Double Diamond!

Help Support :

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Simbo

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
651
Olympic Shooter Charged With Firearms Offences

Australia's dual Olympic shooting champion Michael Diamond is charged by police, jeopardising his chances of a seventh Games.

04:40, UK, Monday 23 May 2016




michael-diamond-1-992x558.jpg
<img src="http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2016/5/23/467341/default/v1/michael-diamond-1-206x116.jpg" class="image__item " alt="Michael Diamond" />
Diamond's firearms and driving licences have been suspended






Twice Olympic shooting champion Michael Diamond has been charged with drink driving and firearms offences.


 
The 44-year-old trap shooter was arrested after an alleged domestic incident with a relative at Nelson Bay, north of Sydney.

He has been charged with "high range drink driving, not keeping firearm safe and handling or using firearm while under the influence of alcohol", New South Wales police said.

Local media reported that Diamond had refused to take a breathalyser test after being stopped by police and was found with a gun and 150 rounds of ammunition in his car.

Police said a breath analysis later showed he was three times over the legal limit.

Diamond's driver and firearms licenses have been suspended and he has been granted bail to appear at court on 7 June.

 
An Australian Olympic Committee spokesman confirmed Diamond had been charged for the offences but did not comment further.

Diamond won trap gold medals at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, defended his title at Sydney four years later, and is hoping to compete at a seventh Olympics in Rio.

The AOC is yet to announce the country's two entries in the men's trap team, but Diamond was expected to be one of them.



 
This is a crying shame for the guy, the effort it takes to win at his level and now this at the closing years of his career is terrible. 

 
It is a shame. but hey, nobody else's fault but his.

Young Mitch Illes has disputed the selection of Diamond and has a good claim on the Rio spot (having shot more minimum consideration scores than Diamond this year). Looks like he may get to go after all?

DT

 
Sad to hear this news. A great shooter on the decline but still a tremendous competitor... but there is no place for cars, guns and alcohol use together. It would be interesting to hear the whole story because sometime reporting is not the most accurate.

edit

believe this or not but I know someone who was done for drink driving who never even got into his car. He had been playing in a bowling comp and had a few beers so decided not to drive BUT he went to his car to put his bowling gear into it. Police spotted him opening the boot to put his stuff in and done him purely on the suspicion that he was going to drive the car... a lesson to us all if you have had a drink don't go near your car to put things into it!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'a lesson to us all if you have had a drink don't go near your car to put things into it!"

Especially not a shot gun!!

DT

 
It is always totally a puzzle to me how people living in a police state for their whole life can be so unmindful of it.  But, like Greg says .................

Police spotted him opening the boot to put his stuff in and done him purely on the suspicion that he was going to drive the car.
Now just WTF were the reasons that put police surveillance at a a BOWLING COMP?!?!?  And he was prosecuted for a crime that he MIGHT commit?   Fooking unbelievable!!

 
If he was living here and was in possession of the vehicle keys and therefore in a position to drive the vehicle, he could be considered to be 'Drunk in charge of a motor vehicle'. It is a crime he 'might' commit. The gun offences would follow on. Sounds like too many 'Doubles for Diamond' !

 
So the old argument about being "equipped" to commit rape would also come into play, right?  And he has hands and could make a fist and maybe commit assault?  Not to mention how he might kick someone since he has feet!  And teeth!!!  MY GOD!!! - the man is a threat to society by his very existence!!

 
It is always totally a puzzle to me how people living in a police state for their whole life can be so unmindful of it.  But, like Greg says .................

Now just WTF were the reasons that put police surveillance at a a BOWLING COMP?!?!?  And he was prosecuted for a crime that he MIGHT commit?   Fooking unbelievable!!
Charlie I suspect the bowling club may have been next to or belonged to a pub. My old local used to have a bowling green round the back. Sadly it has houses on it now :(

I must admit I am surprised they did him for crime he had not yet committed? Surely better to wait for him to climb into the drivers seat before arresting him. Even then he could have been getting in the car to sleep it off  or just getting in to pick up his glasses, phone, wallet, etc.

Westley

Are you sure about that?

So that means if you drive to the pub with the intension of leaving your car there and taking a taxi home, you are technically breaking the law while stood in the pub getting hammered?

Surely the offence is 'driving while under the influence of alcohol' so if you have not attempted to actually drive how have you broken the law?

Sometimes the law is an ass!

DT

EDIT: I stand corrected. There is an offence for being Drunk in charge. It is up to the defendant to prove that he was not going to drive the vehicle rather than the police/courts prove he was??

As I said, the law is an ass.

DT

 
Last edited by a moderator:
EDIT: I stand corrected. There is an offence for being Drunk in charge. It is up to the defendant to prove that he was not going to drive the vehicle rather than the police/courts prove he was??

As I said, the law is an ass.

DT

Exactly that Greg.

The situation I am referring to happened in Edinburgh and it was quite by chance the police spotted the guy leave the bowling club and open the boot of the car, the collared him right there and then. Even though he was not going to drive his car he could not prove it. I suppose had he said to someone at the club I am just going to put my gear in the car and get a taxi home he would have been able to call them as witnesses.

 
believe this or not but I know someone who was done for drink driving who never even got into his car. He had been playing in a bowling comp and had a few beers so decided not to drive BUT he went to his car to put his bowling gear into it. Police spotted him opening the boot to put his stuff in and done him purely on the suspicion that he was going to drive the car... a lesson to us all if you have had a drink don't go near your car to put things into it!
No, I don't believe it. Without wishing to put my work hat on, that cannot possibly be considered drunk in charge.

I very much doubt it's true and it would certainly fail at court.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No, I don't believe it. Without wishing to put my work hat on, that cannot possibly be considered drunk in charge.

I very much doubt it's true and it would certainly fail at court.
Really ? The person in question was a member of a bowling club I have played at. I was told by members at that club at and he was breathalysed and charged and done, and at no time did he open the drivers door or enter the vehicle. As I say I know (or knew him) through playing bowls and that is the story.

 
Charlie I suspect the bowling club may have been next to or belonged to a pub. My old local used to have a bowling green round the back. Sadly it has houses on it now :(

I must admit I am surprised they did him for crime he had not yet committed? Surely better to wait for him to climb into the drivers seat before arresting him. Even then he could have been getting in the car to sleep it off  or just getting in to pick up his glasses, phone, wallet, etc.

Westley

Are you sure about that?

So that means if you drive to the pub with the intension of leaving your car there and taking a taxi home, you are technically breaking the law while stood in the pub getting hammered?

Surely the offence is 'driving while under the influence of alcohol' so if you have not attempted to actually drive how have you broken the law?

Sometimes the law is an ass!

DT

EDIT: I stand corrected. There is an offence for being Drunk in charge. It is up to the defendant to prove that he was not going to drive the vehicle rather than the police/courts prove he was??

As I said, the law is an ass.

DT
No probs. it took me over 30 years and still did not learn it all !

Really ? The person in question was a member of a bowling club I have played at. I was told by members at that club at and he was breathalysed and charged and done, and at no time did he open the drivers door or enter the vehicle. As I say I know (or knew him) through playing bowls and that is the story.
Hearsay then  ?

 
I knew of a bloke that got banned for drunk in charge. He knew he was over so slept in the car in pub car park overnight . His intention was clear cos he was asleep and in my view commendable behaviour. He was a HGV driver but obviously not after that.

 
No probs. it took me over 30 years and still did not learn it all !

Hearsay then  ?
To be honest Westley I am talking about something that happened more than 20 years ago and the person who was done is now dead. I mentioned in my original post that reporting sometimes is inaccurate and mine could be too. I may have been not told the facts properly or may have miss reported what actually happened eg it could be the man actually did open the door of the car to put his stuff in the car rather than in the boot. I was told though that he definitely did not actually get into the car or make any attempt to drive the vehicle and that was what made it seem very harsh to be done for a drink drive type offence. The thing that was really frustrating for the person concerned is that he normally parked his car in the bowling club car park and on this occasion did not and parked on the road side, It was said that had he done what he did in the club car park he would have been fine... that too could be wrong :)

 
To be honest Westley I am talking about something that happened more than 20 years ago and the person who was done is now dead. I mentioned in my original post that reporting sometimes is inaccurate and mine could be too. I may have been not told the facts properly or may have miss reported what actually happened eg it could be the man actually did open the door of the car to put his stuff in the car rather than in the boot. I was told though that he definitely did not actually get into the car or make any attempt to drive the vehicle and that was what made it seem very harsh to be done for a drink drive type offence. The thing that was really frustrating for the person concerned is that he normally parked his car in the bowling club car park and on this occasion did not and parked on the road side, It was said that had he done what he did in the club car park he would have been fine... that too could be wrong :)
Very difficult to prove his intentions, bottom line is though, had his keys been left with someone in the clubhouse he could have slept in the car, no probs. But better he was arrested BEFORE he drove off, it gets more difficult once he is moving !

 
A clear and compelling argument for your police not having firearms.  Hard telling what they might take on if they were armed.

Not that the ones here are any more trustworthy.

 
A clear and compelling argument for your police not having firearms.  Hard telling what they might take on if they were armed.

Not that the ones here are any more trustworthy.
Totally agree with that Charlie. If you look at the incident that have occurred in the UK carried out by armed police you have to be worried... every one of them neatly covered up by an enquiry mind you. They have a job to do though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In a similar vein ..... if you are in the car with the keys in the ignition, parked, if the car is turned on, you can be done for using a mobile phone. ( and people have been ) 

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/mobile-phones.html

My suspicion however, knowing a few police 'persons', is that the offenders failed the unspoken law in the initial approach, got belligerent; pissed off a copper who was just going to 'have a word', and ended up with 3 points.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top