Gillett's life is worth $2000 + 8 months driving suspension
- Thread starter endroll
- Start date
B
Bleve
Guest
Theo Bekkers wrote:
> cfsmtb wrote:
> > Bleve Wrote:
>
> >> Throwing some kid in gaol for 10 years won't stop another kid doing
> >> the
> >> same thing by accident. Amy's dead, you can't bring her back, no
> >> matter how long this kid gets locked up for.
>
> > The greater issue isn't about throwing people in jail - it's about the
> > justice system accurately reflecting the incident that occurred.
>
> Please tell me the outcome you would like to see from the court that would
> 1. be just
> 2. reflects the incident accurately
> 3. would satisfy Amy's parents (IYO)
>
> Now pretend it was your 17yo child driving the car and answer the questions
> again.
Which is precisely why we seperate our legal system as much as we can
from those too personally involved. It's *not* about revenge, it's
about prevention.
> cfsmtb wrote:
> > Bleve Wrote:
>
> >> Throwing some kid in gaol for 10 years won't stop another kid doing
> >> the
> >> same thing by accident. Amy's dead, you can't bring her back, no
> >> matter how long this kid gets locked up for.
>
> > The greater issue isn't about throwing people in jail - it's about the
> > justice system accurately reflecting the incident that occurred.
>
> Please tell me the outcome you would like to see from the court that would
> 1. be just
> 2. reflects the incident accurately
> 3. would satisfy Amy's parents (IYO)
>
> Now pretend it was your 17yo child driving the car and answer the questions
> again.
Which is precisely why we seperate our legal system as much as we can
from those too personally involved. It's *not* about revenge, it's
about prevention.
B
Bleve
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> >
> > Please tell me the outcome you would like to see from the court that
> > would
> > 1. be just
> > 2. reflects the incident accurately
> > 3. would satisfy Amy's parents (IYO)
> >
> > Now pretend it was your 17yo child driving the car and answer the
> > questions
> > again.
>
> Theo, that's not a genuine request, you're just playing with rhetorical
> questions. Next.
Why not answer the question?
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> >
> > Please tell me the outcome you would like to see from the court that
> > would
> > 1. be just
> > 2. reflects the incident accurately
> > 3. would satisfy Amy's parents (IYO)
> >
> > Now pretend it was your 17yo child driving the car and answer the
> > questions
> > again.
>
> Theo, that's not a genuine request, you're just playing with rhetorical
> questions. Next.
Why not answer the question?
P
percrime
Guest
OK I will.
My 17 yo kid has just killed one person and hurt several others in her
first weeks on the road in spite of my best efforts to teach her to
have a clue. (May not be much to this genetics business)
They were people she didnt want to kill or hurt. This makes a
difference
Well she doesnt get to do it again. She aint driving a car this
decade. Its up too her but if she goes on the roads its on a pushy or
a motorbike. She doesnt get to FU and hurt anyone else (without major
effort being involved.)
AND she can bloody well apologise.
Dave
My 17 yo kid has just killed one person and hurt several others in her
first weeks on the road in spite of my best efforts to teach her to
have a clue. (May not be much to this genetics business)
They were people she didnt want to kill or hurt. This makes a
difference
Well she doesnt get to do it again. She aint driving a car this
decade. Its up too her but if she goes on the roads its on a pushy or
a motorbike. She doesnt get to FU and hurt anyone else (without major
effort being involved.)
AND she can bloody well apologise.
Dave
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> Please tell me the outcome you would like to see from the court that
>> would
>> 1. be just
>> 2. reflects the incident accurately
>> 3. would satisfy Amy's parents (IYO)
>>
>> Now pretend it was your 17yo child driving the car and answer the
>> questions
>> again.
> Theo, that's not a genuine request, you're just playing with
> rhetorical questions.
No, it's not rhetorical. It's a genuine request. You have no idea how close
to this I came when my youngest was 17-19.
Can you please answer the question.
Theo
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
>> Please tell me the outcome you would like to see from the court that
>> would
>> 1. be just
>> 2. reflects the incident accurately
>> 3. would satisfy Amy's parents (IYO)
>>
>> Now pretend it was your 17yo child driving the car and answer the
>> questions
>> again.
> Theo, that's not a genuine request, you're just playing with
> rhetorical questions.
No, it's not rhetorical. It's a genuine request. You have no idea how close
to this I came when my youngest was 17-19.
Can you please answer the question.
Theo
R
Random Data
Guest
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 03:05:51 +0000, Jock wrote:
> 2. The motorist claimed she did not see my wife.
Is there a written record of this? If so, you've got more than enough to
pursue the matter in a civil court - ie, sue them. There might be enough
to get a cleaner / nanny to help with the kids at least, and it's got to
help with physio, etc.
I can't remember off the top of my head what the process is, but talking
to the Commanding Officer at the attending officer's police station and
reminding them there's an admission of SMIDSY should at least get a charge
of negligent driving, which could help in a civil suit.
In any case, while it'll cost you money, I really think you should have a
chat to a lawyer - preferably not a "no win/no fee" shyster. Our legal
system may not be perfect, but you're in the position it's supposed to
help with.
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"Coming to work with a faraway look and a really heavy gym bag starts to
look like a marvellously good idea." - Dan Rutter
> 2. The motorist claimed she did not see my wife.
Is there a written record of this? If so, you've got more than enough to
pursue the matter in a civil court - ie, sue them. There might be enough
to get a cleaner / nanny to help with the kids at least, and it's got to
help with physio, etc.
I can't remember off the top of my head what the process is, but talking
to the Commanding Officer at the attending officer's police station and
reminding them there's an admission of SMIDSY should at least get a charge
of negligent driving, which could help in a civil suit.
In any case, while it'll cost you money, I really think you should have a
chat to a lawyer - preferably not a "no win/no fee" shyster. Our legal
system may not be perfect, but you're in the position it's supposed to
help with.
--
Dave Hughes | [email protected]
"Coming to work with a faraway look and a really heavy gym bag starts to
look like a marvellously good idea." - Dan Rutter
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
percrime wrote:
> OK I will.
> My 17 yo kid has just killed one person and hurt several others in her
> first weeks on the road in spite of my best efforts to teach her to
> have a clue. (May not be much to this genetics business)
> They were people she didnt want to kill or hurt. This makes a
> difference
>
> Well she doesnt get to do it again. She aint driving a car this
> decade. Its up too her but if she goes on the roads its on a pushy or
> a motorbike. She doesnt get to FU and hurt anyone else (without major
> effort being involved.)
>
> AND she can bloody well apologise.
So you think the German judge was too harsh then?
Theo
> OK I will.
> My 17 yo kid has just killed one person and hurt several others in her
> first weeks on the road in spite of my best efforts to teach her to
> have a clue. (May not be much to this genetics business)
> They were people she didnt want to kill or hurt. This makes a
> difference
>
> Well she doesnt get to do it again. She aint driving a car this
> decade. Its up too her but if she goes on the roads its on a pushy or
> a motorbike. She doesnt get to FU and hurt anyone else (without major
> effort being involved.)
>
> AND she can bloody well apologise.
So you think the German judge was too harsh then?
Theo
B
Bleve
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > Is it though? It seems to me that justice in these cases, seems more
> > about emotional satisfaction for a number of agrieved parties - ie:
> > revenge by another name.
>
> No, that's you projecting what you *believe* other people are thinking.
> Hasn't this aspect been previously discussed in this thread?!?
Which is why I wrote "it seems to me". Thus, opinion. Clearly stated.
What do *you* think? You can start by answering Theo's questions, they
seem pretty reasonable to me, and a good example of why those close to
a crime should have no part in judging it.
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > I'd have thought that the core issue is about prevention of future
> > similar incidents. ie: deterrance and/or change in infrastructure &
> > culture such that the roads are safer for everyone.
>
> Then get involved with advocacy, don't just sit on the sidelines
> endlessly pontificating via a newsgroup. I have plenty of
> contacts/links if you want to know more.
It's your baby. I don't think things are that bad, and I think that
ranting on about the odd random "**** happens" incident doesn't help
anyone. I do plenty to help other cyclists, so forget using that tack.
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > Is it though? It seems to me that justice in these cases, seems more
> > about emotional satisfaction for a number of agrieved parties - ie:
> > revenge by another name.
>
> No, that's you projecting what you *believe* other people are thinking.
> Hasn't this aspect been previously discussed in this thread?!?
Which is why I wrote "it seems to me". Thus, opinion. Clearly stated.
What do *you* think? You can start by answering Theo's questions, they
seem pretty reasonable to me, and a good example of why those close to
a crime should have no part in judging it.
> Bleve Wrote:
> >
> > I'd have thought that the core issue is about prevention of future
> > similar incidents. ie: deterrance and/or change in infrastructure &
> > culture such that the roads are safer for everyone.
>
> Then get involved with advocacy, don't just sit on the sidelines
> endlessly pontificating via a newsgroup. I have plenty of
> contacts/links if you want to know more.
It's your baby. I don't think things are that bad, and I think that
ranting on about the odd random "**** happens" incident doesn't help
anyone. I do plenty to help other cyclists, so forget using that tack.
J
Jock
Guest
Thanks, the insco is already helping with house stuff and the law person is
waiting our instructions when the time comes.
PITA all the same.
Regards,
Jock
"Random Data" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
| On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 03:05:51 +0000, Jock wrote:
| --
| Dave Hughes | [email protected]
| "Coming to work with a faraway look and a really heavy gym bag starts to
| look like a marvellously good idea." - Dan Rutter
|
waiting our instructions when the time comes.
PITA all the same.
Regards,
Jock
"Random Data" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...| On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 03:05:51 +0000, Jock wrote:
| --
| Dave Hughes | [email protected]
| "Coming to work with a faraway look and a really heavy gym bag starts to
| look like a marvellously good idea." - Dan Rutter
|
T
Theo Bekkers
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Bleve Wrote:
>> Why not answer the question?
> Because percrime was too damn fast & beat me to it.
So that was your answer? No jail, no fine, no life sentence? Or was that
just for your 17yo?
Theo
> Bleve Wrote:
>> Why not answer the question?
> Because percrime was too damn fast & beat me to it.
So that was your answer? No jail, no fine, no life sentence? Or was that
just for your 17yo?
Theo
T
TimC
Guest
On 2006-02-05, Spiny Norman (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:25:19 +1100, endroll
> <[email protected]> wrote in aus.bicycle:
>
>>
>>..it would appear...
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/ajynz
>
> Isn't it a question of justice not the value of life? If she had been
> an experienced driver with an appalling negligent driving record then
> gaol might have been appropriate but she was just a kid with a new
> licence and no experience. Tragic for all concerned.
But I'll give you two hypothetical circumstances. Please tell me what
the Australian and/or German justice system would dish out to:
1) A girl driving along, exactly same scenario, loses control of
vehicle, plows into another vehicle, kills 1 occupant, puts other 5 in
a coma.
2) A girl just gets her gun license two weeks ago, is still very
inexperienced, and shoots a fellow gun user on the shooting range, or
worse, shoots a spectator.
I reckon she'd be more harshly dealt with in both situations. In all
situations, she has a deadly weapon, and stuffed up with deadly
consequences.
--
TimC
If my head were spinning at relativistic speeds,
it would appear to everyone else that my brane had slowed down.
-- Dan E. Macs on RHOD
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 13:25:19 +1100, endroll
> <[email protected]> wrote in aus.bicycle:
>
>>
>>..it would appear...
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/ajynz
>
> Isn't it a question of justice not the value of life? If she had been
> an experienced driver with an appalling negligent driving record then
> gaol might have been appropriate but she was just a kid with a new
> licence and no experience. Tragic for all concerned.
But I'll give you two hypothetical circumstances. Please tell me what
the Australian and/or German justice system would dish out to:
1) A girl driving along, exactly same scenario, loses control of
vehicle, plows into another vehicle, kills 1 occupant, puts other 5 in
a coma.
2) A girl just gets her gun license two weeks ago, is still very
inexperienced, and shoots a fellow gun user on the shooting range, or
worse, shoots a spectator.
I reckon she'd be more harshly dealt with in both situations. In all
situations, she has a deadly weapon, and stuffed up with deadly
consequences.
--
TimC
If my head were spinning at relativistic speeds,
it would appear to everyone else that my brane had slowed down.
-- Dan E. Macs on RHOD
Theo Bekkers said:
Tsk Tsk! Theo, what 17yo? I've got a 18yo blue heeler x kelpie & she's still a right handful. Anyway, you've made the nonlawyer's mistake of failing to distinguish between fact & opinion. And ditto, you're clearly mistaken the internet for reality again. Tsk Tsk! Now if you don't mind, I'm busy enquirying about legal advice from *real people* who reside in *reality* & following up several advocacy enquiries from earlier this morning.
E
Euan
Guest
[email protected] (dewatf) writes:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:00:47 +1100, EuanB
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You're confusing actions with consequences.
>
> The point of legal system is punish people for their free willed
> actions, not to hand out punishments based on the luck of the outcome.
You're repeating yourself. You do that a lot. Either make new points
or refrain from posting.
> You bump into someone and they fall over, strike their head on the
> ground and die doesn't mean you should be gaolled just because the
> consequences turned out to be bad.
I disagree. Consequences see, I believe that the consequences of
actions should be a factor in sentencing.
>>If I take or fail to take an action that has undesirable consequences
>>I'd expect the consequences to be a large factor in determining
>>sentence.
>
> Legal systems don't work like that all the time.
Agreed.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:00:47 +1100, EuanB
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>You're confusing actions with consequences.
>
> The point of legal system is punish people for their free willed
> actions, not to hand out punishments based on the luck of the outcome.
You're repeating yourself. You do that a lot. Either make new points
or refrain from posting.
> You bump into someone and they fall over, strike their head on the
> ground and die doesn't mean you should be gaolled just because the
> consequences turned out to be bad.
I disagree. Consequences see, I believe that the consequences of
actions should be a factor in sentencing.
>>If I take or fail to take an action that has undesirable consequences
>>I'd expect the consequences to be a large factor in determining
>>sentence.
>
> Legal systems don't work like that all the time.
Agreed.
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
Z
Zebee Johnstone
Guest
In aus.bicycle on Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:49:56 GMT
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 1) A girl driving along, exactly same scenario, loses control of
> vehicle, plows into another vehicle, kills 1 occupant, puts other 5 in
> a coma.
>
> 2) A girl just gets her gun license two weeks ago, is still very
> inexperienced, and shoots a fellow gun user on the shooting range, or
> worse, shoots a spectator.
>
> I reckon she'd be more harshly dealt with in both situations. In all
> situations, she has a deadly weapon, and stuffed up with deadly
> consequences.
IN the second case, she'd be tried for manslaughter. If it really was
inexperience and loss of control, not breaking the rules of the range,
horseplay, what have you, I doubt she'd be punished severely.
Zebee
TimC <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 1) A girl driving along, exactly same scenario, loses control of
> vehicle, plows into another vehicle, kills 1 occupant, puts other 5 in
> a coma.
>
> 2) A girl just gets her gun license two weeks ago, is still very
> inexperienced, and shoots a fellow gun user on the shooting range, or
> worse, shoots a spectator.
>
> I reckon she'd be more harshly dealt with in both situations. In all
> situations, she has a deadly weapon, and stuffed up with deadly
> consequences.
IN the second case, she'd be tried for manslaughter. If it really was
inexperience and loss of control, not breaking the rules of the range,
horseplay, what have you, I doubt she'd be punished severely.
Zebee
J
jim
Guest
>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:00:47 +1100, EuanB
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I disagree. Consequences see, I believe that the consequences of
> actions should be a factor in sentencing.
>
Euan maybe think about reductio ad absurdum? Or the case where a legal
action results in pain, suffering or worse but is not mediated in the
courts. Both make your suggestion less than compelling.
B
Bleve
Guest
cfsmtb wrote:
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> >
> >
> > So that was your answer? No jail, no fine, no life sentence? Or was
> > that
> > just for your 17yo?
> >
> > Theo
>
> Tsk Tsk! Theo, what 17yo? I've got a 18yo blue heeler x kelpie & she's
> still a right handful. Anyway, you've made the nonlawyer's mistake of
> failing to distinguish between fact & opinion.
He's asked for your opinion. It's clear. They're clear questions.
He's asked *you* (not Dave).
I'd like to read your opinion too. Stop dodging questions, you read
like a crudely coded Eliza* variant with too many non sequiturs in its
phrase table.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA - ref is for TimC. I think he'll
get the joke.
> Theo Bekkers Wrote:
> >
> >
> > So that was your answer? No jail, no fine, no life sentence? Or was
> > that
> > just for your 17yo?
> >
> > Theo
>
> Tsk Tsk! Theo, what 17yo? I've got a 18yo blue heeler x kelpie & she's
> still a right handful. Anyway, you've made the nonlawyer's mistake of
> failing to distinguish between fact & opinion.
He's asked for your opinion. It's clear. They're clear questions.
He's asked *you* (not Dave).
I'd like to read your opinion too. Stop dodging questions, you read
like a crudely coded Eliza* variant with too many non sequiturs in its
phrase table.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA - ref is for TimC. I think he'll
get the joke.
J
Jan-Christoph Westermann
Guest
cfsmtb schrieb:
> endroll Wrote:
>
>>...it would appear...
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/ajynz
>
>
>
> Rooman & I had a brief discussion on this at tonights Austral, it seems
> that the Germany authorities take a conciliatory approach to sentencing.
>
>
> Your thoughts?
The fine issued in this trail is not the sum to be payed as a
compensation to family or other people involved. This fine
goes to the state. Compensation for injuries and/or families is
covered by the insurance, usually to maximum 3Million ¤.
BTW: (temporary) loss of driving licence at that age automaically
requires taking a new test for the driving licence in Germany
(2 year mandatorial probation time for all drivers).
The sentence is in the anticipated range (I mean german standards).
They wouldnt go further than that because of the age of the
driver and afaik they never found out why it happened.
The trail/sentence didnt even make it into german news, so there
no more information about the sentence.
jcw
> endroll Wrote:
>
>>...it would appear...
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/ajynz
>
>
>
> Rooman & I had a brief discussion on this at tonights Austral, it seems
> that the Germany authorities take a conciliatory approach to sentencing.
>
>
> Your thoughts?
The fine issued in this trail is not the sum to be payed as a
compensation to family or other people involved. This fine
goes to the state. Compensation for injuries and/or families is
covered by the insurance, usually to maximum 3Million ¤.
BTW: (temporary) loss of driving licence at that age automaically
requires taking a new test for the driving licence in Germany
(2 year mandatorial probation time for all drivers).
The sentence is in the anticipated range (I mean german standards).
They wouldnt go further than that because of the age of the
driver and afaik they never found out why it happened.
The trail/sentence didnt even make it into german news, so there
no more information about the sentence.
jcw
E
Euan
Guest
"jim" <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:00:47 +1100, EuanB
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. Consequences see, I believe that the consequences of
>> actions should be a factor in sentencing.
>>
>
>
> Euan maybe think about reductio ad absurdum?
Meaning? I speak English, not Latin.
> Or the case where a legal action results in pain, suffering or worse
> but is not mediated in the courts.
Could you illustrate with an example please?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
>>> On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 09:00:47 +1100, EuanB
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. Consequences see, I believe that the consequences of
>> actions should be a factor in sentencing.
>>
>
>
> Euan maybe think about reductio ad absurdum?
Meaning? I speak English, not Latin.
> Or the case where a legal action results in pain, suffering or worse
> but is not mediated in the courts.
Could you illustrate with an example please?
--
Cheers | ~~ __@
Euan | ~~ _-\<,
Melbourne, Australia | ~ (*)/ (*)
S
Stuart Lamble
Guest
On 2006-02-06, Euan <[email protected]> wrote:
> "jim" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Euan maybe think about reductio ad absurdum?
>
> Meaning? I speak English, not Latin.
Reduction to the absurd. In other words: take the argument, and follow
through to the logical extreme case, which is (when the rule apply) a
clearly absurd proposition.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
> "jim" <[email protected]> writes:
>> Euan maybe think about reductio ad absurdum?
>
> Meaning? I speak English, not Latin.
Reduction to the absurd. In other words: take the argument, and follow
through to the logical extreme case, which is (when the rule apply) a
clearly absurd proposition.
--
My Usenet From: address now expires after two weeks. If you email me, and
the mail bounces, try changing the bit before the "@" to "usenet".
Similar threads
