Woman jailed over cyclist's death

[Trevor S]

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084190343.html

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Alan Erskine]

"Trevor S" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084190343.html
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

And about damn time too.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Did John Howard lie to the Australian people?

[Alan Erskine]

"Trevor S" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084190343.html
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

And about damn time too.

--
Alan Erskine
alanerskine(at)optusnet.com.au
Did John Howard lie to the Australian people?

[Shabby]

What a croc.

2yrs & 3 months for killing someone, just for not having the sense to
get a taxi home when you plan to get wasted.

Who's ever seen a 37 year old at a rave anyway?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Shabby]

What a croc.

2yrs & 3 months for killing someone, just for not having the sense to
get a taxi home when you plan to get wasted.

Who's ever seen a 37 year old at a rave anyway?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Trevor S]

Shabby > wrote in news:3f20cae9$1_1
@news.chariot.net.au:

> What a croc.
>
> 2yrs & 3 months for killing someone, just for not having the sense to
> get a taxi home when you plan to get wasted.
>
> Who's ever seen a 37 year old at a rave anyway?

Agreed, simpily an indication the law is an ass ! IMO it should me
manslaughter (or in these PC times, Personslaughter I guess) Want to kill
someone ? Run them down in your car while 1/2 ****ed...

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

Shabby > wrote in news:3f20cae9$1_1
@news.chariot.net.au:

> What a croc.
>
> 2yrs & 3 months for killing someone, just for not having the sense to
> get a taxi home when you plan to get wasted.
>
> Who's ever seen a 37 year old at a rave anyway?

Agreed, simpily an indication the law is an ass ! IMO it should me
manslaughter (or in these PC times, Personslaughter I guess) Want to kill
someone ? Run them down in your car while 1/2 ****ed...

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Malvern_star]

Is THAT all!!

2 years and 3 months for killing someone through sheer negligence and
seriously injuring another.

That penalty is nearly as stiff as missing a tax return or mountain
biking in a national park.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Malvern_star]

Is THAT all!!

2 years and 3 months for killing someone through sheer negligence and
seriously injuring another.

That penalty is nearly as stiff as missing a tax return or mountain
biking in a national park.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Paulus]

No, no, no! The correct way to do it is run em over sober (line em up
better), then have a few ales.


"Trevor S" > wrote in message
...
> Shabby > wrote in news:3f20cae9$1_1
> @news.chariot.net.au:
>
> > What a croc.
> >
> > 2yrs & 3 months for killing someone, just for not having the sense to
> > get a taxi home when you plan to get wasted.
> >
> > Who's ever seen a 37 year old at a rave anyway?
>
> Agreed, simpily an indication the law is an ass ! IMO it should me
> manslaughter (or in these PC times, Personslaughter I guess) Want to kill
> someone ? Run them down in your car while 1/2 ****ed...
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

[Paulus]

No, no, no! The correct way to do it is run em over sober (line em up
better), then have a few ales.


"Trevor S" > wrote in message
...
> Shabby > wrote in news:3f20cae9$1_1
> @news.chariot.net.au:
>
> > What a croc.
> >
> > 2yrs & 3 months for killing someone, just for not having the sense to
> > get a taxi home when you plan to get wasted.
> >
> > Who's ever seen a 37 year old at a rave anyway?
>
> Agreed, simpily an indication the law is an ass ! IMO it should me
> manslaughter (or in these PC times, Personslaughter I guess) Want to kill
> someone ? Run them down in your car while 1/2 ****ed...
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

[Leon]

This is a joke. This shows it pays to be a criminal in Australia. Less than
3yr sentence for taking someones life. Worst is that she might be only doing
weekend detention for 3 yrs or even out in less then 2 yrs.

I am going to start killing tomorrow.



"Trevor S" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084190343.html
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

[Leon]

This is a joke. This shows it pays to be a criminal in Australia. Less than
3yr sentence for taking someones life. Worst is that she might be only doing
weekend detention for 3 yrs or even out in less then 2 yrs.

I am going to start killing tomorrow.



"Trevor S" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/25/1059084190343.html
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

[RideToEat]

Leon wrote:
> This is a joke. This shows it pays to be a criminal in Australia. Less
> than 3yr sentence for taking someones life. Worst is that she might be
> only doing weekend detention for 3 yrs or even out in less then 2 yrs.
> I am going to start killing tomorrow.



The 2 and a 1/2 years sounds like an appropriate sentence to me. I know
it's horrible for the victims and their families, but it wasn't a
callous act - just a stupid mistake.

I don't know about the weekend detention, though. Who said that
could happen?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[RideToEat]

Leon wrote:
> This is a joke. This shows it pays to be a criminal in Australia. Less
> than 3yr sentence for taking someones life. Worst is that she might be
> only doing weekend detention for 3 yrs or even out in less then 2 yrs.
> I am going to start killing tomorrow.



The 2 and a 1/2 years sounds like an appropriate sentence to me. I know
it's horrible for the victims and their families, but it wasn't a
callous act - just a stupid mistake.

I don't know about the weekend detention, though. Who said that
could happen?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Peter Cremasco]

On 28 Jul 2003 13:24:07 GMT, Trevor S > wrote:

>suitability of the sentence:) I agree it was a mistake but she took a
>persons life, does it matter if it was deliberate or not ? You seem to be
>saying that if she killed the person deliberately, that would be worse ?

Yes.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

[Peter Cremasco]

On 28 Jul 2003 13:24:07 GMT, Trevor S > wrote:

>suitability of the sentence:) I agree it was a mistake but she took a
>persons life, does it matter if it was deliberate or not ? You seem to be
>saying that if she killed the person deliberately, that would be worse ?

Yes.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

[RideToEat]

Peter Cremasco wrote:
> >suitability of the sentence:) I agree it was a mistake but she took a
> >persons life, does it matter if it was deliberate or not ? You seem
> >to be saying that if she killed the person deliberately, that would
> >be worse ?



Yep, that's what I'm saying (and I think the law says it matters too).

Don't get me wrong. It fills me with terror that that could happen to
me. I often ride on that very same road at the same time of the weekend,
too. And I feel terrible for the victims and their families.

But this woman didn't go on a killing spree. She hadn't had enough
sleep, and was stupid for getting in her car. She's going away for at
least two and a half years.

Sorry for having some objectivity.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[RideToEat]

Peter Cremasco wrote:
> >suitability of the sentence:) I agree it was a mistake but she took a
> >persons life, does it matter if it was deliberate or not ? You seem
> >to be saying that if she killed the person deliberately, that would
> >be worse ?



Yep, that's what I'm saying (and I think the law says it matters too).

Don't get me wrong. It fills me with terror that that could happen to
me. I often ride on that very same road at the same time of the weekend,
too. And I feel terrible for the victims and their families.

But this woman didn't go on a killing spree. She hadn't had enough
sleep, and was stupid for getting in her car. She's going away for at
least two and a half years.

Sorry for having some objectivity.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Trevor S]

RideToEat > wrote in news:3f2632f2$3_3
@news.chariot.net.au:

<snip>

> Yep, that's what I'm saying

I disagree vehemently, the outcome is the important issue, not how it was
achieved.

>(and I think the law says it matters too).

Indeed, but then as has been shown on numerous occasions, the laws an ass
:)

> But this woman didn't go on a killing spree.

Sure she did, check the article, a person dies, if she had killed three,
would that be a spree and we throw away the key ? or simpily stupidity ?

> She hadn't had enough
> sleep, and was stupid for getting in her car.

Agreed, but we don't punish people for stupidity, or the Goals would be
full :) We punish them for their actions...

> She's going away for at
> least two and a half years.

Indeed, take a life get 2 1/2 years.. seems wholly inadequate to me,
especially in an instance like this... and no I don't advocate an eye for
an eye :) but I would have thought at minimum a decade and then garnish
her wage for another decade at say 20% for recompense to the relatives.

> Sorry for having some objectivity.

IMO you don't have any objectivity but I respect your opinion, just
disgaree with it vehemetly :) There is no objectivity, you can't take it
back, it's final, it's not like stealing a car or a pushbike, it's a
life, Persoanly I could suffer the lost of anything, excpet my life.....

As an aside, the US Government has a bill before congress where this sort
of Goal time would be given to people downloading MP3's, now lets put
THAT in perspective.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

RideToEat > wrote in news:3f2632f2$3_3
@news.chariot.net.au:

<snip>

> Yep, that's what I'm saying

I disagree vehemently, the outcome is the important issue, not how it was
achieved.

>(and I think the law says it matters too).

Indeed, but then as has been shown on numerous occasions, the laws an ass
:)

> But this woman didn't go on a killing spree.

Sure she did, check the article, a person dies, if she had killed three,
would that be a spree and we throw away the key ? or simpily stupidity ?

> She hadn't had enough
> sleep, and was stupid for getting in her car.

Agreed, but we don't punish people for stupidity, or the Goals would be
full :) We punish them for their actions...

> She's going away for at
> least two and a half years.

Indeed, take a life get 2 1/2 years.. seems wholly inadequate to me,
especially in an instance like this... and no I don't advocate an eye for
an eye :) but I would have thought at minimum a decade and then garnish
her wage for another decade at say 20% for recompense to the relatives.

> Sorry for having some objectivity.

IMO you don't have any objectivity but I respect your opinion, just
disgaree with it vehemetly :) There is no objectivity, you can't take it
back, it's final, it's not like stealing a car or a pushbike, it's a
life, Persoanly I could suffer the lost of anything, excpet my life.....

As an aside, the US Government has a bill before congress where this sort
of Goal time would be given to people downloading MP3's, now lets put
THAT in perspective.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Theo Bekkers]

"Trevor S" wrote

> I disagree vehemently, the outcome is the important issue, not how
it was
> achieved.

Suppose you were trimming your hedge and you carelessly let a branch
fall on the footpath, someone walking past just at that moment trips
on it, does a spectacular cartwheel and lands flat on his back unhurt.
A passing bus driver witnesses this and his attention is distracted
for a secvond, bus runs into a tree and 20 people die.

Do you expect to be hung for the outcome? Should the bus driver be
hung for the outcome? Should the pedestrian be hung for the outcome
because he wasn't looking where he was going? Shall we hang them all?
I suspect the driver will be punished for your carelessness and that
you will receive no blame.

> As an aside, the US Government has a bill before congress where this
sort
> of Goal time would be given to people downloading MP3's, now lets
put
> THAT in perspective.

Nobody does that unintentionally. It is a deliberate act of theft.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Trevor S" wrote

> I disagree vehemently, the outcome is the important issue, not how
it was
> achieved.

Suppose you were trimming your hedge and you carelessly let a branch
fall on the footpath, someone walking past just at that moment trips
on it, does a spectacular cartwheel and lands flat on his back unhurt.
A passing bus driver witnesses this and his attention is distracted
for a secvond, bus runs into a tree and 20 people die.

Do you expect to be hung for the outcome? Should the bus driver be
hung for the outcome? Should the pedestrian be hung for the outcome
because he wasn't looking where he was going? Shall we hang them all?
I suspect the driver will be punished for your carelessness and that
you will receive no blame.

> As an aside, the US Government has a bill before congress where this
sort
> of Goal time would be given to people downloading MP3's, now lets
put
> THAT in perspective.

Nobody does that unintentionally. It is a deliberate act of theft.

Theo

[Luther Blissett]

The point that Theo seems to miss is that jail sentences are not just to
punish people who commit crimes, but also to act as a deterrent to
people who may follow the same path.
If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.

- LB

[Luther Blissett]

The point that Theo seems to miss is that jail sentences are not just to
punish people who commit crimes, but also to act as a deterrent to
people who may follow the same path.
If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.

- LB

[hippy]

"Luther Blissett" > wrote in
message ...
> If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
> about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
> be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.

Actually the drugs didn't play a part in the actual crash. It was the lack
of sleep, apparently. If anything, she should have had more gear.. maybe
she wouldn't have fallen asleep at the wheel? 24 hours without sleep was
found to be equivalent to a 0.1 BAC IIRC. How many people out there
drugs or no drugs are too tired to drive safely? A bloody lot I imagine!

What was she actually charged with and why was it not a manslaughter
charge?

hippy

[hippy]

"Luther Blissett" > wrote in
message ...
> If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
> about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
> be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.

Actually the drugs didn't play a part in the actual crash. It was the lack
of sleep, apparently. If anything, she should have had more gear.. maybe
she wouldn't have fallen asleep at the wheel? 24 hours without sleep was
found to be equivalent to a 0.1 BAC IIRC. How many people out there
drugs or no drugs are too tired to drive safely? A bloody lot I imagine!

What was she actually charged with and why was it not a manslaughter
charge?

hippy

[Peter Cremasco]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:38:54 +1000, Luther Blissett
> wrote:

>The point that Theo seems to miss is that jail sentences are not just to
>punish people who commit crimes, but also to act as a deterrent to
>people who may follow the same path.
>If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
>about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
>be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.

You don't think that losing 2 1/2 years of freedom isn't a big hunk out
of someone's life? I tell you, the prospect of even spending 12 months
in jail acts as a pretty good incentive for me to stay OUT of it.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

[Peter Cremasco]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:38:54 +1000, Luther Blissett
> wrote:

>The point that Theo seems to miss is that jail sentences are not just to
>punish people who commit crimes, but also to act as a deterrent to
>people who may follow the same path.
>If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
>about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
>be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.

You don't think that losing 2 1/2 years of freedom isn't a big hunk out
of someone's life? I tell you, the prospect of even spending 12 months
in jail acts as a pretty good incentive for me to stay OUT of it.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

[D&M johnston]

"Peter Cremasco" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:38:54 +1000, Luther Blissett
> > wrote:
>
> >The point that Theo seems to miss is that jail sentences are not just to
> >punish people who commit crimes, but also to act as a deterrent to
> >people who may follow the same path.
> >If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
> >about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
> >be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.
>
> You don't think that losing 2 1/2 years of freedom isn't a big hunk out
> of someone's life? I tell you, the prospect of even spending 12 months
> in jail acts as a pretty good incentive for me to stay OUT of it.
>
> HEAR HEAR!!
> ---
> Cheers
>
> PeterC
>
> [Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
> [and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

[D&M johnston]

"Peter Cremasco" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 21:38:54 +1000, Luther Blissett
> > wrote:
>
> >The point that Theo seems to miss is that jail sentences are not just to
> >punish people who commit crimes, but also to act as a deterrent to
> >people who may follow the same path.
> >If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
> >about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
> >be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.
>
> You don't think that losing 2 1/2 years of freedom isn't a big hunk out
> of someone's life? I tell you, the prospect of even spending 12 months
> in jail acts as a pretty good incentive for me to stay OUT of it.
>
> HEAR HEAR!!
> ---
> Cheers
>
> PeterC
>
> [Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
> [and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

[Trevor S]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in news:FusVa.21688$OM3.6916
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> "Trevor S" wrote
>
>> I disagree vehemently, the outcome is the important issue, not how
> it was
>> achieved.
>
> Suppose you were trimming your hedge and you carelessly let a branch
> fall on the footpath, someone walking past just at that moment trips
> on it, does a spectacular cartwheel and lands flat on his back unhurt.
> A passing bus driver witnesses this and his attention is distracted
> for a secvond, bus runs into a tree and 20 people die.
>
> Do you expect to be hung for the outcome?

Hung ? No, as I said , the outcome is important, I am agin' the death
penalty, as it kills people. In the instance you explore, the bus drive
killed 20 people through direct neglect, to me it is fairly black and
white example.

> Should the bus driver be
> hung for the outcome?

No

> Should the pedestrian be hung for the outcome
> because he wasn't looking where he was going?

No.

> Shall we hang them all?

No

> I suspect the driver will be punished for your carelessness and that
> you will receive no blame.

because there is none to assign, unless you want to blame the drivers
mother for giving birth, how far down the blame ladder do you want to
step ?. Seems blatantly clear to me in your example the bus driver
killed 20 people in your example, your mitigating circumstances amoutn to
nothing more then a fart in the wind IMO. Would you like to see te
Government blamed for not training the driver correctly, or the Police
for not disqualify the driver, or the people that made the hedge cutter
blamed for allowing me to use it ? Your philisophy is seriouly flawed
precisly because of your blame transferal.


>> As an aside, the US Government has a bill before congress where this
> sort
>> of Goal time would be given to people downloading MP3's, now lets
> put
>> THAT in perspective.
>
> Nobody does that unintentionally. It is a deliberate act of theft.

Uh huh.... I think you missed my point, it is only theft because of the
powerful IP lobby in the USA, there ability to incarcerate someone for
downloading an MP3 was used as a direct example of proving the point that
the law is an ass. In a world of swings and round-a-bouts putting somoen
in Goal for downloading an MP3 seems to be to be a prime example of the
world gone mad.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in news:FusVa.21688$OM3.6916
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> "Trevor S" wrote
>
>> I disagree vehemently, the outcome is the important issue, not how
> it was
>> achieved.
>
> Suppose you were trimming your hedge and you carelessly let a branch
> fall on the footpath, someone walking past just at that moment trips
> on it, does a spectacular cartwheel and lands flat on his back unhurt.
> A passing bus driver witnesses this and his attention is distracted
> for a secvond, bus runs into a tree and 20 people die.
>
> Do you expect to be hung for the outcome?

Hung ? No, as I said , the outcome is important, I am agin' the death
penalty, as it kills people. In the instance you explore, the bus drive
killed 20 people through direct neglect, to me it is fairly black and
white example.

> Should the bus driver be
> hung for the outcome?

No

> Should the pedestrian be hung for the outcome
> because he wasn't looking where he was going?

No.

> Shall we hang them all?

No

> I suspect the driver will be punished for your carelessness and that
> you will receive no blame.

because there is none to assign, unless you want to blame the drivers
mother for giving birth, how far down the blame ladder do you want to
step ?. Seems blatantly clear to me in your example the bus driver
killed 20 people in your example, your mitigating circumstances amoutn to
nothing more then a fart in the wind IMO. Would you like to see te
Government blamed for not training the driver correctly, or the Police
for not disqualify the driver, or the people that made the hedge cutter
blamed for allowing me to use it ? Your philisophy is seriouly flawed
precisly because of your blame transferal.


>> As an aside, the US Government has a bill before congress where this
> sort
>> of Goal time would be given to people downloading MP3's, now lets
> put
>> THAT in perspective.
>
> Nobody does that unintentionally. It is a deliberate act of theft.

Uh huh.... I think you missed my point, it is only theft because of the
powerful IP lobby in the USA, there ability to incarcerate someone for
downloading an MP3 was used as a direct example of proving the point that
the law is an ass. In a world of swings and round-a-bouts putting somoen
in Goal for downloading an MP3 seems to be to be a prime example of the
world gone mad.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

Peter Cremasco > wrote in
:

<snip>


> You don't think that losing 2 1/2 years of freedom isn't a big hunk out
> of someone's life?

:) not as much as the dead cycilst


--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

Peter Cremasco > wrote in
:

<snip>


> You don't think that losing 2 1/2 years of freedom isn't a big hunk out
> of someone's life?

:) not as much as the dead cycilst


--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Theo Bekkers]

"Trevor S" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

> > Suppose you were trimming your hedge and you carelessly let a
branch
> > fall on the footpath, someone walking past just at that moment
trips
> > on it, does a spectacular cartwheel and lands flat on his back
unhurt.
> > A passing bus driver witnesses this and his attention is
distracted
> > for a secvond, bus runs into a tree and 20 people die.
> >
> > Do you expect to be hung for the outcome?
>
> Hung ? No, as I said , the outcome is important, I am agin' the
death
> penalty, as it kills people. In the instance you explore, the bus
drive
> killed 20 people through direct neglect, to me it is fairly black
and
> white example.
>
> > Should the bus driver be
> > hung for the outcome?
>
> No
>
> > Should the pedestrian be hung for the outcome
> > because he wasn't looking where he was going?
>
> No.
>
> > Shall we hang them all?
>
> No
>
> > I suspect the driver will be punished for your carelessness and
that
> > you will receive no blame.
>
> because there is none to assign, unless you want to blame the
drivers
> mother for giving birth, how far down the blame ladder do you want
to
> step ?. Seems blatantly clear to me in your example the bus driver
> killed 20 people in your example, your mitigating circumstances
amoutn to
> nothing more then a fart in the wind IMO. Would you like to see te
> Government blamed for not training the driver correctly, or the
Police
> for not disqualify the driver, or the people that made the hedge
cutter
> blamed for allowing me to use it ? Your philisophy is seriouly
flawed
> precisly because of your blame transferal.
>
>
> >> As an aside, the US Government has a bill before congress where
this
> > sort
> >> of Goal time would be given to people downloading MP3's, now lets
> > put
> >> THAT in perspective.
> >
> > Nobody does that unintentionally. It is a deliberate act of theft.
>
> Uh huh.... I think you missed my point, it is only theft because of
the
> powerful IP lobby in the USA, there ability to incarcerate someone
for
> downloading an MP3 was used as a direct example of proving the point
that
> the law is an ass. In a world of swings and round-a-bouts putting
somoen
> in Goal for downloading an MP3 seems to be to be a prime example of
the
> world gone mad.
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

[Theo Bekkers]

"Trevor S" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

> > Suppose you were trimming your hedge and you carelessly let a
branch
> > fall on the footpath, someone walking past just at that moment
trips
> > on it, does a spectacular cartwheel and lands flat on his back
unhurt.
> > A passing bus driver witnesses this and his attention is
distracted
> > for a secvond, bus runs into a tree and 20 people die.
> >
> > Do you expect to be hung for the outcome?
>
> Hung ? No, as I said , the outcome is important, I am agin' the
death
> penalty, as it kills people. In the instance you explore, the bus
drive
> killed 20 people through direct neglect, to me it is fairly black
and
> white example.
>
> > Should the bus driver be
> > hung for the outcome?
>
> No
>
> > Should the pedestrian be hung for the outcome
> > because he wasn't looking where he was going?
>
> No.
>
> > Shall we hang them all?
>
> No
>
> > I suspect the driver will be punished for your carelessness and
that
> > you will receive no blame.
>
> because there is none to assign, unless you want to blame the
drivers
> mother for giving birth, how far down the blame ladder do you want
to
> step ?. Seems blatantly clear to me in your example the bus driver
> killed 20 people in your example, your mitigating circumstances
amoutn to
> nothing more then a fart in the wind IMO. Would you like to see te
> Government blamed for not training the driver correctly, or the
Police
> for not disqualify the driver, or the people that made the hedge
cutter
> blamed for allowing me to use it ? Your philisophy is seriouly
flawed
> precisly because of your blame transferal.
>
>
> >> As an aside, the US Government has a bill before congress where
this
> > sort
> >> of Goal time would be given to people downloading MP3's, now lets
> > put
> >> THAT in perspective.
> >
> > Nobody does that unintentionally. It is a deliberate act of theft.
>
> Uh huh.... I think you missed my point, it is only theft because of
the
> powerful IP lobby in the USA, there ability to incarcerate someone
for
> downloading an MP3 was used as a direct example of proving the point
that
> the law is an ass. In a world of swings and round-a-bouts putting
somoen
> in Goal for downloading an MP3 seems to be to be a prime example of
the
> world gone mad.
>
> --
> Trevor S
>
>
> "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
> -Albert Einstein

[Theo Bekkers]

"Trevor S" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

> Hung ? No, as I said , the outcome is important, I am agin' the
death
> penalty, as it kills people. In the instance you explore, the bus
drive
> killed 20 people through direct neglect, to me it is fairly black
and
> white example.

I agree.

> > I suspect the driver will be punished for your carelessness and
that
> > you will receive no blame.

> because there is none to assign, unless you want to blame the
drivers
> mother for giving birth, how far down the blame ladder do you want
to
> step ?. Seems blatantly clear to me in your example the bus driver
> killed 20 people in your example, your mitigating circumstances
amoutn to
> nothing more then a fart in the wind IMO. Would you like to see te
> Government blamed for not training the driver correctly, or the
Police
> for not disqualify the driver, or the people that made the hedge
cutter
> blamed for allowing me to use it ? Your philisophy is seriouly
flawed
> precisly because of your blame transferal.

I agree again. :-) Suppose you were on your mobile and stepped off the
curb in front of the bus driver. He takes evasive action, misses you
and kills 20 passengers. His fault or your's?

A bunch of motorcyclists protested in Geelong last week because of the
lenient sentence handed out to a motorist who did not hit a
motorcyclist who died. That is an interesting scenario.

> > Nobody does that unintentionally. It is a deliberate act of theft.

> Uh huh.... I think you missed my point, it is only theft because of
the
> powerful IP lobby in the USA, there ability to incarcerate someone
for
> downloading an MP3 was used as a direct example of proving the point
that
> the law is an ass. In a world of swings and round-a-bouts putting
somoen
> in Goal for downloading an MP3 seems to be to be a prime example of
the
> world gone mad.

So if you wrote some piece of software that revolutionised accounting
it would be OK for me to make a mastercopy available and invite anyone
to download their copy, that would be fine. I would be basing my
defence on the principle that you're charging too much for a legit
copy.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Trevor S" wrote
> "Theo Bekkers" wrote

> Hung ? No, as I said , the outcome is important, I am agin' the
death
> penalty, as it kills people. In the instance you explore, the bus
drive
> killed 20 people through direct neglect, to me it is fairly black
and
> white example.

I agree.

> > I suspect the driver will be punished for your carelessness and
that
> > you will receive no blame.

> because there is none to assign, unless you want to blame the
drivers
> mother for giving birth, how far down the blame ladder do you want
to
> step ?. Seems blatantly clear to me in your example the bus driver
> killed 20 people in your example, your mitigating circumstances
amoutn to
> nothing more then a fart in the wind IMO. Would you like to see te
> Government blamed for not training the driver correctly, or the
Police
> for not disqualify the driver, or the people that made the hedge
cutter
> blamed for allowing me to use it ? Your philisophy is seriouly
flawed
> precisly because of your blame transferal.

I agree again. :-) Suppose you were on your mobile and stepped off the
curb in front of the bus driver. He takes evasive action, misses you
and kills 20 passengers. His fault or your's?

A bunch of motorcyclists protested in Geelong last week because of the
lenient sentence handed out to a motorist who did not hit a
motorcyclist who died. That is an interesting scenario.

> > Nobody does that unintentionally. It is a deliberate act of theft.

> Uh huh.... I think you missed my point, it is only theft because of
the
> powerful IP lobby in the USA, there ability to incarcerate someone
for
> downloading an MP3 was used as a direct example of proving the point
that
> the law is an ass. In a world of swings and round-a-bouts putting
somoen
> in Goal for downloading an MP3 seems to be to be a prime example of
the
> world gone mad.

So if you wrote some piece of software that revolutionised accounting
it would be OK for me to make a mastercopy available and invite anyone
to download their copy, that would be fine. I would be basing my
defence on the principle that you're charging too much for a legit
copy.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Theo Bekkers" wrote
Nothing at all.

Sorry, an oops of the send button.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Theo Bekkers" wrote
Nothing at all.

Sorry, an oops of the send button.

Theo

[Trevor S]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in news:9ToXa.11331$bo1.10196
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
> Nothing at all.
>
> Sorry, an oops of the send button.

Hey, ya had me :)

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in news:9ToXa.11331$bo1.10196
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

> "Theo Bekkers" wrote
> Nothing at all.
>
> Sorry, an oops of the send button.

Hey, ya had me :)

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in news:mSoXa.11330$bo1.9011
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

<snip>

> I agree again. :-) Suppose

In the above example, clearly the mobile manufacturers fault :)

If he had hit me and I was the only one killed IN THE ABOVE instance, he
should still be charged with manslaughter, with mitigating circumstances
affecting the scentence. Using the exact instance you describe, his
fault.

supposes, suppose, suppose :) I am sure you could go on all day and find
an example I might find troubling :) but taking it back to the original
post, I am deeply troubled that given the circumstances of the original
cyclsits death, in the way described, a scentence as lenient as the one
given was the resultant penalty. Manslaugher, a decade in Goal and a
decade of garnished wages would be the _minimum_ scentence I think worthy
for the taking of someones life in that manner.

> A bunch of motorcyclists protested in Geelong last week because of the
> lenient sentence handed out to a motorist who did not hit a
> motorcyclist who died. That is an interesting scenario.

I am not aware of the facts behind the incident so it's a litte hard to
comment. I no long read AUS.MOTORCYCLES for a variety of reasons if that
was were this was originally bought up :)

<snip>

> So if you wrote some piece of software that revolutionised accounting
> it would be OK for me to make a mastercopy available and invite anyone
> to download their copy, that would be fine.

I would have no problem with that.

> I would be basing my
> defence on the principle that you're charging too much for a legit
> copy.

Using your example, that is not a legitimate defence IMO. If how ever
you have no intention of purchasing it, then that is a legitimate
defence, once again IMO. In the particular instance you cited, use of
that software to generate an income stream would be prima facea evidence
that you had intended to use it, therefore it is theft, in any other case
it isn't theft.

As an aside, litigation in the music industry against your customer base
is IMO a poor marketing strategy and one that is simpily the death rattle
of sector too stupid to realise the end is nigh and is throttling the
last bit of income stream from a soon to be expired business model.

IMO the defintion of theft has been mutated by the IP lobby into
something it never was intended to be. Look at Mr Mouse in the USA as a
classic example, he long ago should have passed into the public domain,
and yet Congress enacts special legislation to protect him.

I would like to see major changes made to the copyright act but that is
another debate enitrely :)

suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids should
be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in news:mSoXa.11330$bo1.9011
@news-server.bigpond.net.au:

<snip>

> I agree again. :-) Suppose

In the above example, clearly the mobile manufacturers fault :)

If he had hit me and I was the only one killed IN THE ABOVE instance, he
should still be charged with manslaughter, with mitigating circumstances
affecting the scentence. Using the exact instance you describe, his
fault.

supposes, suppose, suppose :) I am sure you could go on all day and find
an example I might find troubling :) but taking it back to the original
post, I am deeply troubled that given the circumstances of the original
cyclsits death, in the way described, a scentence as lenient as the one
given was the resultant penalty. Manslaugher, a decade in Goal and a
decade of garnished wages would be the _minimum_ scentence I think worthy
for the taking of someones life in that manner.

> A bunch of motorcyclists protested in Geelong last week because of the
> lenient sentence handed out to a motorist who did not hit a
> motorcyclist who died. That is an interesting scenario.

I am not aware of the facts behind the incident so it's a litte hard to
comment. I no long read AUS.MOTORCYCLES for a variety of reasons if that
was were this was originally bought up :)

<snip>

> So if you wrote some piece of software that revolutionised accounting
> it would be OK for me to make a mastercopy available and invite anyone
> to download their copy, that would be fine.

I would have no problem with that.

> I would be basing my
> defence on the principle that you're charging too much for a legit
> copy.

Using your example, that is not a legitimate defence IMO. If how ever
you have no intention of purchasing it, then that is a legitimate
defence, once again IMO. In the particular instance you cited, use of
that software to generate an income stream would be prima facea evidence
that you had intended to use it, therefore it is theft, in any other case
it isn't theft.

As an aside, litigation in the music industry against your customer base
is IMO a poor marketing strategy and one that is simpily the death rattle
of sector too stupid to realise the end is nigh and is throttling the
last bit of income stream from a soon to be expired business model.

IMO the defintion of theft has been mutated by the IP lobby into
something it never was intended to be. Look at Mr Mouse in the USA as a
classic example, he long ago should have passed into the public domain,
and yet Congress enacts special legislation to protect him.

I would like to see major changes made to the copyright act but that is
another debate enitrely :)

suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids should
be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Theo Bekkers]

"Trevor S" wrote

> suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids
should
> be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?

They will sell it. Companies are investing tens of $millions in a
possible cure in the hope of a huge return.

Theo

[Theo Bekkers]

"Trevor S" wrote

> suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids
should
> be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?

They will sell it. Companies are investing tens of $millions in a
possible cure in the hope of a huge return.

Theo

[[email protected]]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message >...
> > suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids
> > should be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?

> They will sell it. Companies are investing tens of $millions in a
> possible cure in the hope of a huge return.

Curing a disease isn't nearly as profitable as providing small doses
of ongoing "treatment".. They won't sell it if it's not in their
business interest to do so..


PC

[[email protected]]

"Theo Bekkers" > wrote in message >...
> > suppose suppose .. Do you think someone who finds a cure for Aids
> > should be allowed to not sell it if that is their wish ?

> They will sell it. Companies are investing tens of $millions in a
> possible cure in the hope of a huge return.

Curing a disease isn't nearly as profitable as providing small doses
of ongoing "treatment".. They won't sell it if it's not in their
business interest to do so..


PC

[syrus_82]

i had a friend a few years ago that done pretty much the same thing,
big nite out on the town and decided to drive home, he was drunk of
course and she wasnt but its basically the same situation. well he got
done for manslaughter, (i dont see why she didnt get it) and sentenced,
for a minimum of 5 years. i knew that guy fairly well and i think that
the sentence was fair. the lady should have got longer i feel. there
are to many pl out there who constantly drive when tired, under the
ifluence (alcohol and drugs) and there needs to be harsher penalties
for these ppl. i think that in australia we are to leniant to
criminals, especially if the crime is not in the media, if a crime is
in the media and there is a lot of hype going on around it, there is a
lot more pressure from the public for a harsher sentence, but in
general the penalties are to soft. my deepst condolences to the family
of the cyclist



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[syrus_82]

i had a friend a few years ago that done pretty much the same thing,
big nite out on the town and decided to drive home, he was drunk of
course and she wasnt but its basically the same situation. well he got
done for manslaughter, (i dont see why she didnt get it) and sentenced,
for a minimum of 5 years. i knew that guy fairly well and i think that
the sentence was fair. the lady should have got longer i feel. there
are to many pl out there who constantly drive when tired, under the
ifluence (alcohol and drugs) and there needs to be harsher penalties
for these ppl. i think that in australia we are to leniant to
criminals, especially if the crime is not in the media, if a crime is
in the media and there is a lot of hype going on around it, there is a
lot more pressure from the public for a harsher sentence, but in
general the penalties are to soft. my deepst condolences to the family
of the cyclist



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Tim Jones]

"hippy" > wrote in message
...
> "Luther Blissett" > wrote
in
> message ...
> > If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
> > about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
> > be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.
>
> Actually the drugs didn't play a part in the actual crash. It was the lack
> of sleep, apparently. If anything, she should have had more gear.. maybe
> she wouldn't have fallen asleep at the wheel? 24 hours without sleep was
> found to be equivalent to a 0.1 BAC IIRC. How many people out there
> drugs or no drugs are too tired to drive safely? A bloody lot I imagine!
>
> What was she actually charged with and why was it not a manslaughter
> charge?
>

To pick up on an old thread ;-)

I was watching the lifestyle channel a few nights ago, and they did a test
on a track - a driver with a BAC of over the limit and a driver who was
fatigued. They both had someone in the back seat checking when they strayed
over lines and when they changed the speed too much.

The result was that the drunk driver, while he was exuberant to the camera
had perfect results. The tired guy, under the same circumstances messed up
about a dozen times in a one hour drive.

Tim

[Tim Jones]

"hippy" > wrote in message
...
> "Luther Blissett" > wrote
in
> message ...
> > If that lady had recevied 10 years, a lot more people would think twice
> > about driving under the influence of drugs. And remember .. she chose to
> > be drug-****ed, the cyclist didn't chose to be car-****ed.
>
> Actually the drugs didn't play a part in the actual crash. It was the lack
> of sleep, apparently. If anything, she should have had more gear.. maybe
> she wouldn't have fallen asleep at the wheel? 24 hours without sleep was
> found to be equivalent to a 0.1 BAC IIRC. How many people out there
> drugs or no drugs are too tired to drive safely? A bloody lot I imagine!
>
> What was she actually charged with and why was it not a manslaughter
> charge?
>

To pick up on an old thread ;-)

I was watching the lifestyle channel a few nights ago, and they did a test
on a track - a driver with a BAC of over the limit and a driver who was
fatigued. They both had someone in the back seat checking when they strayed
over lines and when they changed the speed too much.

The result was that the drunk driver, while he was exuberant to the camera
had perfect results. The tired guy, under the same circumstances messed up
about a dozen times in a one hour drive.

Tim