dangerous and culpable driving

Fart examples for debates are good !

Well it is if you kill people, your intention was merely to ride home
drunk. Your intention was not to wipe out some innocent bystanders. You
broke 3 laws but your intention was only 2.

In any case, another fart / poo one :
If you eat something banned from the country .. say something from
somewhere nearby like Unzud.
Should you be asked to declare your poo on entry into the country ?
If not, are you a poo smuggler ?

 

I am not doubting your knowledge of the law but,
it's okay to quote laws, legislations, legalities and the subject of reasonable
doubt, which might be true
but, have you even been on a jury when the jury is being pressured by relatives and /
or friends of the accused,
who just happen to know where your family live, know which school your kids go to,
where you work, even to the point of knowing how much money you take home and have in
the bank?\
A friend of mine happened to be in the wrong place at the right time and was dragged
in by the coppers to testify as to what he saw of the alleged armed hold-up,
2 days after the first day of the court hearing, he was visited by relatives of the
accused and told all the facts about his life and how it would be a pity for his
family not to have a provider any more.
remembering that his address or name was not given out to anyone in the media, but he
was "found"
he had to oblige and could only come up with "I can't remember" when asked questions
the case fell down for the coppers and the accused was let go
My friend still moved out of town to another and was found and hassled again, but not
long after, the former accused was involved in a gun battle with the coppers and came
out second best,
along with a few of his family

and not forgetting the jury, three of them were "Got to"" by the same relatives, the
story of that came out long after the accused was dead and buried

 

I doubt he could successfully argue that his driving was due to "a
momentary lapse of concentration".


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

What ever happened to "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? i.e. how
can he get away it by saying "I didn't know it was wrong"? Sounds
like bullshit to me...


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Erm. Read back a few.

Specifically where you said :
'Yes it has to be defined in our jurisdiction before it becomes law.
No our lawmakers are not bound by any other jurisdiction.'

Which is where this thread leads from.

 

Why would you look at it that way when I specifically raised the issue
around 'vehicular manslaughter' as a discussion point... ie 'the legal
system in Victoria might address problems (as raised in the recent case
under discussion) by introducing Vehicular Manslaughter'.

But hey... if you want to take the topic and go off at a tangent I can't
stop you


G-S

 

I did *not* say it was.

I raised 2 extremes around the issue of differing penalties after you
implied it made no difference if his intent was to drive like an arse or
not.

I agree it isn't as clear cut as the 2 hypotheticals I raised and his
case would be somewhere along the spectrum between the two, but where do
you draw the line between the 2 extremes where 1 penalty become
appropriate and another does not?


G-S

 

I was threatened with being bashed within an inch of my life about 15
years ago by some people who persisted in ringing me (and my ex) late at
nights with threats.

Eventually this culminated with 'we are here and we are coming to get
you now', I said fine and walked out the front with a cricket bat only
too see a car screaming off into the distance. Of course I was younger
and sillier then.

Now days I'd hire some sort of professional protection instead if it was
really needed.

Or take a 12 months holiday overseas if it was really that serious

But giving in to pressure like that?

That'd *really* annoy me.




G-S

 

I'm not... hence my comments about vehicular manslaughter.

That might have been worth 10 years, which is better than 5 (even if not
as good as the 20 of culpable driving).


G-S

 

In aus.motorcycles on Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:37:18 +1100

If he had done all of that, but hit a roo or a tree instead of the
kids, what sentence would be appropriate?

If you wave yor fist about and knock over a woman who gets up and
swears at you, what should your sentence be? If the woman hits her
head on the kerb and dies, what should your sentence be? The action
is the same in both cases.

Zebee

 

I thought we were merely discussing which charge should have been
pursued, not what the penalty should be. Excuse my unforgivable
stupidity.

Somehow we moved from trial hearing to sentencing hearing. And not a
prison van in sight! I am amazed...


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

No prison vans around here... they use Toyota mini buses.

What's wrong? Can't we discuss both issues?


G-S

 

Given the facts of the case as I understand them, yes.

If, after a lengthy trial with much publicity, you still say he was
probably pissed, without referring to the facts which have been
presented in court and are largely undisputed by the DPP, you're not
exactly making yourself look very bright, not that we expect that from
you...

I'd fear for my life if I had just ploughed into a mob of rednecks too,
you'd probably just blend right in.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

That was specifically in answer to Nev's question.

That isn't the whole thread though *boggle*.


G-S

 

I'm not sure what you mean by it leading to the simplification and
rationalisation of the relevant laws? The laws were expanded only 2
years ago to include the charge of which he was convicted. Previous to
that he probably would have received a much more lenient sentence.

Nev..
'07 XB12X

 

I have enough trouble getting the guilty bastard charged with the
correct offence. I haven't even bothered considering how long his
life sentence ought to be...

Gimme a break... ;-)


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

You have a friend?

Theo

 

Yes Theo, and he is real, not like yours

 

What I meant was having three separate rules (Dangerous Driving,
Dangerous Driving Causing Death, and Culpable Driving) makes less sense
than having one rule with a range of penalties depending on the driver's
intent at the time and the amount of damage done.

 

3 rules each with a range of penalties depending on intent and damage vs
1 rule with a range of penalties depending on intent and damage.
*shrug* What's the benefit? Sounds like you're trying to create a
solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

Nev..
'07 XB12X