km/h a far more dangerous thing than driving 25km/h over the speed limit, which routinely carries a loss of license. I guess we are just lucky that people don't do it more often .

She was easily as guilty as that flog in the Porsche everyone is on about right now.
I’m sorry this happened to your wife, it must have been very distressing for her.

Your frustration appears to be at police not attending your accident scene yet in the prosecution summary read out in court it said they tried to locate your wife but couldn’t, even though she was still there.

You think they were lying because of course they should have seen you.

You should request a copy of the police dispatch call via freedom of information. Perhaps they were told incorrect details like it was outbound rather than inbound or different entry and exit points.
The probably did try to find her but could have missed her.

What do you believe is their motivation to lie about not seeing your wife on the side of the road. It’s actually immaterial to the charge of failing to stop after a collision so why lie?

You do understand that the other driver could not be arrested and charged that day. It’s a summary offence so she would have been charged on summons weeks/months afterwards.

To expect charges to be laid that same day was impossible and in fairness to you without a legal background you’re not expected to know this.

At the end of the day you’re dealing with two of the busiest police stations in the state.

A hit/run incident was the most important thing in the world to you and your wife at the time, but to those cops used to serious violent crime they probably didn’t give you the attention you needed. It’s not ideal but cut them some slack and try to understand what they’re dealing with. They charged the other driver for your wife and the judge let them off.

Accusing of copping blowjobs in a thread talking about 4 tragic deaths shows more about you than me living in DidakLand (reality)
 

Top Bottom