Gillett's life is worth $2000 + 8 months driving suspension

[Stuart Lamble]

On 2006-02-07, Random Data <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 08:42:33 +0800, Theo Bekkers wrote
>
>> I'm not that young.
>
> Who said you had to be young to read Harry Potter?

The last couple of books in said series.

--
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".

 

[dewatf]

On 5 Feb 2006 21:55:51 -0800, "Bleve" <[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Prevention and deterrence are the main thing.

It is also not completely irrelevant having the fine because it does
set a standard and provides and encouragement not to break it, and
punishes those who do.

The system must provide a reasonable punishment if it is to stop a
cycle of *** for tat revenge, one of a justice systems functions.
There is no point in being overly punative, though. That is often
counter productive causing more harm that good, and also encourages
people not to plead guilty and it can cause juries or magistrates not
to convict.

dewatf.

 

[dewatf]

On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 07:49:56 GMT, TimC
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

In NSW she would be charged with negligent driving causing death.
The maximum fine is $3300 and the maximum sentence 18 months.

For a simple accident she would most likely get a 12 month suspension
of her licence (the minimum) and a fine, and a sentence while unlikely
would almost certainly be suspended. So pretty much the same.

If it was dangerous driving, doing something intentionally illegal,
then you can get serious gaol time.

>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.

Not sure about that one, but it wouldn't be too tough for a simple
accident. The maximum sentence for failing to secure a firearm safely
and having it go off is 2 years.

dewatf.

 

[dave]

Stuart Lamble wrote:
> 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.
>

So the extreme case would be killing 6 cyclists and not even being
cautioned?

 

[Theo Bekkers]

TimC wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote
>> You're walking down the footpath with your umbrella and it stops
>> raining. You close your umbrella, flicking it a couple of times to
>> get most of the water off it, and poke some-one in the eye,
>> rupturing their eyeball. The court decides you were at fault and
>> sentences you to have one of your eyes surgically removed.

> I'd be quite for that. Umbrellas are evil, and people who use them
> are eviler.

On the other hand, anyone stupid enough to get that close to anyone with an
umbrella may be partly responsible for their injuries.

Theo

 

[Theo Bekkers]

Random Data wrote:
> Theo Bekkers wrote

>> I'm not that young.

> Who said you had to be young to read Harry Potter?

Nobody. Who said you had to read Harry. I read a few chapters of one of the
first books and saw the first movie. No thanks. My 11yo grandson thinks the
world of them though.

Theo

 

[TimC]

On 2006-02-08, Theo Bekkers (aka Bruce)
was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
> TimC wrote:
>> Theo Bekkers wrote
>>> You're walking down the footpath with your umbrella and it stops
>>> raining. You close your umbrella, flicking it a couple of times to
>>> get most of the water off it, and poke some-one in the eye,
>>> rupturing their eyeball. The court decides you were at fault and
>>> sentences you to have one of your eyes surgically removed.
>
>> I'd be quite for that. Umbrellas are evil, and people who use them
>> are eviler.
>
> On the other hand, anyone stupid enough to get that close to anyone with an
> umbrella may be partly responsible for their injuries.

Not always possible to avoid lusers with umbrellas. Walking down a
narrow coridoor with shop on one side, and seats or posts on the
other, and the idiot doesn't even raise their stupid brolly. I
usually just plow on through, taking care of my eyes, aiming to damage
their brolly. But I'm a *******, and I also start sentences with
"but".

--
TimC
Entropy requires no maintenance. -- Markoff Chaney