dangerous and culpable driving

No, that's steam power. Electrons hate each other and wil go in any
direction. Anyway, I'm still with hole-flow and stationery electrons.

Theo

 

|
| >Diogenes wrote:
| >> Plea
| >> bargains will only be sanctioned in cases where a guilty bastard is
| >> likely to walk free, which in this case, was highly unlikely.
| >>
| >
| >Actually I suspect that it was always pretty likely that he was going
to
| >get off the more serious charge.
| >
| >Nb... I'm not saying that is either good or bad, just that it was
always
| >going to be hard to get that conviction.
|
| That's what puzzles me. How can anyone, given the reported facts, be
| seen to be NOT guilty of culpable driving causing death?
|
| I just don't get that.

maybe it would help if you read the relevant Victorian Laws



--

---

~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

| On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:25:00 GMT, "George W Frost"
| >> If you had listened to the Judge giving instructions to the Jury
after having
| >> listened to the entire case, then you might be in a position to offer
an informed
| >> opinion rather than a 'media' opinion.
| >>
| >> P
| >
| >If you were there and heard all this, then please inform so that
things can be
| >understood
| >Otherwise, don't try to chastise people who only have what information
the media and
| >the police tendered for release
|
| So its ok to chastise a jury (who have all the facts) for not getting
| a result based on a judgement made without all those facts, but its
| not ok to chastise those people who made the judgement (made without
| all the facts) of the jury (who have the facts) because you don't have
| the facts either. Now that makes sense.
|
| paulh
| (that last sentence was sarcasm)

no ! it wasn't sarcastic at all - just bloody confusing :-}



~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

| >>
| >> That's what puzzles me. How can anyone, given the reported facts, be
| >> seen to be NOT guilty of culpable driving causing death?
| >
| >Course the 'reported fact' are exactly the same as what the jury
heard....
| >
| >> I just don't get that.
| >
| >If you had listened to the Judge giving instructions to the Jury after
| >having listened to the entire case, then you might be in a position to
offer
| >an informed opinion rather than a 'media' opinion.

right on !
thankfully the guy was being tried in a court of Law
and only sentenced and slandered/libelled by the media


| So, tell me, Peter, in your own words, was his driving blameworthy of
| causing deaths, or wasn't it? And if it was, why not charge him with
| culpable driving?

obviously the Police, the Court Authorities and the Judge had some
familarity with Victorian Law which differs from other states in legislating
for "culpable driving" AND "dangerous driving"

IMNSHO the perceived 'problem' arises because the "culpable driving"
offence requires establishing some kind of informed intent behind the
driving activity

further the media seems to be unaware of the legal procedure that
precludes previous behaviour/activities being made available to the jury
(thereby allowing them to concentrate on the actions under consideration)
BUT available to the Judge when the time comes for sentencing, thus a first
time offender gets the same treatment in court as a serial offender, BUT the
serial offender is likely to get it in the neck when the time comes for
sentencing.

[final thought] I would have thought that someone as wise as a Diogenes
would understand that common sense has very little to do with the
administration of Law ;-}

---

a friendly growl from the bear on the Zephyr that roars

__ __ __ _ __
/__/ / /__/ /_ /_\ /_ /
/_ / _ / /__/ /__ / \ / \ ....Kawasaki Zephyr

barry j taylor < >
Skype: ursus_australis



~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

|
|
| >Intent really.
|
| I beg to differ, Zebee.
|
| I don't think proving intent is relevant to the issue of culpability
| (if culpability means blameworthiness, and if not, then i'd like to
| know what they are having 'culpability' mean.)
|
| I short, one can be blameworthy of causing a death without necessarily
| having had an intent to casue that death. In fact I would say that
| proving intent only becomes relevant if the charge is murder.
|
| What say my learned collegues?

sad to say/admit BUT you could be correct in your opinion

only trouble is that your opinion does not coincide with Victorian Law


--

---

a friendly growl from the bear on the Zephyr that roars

__ __ __ _ __
/__/ / /__/ /_ /_\ /_ /
/_ / _ / /__/ /__ / \ / \ ....Kawasaki Zephyr

barry j taylor < >
Skype: ursus_australis



~~~ ~ _@
~~ ~ _- \,
~~ (*)/ (*) . . . bjbear on his treadly





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

We're very grateful for your support...

Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Nah... These days we're sucking the data up the hill.

Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Yep. But no more !!! We hoarding now...


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Don't worry. You don't have what it takes.

I'm glad.

Only yous.

I'm working on it...

The mere thought is too frightening for them to contemplate.



Onya bike...

Gerry

 

The dead ones? Charge them with reckless dying...

Dunno... Cos they're dead, maybe?

Why are you asking me?

Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Any who drives/rides recklessly or dangerously.

That would be nice...


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Maybe... And you have? Do tell us Barry... Don't hold back now...

Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Care to quote the RELEVANT bits my opinion does not coincide with,
Barry?

Onya bike...

Gerry

 

What?!! Are you claiming that bits of your opinion are relevant?

Theo

 

Thanks you.

I know...

Nah... Jut your ordinary, everyday, cynic.

The very same...

They do now...

Well, that'll leran ya to put me up on a pedestal...

warmer, ...getting warmer...


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

When you finally get to understand the finer nuances of Engish
grammar, Theodore, you will have two realisations:

[1] That the the monetary price of something is not a reliable
indicator ot that item's carbon footprint.

[2] That my use of the word 'relevant' was contextually linked to
Victorian Law and not my opinion.


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

Sounds like Gerry...

Apart from the bit about the schoolkids, I think you nailed it.

 

Not any kind of indicator?

Hey, I'm just here for the fish.

Theo
Going to have to look up 'nuances' and see if I can put a finer point on it.

 

Well, I think we did agree that if it costs money it porobably has a
carbon footprint... As do a lot of things which don't cost money.
Still pining for the Howard years to return? Still reckon golbal
warming is a beat-up? Still beating your wife?

Catchin' any?


Onya bike...

Gerry

 

No, I found that they don't work.

No. I'm bashful.

No, I go to the newsagent's in the arvo wearing a jockstrap full of
baked beans. And you?

Whatever Theo wants it to...

"Illimitable" Nice word. I see you've discoved another Thesaurus
website... Good for you !!!


Onya bike...

Gerry